Now that we're a week into Broncos training camp, it's time for me to run the standard "Five Questions the Broncos Must Answer in Camp" feature, though they're really more related to the regular season than the camp itself. Today Sports Illustrated's website ran a similar article, except it was five statements, not questions. See, pretending someone actually asked me these questions allows mfor responses heavy on opinion and light on facts.
1. Who will start at running back?
As Marvelous nee Pugs recently pointed out, the Post just ran an article saying how well Ron Dayne's running style meshes with Denver's zone-blocking/break-their-knees scheme.
That's a joke, right?
Even when Ron Dayne was "good", he wasn't that good. He's finished each of his professional seasons with a 3.4 yards per carry average, except in 2001, when he notched a career-best 3.8. Still, the Giants managed to find room in their offense to hand him the ball nearly 600 times.
Do the Broncos have a better line and running game than the Giants? No question. Not that anyone was putting eight in the box to stop Dayne, but with Giant quarterbacks like Kerry Collins and Eli Manning, they certainly could have. So he should be better. But Dayne is not the power back you'd expect from his size, and he should not end up the Broncos' starter this year.
Mike Anderson returns from an injury sustained when Coach Shamnahan wisely left him in in the fourth quarter of an exhibiton game last year. He's supposedly listed at No. 1 on the chart (the somewhat-official denverbroncos.com chart is a little out of date), but questions naturally remain. Namely, can he still be effective at his age? (He turns 32 in September.) Anderson got a late start to his career so he won't have the wear-and-tear of younger backs, unless you're the kind of weirdo who considers season-ending injuries "wear-and-tear".
Quentin Griffin has shown flashes, along with an annoying habit of being compared to Barry Sanders, but he's the anti-Kobe when it comes to actually holding on to the ball. Then again, Shanahan stuck with the admittedly-superior Clinton Portis through fumble trouble, so Griffin probably has a better shot at starting than most fans give him.
Maurice Clarett I've bashed enough on this site. Since he hasn't played in a long time, I honestly don't know how he'll perform-though it's probably safe to say that practice is helpful for most players. Probably a year away if he will contribute; but then, Shanahan has trusted rookies in the past (Portis, T.D., Anderson, and Gary).
My guess as the most likely opening-day starter is Tatum Bell, who battles hands problems of his own. Nevertheless, he combines speed and just enough elusiveness to call to mind recent successful Denver backs.
Whoever wins the competition, know that they'll rush for 1,000 yards without a doubt, har de har. You can plug anyone into that system and run the ball effectively. Or maybe not.
2. Who will be the Broncos backup quarterback?
Or, more specifically, why do the Broncos insist on giving themselves such pathetic options here? With Danny Kanell, Bradlee van Pelt, and Matt Mauck all jockeying for position beyond the mercurial Jake Plummer, the Broncos are pretty much willing to stake their entire season on Plummer's durability. (And never mind his oft-erratic performances.)
In his eight seasons, Plummer has started every game four times, so there's a fifty-fifty chance we'll have to rely on one of these guys for a stretch (anyone who knows statistics knows it's not really a 50-50 chance and that I just lied to you, ahem). Our defense may be solid, but it won't be good enough to win with any of those guys for any extended period.
Hopefully, the team can keep Plummer away from any demanding physical activity.
3. How are the special teams shaping up?
The last few years the most glaring weakness on the Broncos has been their complete unwillingness to address special teams. Year in and year out, it seems, we field statistically-dominating offenses and defenses and completely ignore the field-position game, while recent teams to emphasize it (the '00 Ravens, '01 Patriots, '03 Panthers) make trips to the Super Bowl.
Of course, not every team that addresses special teams ends up playing for the championship-but it can't hurt. For the Broncos, they've addressed the needs in some ways and not in others.
New punter Todd Sauerbrun is one of the league's top performers in terms of both gross and, more importantly, net average, and could be an important weapon this year. But the kickoff situation is up in the air-will the Broncos carry a specialist, like late-rounder Paul Edinger, to cover for Elam's decline? Elam is still one of the world's finest field goal kickers, even in crunch time.
And the loss of Reuben Droughns, and the chance that Rod Smith probably won't be fielding punts anymore, leaves the Broncos without proven returners.
