2016 Sanchez or Lynch is not 2015 PMF

[cdumler7]

All I can say to that..... You use probably the best QB/Coach tandem to ever play the game and a rookie that threw for over 4000 yds and 22 tds. Not your most endearing examples. You can do better Cd. Give me some playoff teams from 2015 that had the subpar qb/good running game scenario my friend.

Are you just ignoring the fact that the LA Rams were a top-10 rushing team? They had worse QB play than us and yet had a great rushing attack. How about the Vikings. Bridgewater was a bottom half of the league QB with I think the 3rd fewest touchdown passes and yet produced a top-10 rushing attack. You don't have to have great QB play to have a great run game. Yes it can help but it is not necessary.

 

[cdumler7]

PS. Denver's run to the SB and how they did it is`nt exactly the formula your going want to use or to be able to sustain. It was an amazing conundrum of scenarios that had to happen for them to achieve that. Your "formula" isn`t going to have the end results like Denver achieved this past year with any consistency. It was a unbelievable accomplishment. Rare indeed.

I'm not saying the Broncos should rely on the formula they used this past year. I'm just not of the notion that they have to have top-10 QB play to still do great. They still have a ton of playmakers on both sides of the ball and if they can get a top-10 rushing attack to go along with a top-5 defense I think that is plenty.

 

[randymon]

Are you just ignoring the fact that the LA Rams were a top-10 rushing team? They had worse QB play than us and yet had a great rushing attack. How about the Vikings. Bridgewater was a bottom half of the league QB with I think the 3rd fewest touchdown passes and yet produced a top-10 rushing attack. You don't have to have great QB play to have a great run game. Yes it can help but it is not necessary.

And what was the end result for them? If your saying teams can still win games with that kind of " recipe ", your right. If you say it will get them to a SB, which last time I checked was the ultimate goal in the NFL, then I'll politely and respectively disagree. You seem to be pounding the drum for a philosophy that could work if everything else fits perfect,but not one that has historically been proven to get a team a Lombardi. Your underestimating the overall achievements and circumstances Denver overcame to pull that SB off. It defied the norm by any standards in this league. So many things had to occur for this mostly inept offense to NOT lose games even with maybe the best defense I've ever had the pleasure of watching. I want to jump on your enthusiastic,positive thinking,slightly fanatical optimism " wagon " but I just can't.

 

[WalkerBoh]

All I can say to that..... You use probably the best QB/Coach tandem to ever play the game and a rookie that threw for over 4000 yds and 22 tds. Not your most endearing examples. You can do better Cd. Give me some playoff teams from 2015 that had the subpar qb/good running game scenario my friend.

Probably because he just shot more holes into your argument than a donut shop.

 

[iknowftbll]

And what was the end result for them? If your saying teams can still win games with that kind of " recipe ", your right. If you say it will get them to a SB, which last time I checked was the ultimate goal in the NFL, then I'll politely and respectively disagree. You seem to be pounding the drum for a philosophy that could work if everything else fits perfect,but not one that has historically been proven to get a team a Lombardi. Your underestimating the overall achievements and circumstances Denver overcame to pull that SB off. It defied the norm by any standards in this league. So many things had to occur for this mostly inept offense to NOT lose games even with maybe the best defense I've ever had the pleasure of watching. I want to jump on your enthusiastic,positive thinking,slightly fanatical optimism " wagon " but I just can't.

But he's not arguing production from the offense can be the same in 2016. He's arguing that with Sanchez or Lynch (and even Siemian shouldn't be counted out at this point) the QB production will be significantly improved and that combined with the team's commitment to the run game the offense will be a lot better. This is a reasonable expectation.

I don't think anyone thinks we can look the way we did on offense last year and expect a repeat. I think the prevailing narrative is that the offense will improve by being fully transitioned (those words can mean quite a bit in this day and age) into a Kubiak offense with the right players and the right skill sets to make it happen.

 

[58crash]

This years O should Score around 27 points a game and burn the hell out of the clock .. Leaving the D out on the field half the amount of time it was last year .

 

[cdumler7]

And what was the end result for them? If your saying teams can still win games with that kind of " recipe ", your right. If you say it will get them to a SB, which last time I checked was the ultimate goal in the NFL, then I'll politely and respectively disagree. You seem to be pounding the drum for a philosophy that could work if everything else fits perfect,but not one that has historically been proven to get a team a Lombardi. Your underestimating the overall achievements and circumstances Denver overcame to pull that SB off. It defied the norm by any standards in this league. So many things had to occur for this mostly inept offense to NOT lose games even with maybe the best defense I've ever had the pleasure of watching. I want to jump on your enthusiastic,positive thinking,slightly fanatical optimism " wagon " but I just can't.

