PDA

View Full Version : If we take Dez Bryant, Marshall will have to go.



broncobryce
04-03-2010, 11:51 AM
If we take Dez as a lot of mocks have us doing (not sure how I feel about this), there is no way we let Marshall stick around. They would probably buddy up and Brandon would be a terrible influence on Dez. Plus if he made more than Brandon I think that would piss him off too.
Waiting on this draft is killing me.

Broncolingus
04-03-2010, 12:02 PM
...some feel BM has to to regardless.

I don't know...I'm not totally sold on Dez at this point.

Not really for or against, just need more 'info.'

http://unrealitymag.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/dr_evil.jpg

CrazyHorse
04-03-2010, 04:37 PM
Why not keep them both. Let's build the best young group of receivers in the league.

Rick
04-03-2010, 04:40 PM
Why not keep Marshall, throw more to Royal, still have one of the best WR corps, then use the first rounder on OL/DL...

turftoad
04-03-2010, 04:45 PM
If we take Dez as a lot of mocks have us doing (not sure how I feel about this), there is no way we let Marshall stick around. They would probably buddy up and Brandon would be a terrible influence on Dez. Plus if he made more than Brandon I think that would piss him off too.
Waiting on this draft is killing me.

Dez Bryant has not played one, not one down in the NFL. He may not be anything in this league. He's proven nothing as of yet.
That said, we won't take him unless there is already a deal in place for Marshall.
I'd rather keep a productive proven WR and hope he grows up like Bowlen thinks he has.

EMB6903
04-03-2010, 05:19 PM
Whether Marshall stays or not I'd rather wait it out i until next year with a much more talented WR class.

As good as Tate was at ND he still wasnt the best WR on his team. Michael Floyd is a freak talent. AJ Green and Julio Jones are most certainly going to enter as well. Those 3 alone I think are just as good if not better prospects then Dez Bryant.

topscribe
04-03-2010, 05:26 PM
Great . . . we can give a proven talent with issues the boot . . .

In favor of an unproven talent with issues . . . :tsk:

-----

Ziggy
04-03-2010, 05:40 PM
Marshall may very well be traded without us even sniffing Bryant. I don't think that Dez is even on the radar. Just a guess on my part. Having a star wide receiver is not nearly important as having a solid line on both sides of the ball. If we get rid of Marshall, build the lines, and don't take a receiver, I have no problem with it.

NittanyBuff24
04-03-2010, 05:52 PM
If BM is going to be traded because he is a cancer, trouble maker etc.. why in the world would anyone possibly want Bryant, kid has been nothing but trouble and hasnt even made it to the league yet!

Lancane
04-03-2010, 05:59 PM
The offensive unit in 2009 was mediocre in so many aspects that the loss of Marshall could well have a catastrophic impact. He was Orton's best target, and had a career year and that's because Kyle had no other weapons, with people already questioning not only Orton's capability but also McDaniels as a head coach...

We needed more offensive weapons regardless, that was a given...the unit was worse in total yards and offensive scoring then the unit fielded in 2008. With the loss of Marshall we'll need to draft at least two receivers, though I have a sinking feeling we may also grab a third near the end of the draft as well. We need at least two offensive lineman and are likely to add more running back help; that's most of our draft picks and our defense is in dire need of youth. I already believe we will trade down in round one...but not sure that McDaniels will be able to do much to help his career if the offensive side of the ball does not improve this season.

Northman
04-03-2010, 06:24 PM
If we take Dez as a lot of mocks have us doing (not sure how I feel about this), there is no way we let Marshall stick around. They would probably buddy up and Brandon would be a terrible influence on Dez. Plus if he made more than Brandon I think that would piss him off too.
Waiting on this draft is killing me.

1) Mocks are not the definitive end all to what teams select in the draft. So im not putting a whole lot of stock with any mock draft. Nothing ever goes exactly the way sites usually publish it.
2) There are so many possibilities of Marshall coming or going that anything can make sense.
3) Dont think that even if Denver somehow drafts Bryant that Marshall will be gone. Denver isnt paying that much for Marshall to be on the roster and thus would not be affected that much salaray wise. And considering that Marshall isnt getting paid a whole lot means that Marshall will at least be on the sidelines or used as a decoy. He cannot afford to miss a lot of games without losing some money.
4) Bryant will most certainly get paid more than Brandon just based off being a first rounder.

At most the worse that can happen with Brandon is he decides to be his usual self and cause disruption in the lockerroom and on gameday. But, McD doesnt seem to be afraid of drama so im not worried about that aspect of it. But financially Denver doesnt need to do anything with Brandon if they draft Bryant. But, i would most certainly prefer them go with either offensive or defensive lines.

silkamilkamonico
04-03-2010, 07:01 PM
I like Bryant and I think he's going to be good. That aside, I'm deathly afraid of what our WR unit is going to look like if we lose Marshall, and then don't get Bryant.

Gaffney/Royal/Stokley/McKinley + whatever no playing rookie we draft later?

Ugh.

broncobryce
04-03-2010, 08:21 PM
1) Mocks are not the definitive end all to what teams select in the draft. So im not putting a whole lot of stock with any mock draft. Nothing ever goes exactly the way sites usually publish it.
2) There are so many possibilities of Marshall coming or going that anything can make sense.
3) Dont think that even if Denver somehow drafts Bryant that Marshall will be gone. Denver isnt paying that much for Marshall to be on the roster and thus would not be affected that much salaray wise. And considering that Marshall isnt getting paid a whole lot means that Marshall will at least be on the sidelines or used as a decoy. He cannot afford to miss a lot of games without losing some money.
4) Bryant will most certainly get paid more than Brandon just based off being a first rounder.

At most the worse that can happen with Brandon is he decides to be his usual self and cause disruption in the lockerroom and on gameday. But, McD doesnt seem to be afraid of drama so im not worried about that aspect of it. But financially Denver doesnt need to do anything with Brandon if they draft Bryant. But, i would most certainly prefer them go with either offensive or defensive lines.

I know that a mock isn't fact, obviously I'm going on IF it happens. But I disagree with you on that's the worst that can happen. Dez Bryant and Marshall appear to both have some maturity issues, and if Brandon starts telling him bad things about McD, and the team in general he could turn him against the team too.
So if Denver isn't paying Brandon much, you think they don't care how he acts? They wouldn't care if he is skipping practice and being an overall cancer to the team because they aren't paying him much?

Northman
04-03-2010, 08:31 PM
I know that a mock isn't fact, obviously I'm going on IF it happens. But I disagree with you on that's the worst that can happen. Dez Bryant and Marshall appear to both have some maturity issues, and if Brandon starts telling him bad things about McD, and the team in general he could turn him against the team too.
So if Denver isn't paying Brandon much, you think they don't care how he acts? They wouldn't care if he is skipping practice and being an overall cancer to the team because they aren't paying him much?

It wouldnt be much different than how Brandon is acting now and all McD did was sit the guy. Not much would change in my opinion. As for the team up of Dez and Brandon thats certainly a plausible theory but highly unlikely as Dez would be talking to McD before talking to Brandon. I mean, if Dez is that much of a lemming that he would automatically join the guy who he would be competing time with than that doesnt say very much for Dez in general. I would think i would give him a little more credit than that. Also, if Dez is getting paid big bucks being a first round choice why would he care about another player who is trying to get the same payday and take balls away from him? That senario just isnt highly likely to me. If Dez is getting paid he could care less about Brandon's whining. :lol:

UnderArmour
04-03-2010, 09:24 PM
Great . . . we can give a proven talent with issues the boot . . .

In favor of an unproven talent with issues . . . :tsk:

-----

Dez Bryant has no issues whatsoever. It's just a bunch of bullshit being spread by teams to lower his draft stock so they can grab him. He had lunch with Deion Sanders, big deal. Game film wise, he's a top 5 player in the draft. I'd love to grab him if he's on the board.

