PDA

View Full Version : sporting news article by florio....5 qb's who should be benched....NOW



T.K.O.
07-22-2010, 02:23 PM
Mike Florio
Archive Email Mike Florio
Comments (21) More
Login or register to post comments Printer-friendly version
Wednesday, Jul. 21, 2010 - 11:38 a.m. ET
Every NFL season features quarterbacks getting benched and, ultimately, coaches getting fired.

As training camp approaches and with every team in the valley of 0-0 and having a one-in-four chance (in theory) of winning the division and hosting a playoff game, optimism causes many fans to believe that their quarterback can -- and will -- not only survive but even thrive.

In some cities, the handwriting is already on the wall, plain to see for anyone who cares to notice. Let's look at where the powers-that-be should pull the trigger now instead of later on benching their starting quarterbacks.

Jake Delhomme, Browns
Coach Eric Mangini recently said the starting job in Cleveland is Delhomme's to lose. The sooner he does lose it, the better off the team will be.

Delhomme lost his fastball at some point during the 13 days between Week 17 of the 2008 regular season and the divisional round of the playoffs. Though the Browns regard it as an aberration, it's unlikely that a guy would simply fall off the horse at an advanced stage of his career then find the stirrups again.

Of course, the Browns can't simply bench Delhomme after signing him in the offseason and paying him $7 million. Maybe they just shouldn't have signed him.


David Garrard doesn't have much support from the Jaguars after two seasons with 15 TD passes and double-digit interceptions.
David Garrard, Jaguars
The coach doesn't really believe in him. The owner doesn't really believe in him. So why in the heck is Garrard the Jaguars' starting quarterback?

Of course, Garrard might be better than Luke McCown. But even if Garrard remains at the top of the depth chart, he should be on a short leash for 2010.

In turn, the Jaguars should have found a better option in the offseason. They clearly don't love the guy. It makes no sense to keep him around.

Kyle Orton, Broncos
The decision to trade for Brady Quinn and to draft Tim Tebow hardly represents a vote of confidence for Orton, whose contract-year performance was rewarded with only a first-round restricted free-agent tender.

So why do the Broncos insist on keeping him at the top of the depth chart? If, somehow, he plays well in 2010, it'll be harder to move on in 2011. The better move would be to get Tebow ready and get him on the field.

If the Broncos thought enough of Tebow to trade back into Round 1 to draft him, they simply should get him on the field.



Matt Moore, Panthers
After cutting Delhomme, the Panthers handed the ball to Moore. Then the Panthers drafted a QB in Round 2 prepared to step in and play right away.

So why not just give Jimmy Clausen the ball right now?

If coach John Fox wants to stick around after 2010, he must show that Clausen can be the long-term answer at quarterback.

Matt Leinart, Cardinals
A top-10 pick in '06, Leinart hasn't been able to win and hold the job. Injured in '07 after routinely being yanked for Kurt Warner when the going got tough, Leinart surprisingly landed on the bench shortly before the '08 season. He then watched Warner cement his Hall of Fame credentials.


So it's unclear why the team still has faith in Leinart. The best argument for keeping him on the field flows from the fact that the only other viable option is Derek Anderson.

The Cardinals should have aggressively pursued other options in the offseason, whether Donovan McNabb or Marc Bulger. Either way, Leinart isn't the answer; the sooner the Cardinals figure that out, the better off they'll be.

Mike Florio writes and edits ProFootballTalk.com and is a regular contributor to Sporting News. Check out PFT for up-to-the minute NFL news.



Read more: http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl/article/2010-07-21/five-quarterbacks-who-should-be-benched#ixzz0uRNmrPOL

topscribe
07-22-2010, 02:39 PM
I never had any special opinion about Mike Florio, but I do now. Imbecile.

Prior to his ankle sprain but still playing the first couple games with a compound
dislocation of his right index finger, new to the sytem, new to the playbook, and
new to the other players (many who were new to each other), Orton still
achieved a 91.1 QBR, 63% comp, and a 6-2 record (and was on his way to 7-2
in the best game of his life when he was injured).

So let's dump him, now that he is completely healthy, familiar with the system,
familiar with the playbook, and familiar with the other players. After all, how
could he possibly play better than last year, when he had all those "advantages"?

Yessir, why should the great Brady Quinn or the seasoned Tim Tebow languish
on the bench behind him? :coffee:

-----

Denver Native (Carol)
07-22-2010, 02:49 PM
Articles like this are so ridiculous - training camp, plus preseason WILL DETERMINE the starting quarterback :tsk:

The Glue Factory
07-22-2010, 02:54 PM
Oh the wonders that the long offseason brings us. Unfortunately, we've got to slog through manure like this to find the GEMs.

JaxBroncoGirl
07-22-2010, 02:57 PM
Mike Florio
Archive Email Mike Florio
Comments (21) More
Login or register to post comments Printer-friendly version
Wednesday, Jul. 21, 2010 - 11:38 a.m. ET
Every NFL season features quarterbacks getting benched and, ultimately, coaches getting fired.

As training camp approaches and with every team in the valley of 0-0 and having a one-in-four chance (in theory) of winning the division and hosting a playoff game, optimism causes many fans to believe that their quarterback can -- and will -- not only survive but even thrive.

In some cities, the handwriting is already on the wall, plain to see for anyone who cares to notice. Let's look at where the powers-that-be should pull the trigger now instead of later on benching their starting quarterbacks.

Jake Delhomme, Browns
Coach Eric Mangini recently said the starting job in Cleveland is Delhomme's to lose. The sooner he does lose it, the better off the team will be.

Delhomme lost his fastball at some point during the 13 days between Week 17 of the 2008 regular season and the divisional round of the playoffs. Though the Browns regard it as an aberration, it's unlikely that a guy would simply fall off the horse at an advanced stage of his career then find the stirrups again.

Of course, the Browns can't simply bench Delhomme after signing him in the offseason and paying him $7 million. Maybe they just shouldn't have signed him.