And you are pounding the table for a philosophy that also requires everything to work perfectly. You say Great QB play is a must but plenty of great QB's have fallen short every single year. Heck Brady was the 2nd best QB in the league this past year and he showed he can't do it on his own when he ran into the Broncos twice falling short against us and our defense. The MVP of the league struggled in the Super Bowl when met with an elite defense. Same thing happened to us in 2013 with Manning having the best QB season ever yet fell short.

What I am saying is that there are many paths in how to win a Super Bowl. We have seen elite QB's go out and be a big reason their team won. We have seen elite defenses win it. We have seen great running attacks show up and win it. Heck wouldn't you say that in the 97-98 seasons when we won Super Bowls that the offense was more centered around the run game than that of the passing game. Teams obviously still respected the passing game because of Elway and his big arm but it was Davis in my opinion that was the MVP of those 2 teams.

And again my talking about the run game is just to show that teams can have success without great QB play. The Vikings again are the perfect example. Bridgewater was a below average QB this past year yet with a great defense and great running attack they actually won their division that was one of the tougher in the NFL this past season. Now that doesn't mean we will win the Super Bowl but honestly to me while yes winning the Super Bowl is the ultimate goal we have seen that winning it is extremely difficult. The first goal is about making the playoffs and we are talking about what will it take for our Broncos to once again make the playoffs. Well to me instead of focusing so much on the QB position (not saying it doesn't have value) I am focusing on the run game and wanting to see this team become a top-10 rushing team this upcoming season to pair with our elite defense.

 

[randymon]

Probably because he just shot more holes into your argument than a donut shop.

Geez! What took you so long Walker ?

 

[randymon]

And you are pounding the table for a philosophy that also requires everything to work perfectly. You say Great QB play is a must but plenty of great QB's have fallen short every single year. Heck Brady was the 2nd best QB in the league this past year and he showed he can't do it on his own when he ran into the Broncos twice falling short against us and our defense. The MVP of the league struggled in the Super Bowl when met with an elite defense. Same thing happened to us in 2013 with Manning having the best QB season ever yet fell short.

What I am saying is that there are many paths in how to win a Super Bowl. We have seen elite QB's go out and be a big reason their team won. We have seen elite defenses win it. We have seen great running attacks show up and win it. Heck wouldn't you say that in the 97-98 seasons when we won Super Bowls that the offense was more centered around the run game than that of the passing game. Teams obviously still respected the passing game because of Elway and his big arm but it was Davis in my opinion that was the MVP of those 2 teams.

And again my talking about the run game is just to show that teams can have success without great QB play. The Vikings again are the perfect example. Bridgewater was a below average QB this past year yet with a great defense and great running attack they actually won their division that was one of the tougher in the NFL this past season. Now that doesn't mean we will win the Super Bowl but honestly to me while yes winning the Super Bowl is the ultimate goal we have seen that winning it is extremely difficult. The first goal is about making the playoffs and we are talking about what will it take for our Broncos to once again make the playoffs. Well to me instead of focusing so much on the QB position (not saying it doesn't have value) I am focusing on the run game and wanting to see this team become a top-10 rushing team this upcoming season to pair with our elite defense.

Whoa now. Let's not forget the keyword you used that inspired my posts. You said a team can have a great running game with " subpar " Qb play. Last time I checked subpar meant below average. I never said "great " Qb play either. I said they need a Qb that D`s will respect and thus the running game can work. I really don`t see how a "subpar" Qb fits in that category. If you would of said" efficient" Qb or even "Average Qb play, no argument here. Thus, I will stick to my points that below avg ( subpar) Qb is going to hinder your running game more often than not. Maybe you want to apologize for using the wrong term. Have a nice day

 

[Broncos6482]

Just a couple of points to add to the conversation.