TimTebow15MVP
04-04-2010, 04:17 AM
No if we take bryant marshall needs to stay, because this offense lacks play makers, And im sure marshall will be taking our rookie wide out and being a bad influence on them the way hes done eddie royal and kenny mckinnely huh?

this offense better take bryant or spiller at 11, 11 is too high to draft a Olinemen that doesnt play tackle. mike iupati is just one of the dominant guards in this class so i wouldnt even dare drafting him at 11. when you can get 3 other great guards in round 2 or 3.

McDaniels probably knows he needs more play makers also and will adress this. Its impossible to have 10-15 play 85 yard drives consistantly. You need guys who can take that 5 yard catch and take it 60 or that RB that can come in and pop one wide open for 50. Marshalls not even a deep threat but hes a play maker. Hes not gonna take a short catch for 50 plus yards either so while hes a beast and a play maker hes not a true play maker IMO.

Eddie Royal is our only true play maker on this offense and he needs to work on getting off the jam because last year teams got physical on the line with eddie and you see what happend/. im sure eddie will come back better though with his work ethic but yeah hes our only true play maker on offense.

if im denver im drafting bryant or spiller and trying to keep marshall also.

TimTebow15MVP
04-04-2010, 04:20 AM
Were wasting our times drafting defensive players that wont even play. lol where will they play unless we get somebody like berry which probably wont happen where will a DLinemen play on a Dl that already has 8 players. where will a LB play on a LB core that consist of 10 players? Broncos can add defensive depth later in the draft. the first 5 picks atleast 4 of them should be offense. One Center and the rest play makers for the offense/

topscribe
04-04-2010, 10:26 AM
Dez Bryant has no issues whatsoever. It's just a bunch of bullshit being spread by teams to lower his draft stock so they can grab him. He had lunch with Deion Sanders, big deal. Game film wise, he's a top 5 player in the draft. I'd love to grab him if he's on the board.

Bryant is still unproven.

Marcus Nash also had no issues and was very highly regarded.

I saw a bunch of Marshall highlights last night. I want him to stay. Bad.

And I want a stellar C or OG. Bad.

-----

topscribe
04-04-2010, 10:36 AM
No if we take bryant marshall needs to stay, because this offense lacks play makers, And im sure marshall will be taking our rookie wide out and being a bad influence on them the way hes done eddie royal and kenny mckinnely huh?

this offense better take bryant or spiller at 11, 11 is too high to draft a Olinemen that doesnt play tackle. mike iupati is just one of the dominant guards in this class so i wouldnt even dare drafting him at 11. when you can get 3 other great guards in round 2 or 3.

McDaniels probably knows he needs more play makers also and will adress this. Its impossible to have 10-15 play 85 yard drives consistantly. You need guys who can take that 5 yard catch and take it 60 or that RB that can come in and pop one wide open for 50. Marshalls not even a deep threat but hes a play maker. Hes not gonna take a short catch for 50 plus yards either so while hes a beast and a play maker hes not a true play maker IMO.

Eddie Royal is our only true play maker on this offense and he needs to work on getting off the jam because last year teams got physical on the line with eddie and you see what happend/. im sure eddie will come back better though with his work ethic but yeah hes our only true play maker on offense.

if im denver im drafting bryant or spiller and trying to keep marshall also.

I watched a whole bunch of 2009 highlights yesterday. I came away with
this list of playmakers:

Kyle Orton
Knowshon Moreno
Correll Buckhalter
Brandon Marshall
Eddie Royal
Jabar Gaffney
Tony Scheffler

I don't care what anybody says: The Broncos are loaded with talent at the
skill positions.

They need help on the line. Who cares whether #11 is considered appropriate
for an offensive lineman? The name of the game is WIN. If a Iupati or Pouncey
can bring us more wins because they give us a great line, then take him.
Games are won in the lines. Anybody who knows football will tell you that.

I don't care whether or not the choice is "sexy." I care about whether it
improves the team's chances of winning.

-----

broncobryce
04-04-2010, 10:44 AM
I think a great O-lineman can be a play maker too. If he opens a hole that let's the RB go 70 yards, that's making a play. That said, it did appear we need a deep threat. Unless Royal can become that guy.
I hope some of you are right that Dez and Brandon can work together and Brandon not rub off on him. Eddie Royal is a first class guy, Dez and Brandon have similar backgrounds from what I heard. Dez Bryant went to hang out with Pacman at his workout. I don't know, it just worries me a bit because I'm tired of all the drama with Marshall, he's too good for that shit.

Nomad
04-04-2010, 10:51 AM
I think a great O-lineman can be a play maker too. If he opens a hole that let's the RB go 70 yards, that's making a play. That said, it did appear we need a deep threat. Unless Royal can become that guy.
I hope some of you are right that Dez and Brandon can work together and Brandon not rub off on him. Eddie Royal is a first class guy, Dez and Brandon have similar backgrounds from what I heard. Dez Bryant went to hang out with Pacman at his workout. I don't know, it just worries me a bit because I'm tired of all the drama with Marshall, he's too good for that shit.

If you get an olineman at 11 and he comes in and makes an immediate impact and fixes the weakness then he is worth the pick. He'll come and open the game for the offense! It starts up front and you're team is only as strong as your line, no matter whose at QB or WO or RB

topscribe
04-04-2010, 10:54 AM
I think a great O-lineman can be a play maker too. If he opens a hole that let's the RB go 70 yards, that's making a play. That said, it did appear we need a deep threat. Unless Royal can become that guy.
I hope some of you are right that Dez and Brandon can work together and Brandon not rub off on him. Eddie Royal is a first class guy, Dez and Brandon have similar backgrounds from what I heard. Dez Bryant went to hang out with Pacman at his workout. I don't know, it just worries me a bit because I'm tired of all the drama with Marshall, he's too good for that shit.

Remember, back in the '90s, the Broncos did not have a legitimate "deep
threat," either. They just had one of the most explosive offenses in football,
that's all.

Bryant doesn't have eye-popping speed, either. Far as I can see, what we
would be getting at best is another Brandon Marshall . . . but would he have
the same results on the field? See, that's something we don't know, and that
makes me a bit uncomfortable.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I would much rather keep Marshall and concentrate on
the O-line first.

-----

Nomad
04-04-2010, 10:56 AM
I watched a whole bunch of 2009 highlights yesterday. I came away with
this list of playmakers:

Kyle Orton
Knowshon Moreno
Correll Buckhalter
Brandon Marshall
Eddie Royal
Jabar Gaffney
Tony Scheffler

I don't care what anybody says: The Broncos are loaded with talent at the
skill positions.

They need help on the line. Who cares whether #11 is considered appropriate
for an offensive lineman? The name of the game is WIN. If a Iupati or Pouncey
can bring us more wins because they give us a great line, then take him.
Games are won in the lines. Anybody who knows football will tell you that.

I don't care whether or not the choice is "sexy." I care about whether it
improves the team's chances of winning.

-----

I didn't see your post but you explain it better!:D And spot on!!

BigBroncLove
04-04-2010, 02:34 PM
Bryant is still unproven.

Marcus Nash also had no issues and was very highly regarded.

I saw a bunch of Marshall highlights last night. I want him to stay. Bad.

And I want a stellar C or OG. Bad.

-----

Oh man, Marcus Nash :2thumbsdown: .... what a terrible pick he was. Played only a few games, and little production to show on each of them. Him and Middlebrooks make me cringe when i think of busted first rounders.

Brand
04-04-2010, 04:34 PM
I agree. Get Bulaga if he's there. Or Williams (T) if he's there. Williams can play G. Tennant in Round 2, and the Broncos would make hay in the Division for sure.

Too much is made of the "deep threat" idea. Those sorts of plays don't happen as much as people think or would wish. The 10-20 yard run is a killer to most Ds. The 10-25 yard pass play is the sign of a great O.

Do the Oline and fill in with backups to the rest of the team, and I think the Broncos can be tough to deal with this year. Maybe not the SB, but the Playoffs and then some......

topscribe
04-04-2010, 05:04 PM
I agree. Get Bulaga if he's there. Or Williams (T) if he's there. Williams can play G. Tennant in Round 2, and the Broncos would make hay in the Division for sure.