David Garrard doesn't have much support from the Jaguars after two seasons with 15 TD passes and double-digit interceptions.
David Garrard, Jaguars
The coach doesn't really believe in him. The owner doesn't really believe in him. So why in the heck is Garrard the Jaguars' starting quarterback?

Of course, Garrard might be better than Luke McCown. But even if Garrard remains at the top of the depth chart, he should be on a short leash for 2010.

In turn, the Jaguars should have found a better option in the offseason. They clearly don't love the guy. It makes no sense to keep him around.

Kyle Orton, Broncos
The decision to trade for Brady Quinn and to draft Tim Tebow hardly represents a vote of confidence for Orton, whose contract-year performance was rewarded with only a first-round restricted free-agent tender.

So why do the Broncos insist on keeping him at the top of the depth chart? If, somehow, he plays well in 2010, it'll be harder to move on in 2011. The better move would be to get Tebow ready and get him on the field.

If the Broncos thought enough of Tebow to trade back into Round 1 to draft him, they simply should get him on the field.



Matt Moore, Panthers
After cutting Delhomme, the Panthers handed the ball to Moore. Then the Panthers drafted a QB in Round 2 prepared to step in and play right away.

So why not just give Jimmy Clausen the ball right now?

If coach John Fox wants to stick around after 2010, he must show that Clausen can be the long-term answer at quarterback.

Matt Leinart, Cardinals
A top-10 pick in '06, Leinart hasn't been able to win and hold the job. Injured in '07 after routinely being yanked for Kurt Warner when the going got tough, Leinart surprisingly landed on the bench shortly before the '08 season. He then watched Warner cement his Hall of Fame credentials.


So it's unclear why the team still has faith in Leinart. The best argument for keeping him on the field flows from the fact that the only other viable option is Derek Anderson.

The Cardinals should have aggressively pursued other options in the offseason, whether Donovan McNabb or Marc Bulger. Either way, Leinart isn't the answer; the sooner the Cardinals figure that out, the better off they'll be.

Mike Florio writes and edits ProFootballTalk.com and is a regular contributor to Sporting News. Check out PFT for up-to-the minute NFL news.



Read more: http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl/article/2010-07-21/five-quarterbacks-who-should-be-benched#ixzz0uRNmrPOL

Having personally see David Garrard play, I have never understood why Del Rio is still standing by his man. HE is Not A Leader!!!!! Leftwich (Leadfoot) was not a leader. It is my very humble opinion that Del Rio is the only one allowed to be a leader on the team hence no room for anyone else to be a leader (Fred Taylor) was a leader, but not for long under Sel Rio. We in Jacksonville were so mad when they did not draft Tebow, you will see it during the Bronco game, but I am glad we did not draft him. Del Rio would have had him holding a clipboard for at least 2 years. Sel Rio always seems to get rid of the leaders on the team. Which has led to a very dysfunctional team which broke down on each side of the ball last year. Why is it we drafted Ahlualua - no name no leader. :confused:

Tned
07-22-2010, 02:58 PM
Sorry, I don't buy his logic. Thinking "enough" about Tebow to draft him has nothing to do with whether or not he gives the Broncos the best chance of winning this year. The QB that gives the Broncos the best chance of putting up the most W's this year should start, whether that's Orton, Quinn or Tebow.

topscribe
07-22-2010, 03:00 PM
Oh the wonders that the long offseason brings us. Unfortunately, we've got to slog through manure like this to find the GEMs.

Actually, GEM is one of the few good things about it. ;)

-----

yardog
07-22-2010, 03:16 PM
I agree with him about Orton but I haven't like Orton from day one so nothing new from me on this subject.

arapaho2
07-22-2010, 03:17 PM
I never had any special opinion about Mike Florio, but I do now. Imbecile.

Prior to his ankle sprain but still playing the first couple games with a compound
dislocation of his right index finger, new to the sytem, new to the playbook, and
new to the other players (many who were new to each other), Orton still
achieved a 91.1 QBR, 63% comp, and a 6-2 record (and was on his way to 7-2
in the best game of his life when he was injured).

So let's dump him, now that he is completely healthy, familiar with the system,
familiar with the playbook, and familiar with the other players. After all, how
could he possibly play better than last year, when he had all those "advantages"?

Yessir, why should the great Brady Quinn or the seasoned Tim Tebow languish
on the bench behind him? :coffee:

-----

see theres top!! im pretty sure your opinion of the guy would be differant if he stated your views...but alas

whats so so with it?

unless we get the 85 bears defense, or the 2000 ravens defense..or the 2002 bucs...chances are we are not winning a superbowl with a average armed timid playing qb with limited mobility

therefor if tebow is the man..if he is the qb of joshes dream...his man..his guy..the qb for his system (if not then why move up to draft him)then the sooner he is in the line up the sooner joshes sytem can bear fruit....if his sytem will work:confused:

and so he should just start this season at some point

secondly if orton has a good season...lets say gets us to at least the divisional round...how much clamor would there be to resign him?...would that mean we are forced to resign him to a big contract and keep tebow sitting?

maybe we let orton go and we suffer through tebows learning year at 7-9...how much heat would josh get then?

id much rather languish through a rookies qbs first year now as opposed to later

Bosco
07-22-2010, 03:38 PM
see theres top!! im pretty sure your opinion of the guy would be differant if he stated your views...but alas

whats so so with it?

unless we get the 85 bears defense, or the 2000 ravens defense..or the 2002 bucs...chances are we are not winning a superbowl with a average armed timid playing qb with limited mobility

therefor if tebow is the man..if he is the qb of joshes dream...his man..his guy..the qb for his system (if not then why move up to draft him)then the sooner he is in the line up the sooner joshes sytem can bear fruit....if his sytem will work:confused:

and so he should just start this season at some point

secondly if orton has a good season...lets say gets us to at least the divisional round...how much clamor would there be to resign him?...would that mean we are forced to resign him to a big contract and keep tebow sitting?

maybe we let orton go and we suffer through tebows learning year at 7-9...how much heat would josh get then?

id much rather languish through a rookies qbs first year now as opposed to later

The point is that absent a complete and obvious upgrade, you don't arbitrarily give away a starter's job to a new guy. They need to earn it.