• I reject the notion that if the offense doesn't perform at a higher level the defense will get upset and cause a divide in the locker room. The qb situation last year was the perfect recipe to cause a divided locker room, and it didn't happen. Why? Because the coaches handled it extremely well, the Broncos had good veteran leadership that didn't allow it to become an issue, and the team was winning. I don't see any of those things changing enough this year to cause an issue. Besides, have you seen some of the things the defense has been saying? They've still got a chip on their shoulder about all the talk that they won't be very good next year. They're super motivated to prove all that wrong.
• Some of you need to separate Peyton Manning the name from Peyton Manning the qb last year. Peyton Manning is undoubtedly one of the greatest quarterbacks the NFL has ever seen. By the same token, Peyton Manning was one of the worst quarterbacks in the NFL last season, and the Broncos offense was one of the worst in the league as well. All this talk about Manning's mind being great and how he got the Broncos into the right play is great, but it didn't actually translate to a successful offense most of the time. Sure, there were moments of greatness, but overall the offense was bad, and Manning was part of the reason it was bad. I don't expect a new qb to come in and duplicate the Broncos 2013 offensive success, but it's certainly reasonable to expect a better offensive performance than last season with the revamped offensive line, extra year in the system, and yes, better qb, whether that be Sanchez, Lynch, or Siemian.

 

[Broncos6482]

Whoa now. Let's not forget the keyword you used that inspired my posts. You said a team can have a great running game with " subpar " Qb play. Last time I checked subpar meant below average. I never said "great " Qb play either. I said they need a Qb that D`s will respect and thus the running game can work. I really don`t see how a "subpar" Qb fits in that category. If you would of said" efficient" Qb or even "Average Qb play, no argument here. Thus, I will stick to my points that below avg ( subpar) Qb is going to hinder your running game more often than not. Maybe you want to apologize for using the wrong term. Have a nice day

The Rams had a great running game last year, and they certainly had subpar qb play.

But of course having a bad qb can hinder your running game. We saw that last year with Manning.

 

[randymon]

The Rams had a great running game last year, and they certainly had subpar qb play.

But of course having a bad qb can hinder your running game. We saw that last year with Manning.

What was Rams record?

 

[Broncos6482]

What was Rams record?

7-9. Does that negate the fact that they had a great running game with terrible qb play?

 

[cdumler7]

What was Rams record?

Ok what about the Vikings? Bridgewater finished 22nd in yards, 17th in yards per attempt, 26th in touchdowns thrown, 22nd in QB Rating, and was sacked the 6th most times in the league. All Sub Par stats at the QB position and yet they won their division and should have won a playoff game if the kicker didn't blow maybe the easiest missed field goal in a playoff game in history.

 

[cdumler7]

7-9. Does that negate the fact that they had a great running game with terrible qb play?

This right here. I mostly mentioned the Rams as one could argue they had worse QB play than us and yet still had a very good Running Attack.

Here is the thing Randymon we have 2 separate arguments going here and you seem to keep flipping between the two to fit your storyline.

The first being that you need even an average QB to have a great running game. No you do not. Plenty of teams have had great running attacks while having terrible QB play. Heck Adrian Peterson rushed for 2000 yards with down right terrible QB play just a few years ago.

The second being can you win with a great running attack and a strong defense. Well again I think the Vikings have shown you can win games doing just that. The Seahawks won a Super Bowl with that exact game plan. The Panthers this past year were a top-3 rushing team with a strong defense. Now you can say those teams had great QB's which is true but they still leaned more on the running game than they did their QB throwing the football. Actually since 2012 a team that finished top-5 in rushing has made the Super Bowl. It is why I would say our best chance to repeat is more about the run game and getting it going than about having great QB play.

All of this Randymon is not me saying that we can just easily go out and win with subpar QB play though. I do agree we need a bit more from the QB position. I just don't think it is all about the QB and how they perform that will determine how our team will do this upcoming season.

 

[iknowftbll]

All of this Randymon is not me saying that we can just easily go out and win with subpar QB play though. I do agree we need a bit more from the QB position. I just don't think it is all about the QB and how they perform that will determine how our team will do this upcoming season.

If I may take this point to the next level, the argument from me is that the improved running game will be an enabler to improved QB play, even from QBs who do not have the pedigree of Peyton Manning.

 

[cdumler7]

If I may take this point to the next level, the argument from me is that the improved running game will be an enabler to improved QB play, even from QBs who do not have the pedigree of Peyton Manning.

Good point. I honestly think beyond Kubiak's system being QB friendly this is a big reason so many QB's do find success in Kubiak's system because he creates such a dangerous run game that defenses have to respect. Creates a lot more one on one opportunities when teams are having to commit more players to the box. Think of the fact that we might just see more 2-TE plus FB formations. Teams will have to stay in base formation in fear of us just pounding the ball down the field but yet still having a great threat with the passing game having our top-2 WR's, 2 receiving options at TE, and even a FB that I think could be a great receiving threat and great in the open field as well. Throw in most teams in their base formation have linebackers that struggle to cover. Gives us some very nice mismatches.