Too much is made of the "deep threat" idea. Those sorts of plays don't happen as much as people think or would wish. The 10-20 yard run is a killer to most Ds. The 10-25 yard pass play is the sign of a great O.

Do the Oline and fill in with backups to the rest of the team, and I think the Broncos can be tough to deal with this year. Maybe not the SB, but the Playoffs and then some......

How many times did we see Rod Smith and Ed McCaffrey get behind the defense?

Did anyone see the long TDs to Marshall? How about the final KC game, where
Gaffney twice got the best of the defense for 50+ yards, one a completion and
the other drawing a defensive interference call?

Speed is great if it belongs to a receiver who is good at the other things a
receiver is supposed to do. Ashley Lelie was hell on wheels for speed. The
previously mentioned Marcus Nash was fast. Oh yes, and remember the
speedster Javon Walker? So who have been our premier receivers? Oh, "slow"
Rod Smith, even slower Ed McCaffrey, and now ol' slow Brandon Marshall.

Eddie Royal is fast. So is Kenny McKinley. And Scheffler has proven he can be a
terror in the deep middle. Why not work on what we have and build a line that
will give Orton more time to get the ball to them and to get them open deep?

IMHO

-----

BroncoAV06
04-04-2010, 05:40 PM
Remember, back in the '90s, the Broncos did not have a legitimate "deep
threat," either. They just had one of the most explosive offenses in football,
that's all.

Bryant doesn't have eye-popping speed, either. Far as I can see, what we
would be getting at best is another Brandon Marshall . . . but would he have
the same results on the field? See, that's something we don't know, and that
makes me a bit uncomfortable.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I would much rather keep Marshall and concentrate on
the O-line first.

-----

Back in the 90's we also had John Elway running the offense.

The reason the "mocks" have us taking Bryant is because they are assuming that Marshall will be gone. I understand the tension, coach McD wants his way or the highway but it just makes to much sense for Marshall to stay (of course assuming he can get over it as well) and for the Broncos to focus on other needs in the draft.

But again that would just make sense.

topscribe
04-04-2010, 05:43 PM
Back in the 90's we also had John Elway running the offense.

The reason the "mocks" have us taking Bryant is because they are assuming that Marshall will be gone. I understand the tension, coach McD wants his way or the highway but it just makes to much sense for Marshall to stay (of course assuming he can get over it as well) and for the Broncos to focus on other needs in the draft.

But again that would just make sense.

Except for when Bubby Brister had to come in when John was hurt.

So what happened? Still an explosive offense . . .

-----

TimTebow15MVP
04-04-2010, 08:12 PM
The days of rod smith and ed mccafrey dominating are over. this is a much faster game these days. The broncos only need a center in this draft though and a guard depending on how they feel about seth olsen. But still theres no need to draft a guard at 11 when theres other kick ass guards in round 2 and 3 where a guard should be drafted anyway. will open up the same holes as a iupati will and i love iupati but not at 11 lol. If you think buckhalter, orton, gaffnet and moreno is play makers then wow/ none of them have big play capablity. Royal does though. Moreno is a nice pure balanced back but not a guy thats gonna hit you the home run. Moreno/Spiller would be awesome

topscribe
04-04-2010, 08:44 PM
The days of rod smith and ed mccafrey dominating are over. this is a much faster game these days. The broncos only need a center in this draft though and a guard depending on how they feel about seth olsen. But still theres no need to draft a guard at 11 when theres other kick ass guards in round 2 and 3 where a guard should be drafted anyway. will open up the same holes as a iupati will and i love iupati but not at 11 lol. If you think buckhalter, orton, gaffnet and moreno is play makers then wow/ none of them have big play capablity. Royal does though. Moreno is a nice pure balanced back but not a guy thats gonna hit you the home run. Moreno/Spiller would be awesome

I guess you never watched any football in 2009? You must have missed Gaffney's
two 50+ receptions (well, one would have been, were it not for def. int.) in
the final KC game, let alone my mention of them in this thread? Oh, and who
threw them?

I guess you also missed the San Diego, NE, and Washington games?

I guess you missed Buckhalter's looooong runs, a whole host of them?

Welcome back to Broncos land, wherever you've been . . . :welcome:

-----

Ravage!!!
04-04-2010, 08:48 PM
I think we all saw all the football games.... :coffee:

Mr D
04-04-2010, 09:12 PM
We are not taking Dez, there has been too much emphasis on character/team philosophy to draft him.

Ziggy
04-04-2010, 09:37 PM
Were wasting our times drafting defensive players that wont even play. lol where will they play unless we get somebody like berry which probably wont happen where will a DLinemen play on a Dl that already has 8 players. where will a LB play on a LB core that consist of 10 players? Broncos can add defensive depth later in the draft. the first 5 picks atleast 4 of them should be offense. One Center and the rest play makers for the offense/

The Broncos still need an upgrade at RDE. Jarvis Green is more effective as a situational pass rusher. The role that Holliday played last season would be perfect for him. McBean is serviceable, but a good young DE like Odrick could come in and start. A MLB like Weatherspoon, McClain or Spikes could also come in and push Haggen and Larsen for a starting spot.

TimTebow15MVP
04-04-2010, 09:56 PM
I guess you never watched any football in 2009? You must have missed Gaffney's
two 50+ receptions (well, one would have been, were it not for def. int.) in
the final KC game, let alone my mention of them in this thread? Oh, and who
threw them?

I guess you also missed the San Diego, NE, and Washington games?

I guess you missed Buckhalter's looooong runs, a whole host of them?

Welcome back to Broncos land, wherever you've been . . . :welcome:

-----

Okay gaffney had two 50 yard catches for the entire year, marshall had two bombs that were from busted coverage vs washington the whole year. buck had a couple 40 yard runs for the whole year. that sir is not enough. need touchdowns on this team and thats something we havent been getting the last two years. no big play touchdowns hardly ever. that doesnt mean its not a talented group just means there not big play guys if you cant do it consistantly.

topscribe
04-04-2010, 11:46 PM
Okay gaffney had two 50 yard catches for the entire year, marshall had two bombs that were from busted coverage vs washington the whole year. buck had a couple 40 yard runs for the whole year. that sir is not enough. need touchdowns on this team and thats something we havent been getting the last two years. no big play touchdowns hardly ever. that doesnt mean its not a talented group just means there not big play guys if you cant do it consistantly.

So that is all you saw?

Okay . . .


Whatever. They still need to address the lines first. I hope they aren't dumb
enough to draft a WR in the first round, IMO . . .

-----

BroncoAV06
04-05-2010, 10:08 AM
Except for when Bubby Brister had to come in when John was hurt.

So what happened? Still an explosive offense . . .

-----

Manning goes down do the Colts still have an explosive offense? Saints win without Brees?

My point was more to the explosive recivers, Elway could create and Smith?Caffrey did not have to be barn burners all the time.

BigBroncLove
04-05-2010, 11:55 AM
About the speedster receivers I don't think it's nearly as important an issue, especially for the Broncos. Firstly you can look to teams such as the San Diego Chargers as a case in point, that in the league today, you don't have to be stocked with speed to win. Most of their WR's came into the league in the straight line 4.45+ range. Not slow guys, but a lot has changed since they came in the league. They've all lost a step, but picked up their game (naanee is the exception but is relatively unknown still).

It's because they are all big bodied WR's that use their size and precise routes to get themselves into a position to make a catch. One could debate that its also the accuracy and ability of Rivers that keeps them successful but I think you're seeing a shift in the league. Big, slightly slower, tall receivers are becoming more and more productive in the league. They shield the ball well in routes, run block effectively, obviously can get to the highest point more easily, mismatch well against the generally shorter CB's and shed jamming/contact in the first five well (which is a big issue with todays Defenses).

However for the Broncos I don't believe whatsoever that speed is the answer. Royal is a speedster and didn't produce much at all last year and that's because of the type of offense the Broncos are running. Don't get me wrong you have to have a WR that will stretch the field. Without it the safeties can play up and be more aggressive. However I do think, at least currently, the Broncos can use Royal or McKinley in that capacity (maybe a WR in the latter part of the draft...). But how often did you see the Broncos throw the deep ball? Next to never. The lack of passes deep isn't a testament to the WR core, it's to how the offense is being run, and honestly the capabilities of Orton. This is an offense that wins the games in the middle parts of the field. It rarely passes deep and its not Orton's strong point.

