Mike Shannahan>Hi (1 Viewer)

[redman]

SSOG- I haven't looked at these numbers, but I'd expect that Portis was good for more "big plays", however you'd define that term, than any of Shanny's other RB's. Your statistical analysis is for Denver as a team. When discussing Portis as a player, it's notable that no other Denver RB in the Shanny era besides Portis has averaged over 5 ypc except for Davis in 1998 who averaged 5.1 ypc on a 14-2 team. Most other RB1's for Denver have averaged between 4.2 and 4.5 or so.

Portis averaged 5.5 ypc for both seasons he played for Denver, and that was on a 9 and 10 win team, respectively. Plain and simple Portis put together two great seasons, while every other RB aside from Davis has merely been good.

Please note that even as a Redskins fan I'm not saying this to bash the Broncos for trading him away as I recognize that it's easier to win with a "merely" good RB as opposed to a great one when you're trading up for a great CB in the process. I'm just pointing out that Portis has an explosiveness that other Denver RB's, and most other NFL RB's, simply don't have. The bottom line team rushing numbers don't reflect that.

 

[thayman]

SSOG- I haven't looked at these numbers, but I'd expect that Portis was good for more "big plays", however you'd define that term, than any of Shanny's other RB's. Your statistical analysis is for Denver as a team. When discussing Portis as a player, it's notable that no other Denver RB in the Shanny era besides Portis has averaged over 5 ypc except for Davis in 1998 who averaged 5.1 ypc on a 14-2 team. Most other RB1's for Denver have averaged between 4.2 and 4.5 or so. Portis averaged 5.5 ypc for both seasons he played for Denver, and that was on a 9 and 10 win team, respectively. Plain and simple Portis put together two great seasons, while every other RB aside from Davis has merely been good. Please note that even as a Redskins fan I'm not saying this to bash the Broncos for trading him away as I recognize that it's easier to win with a "merely" good RB as opposed to a great one when you're trading up for a great CB in the process. I'm just pointing out that Portis has an explosiveness that other Denver RB's, and most other NFL RB's, simply don't have. The bottom line team rushing numbers don't reflect that.

That's very true, but bottom line is that Denver has been a better team with Bailey at CB, than with Portis at RB.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Like I have said before, I think the problem with Denver's offense for a while has been that they move the ball well in between the 20s and still pile up the yardage, but they don't score as many touchdowns as they used to.

I still don't understand the rationale behind giving such a deal to Travis Henry, a talented back, yes, but whom has a lot of baggage (as we all know), especially since history has shown that most good RBs can produce in Denver's system (although not to the degree as elite backs like TD and Portis). That money would have been spent on shoring up the defensive line. Denver hasn't had a dominant pass rusher since Trevor Pryce. As much as their offense struggles at times nowadays with essentially a rookie QB, the real problem is on defense.

 

[Aerial Assault]

No clue what this is about because of...

You have chosen to ignore all posts from: Doctor Detroit.

· View this post

· Un-ignore Doctor Detroit

..but who is Mike Shannahan?

That's how Andrea Kremer pronounces it.

 

[Tubalcane]

Denver's problem can be summed up in two points.

1. They have no team Chemistry. This will resolve itself with continued play. They have a lot of new faces on Def and especially Off, plus a rookie QB (he's still a rookie to me until he starts 16 complete games). I see bright spots especially when you look at Cutler. He makes clutch throws when it counts; something Plummer couldn't do. I think the Offense will start to getl as the year goes on and Cutler gets more experience.

2. The Broncos don't have the defensive personel required to be an effective defense under a Jim Bates defensive scheme. Obviously the MLB is this biggest issue. DJ Williams cannot get in position to make the plays and most importantly he is not a defensive leader. Also the D-Lineman haven't adjusted to the changes that Bates brings to a defense.

Like it or love it this is just a building year for Denver. They should be busy developing the talent they have and hoping to grab the right players in the draft and free agency next year.

 

[SSOG]

For all the pain you've caused fantasy owners over the years with your RBBC, your injury report shtick, and your general ugliness it is now time to pay the piper.