 

[Broncos6482]

Good point. I honestly think beyond Kubiak's system being QB friendly this is a big reason so many QB's do find success in Kubiak's system because he creates such a dangerous run game that defenses have to respect. Creates a lot more one on one opportunities when teams are having to commit more players to the box. Think of the fact that we might just see more 2-TE plus FB formations. Teams will have to stay in base formation in fear of us just pounding the ball down the field but yet still having a great threat with the passing game having our top-2 WR's, 2 receiving options at TE, and even a FB that I think could be a great receiving threat and great in the open field as well. Throw in most teams in their base formation have linebackers that struggle to cover. Gives us some very nice mismatches.

To go along with this, a big part of Kubiak's attack is the stretch play, and the qb boot off of it. But everyone knew Manning wasn't a threat to bootleg (the Broncos ran it occasionally, but not enough to actually threaten teams with it), so they didn't bother defending it. So that meant defenses just keyed on the stretch run, which obviously makes it easier to stop.

But with a qb that can actually move around, if defenses don't respect the bootleg, that opens up a huge hole on the backside. Now if you can threaten teams with the bootleg, they have to leave a guy back there to defend it, which of course means one less guy to block on the run, and means you're more likely to open up a whole for the running back to cut through.

These things go hand in hand, but the Broncos couldn't really implement it like they wanted to last year because Manning just didn't have the physical skills to pull it off. So what we got instead was a bastardized hybrid system that didn't fully fit what Manning felt comfortable doing or allow Kubiak to do what he did. Combine that with injuries to the offensive line and Manning's declining skills and it's no wonder the offense struggled as much as it did. Frankly it's a miracle it performed well enough (along with the defense doing most of the heavy lifting obviously) for the team to win the Super Bowl.

 

[cdumler7]

To go along with this, a big part of Kubiak's attack is the stretch play, and the qb boot off of it. But everyone knew Manning wasn't a threat to bootleg (the Broncos ran it occasionally, but not enough to actually threaten teams with it), so they didn't bother defending it. So that meant defenses just keyed on the stretch run, which obviously makes it easier to stop.

But with a qb that can actually move around, if defenses don't respect the bootleg, that opens up a huge hole on the backside. Now if you can threaten teams with the bootleg, they have to leave a guy back there to defend it, which of course means one less guy to block on the run, and means you're more likely to open up a whole for the running back to cut through.

These things go hand in hand, but the Broncos couldn't really implement it like they wanted to last year because Manning just didn't have the physical skills to pull it off. So what we got instead was a bastardized hybrid system that didn't fully fit what Manning felt comfortable doing or allow Kubiak to do what he did. Combine that with injuries to the offensive line and Manning's declining skills and it's no wonder the offense struggled as much as it did. Frankly it's a miracle it performed well enough (along with the defense doing most of the heavy lifting obviously) for the team to win the Super Bowl.

Exactly. That hybrid system should have been scrapped from the beginning. They either needed to fully commit to Kubiak's system or Manning's. The offense would have definitely functioned better. It definitely was not a perfect marriage between Kubiak and Manning. Now that we can actually run Kubiak's system I definitely expect the OL to look much better just by having consistency in what we are doing. I also expect the run game to take off because of that fact and like you said the threat of a bootleg play off the stretch run. Even if we only run that bootleg once a game the threat of it is so great for a huge play down the field that teams have to respect it. Randymon is talking about the threat of a passing game well there you go. Even with a below average QB if they can get to the edge and make the decision of who to throw to of the maybe 3 routes that are being run to that side of the field it will definitely back off defenders a bit plus keep that backside DE from crashing the backside cut lane for the RB.

 

[CEH]

The premise of the thread was that Manning's bad QB play was never an issue in the locker room because of his reverence for the game and the man himself. Also his mind more than made up for his bad play. Tomlin quoted this in the playoff game and the DC in San Diego said after the last game that Denver ran a simple offense with Brock and that they never had to check out of a play on Defense because of the way Kubiak called the game. Once Manning came in, they had to make real-time adjustments. I'd expect a simple offense with Lynch and this will propagate to a simple defensive plan for the defenses against our offense.