A History of Rookie RBs Under John Fox (1 Viewer)

[Cecil Lammey]

http://subscribers.footballguys.com/apps/article.php?article=historyofjohnfoxrookierunningbacks

 

[Tanner9919]

pretty lame..it's all 100% Montee Ball..you really think he's going to get 250 carries this season,while Hillman gets 125??

Where is McGahee? Moreno? they're both going to be cut? doubtful.

I'm all for seeing a good competition at RB but to assume Ball takes the job outright,that Moreno and McGahee BOTH get cut ,and somehow Hillman returns from obscurity to post decent numbers is

wishful thinking,at best..

 

[FF Ninja]

Good read.

[SIZE=1em]Hillman's performance against the Ravens in the playoffs (22 carries, 83 yards) was overshadowed because the Broncos lost.[/SIZE]

That may have been overshadowed because it wasn't very impressive. Even Moreno was doing better than 3.77 ypc and Baltimore's defense is not what it used to be.

I still suspect Ball's carries will be directly correlated to his pass protection. I will take the under on 250 carries for Ball. I will also take the under on 125 carries for Hillman. That being said, Manning calls the plays and he's not opposed to running the ball when the opportunity is there. I think Denver will run the ball more than 375 times and will be surprised if they meet or exceed 650 passing attempts. It could happen, but it depends a lot on how opposing defenses line up and how their own defense performs.

Moreno was nothing special last year while facing nickel defenses, but it appears you've written him off completely. I wouldn't be shocked if they cut him and/or McGahee, but I would not feel comfortable predicting such an occurrence. You really think that, if kept on the team, their role(s) will be so drastically reduced? Neither of them are spectacular, but historically speaking, neither are most 2nd round running backs... Moreno is at least a proven blocker and has excellent hands. I'm very wary of this backfield in 2013 despite its fertile fantasy potential.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

This just isnt going to happen Cecil.

I doubt that Moreno or McGahee or cut now. What would Denver be waiting for a June 1 cut move?

This situation is as messy as it gets, Ball will be lucky to get as many carries as Jon Stewart his rookie year and I'll take the under

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Another vote for the under.

And I think it's 50/50 Ball doesn't get as many carries as McGahee (if Willis is healthy). McGahee was fantastic for the Broncs last year and he's pretty cheap too. But you can't go into the season relying on him. So Ball's the best of all worlds. If McGahee stays healthy, he has a year to carry part of the load, learn protections and acclimate. If McGahee isn't ready or gets hurt you have a viable plan B.

I think it's less likely, but you could also sub in 'Moreno' for 'McGahee' above and have a chance at being right.

Most likely a RBBC mess with no one having value. But I'd much much much rather have McGahee at his current price than Ball at his.

 

[gianmarco]

I'm not understanding this article.

You outline case after case after case of rookies barely getting work and then conclude that this year's rookie is going to get 250 carries? Doesn't make any sense to me. Especially considering Fox wasn't willing to hand over the keys to not just one but two 1st round picks in Williams and Stewart, keeping both under 200 carries as rookies.

Strange article where you laid out an excellent case for why Ball will NOT get 250 carries but still decided to go with that premise at the end despite overwhelming history to the contrary.

 

[FF Ninja]

https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2013/04/27/fantasy-impact-denver-broncos-select-montee-ball/

Before we go into why Ball has so much potential if he earns that role we need to dive into a negative aspect of his game thus far that could hold him back from seeing the field: his pass protection. Ball came off of the field on third downs for the Badgers and he has not yet learned the art of pass protection.

 

[TheLurkerBelow]

I love the article, this kind of information is what can separate contenders in their fantasy leagues. I have to agree with an earlier poster though, I was confused in the second to last paragraph where you estimate 250 carries for Ball. Everything in the article and statistics points to far fewer carries for a rookie RB under Fox, That number of carries seems to also conflict with your concluding statement, " Bottom line: The future is bright for Ball in Denver but don't get carried away with expectations for a rookie running back under John Fox."

I like Ball because I love workhorse running backs, but I think he's a fantasy RB3 this season, possibly getting to the bottom rung of RB2 if he gets a lot of goal line opportunities. For dynasty leagues though, I'd say he's a guy you want to target.

 

[Biabreakable]

I recall awhile back Wildman making a comment that too many "non-sharks" were posting here and that was making the content of lower quality.

I could say the same thing about FBGs staff that seems to be lacking some shark qualities to it as well. This would be Cecil, who is a nice likable guy but no amount of formatting is going to change the fact that he just does not come to correct conclusions about things and seems to lack the critical thinking skills necessary to do so. This article is a great example of that.

I think Cecil is good as a promoter/moderator for the pod cast but the less opinions I hear from Cecil the better. Think about this, if you are getting pwnd by Tanner I think it is time to re-evaluate your level of knowledge about the game of football.

Sorry if that seems harsh but I do not think I am the only person who sees this.

 

[Cecil Lammey]

From Bill Williamson:

ESPN.com's Bill Williamson suspects that Denver Broncos RBs Montee Ball and Ronnie Hillman will receive some primary carries this year as the team looks to move away from older RBs Willis McGahee and Knowshon Moreno. Hillman is more of a third-down change-of-pace back, and the Broncos like the way Ball runs, his durability and that he can also catch the ball out of the backfield.

http://espn.go.com/blog/afcwest/post/_/id/57715/ball-gives-denver-another-dimension

 

[Cookiemonster]

I recall awhile back Wildman making a comment that too many "non-sharks" were posting here and that was making the content of lower quality. I could say the same thing about FBGs staff that seems to be lacking some shark qualities to it as well. This would be Cecil, who is a nice likable guy but no amount of formatting is going to change the fact that he just does not come to correct conclusions about things and seems to lack the critical thinking skills necessary to do so. This article is a great example of that. I think Cecil is good as a promoter/moderator for the pod cast but the less opinions I hear from Cecil the better. Think about this, if you are getting pwnd by Tanner I think it is time to re-evaluate your level of knowledge about the game of football. Sorry if that seems harsh but I do not think I am the only person who sees this.

I got burned by him and his outlandish Broncos Training Camp thread where every new guy looks like he could take over the world. He likes shiny new toys in Denver. Put me in the camp that says he'll hardly play this year, and hopefully he can learn to be a GOOD pass blocker before Manning's career is over. Once Manning is gone, sledding will probably get a LOT tougher.

 

[gianmarco]

From Bill Williamson:

ESPN.com's Bill Williamson suspects that Denver Broncos RBs Montee Ball and Ronnie Hillman will receive some primary carries this year as the team looks to move away from older RBs Willis McGahee and Knowshon Moreno. Hillman is more of a third-down change-of-pace back, and the Broncos like the way Ball runs, his durability and that he can also catch the ball out of the backfield.

http://espn.go.com/blog/afcwest/post/_/id/57715/ball-gives-denver-another-dimension

Cecil,

First of all, this is all speculation (Williamson suspects). And of course the Broncos are going to say they like the way Ball runs or they wouldn't have drafted him.

Secondly, I won't speak for other people, but I'm not completely ruling out the notion that Ball will be the lead RB. It's certainly possible.

However, what I am (and was saying above) is that your article doesn't make sense. You laid out a huge timeline of example after example of how Fox doesn't use rookie RBs. Your conclusion from all of that data is that......Fox is going to use his rookie RB a lot (250+ carries). That's the part that doesn't make sense.

If you want to lay down a reason as to why you think Ball is actually going to buck a very strong trend for 2013, then you need to do so. But you presented that as a logical conclusion from all the previous data and the logical conclusion is actually the exact opposite.

Again, it doesn't mean it won't happen, but you certainly didn't make any kind of case for it.

 

[Cecil Lammey]

I recall awhile back Wildman making a comment that too many "non-sharks" were posting here and that was making the content of lower quality.

I could say the same thing about FBGs staff that seems to be lacking some shark qualities to it as well. This would be Cecil, who is a nice likable guy but no amount of formatting is going to change the fact that he just does not come to correct conclusions about things and seems to lack the critical thinking skills necessary to do so. This article is a great example of that.

I think Cecil is good as a promoter/moderator for the pod cast but the less opinions I hear from Cecil the better. Think about this, if you are getting pwnd by Tanner I think it is time to re-evaluate your level of knowledge about the game of football.

Sorry if that seems harsh but I do not think I am the only person who sees this.

So much for being excellent to one another....

It's posts like this (personal attacks, no reasons given for disagreeing with article, etc) that keep me from posting in the Shark Pool more often. Disagree with me? Fine, then let's debate it. I have no problem explaining my thoughts/insight if the debate is respectful. Once it crosses that line I have no time for it.

I work hard at what I do and don't appreciate those who take shots from behind a computer screen. I report what I see/hear with the perspective of being closer to this team than anyone else outside of Mike Klis.

Come with me to Dove Valley (Broncos HQ) multiple times a week, talk to the coaches, scouts, GMs, players that I do and then we can talk.

 

[Cecil Lammey]

From Bill Williamson:

ESPN.com's Bill Williamson suspects that Denver Broncos RBs Montee Ball and Ronnie Hillman will receive some primary carries this year as the team looks to move away from older RBs Willis McGahee and Knowshon Moreno. Hillman is more of a third-down change-of-pace back, and the Broncos like the way Ball runs, his durability and that he can also catch the ball out of the backfield.

http://espn.go.com/blog/afcwest/post/_/id/57715/ball-gives-denver-another-dimension

Cecil,

First of all, this is all speculation (Williamson suspects). And of course the Broncos are going to say they like the way Ball runs or they wouldn't have drafted him.