Injury report schtick? Could you please provide a single example? Thanks in advance.

Losing Portis hurt the broncos more than gaining Champ helped the defense. Portis was the identity of the team...the spark...the guy opposing teams feared. NOBODY has feared the Denver running game since Portis left. As good as champ is he gets torched by guys that he shouldnt get torched by, look at Rivers eating his lunch.

Denver's running game in 2002- 2266 yards, 21 TDsDenver's running game in 2003- 2629 yards, 20 TDs

Denver's running game in 2004- 2333 yards, 13 TDs

Denver's running game in 2005- 2539 yards, 25 TDs

Average rushing output in the two Portis seasons- 2448 yards, 20.5 TDs

Average rushing output in the two post-Portis seasons- 2436 yards, 19 TDs

Difference- 8 yards, 1.5 TDs. Oh, yeah, Denver's rushing attack became far less fearsome with the loss of Portis... but far be it from me to spoil your fun with little things like fact and reality.

Denver's Offensive-Line is a sad shadow of its former self. 20 rushes for 72 yards.

Ummm... what? Prior to this week, Denver was 4th in the league in rushing yardage and 2nd in yards per rushing attempt. Oh, yeah, they played poorly today. It's not like Denver has any history at all of struggling against 3-4 defenses. Seriously, I'm sure no one saw this one coming. No, the only logical conclusion based on one bad game against a defensive scheme that the team typically struggles against after a quarter-season of dominance is that the offensive line must be in sorry shape.

LOL @ DD's Gods vengeance schtick.

To the Broncos fans, to what extent, with the benefit of over one year's hindsight, do you think that Kubiak's departure has hurt the offense?

Not much. In the end, this is always Shanny's show. Always has been, always will be. It'd be nice to have Kubiak back in town, but his departure isn't responsible for the offensive funk. Remember, too, that going into today, Denver was ranked 5th in the NFL in terms of yards. The only real problem with the offense is turnovers and red-zone offense. Neither of these are the responsibility of Kubiak, imo- Denver hasn't ranked higher in points than yards since 2002. These red zone difficulties are nothing new.

Save your mindless drivel numbers for idiots that care. While statistically the running game didn't appear to suffer with Portis leaving, teams no longer game planned to the level of stopping it like they had to when Portis was around, this had synergistic effects and affected other parts of the game I'm sure. Get real, a Bell/Bell combo is laughable when compared to Portis in Denver.Your logic is flawed on many counts because you live and die by the numbers. According to your logic, that backup RB guy that played for Indy today is just as good as Joseph Addai because the numbers say so.

MINDLESS drivel? Hey, if you want to argue that it's drivel, you can feel free, but MINDLESS? Now you're just being unkind.You keep mentioning Portis as if he was this mythical panacea for all that ailed the Broncos. Portis would have probably made Denver's rushing attack more deadly, yes (for instance, there was a slight but noticeable dropoff in yards per attempt after Portis left)... but let's be realistic. You think Portis would have done better than Bell/Bell last year? Maybe, maybe not. How well did he wind up doing in Washington last year? Wait, he only had 523 rushing yards because he was INJURED? I fail to see how that would have been much of an improvement.

Denver traded a player at a highly fungible position (see Edgerrin James in Indy) where players are FAR LESS VALUABLE (see salaries of top RBs compared to top CBs), a player who was a massive injury risk (an undersized workhorse at a position where even the full-sized workhorses are among the biggest injury risks in the game today). In exchange, they got perhaps the best defensive player in the entire NFL, a guy playing at a position where the top players at one point made more money than the top QBs in the NFL. And despite the loss of Portis, Denver's running game has still been phenomenal. Has it been as good as it was with Portis? No, but it's been PHENOMENAL still, and who's to say that Portis would have remained healthy if he was still in town?