That's a great way to screw up locker room chemistry and I find it mildly amusing that someone who has bitched about McD not being "loyal to the players" is now bitching about him doing exactly that.

Lonestar
07-22-2010, 03:42 PM
I never had any special opinion about Mike Florio, but I do now. Imbecile.

Prior to his ankle sprain but still playing the first couple games with a compound
dislocation of his right index finger, new to the sytem, new to the playbook, and
new to the other players (many who were new to each other), Orton still
achieved a 91.1 QBR, 63% comp, and a 6-2 record (and was on his way to 7-2
in the best game of his life when he was injured).

So let's dump him, now that he is completely healthy, familiar with the system,
familiar with the playbook, and familiar with the other players. After all, how
could he possibly play better than last year, when he had all those "advantages"?

Yessir, why should the great Brady Quinn or the seasoned Tim Tebow languish
on the bench behind him? :coffee:

-----

I see his point but do not agree with it.

Anyone with the illiusion this team is a playoof wiiner let alone a super bowl type team is smoking something.

While it should be a goal each and every year it simply is not in the cards this year.

Way to much youth on Offense to mmake that happen.

Way to much youth behind those DL starters.

As for why not start Tebown he simply is not ready for the NFL and there is NO reason to insert him unless the two vets in front of him are hurt or ineefective.

KO will give us the best chance to win this year and give the team a winning attitude. Qll the while earning himself a great contract next year.

Now unless Quinn or Tebow proves to be totaly a **** up during the season there will be NO interest in keeping Orton as a starter.
Let him have his contract year while allowing Tebow the chance to get up to speed and improve his mechanics on the end team in practice.

I suspect that folrio was meaning that starting Tebow was the answer it would contridict something he said right after the draft when everyone was singing the same song Josh is an idiot for wasting a #1 on Tebow when he could have been had in the 2nd.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Lonestar
07-22-2010, 03:45 PM
The point is that absent a complete and obvious upgrade, you don't arbitrarily give away a starter's job to a new guy. They need to earn it.

That's a great way to screw up locker room chemistry and I find it mildly amusing that someone who has bitched about McD not being "loyal to the players" is now bitching about him doing exactly that.

Hey guy your being WAY to logical.

Good post. :salute:
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Denver Native (Carol)
07-22-2010, 04:11 PM
Figured this would be a good place to put this article, rather than starting a new thread

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_15578084

Let 'er rip, Tim Tebow.

Such is the recommendation of Broncos quarterback legend John Elway, who has no problem with Tebow's highly scrutinized throwing motion.

In simple terms, most quarterbacks have a short, compact throwing motion, much like a catcher's in baseball. Tebow's delivery can seem more like an outfielder's.

"The thing about Tebow is they're focusing too much on his release," Elway said Thursday afternoon after shooting a disappointing 11-over-par 82 in the opening round in the HealthOne Colorado Open golf tournament.

"As long as he can get it in a timely manner, I think he has plenty of arm there. ... He's not going to change his release. He may get better. Obviously, by throwing you get more accurate and more accurate and you may shorten it up as time goes on but if it's long and quick, that's OK."

Elway, the first Broncos' player to be inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame, is expecting his former team to be slightly better than they were last year. The Broncos lost eight of its last 10 games last season while stumbling to an 8-8 record.

"I think there's going to be a learning curve for them because they are so young," Elway said. "Defensively, I think they feel better about where they are. Those defensive linemen should be able to come in and help them right away.

"Maybe they make eight, nine, 10 wins would be a good year I would think. But show a little more consistency and finish the season out.

"The Broncos have had such a tough time the last three or four years finishing the season. That's going to have to one of the things they'll have to break, play better at the end of the year."

Ravage!!!
07-22-2010, 04:16 PM
I think what the writer is saying, is that no matter what happens, Tebow is the QB next season. If Orton plays well, guys, he is STILL not going to stay here. Short of winning the Super Bowl (and even then, maybe) Orton is gone.

Its not like teams around the ENTIRE NFL haven't started their newly drafted 1st round picks before.. thus "handing the job" to the new guy so that he learns the NFL, gets experience, and GROWS into the role. Its not earth-shattering suggestion.

No rookie is an "obvious upgrade" until they play. That goes for ever rookie that has started. But they have to get time on the field. The reason you DRAFT a QB in the first round, is with the intentions of him BEING the starter. Orton will NOT be the starter in 2011. The team already knows this. That goes for the coaches, the FO, AND the locker room. So its not going to "screw up a locker room" when every NFL player understands how it works. The coaches draft a player in the first round at YOUR position... guess what... most likely he starts. ESPECIALLY a QB, and ESPECIALLY when your incumbent QB is a "Kyel Orton" type of talent.

I dont' see what is so shocking, dumb, or imbecile about suggesting your newly drafted QB come in and start, when its obvious you aren't a SB caliber team, and you know he's going to be the starter in 2011.

Unless, of course, you don't think he's ready to be an NFL QB. In that case, you have to wonder if he should have been taken in the 1st round. But I'm sure, those that are saying he should sit, aren't saying that.... right?

jhildebrand
07-22-2010, 04:21 PM
Why bench him? :confused:

Because we drafted a Qb in the 1st and traded for another first round QB? :confused:

What good would come from benching? :confused:

Competition will make everybody better including the QB and the team wins, in the end, because of it. Now, by my estimation Orton has the leg up on the others. However, if he were to lose his position due to competition I wouldn't cry a single tear. I would however if McD listened to Florio and simply benched him because of the two moves he made to get other QB's.

On a side note, Quinn and Tebow both are young enough that if they win the job they can be the QB of the future for years to come!