Secondly, I won't speak for other people, but I'm not completely ruling out the notion that Ball will be the lead RB. It's certainly possible.

However, what I am (and was saying above) is that your article doesn't make sense. You laid out a huge timeline of example after example of how Fox doesn't use rookie RBs. Your conclusion from all of that data is that......Fox is going to use his rookie RB a lot (250+ carries). That's the part that doesn't make sense.

If you want to lay down a reason as to why you think Ball is actually going to buck a very strong trend for 2013, then you need to do so. But you presented that as a logical conclusion from all the previous data and the logical conclusion is actually the exact opposite.

Again, it doesn't mean it won't happen, but you certainly didn't make any kind of case for it.

I guess people are taking issue with my line "[SIZE=1em]They will use a RBBC this year, so Ball may be in line for around 250 carries" Emphasis on MAY. The team has to make a decision on both McGahee and Moreno. There are several beat writers, reporters who are with me out at Dove Valley that think one or both may be in jeopardy of getting released. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=1em]I also emphasized in the article that Ball could be in line for a workload/fantasy production of what Jonathan Stewart had during his rookie year. "[/SIZE][SIZE=1em]he may have numbers similar to what Jonathan Stewart had as a rookie in 2008." That year Stewart was the 24th best RB in fantasy football. Ball could perform like a low end RB2 if he wins the starting job. He's best served as a RB3 with upside for your fantasy team IF that happens. [/SIZE]

 

[Adam Harstad]

This just isnt going to happen Cecil.

I doubt that Moreno or McGahee or cut now. What would Denver be waiting for a June 1 cut move?

This situation is as messy as it gets, Ball will be lucky to get as many carries as Jon Stewart his rookie year and I'll take the under

The only reason to make cuts right now is if you need cap room right now. Denver doesn't. They've got around $7.5 million in cap space if they want to sign someone- more than enough to fit their entire rookie class (which will cost just a shade over $4 million) and still have some left over for veteran additions, if they choose. Of course, just because they have no compelling reason to cut him right now doesn't mean they will not have any compelling reason to cut him this offseason. Eventually, they're going to have to trim their roster. Eventually, they're going to have to start paying players, and they'll decide to part ways with guys who they don't think are worth the money. There are currently several players on the team who are basically dead men walking. Joe Mays, for instance, is a stone cold lock to get cut this offseason, but there's no real pressing reason for Denver to do it right now.

I'd give McGahee less than 50% chance of making the team this year. He's the second oldest RB in the league, coming off an injury, and Denver could save over $2 million in both cash obligations and cap obligations by cutting him (and Pat Bowlen is not rich by NFL owner standards, which means cash considerations carry more weight in Denver than they do elsewhere- the Broncos are less likely to pay $2 million to a guy to be their 4th RB). If McGahee does make the final roster, I'd presume it would come at Moreno's expense- I just don't see Denver carrying both of those guys in addition to Montee Ball and Ronnie Hillman. Not to mention Lance Ball, an RFA who the Broncos tendered this offseason at $1.3m. And Hester is still scheduled to make the vet minimum this year. Some of these guys are gone this offseason. McGahee is the oldest and the most expensive, so his job is certainly at risk.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Lammey, I'd say my biggest disagreement is your projection of Denver's total rushes. Yes, Denver will be a pass-first team... but Denver will also be nursing a *LOT* of leads this year (Vegas has them favored in a league-high 13 games), where even pass-first teams run the ball. Also, you are projecting Denver's total offensive plays to fall from 1069 to 1025. With all this talk I've been hearing about Denver pushing the pace even more, I would expect their total number of plays to be more likely to go up than down. I'd be expecting at least 450 total carries for Denver this season. I wouldn't be completely shocked by 500, though obviously I wouldn't bet on it.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

I recall awhile back Wildman making a comment that too many "non-sharks" were posting here and that was making the content of lower quality.

I could say the same thing about FBGs staff that seems to be lacking some shark qualities to it as well. This would be Cecil, who is a nice likable guy but no amount of formatting is going to change the fact that he just does not come to correct conclusions about things and seems to lack the critical thinking skills necessary to do so. This article is a great example of that.

I think Cecil is good as a promoter/moderator for the pod cast but the less opinions I hear from Cecil the better. Think about this, if you are getting pwnd by Tanner I think it is time to re-evaluate your level of knowledge about the game of football.

Sorry if that seems harsh but I do not think I am the only person who sees this.

So much for being excellent to one another....

It's posts like this (personal attacks, no reasons given for disagreeing with article, etc) that keep me from posting in the Shark Pool more often. Disagree with me? Fine, then let's debate it. I have no problem explaining my thoughts/insight if the debate is respectful. Once it crosses that line I have no time for it.

I work hard at what I do and don't appreciate those who take shots from behind a computer screen. I report what I see/hear with the perspective of being closer to this team than anyone else outside of Mike Klis.

Come with me to Dove Valley (Broncos HQ) multiple times a week, talk to the coaches, scouts, GMs, players that I do and then we can talk.

Hey Cecil, I know what it's like to be the recipient of a few haters. I will say Biabreakable has always been a solid poster in the FFA, I don't call him a hater. If you ever read Greg Doyel over on CBS, the haters line up when he is done making a column on that site. You are living the dream right now, you work for one of the biggest FF web sites in the country, you have your other thing with Sig on the podcasts and thru his site, you have the local stuff you do in Denver, just keep networking and good things will continue to happen for you. No one reads what happens here except the few D&D nut heads like us so don't let one or two comments derail you form doing what you love.

Do you know how many times CNN was wrong and most major news outlets the night of the Boston Bombings? Like every other fact that was released and did the news stations shut down a week later? Now get some thicker skin in here and don't stop posting. Some of these folks get a rise out of getting to you, it's sad but it's part of being a voice in the media. Stay strong Whammy Lammey

 

[Ministry of Pain]

Lammey, I'd say my biggest disagreement is your projection of Denver's total rushes. Yes, Denver will be a pass-first team... but Denver will also be nursing a *LOT* of leads this year (Vegas has them favored in a league-high 13 games), where even pass-first teams run the ball. Also, you are projecting Denver's total offensive plays to fall from 1069 to 1025. With all this talk I've been hearing about Denver pushing the pace even more, I would expect their total number of plays to be more likely to go up than down. I'd be expecting at least 450 total carries for Denver this season. I wouldn't be completely shocked by 500, though obviously I wouldn't bet on it.

How big a lead and how often do teams nurse 14 point leads these days? Seems like they gotta be up about 20 before they start running it 3/4 of the time.

 

[Buffaloes]

From Bill Williamson:

ESPN.com's Bill Williamson suspects that Denver Broncos RBs Montee Ball and Ronnie Hillman will receive some primary carries this year as the team looks to move away from older RBs Willis McGahee and Knowshon Moreno. Hillman is more of a third-down change-of-pace back, and the Broncos like the way Ball runs, his durability and that he can also catch the ball out of the backfield.

http://espn.go.com/blog/afcwest/post/_/id/57715/ball-gives-denver-another-dimension

I don't think Williamson is really much of an authority on Denver Broncos football anymore.That said, I think that a healthy Ball will get more carries over the duration of the season than any other RB on the team. No idea what the % breakdown is. I also think McGahee will eventually be released. At least one beat guy who has a solid in at Dove Valley has speculated the same re: McGahee, and from an age/injury/deteriorating effectiveness/inability to play special teams/$$$$ standpoint, it makes sense that Willis would be the one released eventually.

As to why McGahee hasn't been released yet, he finished the season on IR and I think if the Broncos wanted to release him now (same with Joe Mays and Chris Kuper), they would have to reach an injury settlement.

How big a lead and how often do teams nurse 14 point leads these days? Seems like they gotta be up about 20 before they start running it 3/4 of the time.

Teams coached by John Fox? Obviously the amount of time left and other factors will come into play, but there are plenty of instances where Denver would look to run clock with a 14-point lead or of pretty much any other arbitrarily chosen spread.ETA: Denver ran the ball 481 times last year so it's not a stretch for SSOG or really anyone to estimate between 450-500 carries on the year in 2013.

Fox stated that the biggest improvements offensively needed to be made to the running game. The Broncos' first move in free agency was signing Louis Vasquez almost immediately after free agency opened. Then they drafted Montee Ball. My guess is the emphasis on the running game probably doesn't drop too much. Folks assume that since they signed Welker (which wasn't part of the plan going into the offseason) that it will be pass, pass, pass, but Fox and Elway moved to improve the running game with their 1st move in FA and their 2nd move in the draft. And Denver should see plenty of nickle sets which would allow Manning to take what the d gives.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Lammey, I'd say my biggest disagreement is your projection of Denver's total rushes. Yes, Denver will be a pass-first team... but Denver will also be nursing a *LOT* of leads this year (Vegas has them favored in a league-high 13 games), where even pass-first teams run the ball. Also, you are projecting Denver's total offensive plays to fall from 1069 to 1025. With all this talk I've been hearing about Denver pushing the pace even more, I would expect their total number of plays to be more likely to go up than down. I'd be expecting at least 450 total carries for Denver this season. I wouldn't be completely shocked by 500, though obviously I wouldn't bet on it.

