Foster a 1 year wonder?

[DocBar]

Originally Posted by badboy

WHen Gary was hired everyone talked about him bringing the Denver offense (ZBS) with him. I think Gibbs offense was a hybrid or a bit different than Denver's sort of like Wade's 3-4 is different than others.

Originally Posted by The Pencil Neck

At first, we used a hybrid/mix of the zone because of Sherman. When Gibbs came, we went to a more pure version of it. I think it took us a couple of seasons for our o-line to grow into it and then a little bit of time to find the right RBs for it; I don't think Slaton was originally the right guy but I think he's gotten better at the Zone system by watching how Foster and Ward read their blocks.

It seems like we did better after Gibbs left. That's just my opinion on that. Running back in the NFL is the 2nd biggest crapshoot in the NFL after drafting a QB in the top 10. Until Foster does it for 2 years. he IS a one year wonder. Those are just the facts, ma'am. If he does it for 2 years, give him a hell of a pay raise. Don't get all stupid with it, but give the man a multiyear deal with incentives. RB contracts need to be progressive and incentive laden. They can tail off in one year and your stuck with a huge amount of dead cap room if you're not careful. Three years of solid production ~1250 yds +, pay the man. He earned it to pay for the crippled life he'll lead after the NFL. The number of touches a RB receives in the NFL are a very direct indicator for the career span of the RB. The more touches per year, the faster they tend to burn out.

[The Pencil Neck]

Originally Posted by DocBar

It seems like we did better after Gibbs left. That's just my opinion on that. Running back in the NFL is the 2nd biggest crapshoot in the NFL after drafting a QB in the top 10. Until Foster does it for 2 years. he IS a one year wonder. Those are just the facts, ma'am. If he does it for 2 years, give him a hell of a pay raise. Don't get all stupid with it, but give the man a multiyear deal with incentives. RB contracts need to be progressive and incentive laden. They can tail off in one year and your stuck with a huge amount of dead cap room if you're not careful. Three years of solid production ~1250 yds +, pay the man. He earned it to pay for the crippled life he'll lead after the NFL. The number of touches a RB receives in the NFL are a very direct indicator for the career span of the RB. The more touches per year, the faster they tend to burn out.

I've got no disagreement with the fact that Foster might be a 1 year wonder.

On the team getting better after Gibbs left, yes. I think they did. But I think it's because Dennison runs the same line concept as Gibbs so the OL had continuity even with Gibbs' departure.

[DocBar]

Originally Posted by The Pencil Neck

I've got no disagreement with the fact that Foster might be a 1 year wonder.

On the team getting better after Gibbs left, yes. I think they did. But I think it's because Dennison runs the same line concept as Gibbs so the OL had continuity even with Gibbs' departure.

I just found it odd that we were markedly better after Gibbs left. A lot of that can be credited to Dennison but I think a lot of it has to do with the continuity of personnel. The same guys have played the same scheme for a few years now. The OL is usually the tightest group on a team.

[The Pencil Neck]

Originally Posted by DocBar

I just found it odd that we were markedly better after Gibbs left. A lot of that can be credited to Dennison but I think a lot of it has to do with the continuity of personnel. The same guys have played the same scheme for a few years now. The OL is usually the tightest group on a team.

With the addition of Wade Smith at Guard instead of Pitts/Studdard.

[DocBar]

Originally Posted by The Pencil Neck

With the addition of Wade Smith at Guard instead of Pitts/Studdard.

Very true...very true...That was '09 right?

[The Pencil Neck]

Originally Posted by DocBar

Very true...very true...That was '09 right?

We added Smith in 2010.

[thunderkyss]

Originally Posted by DocBar

It seems like we did better after Gibbs left. That's just my opinion on that.

We've been doing much better since Gibbs & Pitts left. I think the biggest difference is that we don't pull the LG as much as we used to & Winston is taking care of his assignments on the backside of running plays.

We're more pure ZBS since Gibbs & Pitts left.

Coincidence?

Ω

[thunderkyss]

Originally Posted by The Pencil Neck

I've got no disagreement with the fact that Foster might be a 1 year wonder.

On the team getting better after Gibbs left, yes. I think they did. But I think it's because Dennison runs the same line concept as Gibbs so the OL had continuity even with Gibbs' departure.

Watch Seattle, let's see what they do.

I think Gibbs has gotten away from what made him successful, maybe buying into the hype of the new NFL & all that.

I agree that Dennison was a big help in developing our line, but I think it's because he's more like Kubiak than Gibbs.