Also, don't tell me that I live and die by the numbers. I have plenty of posts on these boards about my "gut feelings", or my quick-hit takes based on the eyeball test. It's just that I use numbers *IN ADDITION* to everything else to wind up with an even more informed opinion. And, to be honest, this probably isn't the year to be telling me that my method isn't working, since I've actually got a pretty good batting average when taking unpopular positions so far this season (Tomlinson is overrated with respect to his peers, Gates is worthy of a 3rd round pick, Marion Barber III is more valuable than Turner in dynasty leagues, etc). Not saying that my "system" (if my method of evaluating players and making projections can even be called a "system") is infallible (trust me, it's very, very fallible), but obviously it's not a complete disaster here. Despite popular opinion, I'm not 100% married to what the statistics say, but I do use a lot of them, and am of the opinion that most other people around here ignore them FAR too much- to their own detriment. Maybe it's just conceit, but I like to believe that my method of looking at things has earned at least the benefit of the doubt.

Denver's problem can be summed up in two points.

1. They have no team Chemistry. This will resolve itself with continued play. They have a lot of new faces on Def and especially Off, plus a rookie QB (he's still a rookie to me until he starts 16 complete games). I see bright spots especially when you look at Cutler. He makes clutch throws when it counts; something Plummer couldn't do. I think the Offense will start to getl as the year goes on and Cutler gets more experience.

2. The Broncos don't have the defensive personel required to be an effective defense under a Jim Bates defensive scheme. Obviously the MLB is this biggest issue. DJ Williams cannot get in position to make the plays and most importantly he is not a defensive leader. Also the D-Lineman haven't adjusted to the changes that Bates brings to a defense.

Like it or love it this is just a building year for Denver. They should be busy developing the talent they have and hoping to grab the right players in the draft and free agency next year.

This is actually pretty much exactly how I felt. Here's the list of Denver's problems, as I see them (presented in no particular order).#1- Lots of new faces. You know how many players started game 1 of both the 2005 season and the 2007 season at the same position? 2 on offense (Lepsis and Nalen), and 4 on defense (Bailey, Lynch, Ferguson, and Gold). A seventh player (D.J. Williams) was starting, just at a different position. Add in the new defensive scheme, and at the moment this is less of a team than it is a collection of players.

#2- Wrong personnel. It's easy to say "I told you so" now, but Bates tried to fit his players to his scheme rather than fitting his scheme to his players. Maybe it'll get better as the season progresses, but I think Denver would have been better off if Bates had kept Warren, run a watered down version of his scheme in a transition year this year, and then made the full transition next year... but as I said, that's just being an armchair GM. All I know is that, at the moment, we have some legitimately great players (D.J. Williams and Ian Gold) who are looking legitimately awful. I doubt that's because they forgot to play this offseason.

#3- Two of the five oldest safeties in the entire NFL are starting for Denver. Yikes. Again, it's easy to second-guess now, but I would have been much happier if, instead of trading up for Jarvis Moss, Denver had just stayed put and grabbed whoever was available between Moss and safety Reggie Nelson. Safety is a huge need for this team. We have our #3 CB logging a ton of snaps at the position, which is never a good thing.

#4- Red zone struggles. These have been a long-time bugaboo with Denver, but they've really come to a head this season. The team just isn't punching it in. Shanahan goes too conservative in the red zone. Hopefully once Cutler matures a bit, Shanny will start trusting him with the ball more at money time, because defenses are all keying on the ultra-conservative run-run-run-kick red zone offense.

#5- Javon Walker. This offense was built to feature him, and he's on the sideline. That's a problem.

 

[packersfan]

#5- Javon Walker. This offense was built to feature him, and he's on the sideline. That's a problem.

I think this is the No. 1 problem offensively. The Broncos are now 2-0 in games where Walker was featured heavily and 0-3 in games he either missed or was injured and taken out of the game plan. That's no coincidence in my opinion. And Cutler has regressed in each of those games. His play was at its best in the first two games with Walker. Without him, he looks lost and can't seem to make thing happen other than intermediate routes. The Broncos had better hope Walker emerges from the bye at full strength or very close to it because if he isn't, I think their season is done.