StevieInferior Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 I am getting tired of hearing about how the Denver OL made Denver Rbs through Schemes. They point to Gary, Anderson, and Davis as examples. First of all the only RB of that bunch to play for another team is Gary. Gary plays for Detroit who is horrible. But even if you want to use Gary as an example to the system theory, he is only one player. The other two never played for another team and I believe both had ACL issues. So one could say that after those RBs had injury issues, the OL was unable to get them yards. Lets go ahead and assume, for a second, that Denver's OL can turn RBs into superstars, be it because of their talent or scheme. Why has another team not pick this up? There are other talented OLs out there, so I do not think it's the players alone. If it is a scheme, other teams would copy it. I have to say Denver has done a good job in finding some diamonds in the rough, but I do not think that it's just their OL making an RB better than he is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eparadox Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 It doesn't really matter anymore...when the coaches watched films of Portis, they saw he had true talent and power. Against some of the best defenses, there were no holes, and he still got the yards. I mean, I don't care what system you're running...you don't get 5.5 ypg on just a system! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonard Washington Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 i don't think we could get away with denver's blocking scheme of chop blocks and holds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 I do agree most RB's in the league would do well in Denver. However, Portis is something special. He has 5.5 ypc for his CAREER!!! His ypc on 3rd downs is 9.1 !!! He has 24 runs of 20+ yards. By the way 1100 or 1200 yards is not the same as 1600 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 Gary had 1200 in 11 games that year. So it's similar. 2 backs having success is easy to dismiss. 3 backs should raise some eyebrows. 4 backs in 6 years go for 1k should make it easy to admit that part of the success lies in the oline and schemes. 6 backs in 6 years with at least 1 100 yd game should cement that theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 Originally posted by Kilmer17 Gary had 1200 in 11 games that year. So it's similar. When is 4.2 ypc vs a 5.5 ypc similar??? Or his 7 tds compared to 15 for Portis. By the way it was 1159 which last I checked does not = 1200 Now if you do add his receiving yards then he was up to 1300 and if you add portis's yards then we are talking about 1800 still not similar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevieInferior Posted March 8, 2004 Author Share Posted March 8, 2004 Even if it is the system, few coaches, if any, can say they are better at devising blocking schemes then Gibbs and Bugel. They are among the best Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 Originally posted by Kilmer17 4 backs in 6 years go for 1k should make it easy to admit that part of the success lies in the oline and schemes. Kilmer you have fallen into the 1000K year trap. It isn't that impressive. All you need to do is average 62.5 yards a game in one season. That to me is not special. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 My point was that Gary averaged about the same per game. It's not a stretch to admit the Oline in Denver and the scheme are part of the success. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernie5 Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 Comparing Gary and Anderson to Davis and Portis because they wore the same unis and gained over 1000 yards would be foolish. Davis and Portis are a whole different level and unlike Gary, Anderson, and Davis, Portis WAS the Bronco offense last year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ignatius J. Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 I think it might have to do with a combination of two things: 1.) Scheme 2.) the air Don't underestimate factor 2. Denver has a much lower oxygen content to the air, giving a distict home field advantage that can carry over to away games as well (since they are used to pumping more blood, they become superior athletes in higher pressure) -DB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonJeremy Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 Originally posted by StevieInferior Even if it is the system, few coaches, if any, can say they are better at devising blocking schemes then Gibbs and Bugel. They are among the best That's right...you think Denver has a great blocking scheme....wait until the "New Hogs" are unveiled this season. Portis is a stud...those that think otherwise....:stfu: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Runs with Scissors Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 Some people said the same thing last year about Coles.They said the Jets weren't that worried about replacing Coles,because it was the system and the QB.Curtis Conway could fill in just fine at a cheaper price. People don't say this anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boy2Der Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 Great point Runs with Scissors now that I think of that alot of people were saying that about Coles and they probably are the same ones saying Potis is a system back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArmchairRedskin Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 Didn't Gibbs have 6 1000+ yd rushers during his first tenure? I'm pretty sure I read that somewhere. Too lazy to fact check. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernie5 Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 This was basically Denver's rationale for not working out a new deal for Portis (because they feared it would send the wrong message to lesser players). While I respect Denver's dedication to their salary system, I think that exceptions are made and the message is "Yeah, but you're not Clinton Portis." It's not that hard. Portis, with this Denver team (a very mediocre QB w/aging receivers and O-line) was the sun and the moon. Davis had Elway and a much younger Rod Smith/Ed McCaffrey/Shannon Sharpe. Anderson and Gray had Smith & McCaffrey and a still quick O-line. Portis got sloppy seconds and outran all of them (except Davis). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fiddler Posted March 9, 2004 Share Posted March 9, 2004 You know, I would buy the Broncos' explanation that they didn't want to send the wrong message to their other players if they hadn't renegotiated Terrell Davis' contract two years early! 5.5 ypc is sick. When Davis went over 2000 yards in 1998 he averaged "only" 5.1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.