How big a lead and how often do teams nurse 14 point leads these days? Seems like they gotta be up about 20 before they start running it 3/4 of the time.

I think it's wrong to think of it as a binary "air it out/grind the clock" choice. I think it's more of a continuum. Maybe a team passes 80% when down 21, 75% when down 14, 70% when down 7, 65% when even, 60% when up 7, 55% when up 14, 50% when up 21, and so on. And even this oversimplifies the concept, because time plays a huge role- if you're down 14 in the 1st quarter, you barely alter your gameplan, while if you're up even a single point with just 2 minutes left, you're calling three runs and heading to the locker room.

Basically, winning tends to subtly alter the game plan. The more you win by, the more the plan is altered. For a team like Denver that is predicted to hold many leads of varying sizes through the year, that's going to place a pretty heavy thumb on the invisible scale between running and passing. According to Chase's analysis, New England was the second most pass-happy team in the league once you adjust for their average game situation (i.e. they spent most of the season blowing teams out). Despite that, because of the ridiculous pace of their offense and the ridiculous size of their leads, New England was actually 2nd in the league in rush attempts. You could easily see a similar effect in Denver this year, where a breakneck pace pairs with some brutal leads to produce a surprising volume of rush attempts for such a pass-oriented team.

 

[miqws]

This topic should be "a history of rookie RBs under Peyton Manning". RB with Manning - must know the play book, pass protect, do not fumble are above the actual ability to run the football. Waldman wrote in 2011 (http://mattwaldmanrsp.com/2011/12/12/the-curious-case-of-montee-ball/) that Ball needed to work on pass protection. In order for Ball to be the primary RB this year, pass protection is a must. The RB is easier to replace than the QB.

 

[Cecil Lammey]

Lammey, I'd say my biggest disagreement is your projection of Denver's total rushes. Yes, Denver will be a pass-first team... but Denver will also be nursing a *LOT* of leads this year (Vegas has them favored in a league-high 13 games), where even pass-first teams run the ball. Also, you are projecting Denver's total offensive plays to fall from 1069 to 1025. With all this talk I've been hearing about Denver pushing the pace even more, I would expect their total number of plays to be more likely to go up than down. I'd be expecting at least 450 total carries for Denver this season. I wouldn't be completely shocked by 500, though obviously I wouldn't bet on it.

I never gave a total number of rushes for the Broncos. I said Ball could get around 250 carries if he wins the starting job, Hillman could get 125 carries (bumped from his 84 last year) if he wins the change of pace job. That's 375, throw in 50 or so for Lance Ball, 25 or so for Jacob Hester and that number is closer to what they ran for last year.

I've talked to Adam Gase this offseason, and I get to see him this weekend out at Broncos minicamp. From what he's told me (and said during interviews) the team is using 11 personnel as the base set. Wes Welker was signed to cure their short yardage woes too. On 3rd and 1 they'll be just as likely to throw it as they will hand it off to Ball/McGahee/Moreno/Hillman/Hester etc.

I didn't project their total number of plays in this article either. Manning had 583 pass attempts last year. With the new tempo and 11 personnel that numbers going over 600 in 2013.

 

[Cecil Lammey]

This topic should be "a history of rookie RBs under Peyton Manning". RB with Manning - must know the play book, pass protect, do not fumble are above the actual ability to run the football. Waldman wrote in 2011 (http://mattwaldmanrsp.com/2011/12/12/the-curious-case-of-montee-ball/) that Ball needed to work on pass protection. In order for Ball to be the primary RB this year, pass protection is a must. The RB is easier to replace than the QB.

I talked to Ball after he was drafted and HE thinks pass protection and receiving ability are one of the strengths of his game. What's ironic is I was blasting him for being poor in pass protection right as we got him on the phone.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

This topic should be "a history of rookie RBs under Peyton Manning". RB with Manning - must know the play book, pass protect, do not fumble are above the actual ability to run the football. Waldman wrote in 2011 (http://mattwaldmanrsp.com/2011/12/12/the-curious-case-of-montee-ball/) that Ball needed to work on pass protection. In order for Ball to be the primary RB this year, pass protection is a must. The RB is easier to replace than the QB.

I talked to Ball after he was drafted and HE thinks pass protection and receiving ability are one of the strengths of his game. What's ironic is I was blasting him for being poor in pass protection right as we got him on the phone.

Very curious - do you have any specific film or evidence that Ball struggled in pass protection in college? Just curious, as a UW fan I never had the impression that Ball was weak in pass protection, but rather, that he didn't have an abundance of opportunities to demonstrate the skillset.

 

[mjr]

From the articles I've read on what Elway/Fox liked about Ball, why they picked him over Lacy, what they thought of their running game last year and so on, I get the impression that they feel that the hits they took in their run game last year may have been what kept them from winning a championship. I can see why they wanted to add Ball. I can see why they don't want to end up depending on Hillman to be the man again. But cutting both Moreno and McGahee out of the picture just makes little sense to me, since it seemingly puts them right back in that possible position of having to turn to Hillman again if Ball doesn't live up to expectations or gets hurt.

I woudn't be surprised to see one go, one stay, Ball fall into the #2 spot and Hillman at 3 with the pressure on for him to do better this year. Maybe Ball takes over before the year is out and he gets 250 that way, I can get on board with that, but otherwise I think something closer to 8-10 totes a game is the most likely plan for Ball going into 2013.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

From Bill Williamson:

ESPN.com's Bill Williamson suspects that Denver Broncos RBs Montee Ball and Ronnie Hillman will receive some primary carries this year as the team looks to move away from older RBs Willis McGahee and Knowshon Moreno. Hillman is more of a third-down change-of-pace back, and the Broncos like the way Ball runs, his durability and that he can also catch the ball out of the backfield.

http://espn.go.com/blog/afcwest/post/_/id/57715/ball-gives-denver-another-dimension

Cecil,

First of all, this is all speculation (Williamson suspects). And of course the Broncos are going to say they like the way Ball runs or they wouldn't have drafted him.

Secondly, I won't speak for other people, but I'm not completely ruling out the notion that Ball will be the lead RB. It's certainly possible.

However, what I am (and was saying above) is that your article doesn't make sense. You laid out a huge timeline of example after example of how Fox doesn't use rookie RBs. Your conclusion from all of that data is that......Fox is going to use his rookie RB a lot (250+ carries). That's the part that doesn't make sense.

If you want to lay down a reason as to why you think Ball is actually going to buck a very strong trend for 2013, then you need to do so. But you presented that as a logical conclusion from all the previous data and the logical conclusion is actually the exact opposite.

Again, it doesn't mean it won't happen, but you certainly didn't make any kind of case for it.

I guess people are taking issue with my line "[SIZE=1em]They will use a RBBC this year, so Ball may be in line for around 250 carries" Emphasis on MAY. The team has to make a decision on both McGahee and Moreno. There are several beat writers, reporters who are with me out at Dove Valley that think one or both may be in jeopardy of getting released. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=1em]I also emphasized in the article that Ball could be in line for a workload/fantasy production of what Jonathan Stewart had during his rookie year. "[/SIZE][SIZE=1em]he may have numbers similar to what Jonathan Stewart had as a rookie in 2008." That year Stewart was the 24th best RB in fantasy football. Ball could perform like a low end RB2 if he wins the starting job. He's best served as a RB3 with upside for your fantasy team IF that happens. [/SIZE]

This is all fine, but the main point of other posters still stands: you haven't made a compelling case for why Ball will be more impactful than any other rookie RB in John Fox's head coaching history. Even saying he's in line for Stewart's production is inaccurate: as a rookie, Stewart had 184 carries. You are suggesting Ball could be in line for 250. That might not seem like a big deal to you, but to me it's a 33% increase over Stewart, and that is a big deal.

I'm not suggesting that you have 0 chance of being right - there is always a chance - but rather that your logic doesn't hold together. As a UW fan, I'd love to see Ball win the starting job and have an amazing rookie year. But your article doesn't give me anything to work with - rather, it points in the opposite direction.

It's a bit odd that you don't see this.

 

[Sigmund Bloom]

From the articles I've read on what Elway/Fox liked about Ball, why they picked him over Lacy,

"The issue with Eddie Lacy was we were worried about a toe injury that he had, and that's what probably caused him to slip," Russell (Broncos director of player personnel) said on a conference call with season-ticket holders Tuesday. "And we really felt great about Montee Ball. We were worried about Lacy's medical and how long he could play. We feel like we got a career back in Montee Ball."

link

 

[Cecil Lammey]

This is all fine, but the main point of other posters still stands: you haven't made a compelling case for why Ball will be more impactful than any other rookie RB in John Fox's head coaching history. Even saying he's in line for Stewart's production is inaccurate: as a rookie, Stewart had 184 carries. You are suggesting Ball could be in line for 250. That might not seem like a big deal to you, but to me it's a 33% increase over Stewart, and that is a big deal.I'm not suggesting that you have 0 chance of being right - there is always a chance - but rather that your logic doesn't hold together. As a UW fan, I'd love to see Ball win the starting job and have an amazing rookie year. But your article doesn't give me anything to work with - rather, it points in the opposite direction. It's a bit odd that you don't see this.