EMB6903
04-05-2010, 12:02 PM
So that is all you saw?

Okay . . .


Whatever. They still need to address the lines first. I hope they aren't dumb
enough to draft a WR in the first round, IMO . . .

-----

I sure as hell hope they arent dumb enough to reach for a player like Odrick because of "needs"

If that were the case then Im one of the idiots who would rather take a WR with the skills of Dez Bryant.

topscribe
04-05-2010, 05:41 PM
I sure as hell hope they arent dumb enough to reach for a player like Odrick because of "needs"

If that were the case then Im one of the idiots who would rather take a WR with the skills of Dez Bryant.

Will Odrick increase the chances of winnng? Would Iupati? Pouncey? Games
are won and lose in the lines. Football 101.

The objective of the game is to win. Sometimes some of us seem to forget that.

I just cannot see getting rid of a person with Marshall's proven skills for a person
with Bryant's unproven skills, and still be without the stud the Broncos need on
the line . . . either line. And to add Bryant to Marshall without the needed
attention to the line would be asinine . . .

-----

topscribe
04-05-2010, 05:46 PM
Manning goes down do the Colts still have an explosive offense? Saints win without Brees?

My point was more to the explosive recivers, Elway could create and Smith?Caffrey did not have to be barn burners all the time.

That's just the point: nobody has to be barn burners all the time.

And our receivers got behind the defense more often than you seem to realize
last year. Marshall did, Royal did, Stokley did, Gaffney did, and Scheffler did.

And Buckhalter ran past them more than once.


And, BTW, who was it who implied Rod Smith would not do well today? :pound:


-----

Mr D
04-05-2010, 05:49 PM
About the speedster receivers I don't think it's nearly as important an issue, especially for the Broncos. Firstly you can look to teams such as the San Diego Chargers as a case in point, that in the league today, you don't have to be stocked with speed to win. Most of their WR's came into the league in the straight line 4.45+ range. Not slow guys, but a lot has changed since they came in the league. They've all lost a step, but picked up their game (naanee is the exception but is relatively unknown still).


Your logic is already botched when comparing us with SD, two different offenses, and two different schemes. You completely disregarded that.

The fact is, we need a deep threat... and one of the easier ways to do that is having a speedster... if not then you're going to need a more talented player to make catches deep over DB's.

Mr D
04-05-2010, 05:52 PM
That's just the point: nobody has to be barn burners all the time.

And our receivers got behind the defense more often than you seem to realize
last year. Marshall did, Royal did, Stokley did, Gaffney did, and Scheffler did.

And Buckhalter ran past them more than once.


And, BTW, who was it who implied Rod Smith would not do well today? :pound:


-----

That's all fine and dandy when you're able to call the right play, however this is football and it is a game of match ups. In order to get "behind" a defense, they have to be playing zone. OTherwise, you're playing man, and the only way then is to beat out your man.

We need to be able to effectively win match ups, period. They don't need to be barn burners, however like I said, we need a legitimate deep threat.

topscribe
04-05-2010, 06:12 PM
That's all fine and dandy when you're able to call the right play, however this is football and it is a game of match ups. In order to get "behind" a defense, they have to be playing zone. OTherwise, you're playing man, and the only way then is to beat out your man.

We need to be able to effectively win match ups, period. They don't need to be barn burners, however like I said, we need a legitimate deep threat.

:confused: Can you tell me how often a deep pass, or any play, is going to work when you don't call the right play?

-----

EMB6903
04-05-2010, 06:12 PM
Will Odrick increase the chances of winnng? Would Iupati? Pouncey? Games
are won and lose in the lines. Football 101.

The objective of the game is to win. Sometimes some of us seem to forget that.

I just cannot see getting rid of a person with Marshall's proven skills for a person
with Bryant's unproven skills, and still be without the stud the Broncos need on
the line . . . either line. And to add Bryant to Marshall without the needed
attention to the line would be asinine . . .

-----

I understand the "build your team inside out" theory and everything but my goodness do fans over use the "defense wins championships" and "games are won on the offensive and defensive line" BS way too much.

Games are won by good all around football. when will people stop using the "_______ wins championships" and realize that you arent going to win it all unless your team is clicking on all catagories at the right time?

Mr D
04-05-2010, 06:36 PM
:confused: Can you tell me how often a deep pass, or any play, is going to work when you don't call the right play?

-----

What I meant with, "the right play" is that you're able to call a play that will work with whatever play the defense runs... it's not often that you're calling plays in which players like Stokely will be able to get "behind" a defense... it's just a good/right play call for whatever the defense is running.

To answer your question more specifically - I said this game is about match ups. Of course you need good play calling, that's a given, but when you can win match ups it gives you a HUGE advantage over the other team.

topscribe
04-05-2010, 06:40 PM
I understand the "build your team inside out" theory and everything but my goodness do fans over use the "defense wins championships" and "games are won on the offensive and defensive line" BS way too much.

Games are won by good all around football. when will people stop using the "_______ wins championships" and realize that you arent going to win it all unless your team is clicking on all catagories at the right time?

I wish you would take the "BS" designation on building lines on the road through
the NFL. After you have learned that it did not come from the fans, and you
come home with your tail between your legs, I will be waiting at the station to
comfort you . . .

-----

BigBroncLove
04-05-2010, 06:41 PM
Your logic is already botched when comparing us with SD, two different offenses, and two different schemes. You completely disregarded that.

The fact is, we need a deep threat... and one of the easier ways to do that is having a speedster... if not then you're going to need a more talented player to make catches deep over DB's.

How is that disregarded when the same post you quoted says this....


However for the Broncos I don't believe whatsoever that speed is the answer. Royal is a speedster and didn't produce much at all last year and that's because of the type of offense the Broncos are running. Don't get me wrong you have to have a WR that will stretch the field. Without it the safeties can play up and be more aggressive. However I do think, at least currently, the Broncos can use Royal or McKinley in that capacity (maybe a WR in the latter part of the draft...). But how often did you see the Broncos throw the deep ball? Next to never. The lack of passes deep isn't a testament to the WR core, it's to how the offense is being run, and honestly the capabilities of Orton. This is an offense that wins the games in the middle parts of the field. It rarely passes deep and its not Orton's strong point.

Yeah... that's disregarding our scheme :laugh: . I agree, they are two different schemes but if you also read that paragraph it is just again a "case in point" that you don't need speedy receivers to succeed. Our scheme is taken into more then thoughtful consideration in other paragraphs of that same post.

EMB6903
04-05-2010, 06:44 PM
I wish you would take the "BS" designation on building lines on the road through
the NFL. After you have learned that it did not come from the fans, and you
come home with your tail between your legs, I will be waiting at the station to
comfort you . . .

-----

ouch...

keep preaching brother...

"IT ALL STARTS UP FRONT"

Good thing Oakland thinks the same way as you do otherwise Denver would have to face Larry Fitzgerald twice a year.

:::thanking al davis for drafting Gallery over Fitzgerald knowing that line play is what makes great teams:::

topscribe
04-05-2010, 06:46 PM
ouch...

keep preaching brother...

"IT ALL STARTS UP FRONT"

thats what Oakland said when they drafted Robert Gallery over Larry Fitzgerald..

Yes, I guess the Broncos should not have taken Ryan Clady in the 1st.

Marcus Nash and Ashlie Lelie should have shown us we should take skill players first . . . :coffee:

-----

EMB6903
04-05-2010, 07:00 PM
Yes, I guess the Broncos should not have taken Ryan Clady in the 1st.

Marcus Nash and Ashlie Lelie should have shown us we should take skill players first . . . :coffee:

-----

Who said I would have?

why do amateurs feel the need to bring up Lelie and Nash every time a argument comes up involving a WR being drafted?

should I bring up Jarvis Moss and George Foster?

anyways.....Im just saying I hope Mcdaniels isnt dumb enough to pass on a player whose clearly more talented because he values offensive or defensive line play more. i'd love it if he isnt even taking that in regard at #11. I just hope he takes the BPA regardless of what history says about that position.

topscribe
04-05-2010, 07:04 PM
Who said I would have?