Tempus Fugit
07-22-2010, 04:22 PM
see theres top!! im pretty sure your opinion of the guy would be differant if he stated your views...but alas

whats so so with it?

unless we get the 85 bears defense, or the 2000 ravens defense..or the 2002 bucs...chances are we are not winning a superbowl with a average armed timid playing qb with limited mobility

therefor if tebow is the man..if he is the qb of joshes dream...his man..his guy..the qb for his system (if not then why move up to draft him)then the sooner he is in the line up the sooner joshes sytem can bear fruit....if his sytem will work:confused:

and so he should just start this season at some point

secondly if orton has a good season...lets say gets us to at least the divisional round...how much clamor would there be to resign him?...would that mean we are forced to resign him to a big contract and keep tebow sitting?

maybe we let orton go and we suffer through tebows learning year at 7-9...how much heat would josh get then?

id much rather languish through a rookies qbs first year now as opposed to later

Throwing QBs in before they're ready is an excellent way to ruin them.

jhildebrand
07-22-2010, 04:29 PM
Throwing QBs in before they're ready is an excellent way to ruin them.

David Carr and Akili Smith agree with you. :lol:

Ravage!!!
07-22-2010, 04:33 PM
Throwing QBs in before they're ready is an excellent way to ruin them.

Or make them.

yardog
07-22-2010, 04:34 PM
David Carr and Akili Smith agree with you. :lol:

Peyton Manning and John Elway don't agree with you.

Ravage!!!
07-22-2010, 04:34 PM
David Carr and Akili Smith agree with you. :lol:

Not your best examples. David Carr was absolutely ready, and Smith just flat out sucked.

TXBRONC
07-22-2010, 04:47 PM
David Carr and Akili Smith agree with you. :lol:

Carr I completely agree with you. On the other hand I heard was as dumb as box of rocks.

arapaho2
07-22-2010, 04:50 PM
Throwing QBs in before they're ready is an excellent way to ruin them.

yeah i know...screwed elway, manningx2, sanchez, cutler, aikman, totaly up

arapaho2
07-22-2010, 04:54 PM
The point is that absent a complete and obvious upgrade, you don't arbitrarily give away a starter's job to a new guy. They need to earn it.

That's a great way to screw up locker room chemistry and I find it mildly amusing that someone who has bitched about McD not being "loyal to the players" is now bitching about him doing exactly that.


because...a 1st year starter will have growing pains...why not now coming off consecutive .500 seasons?

we all know orton isnt gonna start next year...so we might as well start the rook at some point

im not saying its the best for the team today...but the quicker yo get your potential frnachise qb into the game the better

Ravage!!!
07-22-2010, 04:55 PM
yeah i know...screwed elway, manningx2, sanchez, cutler, aikman, totaly up

Rothlesburger, Flacco, Brees, Stafford...

(plus, Carr started for 5 years. Do we really think it was his rookie year that 'screwed him up'? )

Bosco
07-22-2010, 05:02 PM
yeah i know...screwed elway, manningx2, sanchez, cutler, aikman, totaly up

I don't think Tempus was implying it's any kind of absolute thing.

Bottom line, some people can handle and some can't. Guys like (going off recent memory) Flacco, Ryan and Rapistburger rise up to the challenge and lead their teams. Some guys like Cutler, Smith, Vick and McNown go the other way.

jhildebrand
07-22-2010, 05:07 PM
Rothlesburger, Flacco, Brees, Stafford...

(plus, Carr started for 5 years. Do we really think it was his rookie year that 'screwed him up'? )

Carr and Akili Smith, like Aaron Rogers, are Tedford Qb's. 2 of the 3 started and were ruined. One sat and has done quite well for himself. I am not saying it was Carr's entire rookie year that 'screwed him up' but it certainly didn't help matters. Carr also didn't inherit the team Roethlisberger, Flacco, or Brees did.

jhildebrand
07-22-2010, 05:10 PM
because...a 1st year starter will have growing pains...why not now coming off consecutive .500 seasons?

we all know orton isnt gonna start next year...so we might as well start the rook at some point

im not saying its the best for the team today...but the quicker yo get your potential frnachise qb into the game the better

I agree with you Arapaho. I was making a point in reference to Florio's idea that Orton should simply be benched. I simply disagree with that notion! Tebow at some point will have to be the starter. However, for the team's sake, and the locker room as we have learned, he HAS TO EARN IT.

If McDaniels were to simply hand him the job, then he should be fired. So far it sounds like QB will be an open competition. I will watch closely to see if that is the case.

I guess the only way you hand the reigns over is if the season is all but lost a la Cutler.

arapaho2
07-22-2010, 05:12 PM
I don't think Tempus was implying it's any kind of absolute thing.

Bottom line, some people can handle and some can't. Guys like (going off recent memory) Flacco, Ryan and Rapistburger rise up to the challenge and lead their teams. Some guys like Cutler, Smith, Vick and McNown go the other way.


if tebow cannot handle the pressure of starting now...then i dont want him next year, or the next or the next

but i honestly think if the defense is gonna be as tough as reid is saying...then its the right time to get tebow going..i have little doubt he has the mentality to take his rookie lumps and learn from it like some of the great ones have

in other words i think he has what it takes in the head and heart to emerge a leader....we might as well start the process now rather than postponeing it a year

jhildebrand
07-22-2010, 05:13 PM
I think Tebow is built right between the ears. Were he to win the QB position by week 1, I would be ok with it.

Ravage!!!
07-22-2010, 05:14 PM
Carr and Akili Smith, like Aaron Rogers, are Tedford Qb's. 2 of the 3 started and were ruined. One sat and has done quite well for himself. I am not saying it was Carr's entire rookie year that 'screwed him up' but it certainly didn't help matters. Carr also didn't inherit the team Roethlisberger, Flacco, or Brees did.

So you are saying its more likely that things would have been 100%, rather than just a 1-out-of-3 success rate simply based on a common coach they had?

I think thats a pretty slim example.