From the article: "Enter Montee Ball, the Broncos second-round pick (57th overall) in the 2013 NFL draft. Denver is going to use more outside zone stretch plays this year under new offensive coordinator Adam Gase. That plays to the strengths of both Hillman and Ball." The line about the outside zone stretch play is key. Last year we saw inside zone by the Broncos as that suits McGahee/Moreno better. This season things will look differently in the way they run the football. Inside zone also fit the problems they had on the right side of the OL after Kuper went down. it's more power blocking when rushing inside and that fits guys like Manny Ramirez better. Adding Vasquez to the OL is key as well. This team wants players who can kick step and get to blocks in space. That's what OL have to do in outside zone stretch plays. I look at the addition of Ball, the changes of the OL, and the intention of Gase to run outside zone from a 3WR set and I see a Ball/Hillman RBBC. I've been told that's what the team WANTS. We'll have to see if the duo can impress in training camp. Simply put, Ball and Hillman fit outside zone stretch. Moreno and McGahee do not. His production could be similar to Stewart's in terms of fantasy points, NOT number of carries. Elway said this about Ball and the expectation that he would contribute more than the other RBs. “With the way we go through the draft I think we expect all the guys to contribute. Obviously, the earlier [you’re drafted], the more we hope [you] contribute. So, we thought that Montee would add a lot to the football team. So therefore [that] was the reason we decided to pick him.” All we have to go on right now is speculation in terms of who wins the starting job, McGahee/Moreno getting cut, etc. It's MY BELIEF that we'll see Ball win the starting job in training camp. The team is also excited about Hillman (see numerous articles from around the Combine) and would like him to be an impact change of pace runner. Elway after draft about Ball over Lacy “I think it was a close call. You’re talking about two great backs. The bottom line was that we looked at the medical. It really came down to the medical side and that’s what tilted the scales to Montee. They are both great backs, both very productive backs. When we looked at the medical and going through our medical staff, we just felt that Montee was a better choice for us at that spot.” Elway on Ball's need to improve pass protection “All young guys do. They don’t come in perfect. He has a lot of work to do, just like a lot of guys on our team do. We will coach him up. We like his upside and what Montee can do. Any time you come in it’s going to be a learning process. It’s a big jump from college ball to the NFL. It’ll take some time, but we really like what he’s about. [Running Backs Coach] Eric Studesville is glad to have him and I’m sure he will coach him up real well.” Elway on what adding Ball means for McGahee/Moreno “We will get through the draft and sit down and look at the offensive board and see what we are going to do there but until we get through the draft, we are see how everything falls and then reassess everything, both sides of the ball—offensively and defensively and see what we need to get and the CFAs are coming up too. There is a lot of massaging to do with the roster. We have to get it beefed up to 85 at training camp, or 90, so we will be in that process once the draft is over.”

 

[Adam Harstad]

Lammey, I'd say my biggest disagreement is your projection of Denver's total rushes. Yes, Denver will be a pass-first team... but Denver will also be nursing a *LOT* of leads this year (Vegas has them favored in a league-high 13 games), where even pass-first teams run the ball. Also, you are projecting Denver's total offensive plays to fall from 1069 to 1025. With all this talk I've been hearing about Denver pushing the pace even more, I would expect their total number of plays to be more likely to go up than down. I'd be expecting at least 450 total carries for Denver this season. I wouldn't be completely shocked by 500, though obviously I wouldn't bet on it.

I never gave a total number of rushes for the Broncos. I said Ball could get around 250 carries if he wins the starting job, Hillman could get 125 carries (bumped from his 84 last year) if he wins the change of pace job. That's 375, throw in 50 or so for Lance Ball, 25 or so for Jacob Hester and that number is closer to what they ran for last year. I've talked to Adam Gase this offseason, and I get to see him this weekend out at Broncos minicamp. From what he's told me (and said during interviews) the team is using 11 personnel as the base set. Wes Welker was signed to cure their short yardage woes too. On 3rd and 1 they'll be just as likely to throw it as they will hand it off to Ball/McGahee/Moreno/Hillman/Hester etc. I didn't project their total number of plays in this article either. Manning had 583 pass attempts last year. With the new tempo and 11 personnel that numbers going over 600 in 2013.

You wrote: "With Peyton Manning under center, the Broncos should be one of the most pass happy teams in the league, especially with 11 personnel (three wide receivers) as their base offensive set. That means carries won't be as plentiful in Denver as they are with other teams. The league average is about 58% passing and 42% rushing and the Broncos may slant even more towards the passing game. They had 588 passing attempts in 2012 along with 481 rushing attempts. This year they could exceed 650 passing attempts which may drop their rushing attempts to around 375."I understand the speculative nature of that sentence, I'm just saying I think that speculation is skewed. If I were a betting man, I would put a lot of money on "under 650" for pass attempts and "over 375" for rush attempts. Otherwise, I agree with your conclusion. If the draft were tomorrow, Ball would be the top Denver RB on my board. I'd project him more for 180-200 carries, but think between that and the goal line work, he'll ultimately pace the Broncos in fantasy points. It's good to hear that you're already hearing speculation to that effect, too.

 

[Biabreakable]

I recall awhile back Wildman making a comment that too many "non-sharks" were posting here and that was making the content of lower quality.

I could say the same thing about FBGs staff that seems to be lacking some shark qualities to it as well. This would be Cecil, who is a nice likable guy but no amount of formatting is going to change the fact that he just does not come to correct conclusions about things and seems to lack the critical thinking skills necessary to do so. This article is a great example of that.

I think Cecil is good as a promoter/moderator for the pod cast but the less opinions I hear from Cecil the better. Think about this, if you are getting pwnd by Tanner I think it is time to re-evaluate your level of knowledge about the game of football.

Sorry if that seems harsh but I do not think I am the only person who sees this.

So much for being excellent to one another....

It's posts like this (personal attacks, no reasons given for disagreeing with article, etc) that keep me from posting in the Shark Pool more often. Disagree with me? Fine, then let's debate it. I have no problem explaining my thoughts/insight if the debate is respectful. Once it crosses that line I have no time for it.

I work hard at what I do and don't appreciate those who take shots from behind a computer screen. I report what I see/hear with the perspective of being closer to this team than anyone else outside of Mike Klis.

Come with me to Dove Valley (Broncos HQ) multiple times a week, talk to the coaches, scouts, GMs, players that I do and then we can talk.

I listen to the pod cast sometimes. This is not a personal attack it is honesty. I said you have some very good qualities that make the pod cast the success that it is. But your logic and opinions, in my opinion are often flawed, as they were in the article you wrote. I spent time of my day to read that. I think you constructed an argument before looking at the objective information and then very poorly used facts that did not support that argument. This is not the fault of scouts, GMs or players who I am sure very much like you. I myself think you are a very nice guy. At the same time what those people tell you is vague, hopeful and sometimes just putting on a happy face/best case scenario. Readers are counting on you to be able to see through all of that and divine what will really happen. Not what just makes a nice story.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Wonder if they'll make Ball win the job by being the best back on the roster, or if he's penciled in today.

 

[bostonfred]

I traded for the right to draft Ball in my dynasty league, despite already having a solid backfield, and this is why:

If I had to guess, I would say that the Broncos start the season with a veteran ballcarrier, and bring Ball in situationally, especially to close out games. Let the rookie show that he can pass protect. Keep him from hitting the wall. McGahee and Hillman can run the ball early. But by the end of the season, I don't think Hillman's role expands much unless he is just incredible, and I think Ball will take over.

And that's a guy I want in my fantasy football playoffs. A guy on a top team, who gets TDs, who wants to keep their QB out of harms way, who can carry the ball on three downs, and who the team wants to establish as a legit threat as they head into the playoffs. That's the kind of guy who can get you 200 yards and 4 TDs in a game. I'm not saying he necessarily will, just that a single performance like that is extremely valuable, and Ball is one of a short list of backs in a perfect situation for it. I'd like to collect as many of those guys as possible.

 

[gianmarco]

This is all fine, but the main point of other posters still stands: you haven't made a compelling case for why Ball will be more impactful than any other rookie RB in John Fox's head coaching history. Even saying he's in line for Stewart's production is inaccurate: as a rookie, Stewart had 184 carries. You are suggesting Ball could be in line for 250. That might not seem like a big deal to you, but to me it's a 33% increase over Stewart, and that is a big deal.I'm not suggesting that you have 0 chance of being right - there is always a chance - but rather that your logic doesn't hold together. As a UW fan, I'd love to see Ball win the starting job and have an amazing rookie year. But your article doesn't give me anything to work with - rather, it points in the opposite direction. It's a bit odd that you don't see this.