Im just saying I hope Mcdaniels isnt dumb enough to pass on a player whose clearly more talented because he values offensive or defensive line play more. i'd love it if he isnt even taking that in regard at #11. I just hope he takes the BPA regardless of what history says about that position.

I understand.

I'm just not comfortable at all with Bryant. Red flags. And he isn't all that fast,
anyway . . . 4.5, 4.6 in the Combine, IIRC, for that "deep threat" everyone is
drooling over. I know it's all rolling the dice, anyway, regardless of the position.
But those red flags . . .

-----

EMB6903
04-05-2010, 07:08 PM
I understand.

I'm just not comfortable at all with Bryant. Red flags. And he isn't all that fast,
anyway . . . 4.5, 4.6 in the Combine, IIRC, for that "deep threat" everyone is
drooling over. I know it's all rolling the dice, anyway, regardless of the position.
But those red flags . . .

-----

Bryant is very fast for his size. and being a deep threat isnt just about having speed. he has some of the best ball skills ive ever seen in a prospect. He knows how to go up and get it at its highest point and uses his body very well.

Im not even much for drafting Bryant at 11 but I sure as hell wouldnt be mad. Hes one of very few prospects in this draft that I know is going to turn out to be a great talent.

topscribe
04-05-2010, 07:10 PM
Bryant is very fast for his size. and being a deep threat isnt just about having speed. he has some of the best ball skills ive ever seen in a prospect. He knows how to go up and get it at its highest point and uses his body very well.

Im not even much for drafting Bryant at 11 but I sure as hell wouldnt be mad. Hes one of very few prospects in this draft that I know is going to turn out to be a great talent.

Sounds like Marshall. Let's just keep him . . .

-----

EMB6903
04-05-2010, 07:17 PM
they are somewhat simular not much as people would think though.Brandon is more of a possesion reciever who runs angry and Dez is going to stretch out the field a lot more.

Mr D
04-05-2010, 08:49 PM
How is that disregarded when the same post you quoted says this....



Yeah... that's disregarding our scheme :laugh: . I agree, they are two different schemes but if you also read that paragraph it is just again a "case in point" that you don't need speedy receivers to succeed. Our scheme is taken into more then thoughtful consideration in other paragraphs of that same post.

Didn't read that part of the post... my fault.

However in response to that, they admitted they failed to integrate Royal into the offense last year, I don't think you can automatically assume you don't need speed.

The point here is you need a deep threat, whether that's through speed or whatever. The fact is - speed is usually the easiest/most logical option for a deep threat.

BigBroncLove
04-05-2010, 09:06 PM
Didn't read that part of the post... my fault.

However in response to that, they admitted they failed to integrate Royal into the offense last year, I don't think you can automatically assume you don't need speed.

The point here is you need a deep threat, whether that's through speed or whatever. The fact is - speed is usually the easiest/most logical option for a deep threat.

I agree. Speed is the fastest way (no pun intended :) ) to stretch the field and attack behind the defense. Look at what it did for the Eagles when they got a hold of DeSean Jackson. Their overall numbers of deep passes completed increased. But I think there's more to just that picture.

Look at the WR core we have now and the main characters are the same as the group of guys we had in 2008. In 08 we were stretching the field. Cutler excelled at seeing the deep pass and making it happen. Royal and Marshall both were producing very well 20 yards and deeper from the LOS. IMO it's not the fact that we aren't stocked at speed at WR that's holding us back from stretching the field, it's that defenses do not respect Ortons arm, nor his vision. He stares down receivers to often, doesn't flow through his progression properly, and when he does chuck the deep ball his accuracy drops significantly. Does it means he's a terrible QB? not by any means. QB's like Cutler and Rivers look for the deep pass, Orton looks for the quick one. It's just his way.

It's not the WR's that stopping us, it's the QB, and also the system. It's a system very much tailored to take advantage of what defenses give up underneath, and to use a mixture of routes to stretch high or low, in or out, to get specific areas of the field open to WR's (even in man situations). Given that, I really don't see how a speedster for the Broncos at WR will change the dynamic behind center. That could change now that Orton should be more comfortable with the system and he should move through his WR faster now, but it isn't guaranteed. Besides, honestly I think the Broncos aren't shallow on speed personally. They just aren't using it like they should. Just my opinion but that's how I see it.

Mr D
04-05-2010, 09:33 PM
I agree. Speed is the fastest way (no pun intended :) ) to stretch the field and attack behind the defense. Look at what it did for the Eagles when they got a hold of DeSean Jackson. Their overall numbers of deep passes completed increased. But I think there's more to just that picture.

Look at the WR core we have now and the main characters are the same as the group of guys we had in 2008. In 08 we were stretching the field. Cutler excelled at seeing the deep pass and making it happen. Royal and Marshall both were producing very well 20 yards and deeper from the LOS. IMO it's not the fact that we aren't stocked at speed at WR that's holding us back from stretching the field, it's that defenses do not respect Ortons arm, nor his vision. He stares down receivers to often, doesn't flow through his progression properly, and when he does chuck the deep ball his accuracy drops significantly. Does it means he's a terrible QB? not by any means. QB's like Cutler and Rivers look for the deep pass, Orton looks for the quick one. It's just his way.

It's not the WR's that stopping us, it's the QB, and also the system. It's a system very much tailored to take advantage of what defenses give up underneath, and to use a mixture of routes to stretch high or low, in or out, to get specific areas of the field open to WR's (even in man situations). Given that, I really don't see how a speedster for the Broncos at WR will change the dynamic behind center. That could change now that Orton should be more comfortable with the system and he should move through his WR faster now, but it isn't guaranteed. Besides, honestly I think the Broncos aren't shallow on speed personally. They just aren't using it like they should. Just my opinion but that's how I see it.

That's assuming Orton is the starting QB come oppening day. :lol:

BigBroncLove
04-05-2010, 09:39 PM
That's assuming Orton is the starting QB come oppening day. :lol:

Personally I hope he is. I'm in no way a believer that Orton is the QB for the future and beyond. However the Broncos need stability after last year. Though Quinn is more comfortable with the system then Orton was when he came in, I'd like to see exactly how this system thrives with a QB now two years immersed in what McD has written up. Starting from square one again with Quinn, while probably a little smoother, will still be full of bumps. Plus, Quinn isn't known for his dynamic arm, nor his accuracy.

A guy like Cassel excelled because he had the time to learn the system backward and forward. Now that the first year is done I'd like to see year number two in the system :) not year one v2.0 with a yearly carousel at QB.

Mr D
04-05-2010, 09:50 PM
Personally I hope he is. I'm in no way a believer that Orton is the QB for the future and beyond. However the Broncos need stability after last year. Though Quinn is more comfortable with the system then Orton was when he came in, I'd like to see exactly how this system thrives with a QB now two years immersed in what McD has written up. Starting from square one again with Quinn, while probably a little smoother, will still be full of bumps. Plus, Quinn isn't known for his dynamic arm, nor his accuracy.

A guy like Cassel excelled because he had the time to learn the system backward and forward. Now that the first year is done I'd like to see year number two in the system :) not year one v2.0 with a yearly carousel at QB.

I wouldn't hold any judgment in that format, in which I'm hoping for Orton to be better and assuming Quinn won't be.

I think the best QB should play, the QB that gives us the best chance to win. If Quinn outperforms Orton in TC and Pre-season, and if the coaching staff believes he is the better QB, there is no reason he shouldn't be squating behind C for the opening drive of the season.

Oh, and he isn't known for his dynamic arm, but he has a good arm... WAY better than Orton... and he doesn't look like he has bricks strapped to his legs. Quinn can make plays with his feet too...

topscribe
04-05-2010, 09:53 PM
:tsk:

-----

Northman
04-05-2010, 09:53 PM
Im not even much for drafting Bryant at 11 but I sure as hell wouldnt be mad. Hes one of very few prospects in this draft that I think is going to turn out to be a great talent.