4. How will the Broncos' aging receiving corps fare?
Rod Smith is old, Ashley Lelie is still one-dimensional (though at least he's hanging on to those deep balls now), and we bent over backwards to bring back tight end Jeb Putzier, who somehow had 36 catches for 572 yards last year, literally none of which I can remember. He must have been tearing it up when I was in church, I guess.
The X-factor, of course, is Darius Watts. Watts was impressive in camp last year and made some acrobatic grabs during the season, but he's best known for his drops. Will he improve fast enough to make the receiving corps a potential strength?
All right, I didn't mention a certain older gentleman, but I think Jerry Rice is the finest fourth receiver we've had in years.
5. How will the defense look?
It's tough to say. While we made some questionable/bizaree pickups on the defensive line, we also picked up a Pro Bowler in the return of Trevor Pryce, who barely players last season.
The linebacking corps should be improved with the continued development of D.J. Williams and the reacquisition of Ian Gold.
The defensive secondary returns two Pro Bowlers: John Lynch, whom I always feel guilty about rooting for, and Champ Bailey, who was terrible. Can Champ be that bad again? I doubt it, so there's room for optimism. But after the loss of Kelly Herndon, the rest of the secondary is young and ripe for Peyton's postseason stat-padding.
While the speedy linebacking corps and endless wave of mediocre D-linemen should prove effective against the run, it will take a near-miracle for the Broncos to slow down the best passing teams this year.
14 comments:
I think that Tatum Bell is the most logial choice at running back. When he was healthy last season he was the Bronco's number 1 and a very impressive number 1 at that.
"Butterfingers" Griffin doesn't stand a chance. Shanahan put so much faith and confidence in him for so many weeks but he kept letting the team down (point in case: Jacksonville).
Mike Anderson has some amazing skill, and I personally thought he should have been the starter in front of CP (before the season), but Shanahan doesn't seem interested in the power running back for anything other than a 3rd down back.
Our man Ron Dayne seems to have accomplished very little since out rushing the Holistic Doctor (our man Ricky) in college. He's out.
Maurice is the big question mark. At draft time he showed that he had slowed down significantly, and his stubborness may make it difficult to work with the coach and the offensive system. Quite frankly, I think he was a waste of a draft pick, but I guess he has potential.
As for the rest of the team, with the exception of the linebacker core, the Broncos are royally screwed.
Jake may be the fastest white guy on the field, but there aren't too many other white guys on the field.
Nalen and Hamilton switching o-line positions will probably mest up the fung-sway of the team.
Wide recievers that cannot catch tend to slow down offensive drives.
Finally, a secondary that consistes of soley John Lynch (who probably will go into bankrupcy with the rule changes) will struggle to hold its own especially with Trent, Drew, Kerry and Peyton on the schedule.
By the way, your shot at Garrison Hearst seemed a little unnecessary. He has worked so hard in his career only to be severely hampered by serious injuries muliple times in his career. His resolve has led him to win the comeback player of the year twice. His ethic on and off the field is comprable to any of the best in the game. He was brought to Denver for his positive example, not an expectation to be a number 1 back for the team.
Necessary? Is it necessary...ah, never mind.
Geez, man, lighten up-I didn't say "Let's all laugh at Garrison's physical suffering"; I thought it was clear I meant that not every back is a superstar in Denver. Next time I'll link to guys like Chris Howard, Curtis Alexander, or Cecil Sapp. Hearst did have an outstanding and maybe even inspiring career, but to deny he was a little less than stellar in Denver is just odd.
Tatum Bell as a very impressive number 1, well, yes and no. He was just unimpressive enough that it's still an open competition, though I do think he'll start out starting.
I'm not sure what you mean by Mike Anderson should have started ahead of CP, but if that's Clinton Portis and you mean two years ago, I couldn't disagree more. I'd say Portis is one of the three best backs we've ever had (with Floyd Little and T.D.).
The thing is, we do have a lot of problems, but we had most of them last year and still went 10-6, so who knows how it'll turn out this time.
"I'd say Portis is one of the three best backs we've ever had"
with the others being sammy winder, and bobby (don't call me kid from kid and play) humphrey, right?
i thought the nip at hearst was just a joke... obviously he was never deemed a legitimate candidate. the broncos are always looking for a third down back who can receive well, and that's what hearst provided, or at least, what he looked like on paper.
i'm not sold on bell yet, just because i haven't seen enough of him.
i think we should take a page out of air force's offense put dayne, anderson, and bell out in the backfield simultaneously and run the wishbone all the way to the superbowl.
hey, people tried the run & shoot, when will they give the wishy-washy a try?
probably when people get tired of the west coast offense, or realize that it only works with exceptional qb's and receivers with amazing chemistry.