From the article: "Enter Montee Ball, the Broncos second-round pick (57th overall) in the 2013 NFL draft. Denver is going to use more outside zone stretch plays this year under new offensive coordinator Adam Gase. That plays to the strengths of both Hillman and Ball." The line about the outside zone stretch play is key. Last year we saw inside zone by the Broncos as that suits McGahee/Moreno better. This season things will look differently in the way they run the football. Inside zone also fit the problems they had on the right side of the OL after Kuper went down. it's more power blocking when rushing inside and that fits guys like Manny Ramirez better. Adding Vasquez to the OL is key as well. This team wants players who can kick step and get to blocks in space. That's what OL have to do in outside zone stretch plays. I look at the addition of Ball, the changes of the OL, and the intention of Gase to run outside zone from a 3WR set and I see a Ball/Hillman RBBC. I've been told that's what the team WANTS. We'll have to see if the duo can impress in training camp. Simply put, Ball and Hillman fit outside zone stretch. Moreno and McGahee do not. His production could be similar to Stewart's in terms of fantasy points, NOT number of carries. Elway said this about Ball and the expectation that he would contribute more than the other RBs. “With the way we go through the draft I think we expect all the guys to contribute. Obviously, the earlier [you’re drafted], the more we hope [you] contribute. So, we thought that Montee would add a lot to the football team. So therefore [that] was the reason we decided to pick him.” All we have to go on right now is speculation in terms of who wins the starting job, McGahee/Moreno getting cut, etc. It's MY BELIEF that we'll see Ball win the starting job in training camp. The team is also excited about Hillman (see numerous articles from around the Combine) and would like him to be an impact change of pace runner. Elway after draft about Ball over Lacy “I think it was a close call. You’re talking about two great backs. The bottom line was that we looked at the medical. It really came down to the medical side and that’s what tilted the scales to Montee. They are both great backs, both very productive backs. When we looked at the medical and going through our medical staff, we just felt that Montee was a better choice for us at that spot.” Elway on Ball's need to improve pass protection “All young guys do. They don’t come in perfect. He has a lot of work to do, just like a lot of guys on our team do. We will coach him up. We like his upside and what Montee can do. Any time you come in it’s going to be a learning process. It’s a big jump from college ball to the NFL. It’ll take some time, but we really like what he’s about. [Running Backs Coach] Eric Studesville is glad to have him and I’m sure he will coach him up real well.” Elway on what adding Ball means for McGahee/Moreno “We will get through the draft and sit down and look at the offensive board and see what we are going to do there but until we get through the draft, we are see how everything falls and then reassess everything, both sides of the ball—offensively and defensively and see what we need to get and the CFAs are coming up too. There is a lot of massaging to do with the roster. We have to get it beefed up to 85 at training camp, or 90, so we will be in that process once the draft is over.”

Cecil,

THIS should have been your article. The above contains evidence and thoughts to actually support the belief that Ball will lead the team in carries in 2013. The history of how John Fox uses rookie RBs does not.

No offense, but as it's been pointed out by more than one person, it's odd to me that you're not seeing the problem with what you wrote in the article. People are pointing out that the facts you presented in the article don't match the conclusion and your response to justify the conclusion are a completely different set of facts (like the above). If you're going to use those facts to support your conclusion, then THAT is what you should have written about. Why? Because the title of your article and the 6 examples of rookie RBs you used do not support your conclusion at all.

If you had used the above as your article, I doubt you'd be hearing from anyone at all that it was a poorly written article with a conclusion that isn't substantiated by the facts you presented. In fact, if someone wanted to counter the above argument, they'd probably point to the history of how John Fox uses rookies. The same point you originally wrote about to somehow support this notion that Ball might approach 250 carries.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

This is all fine, but the main point of other posters still stands: you haven't made a compelling case for why Ball will be more impactful than any other rookie RB in John Fox's head coaching history. Even saying he's in line for Stewart's production is inaccurate: as a rookie, Stewart had 184 carries. You are suggesting Ball could be in line for 250. That might not seem like a big deal to you, but to me it's a 33% increase over Stewart, and that is a big deal.I'm not suggesting that you have 0 chance of being right - there is always a chance - but rather that your logic doesn't hold together. As a UW fan, I'd love to see Ball win the starting job and have an amazing rookie year. But your article doesn't give me anything to work with - rather, it points in the opposite direction. It's a bit odd that you don't see this.

From the article: "Enter Montee Ball, the Broncos second-round pick (57th overall) in the 2013 NFL draft. Denver is going to use more outside zone stretch plays this year under new offensive coordinator Adam Gase. That plays to the strengths of both Hillman and Ball." The line about the outside zone stretch play is key. Last year we saw inside zone by the Broncos as that suits McGahee/Moreno better. This season things will look differently in the way they run the football. Inside zone also fit the problems they had on the right side of the OL after Kuper went down. it's more power blocking when rushing inside and that fits guys like Manny Ramirez better. Adding Vasquez to the OL is key as well. This team wants players who can kick step and get to blocks in space. That's what OL have to do in outside zone stretch plays. I look at the addition of Ball, the changes of the OL, and the intention of Gase to run outside zone from a 3WR set and I see a Ball/Hillman RBBC. I've been told that's what the team WANTS. We'll have to see if the duo can impress in training camp. Simply put, Ball and Hillman fit outside zone stretch. Moreno and McGahee do not. His production could be similar to Stewart's in terms of fantasy points, NOT number of carries. Elway said this about Ball and the expectation that he would contribute more than the other RBs. “With the way we go through the draft I think we expect all the guys to contribute. Obviously, the earlier [you’re drafted], the more we hope [you] contribute. So, we thought that Montee would add a lot to the football team. So therefore [that] was the reason we decided to pick him.” All we have to go on right now is speculation in terms of who wins the starting job, McGahee/Moreno getting cut, etc. It's MY BELIEF that we'll see Ball win the starting job in training camp. The team is also excited about Hillman (see numerous articles from around the Combine) and would like him to be an impact change of pace runner. Elway after draft about Ball over Lacy “I think it was a close call. You’re talking about two great backs. The bottom line was that we looked at the medical. It really came down to the medical side and that’s what tilted the scales to Montee. They are both great backs, both very productive backs. When we looked at the medical and going through our medical staff, we just felt that Montee was a better choice for us at that spot.” Elway on Ball's need to improve pass protection “All young guys do. They don’t come in perfect. He has a lot of work to do, just like a lot of guys on our team do. We will coach him up. We like his upside and what Montee can do. Any time you come in it’s going to be a learning process. It’s a big jump from college ball to the NFL. It’ll take some time, but we really like what he’s about. [Running Backs Coach] Eric Studesville is glad to have him and I’m sure he will coach him up real well.” Elway on what adding Ball means for McGahee/Moreno “We will get through the draft and sit down and look at the offensive board and see what we are going to do there but until we get through the draft, we are see how everything falls and then reassess everything, both sides of the ball—offensively and defensively and see what we need to get and the CFAs are coming up too. There is a lot of massaging to do with the roster. We have to get it beefed up to 85 at training camp, or 90, so we will be in that process once the draft is over.”

Cecil,

THIS should have been your article. The above contains evidence and thoughts to actually support the belief that Ball will lead the team in carries in 2013. The history of how John Fox uses rookie RBs does not.

No offense, but as it's been pointed out by more than one person, it's odd to me that you're not seeing the problem with what you wrote in the article. People are pointing out that the facts you presented in the article don't match the conclusion and your response to justify the conclusion are a completely different set of facts (like the above). If you're going to use those facts to support your conclusion, then THAT is what you should have written about. Why? Because the title of your article and the 6 examples of rookie RBs you used do not support your conclusion at all.

If you had used the above as your article, I doubt you'd be hearing from anyone at all that it was a poorly written article with a conclusion that isn't substantiated by the facts you presented. In fact, if someone wanted to counter the above argument, they'd probably point to the history of how John Fox uses rookies. The same point you originally wrote about to somehow support this notion that Ball might approach 250 carries.

You folks are some serious Ball busters

 

[Adam Harstad]

I listen to the pod cast sometimes. This is not a personal attack it is honesty. I said you have some very good qualities that make the pod cast the success that it is. But your logic and opinions, in my opinion are often flawed, as they were in the article you wrote. I spent time of my day to read that. I think you constructed an argument before looking at the objective information and then very poorly used facts that did not support that argument. This is not the fault of scouts, GMs or players who I am sure very much like you. I myself think you are a very nice guy. At the same time what those people tell you is vague, hopeful and sometimes just putting on a happy face/best case scenario. Readers are counting on you to be able to see through all of that and divine what will really happen. Not what just makes a nice story.

I'm sure you didn't write it with the intention of attacking Cecil, but saying someone lacks critical thinking skills and needs to rethink how much they understand football is about as ad hominem as it gets. I also happen to disagree- he gets some things right and he gets some things wrong, which makes him exactly like everyone else- hell, I once spent a summer posting that Ron Dayne was likely to win the starting RB job in Denver. Instead, he got cut in training camps. Anyway, the access and journalistic cred Cecil brings to FBGs is unique, and frankly, I think FBGs would be better off with 31 more Cecil's, not one fewer.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

I listen to the pod cast sometimes. This is not a personal attack it is honesty. I said you have some very good qualities that make the pod cast the success that it is. But your logic and opinions, in my opinion are often flawed, as they were in the article you wrote. I spent time of my day to read that. I think you constructed an argument before looking at the objective information and then very poorly used facts that did not support that argument. This is not the fault of scouts, GMs or players who I am sure very much like you. I myself think you are a very nice guy. At the same time what those people tell you is vague, hopeful and sometimes just putting on a happy face/best case scenario. Readers are counting on you to be able to see through all of that and divine what will really happen. Not what just makes a nice story.

I'm sure you didn't write it with the intention of attacking Cecil, but saying someone lacks critical thinking skills and needs to rethink how much they understand football is about as ad hominem as it gets. I also happen to disagree- he gets some things right and he gets some things wrong, which makes him exactly like everyone else- hell, I once spent a summer posting that Ron Dayne was likely to win the starting RB job in Denver. Instead, he got cut in training camps. Anyway, the access and journalistic cred Cecil brings to FBGs is unique, and frankly, I think FBGs would be better off with 31 more Cecil's, not one fewer.