Corrected for accuracy.

BigBroncLove
04-05-2010, 09:59 PM
I wouldn't hold any judgment in that format, in which I'm hoping for Orton to be better and assuming Quinn won't be.

I think the best QB should play, the QB that gives us the best chance to win. If Quinn outperforms Orton in TC and Pre-season, and if the coaching staff believes he is the better QB, there is no reason he shouldn't be squating behind C for the opening drive of the season.

Oh, and he isn't known for his dynamic arm, but he has a good arm... WAY better than Orton...

Of course, it goes without saying, If Quinn makes it apparent he is better in the system year one or not, then do what puts us in the best place to win. However TC and preseason are not the dynamic teller some people think them to be. Year in and year out we see guys wow people in both, and do nothing or worse in the regular season.

Come week 1 of the regular season, I think it should be Ortons job unless he makes it so obviously apparent that he will damage the team tremendously. After that, it's his job to lose. There's been to many cases of QB's coming into a new system or into the league and crumbling under the pressure, expectations, and lack of comfort and never recovering. If your going to give Quinn a chance, I say give him the time to properly be prepared for it (unless cirumstances simply wont allow it such as injury or a complete and total breakdown of Ortons play).

Mr D
04-05-2010, 10:09 PM
Of course, it goes without saying, If Quinn makes it apparent he is better in the system year one or not, then do what puts us in the best place to win. However TC and preseason are not the dynamic teller some people think them to be. Year in and year out we see guys wow people in both, and do nothing or worse in the regular season.

Come week 1 of the regular season, I think it should be Ortons job unless he makes it so obviously apparent that he will damage the team tremendously. After that, it's his job to lose. There's been to many cases of QB's coming into a new system or into the league and crumbling under the pressure, expectations, and lack of comfort and never recovering. If your going to give Quinn a chance, I say give him the time to properly be prepared for it (unless cirumstances simply wont allow it such as injury or a complete and total breakdown of Ortons play).

Quinn will be doing his in TC to show he can get that job. Quinn has been in this system at ND and he's played in a very similar system last year...

That would be unfair to Quinn if Orton has to lose the job in order for him to win the job. If Orton doesn't win the job he shouldn't be playing QB, period... and I know that's the philosophy going forward with this team. Orton better outplay Quinn, that's the only way he deserves to play QB.

BigBroncLove
04-05-2010, 10:18 PM
Quinn will be doing his in TC to show he can get that job. Quinn has been in this system at ND and he's played in a very similar system last year...

That would be unfair to Quinn if Orton has to lose the job in order for him to win the job. If Orton doesn't win the job he shouldn't be playing QB, period... and I know that's the philosophy going forward with this team. Orton better outplay Quinn, that's the only way he deserves to play QB.

Disagree. Simms looked fairly good in what little he played in last years preseason. I was at the 49er/Bronco game and while Orton threw three interceptions Simms did well and actually threw away the ball when he was supposed to. In fact all through preseason (and TC) Orton looked terrible. While he wasn't spectacular in the regular season he was head and shoulders above his play before that. TC/Preseason is no more a real teller of what the regular season will be for each player then the combine is to the career of a rookie. Sure its a nice measuring stick, but it in no way will divine who will be better. I feel week 1 should be Ortons regardless.

As for Quinn, sure he came from the same system but it doesn't mean he was in this system. Also there is much more that decides a QB's abilities then sheer knowledge of a playbook. He has to know his WR's well. How they run their routes, where they burst to create separation, what areas he can trust his WR to make the catch when it looks otherwise. Same with his OL and helping call blocking shifts and adjusting to the plays MLB (the blitzing linebacker is always called the MLB on each play and must be identified by the QB). I don't really much care what's fair to Quinn, as so much give him the best chance to excel if he does see any starts. Waiting past week 1, believe it or not, will help Quinn. Regardless if he's "ready enough" to be in there, it takes longer then one offseason and four weeks of preseason to learn everything he'll need to in order to win (and for the offense to play a full playbook, not a dummied down version hes knows well).

Mr D
04-05-2010, 10:25 PM
Disagree. Simms looked fairly good in what little he played in last years preseason. I was at the 49er/Bronco game and while Orton threw three interceptions Simms did well and actually threw away the ball when he was supposed to. In fact all through preseason (and TC) Orton looked terrible. While he wasn't spectacular in the regular season he was head and shoulders above his play before that. TC/Preseason is no more a real teller of what the regular season will be for each player then the combine is to the career of a rookie. Sure its a nice measuring stick, but it in no way will divine who will be better. I feel week 1 should be Ortons regardless.


The Simms and Orton situation was completely different - there was obviously something coaches saw in Orton that led them dubbing him to be the starter. Simms didn't play against or with 1st stringers (during pre-season)... last season was about getting the whole team get the system together.



As for Quinn, sure he came from the same system but it doesn't mean he was in this system. Also there is much more that decides a QB's abilities then sheer knowledge of a playbook. He has to know his WR's well. How they run their routes, where they burst to create separation, what areas he can trust his WR to make the catch when it looks otherwise. Same with his OL and helping call blocking shifts and adjusting to the plays MLB (the blitzing linebacker is always called the MLB on each play and must be identified by the QB). I don't really much care what's fair to Quinn, as so much give him the best chance to excel if he does see any starts. Waiting past week 1, believe it or not, will help Quinn. Regardless if he's "ready enough" to be in there, it takes longer then one offseason and four weeks of preseason to learn everything he'll need to in order to win (and for the offense to play a full playbook, not a dummied down version hes knows well).

McDaniels said something about Quinn knowing about 85% of the terminology... enough said.

I know YOU don't care what's fair for Quinn, but your caring really doesn't matter.

I'm telling you what the team philosophy is.

I've never talked about Quinn being "ready enough" to start. This isn't about working Quinn in order to be the starter. I've never touched that.

I'm saying, if Quinn outplays Orton AND if the coaching staff feels he's a better QB now, he will start.

What you're saying is, Orton should start regardless, unless he shows he is pretty much tearing the team apart... which is not exactly a winning mind set.

If Orton is that comfortable, if Ortons 1st year in the system is going to be that beneficial to give him that much an advantage over Quinn, he should outplay Quinn... period, so simply handing the job won't be needed.

Orton has proved he deserves to be the starter, and he is the starter. No one is doubting that.

BigBroncLove
04-05-2010, 10:32 PM
The Simms and Orton situation was completely different - there was obviously something coaches saw in Orton that led them dubbing him to be the starter. Simms didn't play against or with 1st stringers... last season was about getting the whole team get the system together.

No but this example goes to the very heart of you talking about Quinn winning th job in TC/preseason, and that this is not the great way to decide how to create that "winning mindset".




McDaniels said something about Quinn knowing about 85% of the terminology... enough said.

I know YOU don't care what's fair for Quinn, but your caring really doesn't matter.

I'm telling you what the team philosophy is.

I've never talked about Quinn being "ready enough" to start. This isn't about working Quinn in order to be the starter. I've never touched that.

I'm saying, if Quinn outplays Orton AND if the coaching staff feels he's a better QB now, he will start.

What you're saying is, Orton should start regardless, unless he shows he is pretty much tearing the team apart... which is not exactly a winning mind set.

And I'm saying that knowing the playbook isn't the only thing that decides a QB's ability to work within the system. He commands the entire offense and has to know each part, especially his WR's. That last part didn't happen at Notre Dame with Weis and in all probabilities will not happen in the short time Quinn will be here before Week 1.

I am saying Orton should start regardless because TC/Preseason will not tell you who will give you that win in week one. I believe it should be a competition for the spot. Don't get me mixed up on that. I think Quinn should be given considration to start, but not week 1. That's a recipe to put Quinn in a position to fail and not recover, which is definitely not how find that "winning mind set".

Mr D
04-05-2010, 10:51 PM
No but this example goes to the very heart of you talking about Quinn winning th job in TC/preseason, and that this is not the great way to decide how to create that "winning mindset".