But here is the thing. Show me a QB that absolutely gained MORE from sitting than they would have from playing? You can't use Rivers and Rodgers, because you don't know if they gained more. You know that they sat, and they succeeded, but this isn't proof that they wouldn't ahve succeeded anyway.

For there are many many examples of QBs starting from their rookie season on, and succeeding. Just are there are many examples of rookie QBs starting and failing... many examples of QBs sitting and succeeding, and many examples of QBs sitting and failing.

Every QB that has sat has always said that they learned SOOOOO much more that first year starting than they EVER did when sitting. That playing on the field was by far the best thing for them. That sitting and watching doesn't even come close to actually being on the field.

So... I think there are more things involved with success and failure than just simply starting because you are a rookie. I believe its best to get it out of the way, and learn early.

arapaho2
07-22-2010, 05:17 PM
Carr and Akili Smith, like Aaron Rogers, are Tedford Qb's. 2 of the 3 started and were ruined. One sat and has done quite well for himself. I am not saying it was Carr's entire rookie year that 'screwed him up' but it certainly didn't help matters. Carr also didn't inherit the team Roethlisberger, Flacco, or Brees did.


the first two had terrible teams....and rogers sat because he had one of the greatest qbs to ever play in front of him

HORSEPOWER 56
07-22-2010, 05:17 PM
May the best man win, IMO. I won't be upset to see any of the three guys we have win the job outright in camp. At least this year we appear to have some depth so if Orton starts and if Orton gets injured again, we still might be able to win some games.

I understand there's a 99% chance that Orton won't be a Bronco next year, but he's here now and we're paying him $3 mil this year. If he wins the job, good for him. If he doesn't, that's fine too.

T.K.O.
07-22-2010, 05:18 PM
i think it's smarter,especially with a qb who's game may not translate well to the nfl.to be used sparingly for a year or two while working on his mechanics and really getting the system down. which should really help with his confidence and give him a much better chance to be successful in the long term.
not to mention i'm sure the F.O. ,coaches and players are not as eager to call this season or next a bust as some fans are.
they all want and expect to be competitive.
throwing in the towell before the season starts is not an option.
that being said the only way florio's opinion could be considered valid would have been if he had said"if after training camp,orton is not the clearly superior option,it would be wise to start one of the other qb's"
it may be a smart move to bench orton....but certainly NOT until somebody proves they give the team a better shot at winning games

Tempus Fugit
07-22-2010, 05:22 PM
yeah i know...screwed elway, manningx2, sanchez, cutler, aikman, totaly up

There are exceptions to every generality. But, since you put out this list....

Aikman - was coming in for a 3-13 team. went 0-11 as a rookie, 7-8 in year 2 and 7-5 in year 3.

Elway - was coming in for a 2-7 team. Completed 47.5% of his passes.

Eli Manning - Took over a 5-4 team and went 1-6, completing 48.2% of his passes. Was absolutely garbage until he got 'hot' in the second half of 2007. Still just better than average. Would certainly have benefited by learning behind Warner.

Peyton Manning - was coming in for a 3-13 team. Went 3-13. Threw 28 interceptions.

Sanchez - He was the second worst QB in the league last season. The worst was cut by the Raiders. Sanchez was crap, for crying out loud.

Cutler - Pointing to a player who folds under pressure is probably not the best way to rebut the notion that having a QB take a year to learn without pressure is a good idea.

While I'm sure you'd be extremely patient if Tebow went the 3-13 route like Manning, or 0-11 like Aikman or 2-7 like Elway, there are actually some fans out there who would be calling for the head of McDaniels, because some Broncos fans see this team as a team that could be in the playoff hunt. I know that you wouldn't be one of those people, because you've been such a loyal backer of the new coach, but some people aren't as open about such things.

Ravage!!!
07-22-2010, 05:24 PM
I think Tebow is built right between the ears. Were he to win the QB position by week 1, I would be ok with it.

Baltimore handed it over to Flacco, the Jets to Sanchez... the Chargers to Brees... and so many others to their NEW QB of which they are spending a TON of money TO BE the starter. If you are spending the draft picks, and the money, on a first round QB..... then you have already made the decision that the guy that has the job, isn't what you want.

If he was the guy you wanted, you would feel confident about him leading us to the Super Bowl. If that were the case, you wouldn't use a first round pick on a QB. If you know he is NOT the guy that you can count on leading you to the Super Bowl, then the only thing (I feel) he is doing... is taking valuable playing time and experience away from the guy that you spent draft picks, and money, to BE the guy to take you to the Super Bowl.

I see the writers point. WHAT is to be gained by the Broncos, by keeping a guy like Kyle Orton in the line-up, when you know he's not even going to be on the team in 2011? Learning (or learning more) a system that he's not going to play next year? Learning the timing with WRs he's not going to be teamed up with next year (and vice versa for the WRs).

Or is it just the "best player to win the spot" thing that people think is actually going to be present?? I mean, do we REALLY think that these guys are going to feel "its not fair" if Tebow is announced the starting QB now, after spending 4 picks to get him, and knowing that he was drafted to take over the starting QB spot? Most of these guys have moved around the NFL.... they understand the business of the league. They aren't different than we are, and KNOW that McD has put his future in the shoes of TT. That spells, VERY LOUDLY, "He's our starting QB. He's my future." This isn't hidden. Not even for one season.

So even if the QB (Tebow) has a bad rookie year.... its what happens with rookie QBs in the NFL.

So if Orton has a good season..... then is Tebow the QB in 2011, or is that considered being handed the job??? People already know the answer to this question. Tebow IS the starting QB in 2011. No matter how Orton performs this year, because Orton will NEVER be a QB a team considers to be a franchise QB. Thats already determined.

arapaho2
07-22-2010, 05:33 PM
There are exceptions to every generality. But, since you put out this list....

Aikman - was coming in for a 3-13 team. went 0-11 as a rookie, 7-8 in year 2 and 7-5 in year 3.

Elway - was coming in for a 2-7 team. Completed 47.5% of his passes.