Gasp! Did you hear Courtney Brown's out for a few weeks?
Do you remember a couple years ago when we busted out the wishbone for a few plays against Kansas City? We rocked their world-I think Portis took off for a long TD the very first play, and they never really adjusted (I'm tempted to say overcoaching robbed these players of the ability to think for themselves on the fly, but in reality playing Kansas City means you can run whatever you want.)
I don't know that anyone'll get sick of the West Coast at this rate, considering its prime was 20 years ago.
Offenses like the wishbone are always dismissed at the pro level because they wouldn't work against faster defenders (ignoring the obvious isn't-the-offense-faster-too? argument), and while I know you were kidding, it would be interesting to see if anyone with a limited team (crappy quarterback, for example) would ever have the guts to try something like that.
Personally, I'd go with Sam Winder and Gene Lang, but I could be wrong...calling to mind John's hilarious comment recently about how he doesn't Tatum Bell to start, because he can remember what happened the last time we had a runner named Bell...
i obviously need to do my homework... i'm not getting the allusion. (bell?)
there's always glynn milburn, see if he's still around
I actually thought about using Glyn in my list.
Ken Bell played for us in the mid-80s, but he barely played. I know him best for misjudging a kickoff and falling on it at the 2 yard line-assuring that The Drive would have to go 98 yards.
I didn't mean to take away from CP's talent or what he proved, but at the beginning of CP's first season, I thought Mike Anderson (a proven runner) should start. I was wrong. You are right about Garrison in Denver, he struggled to produce on the field.
As for the wishbone offense, good suggestion. I think instead Denver ought to pick up an extra out of pocket qb (Kordell Stewart or Senaca Wallace), run trick plays every down, and never throw the ball away for an interception.
it's good to see that alexis has been supplanted by the lead singer of cold play.
i appreciate his candor
re: "mental toughness"
you know john, that's a great point. and to be completely honest, i've always felt that the broncos have been very weak in that regard. ever since elway left, obviously, but even during his tenure. I've just always assumed the other team was going to be more disciplined, better prepared, and less likely to eff things up.
people (mostly local broadcasters) love use the ole "give shanahan a week to prepare..." blah blah blah, yeah, and he'll figure a way to come out good in the first quarter and let you beat the pants off us the rest of the game. shanahan might be one of the best 1st quarter strategists the game has ever seen... unfortunately mikey, we play that quarter first.
mike, can you just turn this into "mike shanahan blows at blogspot.com." our traffic would exponentially increase.
Loville had a 100-yard playoff game once, which (ahem) I attended, and I don't see any of these guys doing that this year, but who knows.
Ron Dayne will most certainly not be the guy to pound it in from the 5. Clarett, maybe, but I again remind everyone of his horrific Fiesta Bowl.
Our team lately has been defined by big numbers and poor results. The thing Elway brought was that the team was always competitive-not in the sense that we were always a winning team, because we weren't, but in the sense that we didn't back down.
Lately, we've ranked high as an offense, but you can't say we were really a good offense, because we absolutely can not score in crunch time. Likewise we have a highly-ranked defense that can't stop anyone when it counts.
Which is just one reason why I usually ignore the NFL team statistical rankings. Take a team like New England or Baltimore-both might be low in total yardage defense every few years, but they'd both stop you with the game on the line. Or, conversely, take Indy on offense-huge numbers, but put them against a physical defensive team and they're not even getting any first downs. So they're not really a good offense, at all.
Clutch performance isn't one factor-it's the only factor. And it's the thing we've missed the most.
"who was easily the greatest on-field leader in addition to the greatest player in history"
one thing i'll never get tired of is our completely, unwavering support of the duke.
if it were biologically possible, i'd bear his progeny
You guys are sick. Oh, wait, I say the bullet thing all the time, too.
If anyone's curious, I imagine I'll be posting tomorrow. Today and yesterday I actually had to work, some big conference they're having in my building. Should have called Alex for tips on handling those...
Post a Comment