And I'm saying that knowing the playbook isn't the only thing that decides a QB's ability to work within the system. He commands the entire offense and has to know each part, especially his WR's. That last part didn't happen at Notre Dame with Weis and in all probabilities will not happen in the short time Quinn will be here before Week 1.

Why won't it happen? It damn near happened with Orton?



I am saying Orton should start regardless because TC/Preseason will not tell you who will give you that win in week one. I believe it should be a competition for the spot. Don't get me mixed up on that. I think Quinn should be given considration to start, but not week 1. That's a recipe to put Quinn in a position to fail and not recover, which is definitely not how find that "winning mind set".

Like I said, you're pretty much saying Orton has to suck in order for Quinn to start... (so you're essentially putting away anything Quinn does during the off-season/tc/pre-season)

I agree with you in the fact that pre-season doesn't tell us much, but jobs are won and lost during TC.

What I'm saying is, if Orton is really gives the team the best chance to win Week 1, he will start... there should be no reason for Orton to be outplayed before the season starts with someone who is as inexperienced as you say.

A winning mindset... the best player plays.. the player that gives the team the best chance to win.

Is that putting Quinn in a position to fail? Why? I would say that's putting Quinn in a position to win, an opportunity... like I said a winning mind set. Read through your posts, you're talking about sucking/losing more than you are anything else.

Brady Quinn has been in this league 3 years, I would agree with you if he was a rookie or never started in his life.

Don't get me wrong though, I stand by what I said for Brandstater too.

What you're essentially saying is that TC/pre-season really doesn't matter because Orton deserves to start regardless.

Like I said, that's not the team philosophy, so regardless of what you "think," I'm telling you what it is. These players are competitors, McDaniels wants them to be competing at all times.

I'm not sure what you're stuck on, I'm telling you, if Orton is actually better he should start. What you're saying is, if he's not better he still should be the starter? :rolleyes:

BigBroncLove
04-05-2010, 11:29 PM
Why won't it happen? It damn near happened with Orton?

Orton was pretty damn terrible in his first week IMO. He had good stats but to many three and outs, and he kept stalling drives with bad reads. In fact we won by a bad pass that got tipped. The next two weeks were against teams that most anyone could win against (cleveland and oakland). Honestly despite inflated stats, Orton didn't hit stride till week four.



Like I said, you're pretty much saying Orton has to suck in order for Quinn to start... (so you're essentially putting away anything Quinn does during the off-season/tc/pre-season)

I agree with you in the fact that pre-season doesn't tell us much, but jobs are won and lost during TC.

What I'm saying is, if Orton is really gives the team the best chance to win Week 1, he will start... there should be no reason for Orton to be outplayed before the season starts with someone who is as inexperienced as you say.

A winning mindset... the best player plays.. the player that gives the team the best chance to win.

Is that putting Quinn in a position to fail? Why? I would say that's putting Quinn in a position to win, an opportunity... like I said a winning mind set. Read through your posts, you're talking about sucking/losing more than you are anything else.

Brady Quinn has been in this league 3 years, I would agree with you if he was a rookie or never started in his life.

Don't get me wrong though, I stand by what I said for Brandstater too.

What you're essentially saying is that TC/pre-season really doesn't matter because Orton deserves to start regardless.

Like I said, that's not the team philosophy, so regardless of what you "think," I'm telling you what it is. These players are competitors, McDaniels wants them to be competing at all times.

I'm not sure what you're stuck on, I'm telling you, if Orton is actually better he should start. What you're saying is, if he's not better he shouldn't starter? :rolleyes:

So wait, Preseason/TC won't tell is much but we should gauge that to decide the most important position on the roster? Thats nearly contradicting yourself.

Sure positions will be decided in TC/PS, but there's a reason that very very rarely you see a QB position decided by TC/preseason. Last year was a bit of an abberation on how many QB's were decided then. There is a reason for that. One is that, when you make that decision its a season long one. if you don't stick to that decision you start the carousel which leads to disaster. Look at every team that has had to cycle their QB's last year (SF and the Cleveland) and very rarely did they win on the merits of their offense. How did that happen? putting the QB position up for grabs and throwing the guy they thought won in games that had no meaning.

You can't make that decision with a solid incumbent at QB based on the conduct of meaningless games and basic packages played out in a nearly empty stadium.

Don't get me wrong, I don't completely disagree with your angle on things. That the QB position, that every position, should be available to who wins it. I think competition breeds better players. I think however, that as far as the QB position is concerned, you cannot win it based on what you see in TC/PS. I do think it's Ortons job to lose. Its my point of view and it isn't gonna change.

That doesn't mean I find your philosophy completely outlandish, however I do think that for the health of a team you cannot make those QB decisions (with the QB situation we have now) without real game time. This was one of the biggest things I think Shanahan did right. When he made that decision for QB changes (Jay Cutler as an example) he did it with due diligence, time, and when he did it, he did it for the season.

Again unless Orton puts us in a position to lose immediately then keep him in. Simply because Quinn may look better doesn't mean he will be, and that also doesn't mean we won't continue to win under Orton. This type of decision is one that will decide your teams season very likely, no reason to rush into it. Oh and you can still compete for positions in TC/preseason without it happening in week one. A depth chart isn't set in stone in week one. What a player does in TC/PS can effect it beyond the start of the regular season.

LOL, and I'm glad yoru so close to the Broncos organization that you can tell me "how it is". :laugh:

TXBRONC
04-05-2010, 11:41 PM
Corrected for accuracy.

Yep. Until Bryant actually gets out onto the field and proves his mettle it's all speculation.

Mr D
04-06-2010, 01:04 AM
Orton was pretty damn terrible in his first week IMO. He had good stats but to many three and outs, and he kept stalling drives with bad reads. In fact we won by a bad pass that got tipped. The next two weeks were against teams that most anyone could win against (cleveland and oakland). Honestly despite inflated stats, Orton didn't hit stride till week four.




So wait, Preseason/TC won't tell is much but we should gauge that to decide the most important position on the roster? Thats nearly contradicting yourself.

Sure positions will be decided in TC/PS, but there's a reason that very very rarely you see a QB position decided by TC/preseason. Last year was a bit of an abberation on how many QB's were decided then. There is a reason for that. One is that, when you make that decision its a season long one. if you don't stick to that decision you start the carousel which leads to disaster. Look at every team that has had to cycle their QB's last year (SF and the Cleveland) and very rarely did they win on the merits of their offense. How did that happen? putting the QB position up for grabs and throwing the guy they thought won in games that had no meaning.

You can't make that decision with a solid incumbent at QB based on the conduct of meaningless games and basic packages played out in a nearly empty stadium.

Don't get me wrong, I don't completely disagree with your angle on things. That the QB position, that every position, should be available to who wins it. I think competition breeds better players. I think however, that as far as the QB position is concerned, you cannot win it based on what you see in TC/PS. I do think it's Ortons job to lose. Its my point of view and it isn't gonna change.

That doesn't mean I find your philosophy completely outlandish, however I do think that for the health of a team you cannot make those QB decisions (with the QB situation we have now) without real game time. This was one of the biggest things I think Shanahan did right. When he made that decision for QB changes (Jay Cutler as an example) he did it with due diligence, time, and when he did it, he did it for the season.

Again unless Orton puts us in a position to lose immediately then keep him in. Simply because Quinn may look better doesn't mean he will be, and that also doesn't mean we won't continue to win under Orton. This type of decision is one that will decide your teams season very likely, no reason to rush into it. Oh and you can still compete for positions in TC/preseason without it happening in week one. A depth chart isn't set in stone in week one. What a player does in TC/PS can effect it beyond the start of the regular season.

LOL, and I'm glad yoru so close to the Broncos organization that you can tell me "how it is". :laugh:

The Niners situation is a good example. Shaun Hill was pretty much their version of Kyle Orton (on a lower level). But the fact that he "won" games in 2008 it was his job to lose in 2009 even though Alex Smith was probably better. Shaun Hill was essentially then handed the job in 2009.

When Alex Smith came in against the Texans, he was an instant spark just because his arm strength... however he went on to have an inconsistent season.