I grabbed him in the 3rd as a "steal"

 

[TheFanatic]

This is all fine, but the main point of other posters still stands: you haven't made a compelling case for why Ball will be more impactful than any other rookie RB in John Fox's head coaching history. Even saying he's in line for Stewart's production is inaccurate: as a rookie, Stewart had 184 carries. You are suggesting Ball could be in line for 250. That might not seem like a big deal to you, but to me it's a 33% increase over Stewart, and that is a big deal.I'm not suggesting that you have 0 chance of being right - there is always a chance - but rather that your logic doesn't hold together. As a UW fan, I'd love to see Ball win the starting job and have an amazing rookie year. But your article doesn't give me anything to work with - rather, it points in the opposite direction. It's a bit odd that you don't see this.

From the article: "Enter Montee Ball, the Broncos second-round pick (57th overall) in the 2013 NFL draft. Denver is going to use more outside zone stretch plays this year under new offensive coordinator Adam Gase. That plays to the strengths of both Hillman and Ball." The line about the outside zone stretch play is key. Last year we saw inside zone by the Broncos as that suits McGahee/Moreno better. This season things will look differently in the way they run the football. Inside zone also fit the problems they had on the right side of the OL after Kuper went down. it's more power blocking when rushing inside and that fits guys like Manny Ramirez better. Adding Vasquez to the OL is key as well. This team wants players who can kick step and get to blocks in space. That's what OL have to do in outside zone stretch plays. I look at the addition of Ball, the changes of the OL, and the intention of Gase to run outside zone from a 3WR set and I see a Ball/Hillman RBBC. I've been told that's what the team WANTS. We'll have to see if the duo can impress in training camp. Simply put, Ball and Hillman fit outside zone stretch. Moreno and McGahee do not. His production could be similar to Stewart's in terms of fantasy points, NOT number of carries. Elway said this about Ball and the expectation that he would contribute more than the other RBs. “With the way we go through the draft I think we expect all the guys to contribute. Obviously, the earlier [you’re drafted], the more we hope [you] contribute. So, we thought that Montee would add a lot to the football team. So therefore [that] was the reason we decided to pick him.” All we have to go on right now is speculation in terms of who wins the starting job, McGahee/Moreno getting cut, etc. It's MY BELIEF that we'll see Ball win the starting job in training camp. The team is also excited about Hillman (see numerous articles from around the Combine) and would like him to be an impact change of pace runner. Elway after draft about Ball over Lacy “I think it was a close call. You’re talking about two great backs. The bottom line was that we looked at the medical. It really came down to the medical side and that’s what tilted the scales to Montee. They are both great backs, both very productive backs. When we looked at the medical and going through our medical staff, we just felt that Montee was a better choice for us at that spot.” Elway on Ball's need to improve pass protection “All young guys do. They don’t come in perfect. He has a lot of work to do, just like a lot of guys on our team do. We will coach him up. We like his upside and what Montee can do. Any time you come in it’s going to be a learning process. It’s a big jump from college ball to the NFL. It’ll take some time, but we really like what he’s about. [Running Backs Coach] Eric Studesville is glad to have him and I’m sure he will coach him up real well.” Elway on what adding Ball means for McGahee/Moreno “We will get through the draft and sit down and look at the offensive board and see what we are going to do there but until we get through the draft, we are see how everything falls and then reassess everything, both sides of the ball—offensively and defensively and see what we need to get and the CFAs are coming up too. There is a lot of massaging to do with the roster. We have to get it beefed up to 85 at training camp, or 90, so we will be in that process once the draft is over.”

Cecil,

THIS should have been your article. The above contains evidence and thoughts to actually support the belief that Ball will lead the team in carries in 2013. The history of how John Fox uses rookie RBs does not.

No offense, but as it's been pointed out by more than one person, it's odd to me that you're not seeing the problem with what you wrote in the article. People are pointing out that the facts you presented in the article don't match the conclusion and your response to justify the conclusion are a completely different set of facts (like the above). If you're going to use those facts to support your conclusion, then THAT is what you should have written about. Why? Because the title of your article and the 6 examples of rookie RBs you used do not support your conclusion at all.

If you had used the above as your article, I doubt you'd be hearing from anyone at all that it was a poorly written article with a conclusion that isn't substantiated by the facts you presented. In fact, if someone wanted to counter the above argument, they'd probably point to the history of how John Fox uses rookies. The same point you originally wrote about to somehow support this notion that Ball might approach 250 carries.

You folks are some serious Ball busters

Gian's right. Cecil dropped the ball on this one...

 

[B-Deep]

I believe him

unvote

 

[Adam Harstad]

This is all fine, but the main point of other posters still stands: you haven't made a compelling case for why Ball will be more impactful than any other rookie RB in John Fox's head coaching history. Even saying he's in line for Stewart's production is inaccurate: as a rookie, Stewart had 184 carries. You are suggesting Ball could be in line for 250. That might not seem like a big deal to you, but to me it's a 33% increase over Stewart, and that is a big deal.I'm not suggesting that you have 0 chance of being right - there is always a chance - but rather that your logic doesn't hold together. As a UW fan, I'd love to see Ball win the starting job and have an amazing rookie year. But your article doesn't give me anything to work with - rather, it points in the opposite direction. It's a bit odd that you don't see this.

From the article: "Enter Montee Ball, the Broncos second-round pick (57th overall) in the 2013 NFL draft. Denver is going to use more outside zone stretch plays this year under new offensive coordinator Adam Gase. That plays to the strengths of both Hillman and Ball." The line about the outside zone stretch play is key. Last year we saw inside zone by the Broncos as that suits McGahee/Moreno better. This season things will look differently in the way they run the football. Inside zone also fit the problems they had on the right side of the OL after Kuper went down. it's more power blocking when rushing inside and that fits guys like Manny Ramirez better. Adding Vasquez to the OL is key as well. This team wants players who can kick step and get to blocks in space. That's what OL have to do in outside zone stretch plays. I look at the addition of Ball, the changes of the OL, and the intention of Gase to run outside zone from a 3WR set and I see a Ball/Hillman RBBC. I've been told that's what the team WANTS. We'll have to see if the duo can impress in training camp. Simply put, Ball and Hillman fit outside zone stretch. Moreno and McGahee do not. His production could be similar to Stewart's in terms of fantasy points, NOT number of carries. Elway said this about Ball and the expectation that he would contribute more than the other RBs. “With the way we go through the draft I think we expect all the guys to contribute. Obviously, the earlier [you’re drafted], the more we hope [you] contribute. So, we thought that Montee would add a lot to the football team. So therefore [that] was the reason we decided to pick him.” All we have to go on right now is speculation in terms of who wins the starting job, McGahee/Moreno getting cut, etc. It's MY BELIEF that we'll see Ball win the starting job in training camp. The team is also excited about Hillman (see numerous articles from around the Combine) and would like him to be an impact change of pace runner. Elway after draft about Ball over Lacy “I think it was a close call. You’re talking about two great backs. The bottom line was that we looked at the medical. It really came down to the medical side and that’s what tilted the scales to Montee. They are both great backs, both very productive backs. When we looked at the medical and going through our medical staff, we just felt that Montee was a better choice for us at that spot.” Elway on Ball's need to improve pass protection “All young guys do. They don’t come in perfect. He has a lot of work to do, just like a lot of guys on our team do. We will coach him up. We like his upside and what Montee can do. Any time you come in it’s going to be a learning process. It’s a big jump from college ball to the NFL. It’ll take some time, but we really like what he’s about. [Running Backs Coach] Eric Studesville is glad to have him and I’m sure he will coach him up real well.” Elway on what adding Ball means for McGahee/Moreno “We will get through the draft and sit down and look at the offensive board and see what we are going to do there but until we get through the draft, we are see how everything falls and then reassess everything, both sides of the ball—offensively and defensively and see what we need to get and the CFAs are coming up too. There is a lot of massaging to do with the roster. We have to get it beefed up to 85 at training camp, or 90, so we will be in that process once the draft is over.”

Cecil,

THIS should have been your article. The above contains evidence and thoughts to actually support the belief that Ball will lead the team in carries in 2013. The history of how John Fox uses rookie RBs does not.

No offense, but as it's been pointed out by more than one person, it's odd to me that you're not seeing the problem with what you wrote in the article. People are pointing out that the facts you presented in the article don't match the conclusion and your response to justify the conclusion are a completely different set of facts (like the above). If you're going to use those facts to support your conclusion, then THAT is what you should have written about. Why? Because the title of your article and the 6 examples of rookie RBs you used do not support your conclusion at all.

If you had used the above as your article, I doubt you'd be hearing from anyone at all that it was a poorly written article with a conclusion that isn't substantiated by the facts you presented. In fact, if someone wanted to counter the above argument, they'd probably point to the history of how John Fox uses rookies. The same point you originally wrote about to somehow support this notion that Ball might approach 250 carries.

You folks are some serious Ball busters

Gian's right. Cecil dropped the ball on this one...