Eli Manning - Took over a 5-4 team and went 1-6, completing 48.2% of his passes. Was absolutely garbage until he got 'hot' in the second half of 2007. Still just better than average. Would certainly have benefited by learning behind Warner.

Peyton Manning - was coming in for a 3-13 team. Went 3-13. Threw 28 interceptions.

Sanchez - He was the second worst QB in the league last season. The worst was cut by the Raiders. Sanchez was crap, for crying out loud.

Cutler - Pointing to a player who folds under pressure is probably not the best way to rebut the notion that having a QB take a year to learn without pressure is a good idea.

While I'm sure you'd be extremely patient if Tebow went the 3-13 route like Manning, or 0-11 like Aikman or 2-7 like Elway, there are actually some fans out there who would be calling for the head of McDaniels, because some Broncos fans see this team as a team that could be in the playoff hunt. I know that you wouldn't be one of those people, because you've been such a loyal backer of the new coach, but some people aren't as open about such things.

and thats the point...supposedly our great coach has built a team ready to win the superbowl...we got the oline he wanted..the wrs he wanted, the Tes he wanted, the linebackers, the safetys, the cbs, the LS, the FB, the RBs..everyone on the team is here because they supposedly fit in joshes scheme including the coaches

all we needed was his qb..when you reach as high as we did for tebow,,it must mean josh believes thats his guy

if josh 1.0 master plan has worked then we have a team strong enough, together cohesively enough, on the same page..to protect, help and get a rookie franchise qb over the hump and have a decent season

aikman and manning and the others that you quoted had terrible 1st season...but their teams picked them #1 because the team flat out sucked...we supposedly dont

Tempus Fugit
07-22-2010, 05:34 PM
if tebow cannot handle the pressure of starting now...then i dont want him next year, or the next or the next

Brady didn't start year 1. He's the best QB of his era.

Montana is considered by many to be the best QB of all time. He was drafted in '79, started only 1 game as a rookie and 7 as a 2nd year player. He didn't take absolute control of the position until his 3rd season.

Unitas, another player considered to be in the mix as the best QB of all time, was drafted by the Steelers in 1955. He wasn't even good enough to play a game. In fact, he was cut. He didn't play his first game until the next season, after the Colts signed him as a free agent. Even then, he didn't start all the games. He took over when the team's #1 QB broke his leg.

I'd take those guys. You, apparently, wouldn't.

Tempus Fugit
07-22-2010, 05:35 PM
and thats the point...supposedly our great coach has built a team ready to win the superbowl...we got the oline he wanted..the wrs he wanted, the Tes he wanted, the linebackers, the safetys, the cbs, the LS, the FB, the RBs..everyone on the team is here because they supposedly fit in joshes scheme including the coaches

all we needed was his qb..when you reach as high as we did for tebow,,it must mean josh believes thats his guy

if josh 1.0 master plan has worked then we have a team strong enough, together cohesively enough, on the same page..to protect, help and get a rookie franchise qb over the hump and have a decent season

aikman and manning and the others that you quoted had terrible 1st season...but their teams picked them #1 because the team flat out sucked...we supposedly dont

I wonder if you have any idea how bizarre this post of yours is. You claim something's the point when it's precisely the opposite of what you're arguing.

T.K.O.
07-22-2010, 05:41 PM
^:laugh::laugh::laugh:
c'mon...really ? every qb picked in the first round is expected to take their team to the superbowl? eventually each team hopes for this but that has little to do with starting them immediatly. any coach who thinks he can lay the expectations of an entire organization on the shoulders of a rookie is sorely mistaken

arapaho2
07-22-2010, 05:45 PM
Brady didn't start year 1. He's the best QB of his era.

Montana is considered by many to be the best QB of all time. He was drafted in '79, started only 1 game as a rookie and 7 as a 2nd year player. He didn't take absolute control of the position until his 3rd season.

Unitas, another player considered to be in the mix as the best QB of all time, was drafted by the Steelers in 1955. He wasn't even good enough to play a game. In fact, he was cut. He didn't play his first game until the next season, after the Colts signed him as a free agent. Even then, he didn't start all the games. He took over when the team's #1 QB broke his leg.

I'd take those guys. You, apparently, wouldn't.

brady had a probowler in front of him..tebow has orton...big diff

and whats those guys have to do with anything??

for one thing montana was drafted in the 3rd round...NOT A 1ST RND PICK OF A TEAM THAT NEEDED A QB

FACT IS...ORTON WILL NOT BE ON THIS TEAM PAST THE 2010 SEASON..YOU KNOW THAT...I KNOW THAT...JOSH KNOWS THAT

WHY NOT GET THE ROOK HIS LUMPS NOW WHILE HE HAS A FELLER LIKE ORTON TO ASSIST HIM, RATHER THAN NEXT YEAR AFTER ORTON IS GONE

Ravage!!!
07-22-2010, 05:49 PM
^:laugh::laugh::laugh:
c'mon...really ? every qb picked in the first round is expected to take their team to the superbowl? eventually each team hopes for this but that has little to do with starting them immediatly. any coach who thinks he can lay the expectations of an entire organization on the shoulders of a rookie is sorely mistaken

Yes... EVERY QB that is taken in the first round is EXPECTED to eventually take them to the Super Bowl, or you DO NOT DRAFT THEM. Period. You don't expect them to take you to the Super Bowl their rookie season, but if you are drafting a QB in the first round that you DO NOT think is good enough to take you to the Super Bowl, than you are a FRIGGIN IDIOT!!

So you don't think that the Broncos put the organization on Elway's shoulders? The Colts on Manning? The Jets on Sanchez? The QB is the position that takes the most flak, and the most credit, for every win and loss. THats the nature of the job. Its never REALLY been a sport where EVERYTHING is on the shoulders of the QB. But when you organization spends that top pick on you, and the press is estatic, and the fans are frenzied, and the coaches are counting on you to 'prove them right'.... then the organization is on his shoulders. Thats just the reality of being a first round pick QB.