So, pretty much what happened was Niners did exactly what you're saying now and ended up missing the playoffs.

The issue here is - the philosophy of the Broncos pushes players to compete at every position to win their job. I don't know the exact details, I'm not "close" to the organization, however McDaniels has gone over and over about the team philosophies.

I see where you're coming from - but at the same time I don't think Orton necessarily has to lose the job in order for Quinn to play. This team is built around rewarding players who compete and play well.

If Quinn and Orton play "similarly," most definitely Orton will start. I don't see it as Orton would have to show that he'll cause to team to lose in order for Quinn to start (we don't want to be in this position to begin with), but if Quinn plays greatly better than Orton and the coaches see that he will be a better player - he'll start.

Like I said - Orton should play better if everything holds true... that's what's good about this approach. It's not like we're handicapping anyone or not giving them credit for past production, we're just holding Orton to high standards - which at the QB position (and the most important as you agree) - should be held to.

BigBroncLove
04-06-2010, 03:07 AM
The Niners situation is a good example. Shaun Hill was pretty much their version of Kyle Orton (on a lower level). But the fact that he "won" games in 2008 it was his job to lose in 2009 even though Alex Smith was probably better. Shaun Hill was essentially then handed the job in 2009.

When Alex Smith came in against the Texans, he was an instant spark just because his arm strength... however he went on to have an inconsistent season.

So, pretty much what happened was Niners did exactly what you're saying now and ended up missing the playoffs.

The issue here is - the philosophy of the Broncos pushes players to compete at every position to win their job. I don't know the exact details, I'm not "close" to the organization, however McDaniels has gone over and over about the team philosophies.

I see where you're coming from - but at the same time I don't think Orton necessarily has to lose the job in order for Quinn to play. This team is built around rewarding players who compete and play well.

If Quinn and Orton play "similarly," most definitely Orton will start. I don't see it as Orton would have to show that he'll cause to team to lose in order for Quinn to start (we don't want to be in this position to begin with), but if Quinn plays greatly better than Orton and the coaches see that he will be a better player - he'll start.

Like I said - Orton should play better if everything holds true... that's what's good about this approach. It's not like we're handicapping anyone or not giving them credit for past production, we're just holding Orton to high standards - which at the QB position (and the most important as you agree) - should be held to.

I lived in SF at the time and saw nearly every game SF played . Shaun Hill won the job in pre-season. It was an open competition held by Singletary. He wasnt handed the job, and no Alex smith wasn't better in preseason. Neither was spectacular but Smith had a terrible week 2 in the preseason and sealed the deal in week 3 for Hill to take the job come opening day. Singletary talked about the competition loudly during OTA's, TC, and preseason. We all saw how that turned out. So it's not the same scenario I'm talking about. In fact it's the scenario you're talking about, but your not advocating the coach putting the meat on the slab.

Also, again, I never said the Broncos wouldn't compete at every position. This is a debate regarding the week 1 starter at QB. All bets are off after game time is logged. That's where competition comes in. You can be competitive at spots outside of TC/preseason. It doesn't simply apply to that. And the results of competition in TC/preseason can come into play after week 1. I see where your taking that statement about being competitive at every position, but you've narrowed it to a very limited scope. McDaniels also said "Orton is our starter" very flatly in combination with his statement about being competitive. I don't think that means all that much, naming Orton the starter, what else is he going to say after last year? None the less it shows you that you can name a starter at QB and still say, "we want to be competitive at as many positions as possible." because it is possible. They are not singular and separate from each other.

This whole off topic tangent you and I are discussing is derived from the question that talk about WR and the deep pass from the comment Orton starting on opening day. Remember that's what I'm saying, week 1 (and week 1 only) it's Ortons job (unless hes pure crap and it seems he won't recover like he did last year from preseason). I think we've taken it about as far as it can go. We're just starting to tread over the same ground we already traveled and re-hashing the same dispute. I think we're both dug in as far as the bedrock will allow. I stick by my statement, and I'm sure you will stick by yours. It will be interesting to see exactly how it turns out, though I think neither of us wants to watch a new QB controversy pop up after last year.

Nomad
04-06-2010, 07:11 AM
Yep. Until Bryant actually gets out onto the field and proves his mettle it's all speculation.

Yep! If he doesn't produce after his first year.....write him off and draft another WO!!

UnderArmour
04-06-2010, 07:52 AM
I wish there were a way to take Dez Bryant and keep Marshall, and quite frankly there is. We would get nothing for Marshall next offseason as an UFA if we hold out for value, but there is no way we should ever entertain the thought of trading Marshall for anything less than a first rounder. Dez Bryant ending up at number 11 would be an absolute steal, I don't care about the "character concern" misinformation that is being spread, the guy is a better prospect than Michael Crabtree was last year.

TXBRONC
04-06-2010, 08:02 AM
Yep! If he doesn't produce after his first year.....write him off and draft another WO!!

If we indeed draft Bryant we wouldn't write him off after just one season assuming that he struggled. If a wide receiver is going to make it's more than likely going to take two to three seasons to figure out if he was worth the pick in the first place. Also should Denver draft Bryant you see me complaining him. I'll be rooting for him to succeed as I have with every player that Denver has taken since I started watching.

Nomad
04-06-2010, 08:10 AM
If we indeed draft Bryant we wouldn't write him off after just one season assuming that he struggled. If a wide receiver is going to make it's more than likely going to take two to three seasons to figure out if he was worth the pick in the first place. Also should Denver draft Bryant you see me complaining him. I'll be rooting for him to succeed as I have with every player that Denver has taken since I started watching.

Sorry TX, it was a smart ass comment because of what people are saying about Smith! So why isn't the same concept given to most players coming out of the draft....give them a few years and if they don't transition to the NFL level then you question their abilities!!

TXBRONC
04-06-2010, 10:13 AM
Sorry TX, it was a smart ass comment because of what people are saying about Smith! So why isn't the same concept given to most players coming out of the draft....give them a few years and if they don't transition to the NFL level then you question their abilities!!

Don't worry about it.

What's been going on with Smith has more to do with what we gave up in order to move up in the second round to get and all the controversy that preceded the draft. I agree he deserves a chance to develop. He wasn't going start last year I can live that, but he was expect to play in nickle and dime situations and to our return man and as we know that didn't happen. From that perspective I was disappointed but by no means do I think we should kick him to the curb.

Traveler
04-08-2010, 12:26 PM
Dez Bryant-WR-Player Apr. 8 - 1:19 pm et

The Denver Post confirms that the Broncos consider Oklahoma State WR Dez Bryant a top 10 talent in the draft.

Most teams do. Conventional wisdom has the Broncos hesitant do draft Bryant after dealing with Brandon Marshall's shenanigans. Bryant's character concerns have been overblown, however, and he's nowhere near the quadruple threat (arrests, suspension risk, loafing, and me-first attitude) of Marshall. Bryant also won't require the $10M per year that Marshall is seeking.

Source: Denver Post

http://www.rotoworld.com/content/Home_NFL.aspx

JONtheBRONCO
04-08-2010, 03:01 PM
Dez Bryant-WR-Player Apr. 8 - 1:19 pm et

The Denver Post confirms that the Broncos consider Oklahoma State WR Dez Bryant a top 10 talent in the draft.

Most teams do. Conventional wisdom has the Broncos hesitant do draft Bryant after dealing with Brandon Marshall's shenanigans. Bryant's character concerns have been overblown, however, and he's nowhere near the quadruple threat (arrests, suspension risk, loafing, and me-first attitude) of Marshall. Bryant also won't require the $10M per year that Marshall is seeking.

Source: Denver Post

http://www.rotoworld.com/content/Home_NFL.aspx

But wait, even with the arrests, suspension risk, loafing, and his me-first attitude... that doesn't matter.... his talent, helps the Broncos... (sarcasm)

Lancane
04-08-2010, 03:31 PM
But wait, even with the arrests, suspension risk, loafing, and his me-first attitude... that doesn't matter.... his talent, helps the Broncos... (sarcasm)

Which is a fact, whilst being sarcastic is based on one's character and is harder to be accepted.