Sure, he may have taken his eye off the ball. I think the article reads like it's supposed to be a piece to persuade ("here is what I believe, and here is why"), when Lammey meant it more as a piece to inform ("here is some interesting historical information, and then here is what I'm hearing from my sources with the team"), which is a whole different ball of wax. I think that's where a lot of the disagreement is coming from- John Fox's history is interesting, but this year is a whole new ball game. Cecil's still a baller, though. He may not have been entirely on the ball this time, but at least he got the ball rolling on the discussion- if we don't hash these disagreements out now, we'll all be behind the 8-ball when it comes time to draft.

At least, that's how it seems to me, but obviously I'm not Cecil Lammey. I suppose that means the ball's in his court now.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

You folks are some serious Ball busters

Gian's right. Cecil dropped the ball on this one...

What is the name of the player we are discussing here?

 

[Biabreakable]

I listen to the pod cast sometimes. This is not a personal attack it is honesty. I said you have some very good qualities that make the pod cast the success that it is. But your logic and opinions, in my opinion are often flawed, as they were in the article you wrote. I spent time of my day to read that. I think you constructed an argument before looking at the objective information and then very poorly used facts that did not support that argument. This is not the fault of scouts, GMs or players who I am sure very much like you. I myself think you are a very nice guy. At the same time what those people tell you is vague, hopeful and sometimes just putting on a happy face/best case scenario. Readers are counting on you to be able to see through all of that and divine what will really happen. Not what just makes a nice story.

I'm sure you didn't write it with the intention of attacking Cecil, but saying someone lacks critical thinking skills and needs to rethink how much they understand football is about as ad hominem as it gets. I also happen to disagree- he gets some things right and he gets some things wrong, which makes him exactly like everyone else- hell, I once spent a summer posting that Ron Dayne was likely to win the starting RB job in Denver. Instead, he got cut in training camps. Anyway, the access and journalistic cred Cecil brings to FBGs is unique, and frankly, I think FBGs would be better off with 31 more Cecil's, not one fewer.

I would trade a thousand Cecils for one Yudkin. If FBGs does add more content such as Cecil's I may have to just stop reading FBG all together. Not that I read much of it now.

My problem with Cecil is not just from this article. It is basically every time he opens his mouth for the past decade or so. I do not suffer this foolishness easily. When listeners/readers are looking for insight into a situation instead Cecil sends them on a fools errand, chasing red herrings. I think Cecil and fellow staff should be embarrassed of this nonsense and be looking to change the cause of that, which is the intent of my comments. I know I would be embarrassed if I were in those shoes and I would be looking to change that however I can. Or even just the presentation and attitude towards it. If I just look at Cecil as a fluff commentary type pieces then I get what I am expecting. But when Cecil tries to post something serious then I expect it to be serious and thoroughly thought through, not pieced together haphazardly and presented as cutting edge analysis. I think the FBG history of quality articles and analysis are cheapened by such poor work by comparison. Your jumping to the defense of this poor quality work only shows that you and other FBG staff are willing to overlook these weaknesses, that your standards are not that excellent, which in my opinion diminishes the credibility of the whole site by demonstrating that.

There is a reason why many staff have been vetted through their participation here in the Shark Pool. So that they know what their readers are interested in and what kind of information/analysis those readers are looking for.

 

[Noah Davis]

I listen to the pod cast sometimes. This is not a personal attack it is honesty. I said you have some very good qualities that make the pod cast the success that it is. But your logic and opinions, in my opinion are often flawed, as they were in the article you wrote. I spent time of my day to read that. I think you constructed an argument before looking at the objective information and then very poorly used facts that did not support that argument. This is not the fault of scouts, GMs or players who I am sure very much like you. I myself think you are a very nice guy. At the same time what those people tell you is vague, hopeful and sometimes just putting on a happy face/best case scenario. Readers are counting on you to be able to see through all of that and divine what will really happen. Not what just makes a nice story.

I'm sure you didn't write it with the intention of attacking Cecil, but saying someone lacks critical thinking skills and needs to rethink how much they understand football is about as ad hominem as it gets. I also happen to disagree- he gets some things right and he gets some things wrong, which makes him exactly like everyone else- hell, I once spent a summer posting that Ron Dayne was likely to win the starting RB job in Denver. Instead, he got cut in training camps. Anyway, the access and journalistic cred Cecil brings to FBGs is unique, and frankly, I think FBGs would be better off with 31 more Cecil's, not one fewer.

I would trade a thousand Cecils for one Yudkin. If FBGs does add more content such as Cecil's I may have to just stop reading FBG all together. Not that I read much of it now.

My problem with Cecil is not just from this article. It is basically every time he opens his mouth for the past decade or so. I do not suffer this foolishness easily. When listeners/readers are looking for insight into a situation instead Cecil sends them on a fools errand, chasing red herrings. I think Cecil and fellow staff should be embarrassed of this nonsense and be looking to change the cause of that, which is the intent of my comments. I know I would be embarrassed if I were in those shoes and I would be looking to change that however I can. Or even just the presentation and attitude towards it. If I just look at Cecil as a fluff commentary type pieces then I get what I am expecting. But when Cecil tries to post something serious then I expect it to be serious and thoroughly thought through, not pieced together haphazardly and presented as cutting edge analysis. I think the FBG history of quality articles and analysis are cheapened by such poor work by comparison. Your jumping to the defense of this poor quality work only shows that you and other FBG staff are willing to overlook these weaknesses, that your standards are not that excellent, which in my opinion diminishes the credibility of the whole site by demonstrating that.

There is a reason why many staff have been vetted through their participation here in the Shark Pool. So that they know what their readers are interested in and what kind of information/analysis those readers are looking for.

A football analyst that combines the qualities of Nostradamus and Yudkin....I'll never lose a championship again!

Where can I find an example of your work that would demonstrate all of these Nostradamus/Yudkin qualities?

 

[B-Deep]

Proxy Nostradamus/Yudkin

 

[Cecil Lammey]

I listen to the pod cast sometimes. This is not a personal attack it is honesty. I said you have some very good qualities that make the pod cast the success that it is. But your logic and opinions, in my opinion are often flawed, as they were in the article you wrote. I spent time of my day to read that. I think you constructed an argument before looking at the objective information and then very poorly used facts that did not support that argument. This is not the fault of scouts, GMs or players who I am sure very much like you. I myself think you are a very nice guy. At the same time what those people tell you is vague, hopeful and sometimes just putting on a happy face/best case scenario. Readers are counting on you to be able to see through all of that and divine what will really happen. Not what just makes a nice story.

I'm sure you didn't write it with the intention of attacking Cecil, but saying someone lacks critical thinking skills and needs to rethink how much they understand football is about as ad hominem as it gets. I also happen to disagree- he gets some things right and he gets some things wrong, which makes him exactly like everyone else- hell, I once spent a summer posting that Ron Dayne was likely to win the starting RB job in Denver. Instead, he got cut in training camps. Anyway, the access and journalistic cred Cecil brings to FBGs is unique, and frankly, I think FBGs would be better off with 31 more Cecil's, not one fewer.

I would trade a thousand Cecils for one Yudkin. If FBGs does add more content such as Cecil's I may have to just stop reading FBG all together. Not that I read much of it now.

My problem with Cecil is not just from this article. It is basically every time he opens his mouth for the past decade or so. I do not suffer this foolishness easily. When listeners/readers are looking for insight into a situation instead Cecil sends them on a fools errand, chasing red herrings. I think Cecil and fellow staff should be embarrassed of this nonsense and be looking to change the cause of that, which is the intent of my comments. I know I would be embarrassed if I were in those shoes and I would be looking to change that however I can. Or even just the presentation and attitude towards it. If I just look at Cecil as a fluff commentary type pieces then I get what I am expecting. But when Cecil tries to post something serious then I expect it to be serious and thoroughly thought through, not pieced together haphazardly and presented as cutting edge analysis. I think the FBG history of quality articles and analysis are cheapened by such poor work by comparison. Your jumping to the defense of this poor quality work only shows that you and other FBG staff are willing to overlook these weaknesses, that your standards are not that excellent, which in my opinion diminishes the credibility of the whole site by demonstrating that.

There is a reason why many staff have been vetted through their participation here in the Shark Pool. So that they know what their readers are interested in and what kind of information/analysis those readers are looking for.

Like the time I said 'Kyle Orton could throw for 4,000 yards', haters balked, then he was on pace to throw over 5,000 yards

Like the time I said 'sell Orton' and 'buy Tebow' well in advance of the change at QB happening in 2011

Like the time I said 'Grab McGahee, not Moreno' when I would argue every day with guys like Mike Klis about who the best back in Denver was (he liked Moreno then).

Like the time I said 'Alfred Morris could perform like a top 25 RB if given the starting job' -- which was before training camp last year. Saw him at the Shrine Game and liked what I saw.

Like the time I wrote about Arian Foster during his junior season at Tennessee and called him a star in the making.

and on, and on, and on....

I'm well aware of my misses, but saying 'everytime I open my mouth' is misleading.

you're painting an inaccurate picture here that needs to be cleaned up.

Speaking of cleaned up, let's get (and keep) this topic back on track.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

I listen to the pod cast sometimes. This is not a personal attack it is honesty. I said you have some very good qualities that make the pod cast the success that it is. But your logic and opinions, in my opinion are often flawed, as they were in the article you wrote. I spent time of my day to read that. I think you constructed an argument before looking at the objective information and then very poorly used facts that did not support that argument. This is not the fault of scouts, GMs or players who I am sure very much like you. I myself think you are a very nice guy. At the same time what those people tell you is vague, hopeful and sometimes just putting on a happy face/best case scenario. Readers are counting on you to be able to see through all of that and divine what will really happen. Not what just makes a nice story.