Tempus Fugit
07-22-2010, 05:54 PM
brady had a probowler in front of him..tebow has orton...big diff

and whats those guys have to do with anything??

for one thing montana was drafted in the 3rd round...NOT A 1ST RND PICK OF A TEAM THAT NEEDED A QB

FACT IS...ORTON WILL NOT BE ON THIS TEAM PAST THE 2010 SEASON..YOU KNOW THAT...I KNOW THAT...JOSH KNOWS THAT

WHY NOT GET THE ROOK HIS LUMPS NOW WHILE HE HAS A FELLER LIKE ORTON TO ASSIST HIM, RATHER THAN NEXT YEAR AFTER ORTON IS GONE

And, once again, you move the goalposts.....


if tebow cannot handle the pressure of starting now...then i dont want him next year, or the next or the next

Brady, Montana, Unitas..... determined by their respective coaching staffs to be not ready to handle the pressure and/or the position well enough to take over the starting jobs.

Again, I'd take them. You, apparently, wouldn't. Whether Orton will be around in 2011, or even by week 2 of 2010, is irrelevant to the argument of yours that I was responding to.

As for "WHY NOT GET THE ROOK HIS LUMPS NOW WHILE HE HAS A FELLER LIKE ORTON TO ASSIST HIM..."

"Because he's not ready" would be one pretty good reason. "Because Orton's better right now" would be a pretty good reason, too. As I noted, not all fans would be as patient as you, no doubt, would be.



P.S. Your Montana assertion is a riot given that Steve DeBerg was the starter at the time.

Ravage!!!
07-22-2010, 06:02 PM
And, once again, you move the goalposts.....



Brady, Montana, Unitas..... determined by their respective coaching staffs to be not ready to handle the pressure and/or the position well enough to take over the starting jobs.

Again, I'd take them. You, apparently, wouldn't. Whether Orton will be around in 2011, or even by week 2 of 2010, is irrelevant to the argument of yours that I was responding to.

As for "WHY NOT GET THE ROOK HIS LUMPS NOW WHILE HE HAS A FELLER LIKE ORTON TO ASSIST HIM..."

"Because he's not ready" would be one pretty good reason. "Because Orton's better right now" would be a pretty good reason, too. As I noted, not all fans would be as patient as you, no doubt, would be.



P.S. Your Montana assertion is a riot given that Steve DeBerg was the starter at the time.

There is a HUGE difference when you are drafted in the 6th round and sitting behind a pro-bowl QB (as Brady was) than being drafted in teh 1st round after using 4 picks to get you. When you are drafted in teh 6th round, you aren't expected to start. When you are drafted in the 3rd round, you aren't expected to start. Steve Deberg was a very decent QB. Joe Montana wasn't considered to be a franchise-saving talent. Few knew much about him. You are using two of the most EXCEPTIONAL cases to make a point. A point, of which, has been covered extensively already.

We know there have been QBs that have started right away and failed, as they have started right away and succeeded. We know of QBs that have sat and failed, and we know of QBs that have sat and succeeded. Thats not REALLY what we are talking about.

The writer in the OP suggested taht we start TT because all he is doing is sitting behind Kyle Orton.

Not exactly a hard concept to agree with, and certainly not an idea that is absurd or unheard of in the NFL.

Orton isnt' going to be on the team in 2011. He's not exactly a HoF QB to sit behind and learn from. So what is to be gained, by the Broncos, to have TT sit behind Orton instead of learning from actually playing?

Also... if you say TT isn't "ready"... then why is he taken in the 1st round? Why is it people are saying that he will be a fantastic QB because of all his college success, yet not be READY for the game n the NFL? So much so, that he has to sit behind Kyle Orton for a year?

Softskull
07-22-2010, 06:03 PM
Actually, GEM is one of the few good things about it. ;)

-----
What?!? We're benching GEM?

topscribe
07-22-2010, 06:05 PM
because...a 1st year starter will have growing pains...why not now coming off consecutive .500 seasons?

we all know orton isnt gonna start next year...so we might as well start the rook at some point

im not saying its the best for the team today...but the quicker yo get your potential frnachise qb into the game the better

No, we don't all know that. You don't know it, and I don't know it.

You can GUESS it, but you don't KNOW it . . .

-----

topscribe
07-22-2010, 06:07 PM
What?!? We're benching GEM?

Look, you can try that if you want. But if you're going to mess with GEM, let me know first . . .



:scared:



:eek:



:couch:



-----

elsid13
07-22-2010, 06:09 PM
The point is that absent a complete and obvious upgrade, you don't arbitrarily give away a starter's job to a new guy. They need to earn it.

That's a great way to screw up locker room chemistry and I find it mildly amusing that someone who has bitched about McD not being "loyal to the players" is now bitching about him doing exactly that.

That true for every position except QB. The QB is appointed by the Head Coach as his field "general". Right now I am still mixed about Orton, but if we falter at all it is time to put Tebow in and see if has anything to be a starter.

Tempus Fugit
07-22-2010, 06:15 PM
There is a HUGE difference when you are drafted in the 6th round and sitting behind a pro-bowl QB (as Brady was) than being drafted in teh 1st round after using 4 picks to get you. When you are drafted in teh 6th round, you aren't expected to start. When you are drafted in the 3rd round, you aren't expected to start. Steve Deberg was a very decent QB. Joe Montana wasn't considered to be a franchise-saving talent. Few knew much about him. You are using two of the most EXCEPTIONAL cases to make a point. A point, of which, has been covered extensively already.

This is just not accurate. I was using that poster's position on the matter. Using that position, there was no difference at all.

As for DeBerg and Montana.... DeBerg was a mediocre QB (with a great play action fake), and Orton is a mediocre QB. Tebow wasn't considered to be NFL starter ready. There's really no difference in the situations. Of course, those such as Arapaho and yourself, who are approaching this with a bias, would rather see the team fail spectacularly so that you can feel good about your positions, then to see the team do the right thing and improve over time.