I'm sure you didn't write it with the intention of attacking Cecil, but saying someone lacks critical thinking skills and needs to rethink how much they understand football is about as ad hominem as it gets. I also happen to disagree- he gets some things right and he gets some things wrong, which makes him exactly like everyone else- hell, I once spent a summer posting that Ron Dayne was likely to win the starting RB job in Denver. Instead, he got cut in training camps. Anyway, the access and journalistic cred Cecil brings to FBGs is unique, and frankly, I think FBGs would be better off with 31 more Cecil's, not one fewer.

I would trade a thousand Cecils for one Yudkin. If FBGs does add more content such as Cecil's I may have to just stop reading FBG all together. Not that I read much of it now.

My problem with Cecil is not just from this article. It is basically every time he opens his mouth for the past decade or so. I do not suffer this foolishness easily. When listeners/readers are looking for insight into a situation instead Cecil sends them on a fools errand, chasing red herrings. I think Cecil and fellow staff should be embarrassed of this nonsense and be looking to change the cause of that, which is the intent of my comments. I know I would be embarrassed if I were in those shoes and I would be looking to change that however I can. Or even just the presentation and attitude towards it. If I just look at Cecil as a fluff commentary type pieces then I get what I am expecting. But when Cecil tries to post something serious then I expect it to be serious and thoroughly thought through, not pieced together haphazardly and presented as cutting edge analysis. I think the FBG history of quality articles and analysis are cheapened by such poor work by comparison. Your jumping to the defense of this poor quality work only shows that you and other FBG staff are willing to overlook these weaknesses, that your standards are not that excellent, which in my opinion diminishes the credibility of the whole site by demonstrating that.

There is a reason why many staff have been vetted through their participation here in the Shark Pool. So that they know what their readers are interested in and what kind of information/analysis those readers are looking for.

Like the time I said 'Kyle Orton could throw for 4,000 yards', haters balked, then he was on pace to throw over 5,000 yards

Like the time I said 'sell Orton' and 'buy Tebow' well in advance of the change at QB happening in 2011

Like the time I said 'Grab McGahee, not Moreno' when I would argue every day with guys like Mike Klis about who the best back in Denver was (he liked Moreno then).

Like the time I said 'Alfred Morris could perform like a top 25 RB if given the starting job' -- which was before training camp last year. Saw him at the Shrine Game and liked what I saw.

Like the time I wrote about Arian Foster during his junior season at Tennessee and called him a star in the making.

and on, and on, and on....

I'm well aware of my misses, but saying 'everytime I open my mouth' is misleading.

you're painting an inaccurate picture here that needs to be cleaned up.

Speaking of cleaned up, let's get (and keep) this topic back on track.

Its all good no one's ever going to get it right everytime.

I think people are still butt hurt that they missed the Hillman vs Moreno move.

your crystal ball was broken that day, as was alot of people's.

It happens.

However, I cant see how from Fox's rookie usage pattern that the conclusion you draw is M.Ball = 250 carries. Wont happen unless both Moreno and McGahee are gone.

 

[Craig_MiamiFL]

Agree with a later poster about the 'Bottom Line' in the article. IF Ball is getting 250 carries (plus if you're thinking he's got double digit TD potential), he's a guy to get excited about. Only 14 backs had 250+ carries in 2012. And if he's on the field often enough to get that many carries, he's bound to also catch some passes from Manning.

I'd put my money on 1 veteran back getting released in Denver. The other will start the year if healthy & Ball would come on if they are injured or ineffective.

I'm not understanding this article.

You outline case after case after case of rookies barely getting work and then conclude that this year's rookie is going to get 250 carries? Doesn't make any sense to me. Especially considering Fox wasn't willing to hand over the keys to not just one but two 1st round picks in Williams and Stewart, keeping both under 200 carries as rookies.

Strange article where you laid out an excellent case for why Ball will NOT get 250 carries but still decided to go with that premise at the end despite overwhelming history to the contrary.

 

[mjr]

From the articles I've read on what Elway/Fox liked about Ball, why they picked him over Lacy,

>"The issue with Eddie Lacy was we were worried about a toe injury that he had, and that's what probably caused him to slip," Russell (Broncos director of player personnel) said on a conference call with season-ticket holders Tuesday. "And we really felt great about Montee Ball. We were worried about Lacy's medical and how long he could play. We feel like we got a career back in Montee Ball."

link

Yes, that's the article I was referring to. I think Ball was drafted for 2 specific purposes: First and foremost to be at the very least that healthy, stop-gap between Moreno/McGahee and Hillman (hence passing on Lacy) so that they don't end up having to rely on Hillman again should last year's issues repeat, and 2) For Ball to eventually be the starter, of course. But I don't think this move or the articles necessarily mean they expect him to take the lead role come week 1.

I don't see both Moreno and McGahee being cut, traded, benched or whatever else before Ball can secure the #1 role outright. They would be putting all of their eggs in Ball's basket by doing it, and I don't see Elway or Fox taking on an unnecessary gamble like that. It makes more sense to retain one of them, lighten that guy's load (hence reducing risk of injury, keeping him fresher, etc.) by mixing Ball in with some carries and using Hillman as the CoP as intended. A 45/35/20% kind of split respectively.

If Ball can be effective in live action, I certainly see him taking over the bulk role during the season (a 35/45/20% split in his favor), but even then 250 carries can be difficult to reach if Denver projects to run at 375 attempts, or even at a more optimistic 450.

So I say 150 is the likely average.

200 if he can take over mid-season, which I think is likely.

250+ only if someone gets hurt and he dominates, which is certainly possible.

Bottom line: I think there's a big difference between Denver's brass WANTING Ball to take the lead back job by week 1 and EXPECTING Ball to take the lead role by week 1. Everything suggests to me that Denver wants it but doesn't fully expect it of him just yet, and I don't see it being forced unless he's truly ready. That's what needs to be figured out between now and Sept. Is he unquestionably capable of stepping right into the lead back role? Elway didn't sound like he thought so, as much as he loves the guy. He said all rookies need work. So I don't think it's all on the game plan, how many times they pass or run, what Fox has historically done or any of that. It all comes down to Ball himself proving himself an all around capable back at the NFL level before week one.

 

[Cookiemonster]

What is their cap situation again? I don't think they have to release McGahee or Moreno. If I were calling the shots there, and thought McGahee would be healthy, I'd continue with what worked last year and let Ball prove himself and learn the ropes this year. Let go of McGahee next off season, and let Ball try to overtake Moreno. The window is fairly small with Manning. You only have another couple years. You don't risk one of your precious couple/few seasons by giving a guy the reigns when you don't know if he can be trusted yet, and for both of the vets coming off injury, you can't trust that only one of them will stay healthy enough to keep the nooB off the field if need be.

 

[Adam Harstad]

What is their cap situation again? I don't think they have to release McGahee or Moreno. If I were calling the shots there, and thought McGahee would be healthy, I'd continue with what worked last year and let Ball prove himself and learn the ropes this year. Let go of McGahee next off season, and let Ball try to overtake Moreno. The window is fairly small with Manning. You only have another couple years. You don't risk one of your precious couple/few seasons by giving a guy the reigns when you don't know if he can be trusted yet, and for both of the vets coming off injury, you can't trust that only one of them will stay healthy enough to keep the nooB off the field if need be.

They're about $7.5 million under the cap. Their rookie picks will take somewhere between $4.0m and $4.2m, leaving them at least $3.3m to sign veterans as injuries happen and other teams make cuts. Denver also has a few guys who are near-certain cuts (Joe Mays, probably Chris Kuper), so their actual cap space will be higher than that. If Denver lets McGahee go, it's unlikely because they need the cap space. It's more likely to be because it'll save Bowlen $2m dollars (Bowlen, unlike most owners, has no major business interests or revenue sources outside of the team, so it's especially important that the team is run frugally and responsibly so he'll have the cash on hand to give major contracts/signing bonuses when Demaryius, Miller, and Clady are up for extensions). There's also a numbers crunch at the position- Denver currently has McGahee, Moreno, Ball, Hillman, Lance Ball, and Jacob Hester, and they're likely to go into the season with only four of those guys (maaaaybe 5). McGahee is the oldest and most expensive, and he doesn't play special teams like Lance Ball or Hester do, which puts him at greater risk when Denver is paring down to 53.Like I said, I'd put McGahee's odds of making the team at under 50%. I'd put the odds of both McGahee AND Moreno making the team at somewhere around 10%.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I'm of the opinion that the history of rookie RBs under John Fox doesn't much matter.

I've never been in any Broncos or Panthers coaches meetings, and I'm not claiming any inside knowledge here.

But in general, the head coach usually plays less of a role in determining playing time than the position coach or the coordinator. That is even more true where the position in question is on offense and the head coach is more of a defensive guy.

I doubt that DeShaun Foster's or Jonathan Stewart's or Ronnie Hillman's lack of playing time as rookies had much to do with John Fox himself. And in determining how much playing time Montee Ball is likely to get this year, I'd look to Eric Studesville and Adam Gase before I looked to John Fox.