We know there have been QBs that have started right away and failed, as they have started right away and succeeded. We know of QBs that have sat and failed, and we know of QBs that have sat and succeeded. Thats not REALLY what we are talking about.

Actually, it's PRECISELY what you're talking about.


The writer in the OP suggested taht we start TT because all he is doing is sitting behind Kyle Orton.

Not exactly a hard concept to agree with, and certainly not an idea that is absurd or unheard of in the NFL.

The writer is an idiot. And exceptions to rules do not make the rules invalid. History has shown that it's generally a wise move to wait until your QB is ready before throwing him out on the field.


Orton isnt' going to be on the team in 2011. He's not exactly a HoF QB to sit behind and learn from. So what is to be gained, by the Broncos, to have TT sit behind Orton instead of learning from actually playing?

Ummm.... the obvious thing would be learning while being groomed in less 'vital' conditions.


Also... if you say TT isn't "ready"... then why is he taken in the 1st round? Why is it people are saying that he will be a fantastic QB because of all his college success, yet not be READY for the game n the NFL? So much so, that he has to sit behind Kyle Orton for a year?

The round taken is irrelevant, especially for quarterbacks. Players adjust at different paces. You know this. This fantasy football notion that every first round pick should be starting is the kind of asinine 'logic' that is why it's such a good thing that the average fans aren't the coaches and GMs.

broncohead
07-22-2010, 06:18 PM
That true for every position except QB. The QB is appointed by the Head Coach as his field "general". Right now I am still mixed about Orton, but if we falter at all it is time to put Tebow in and see if has anything to be a starter.

There is no reason to rush him in. It's not like we are on the brink and waiting for that one player to take us over the top. Let him learn this season and let him compete for the starting spot next season

GEM
07-22-2010, 06:18 PM
What?!? We're benching GEM?

:kicksrocks: What did I do now?

:lol:

topscribe
07-22-2010, 06:20 PM
see theres top!! im pretty sure your opinion of the guy would be differant if he stated your views...but alas

whats so so with it?

unless we get the 85 bears defense, or the 2000 ravens defense..or the 2002 bucs...chances are we are not winning a superbowl with a average armed timid playing qb with limited mobility

therefor if tebow is the man..if he is the qb of joshes dream...his man..his guy..the qb for his system (if not then why move up to draft him)then the sooner he is in the line up the sooner joshes sytem can bear fruit....if his sytem will work:confused:

and so he should just start this season at some point

secondly if orton has a good season...lets say gets us to at least the divisional round...how much clamor would there be to resign him?...would that mean we are forced to resign him to a big contract and keep tebow sitting?

maybe we let orton go and we suffer through tebows learning year at 7-9...how much heat would josh get then?

id much rather languish through a rookies qbs first year now as opposed to later

I don't know what is wrong with you, but you seem to have replaced Nature
Boy as the official board Flamer and Baiter. Try to respond to my posts as if
your I.Q. is higher than your age.

Moreover, try to stay to the issue if you are to respond to me. I provided
some concrete reasons behind my opinion. You come back with maybe if
possibly perhaps, and that is your basis as to why.

Orton has proven two years in a row that he can do a damn fine job as a QB
when he is healthy. That is not maybe if possibly perhaps. That is history. It
did happen. No matter how much you don't want Orton to succeed, you
cannot deny his success when he is playing healthy.

You best go back to your old "Duh, he sucks" as your argument. That was
much stronger than what you are presenting now . . .

-----

T.K.O.
07-22-2010, 06:23 PM
Yes... EVERY QB that is taken in the first round is EXPECTED to eventually take them to the Super Bowl, or you DO NOT DRAFT THEM. Period. You don't expect them to take you to the Super Bowl their rookie season, but if you are drafting a QB in the first round that you DO NOT think is good enough to take you to the Super Bowl, than you are a FRIGGIN IDIOT!!

So you don't think that the Broncos put the organization on Elway's shoulders? The Colts on Manning? The Jets on Sanchez? The QB is the position that takes the most flak, and the most credit, for every win and loss. THats the nature of the job. Its never REALLY been a sport where EVERYTHING is on the shoulders of the QB. But when you organization spends that top pick on you, and the press is estatic, and the fans are frenzied, and the coaches are counting on you to 'prove them right'.... then the organization is on his shoulders. Thats just the reality of being a first round pick QB.


yes i do agree that they draft that qb with the intent of him having the ability to EVENTUALLY get them there..but that has nothing to do with a valid reason to start him a.s.a.p.
when you draft a guy who was widely considered a "project" you dont throw him to the wolves before you feel he is ready and a year to adjust and work on mechanics is not at all unreasonable.
this is why i think florio's opinion is ridicules

Lonestar
07-22-2010, 06:25 PM
There are exceptions to every generality. But, since you put out this list....

Aikman - was coming in for a 3-13 team. went 0-11 as a rookie, 7-8 in year 2 and 7-5 in year 3.

Elway - was coming in for a 2-7 team. Completed 47.5% of his passes.

Eli Manning - Took over a 5-4 team and went 1-6, completing 48.2% of his passes. Was absolutely garbage until he got 'hot' in the second half of 2007. Still just better than average. Would certainly have benefited by learning behind Warner.

Peyton Manning - was coming in for a 3-13 team. Went 3-13. Threw 28 interceptions.

Sanchez - He was the second worst QB in the league last season. The worst was cut by the Raiders. Sanchez was crap, for crying out loud.

Cutler - Pointing to a player who folds under pressure is probably not the best way to rebut the notion that having a QB take a year to learn without pressure is a good idea.

While I'm sure you'd be extremely patient if Tebow went the 3-13 route like Manning, or 0-11 like Aikman or 2-7 like Elway, there are actually some fans out there who would be calling for the head of McDaniels, because some Broncos fans see this team as a team that could be in the playoff hunt. I know that you wouldn't be one of those people, because you've been such a loyal backer of the new coach, but some people aren't as open about such things.


hold on your being to logical again.

great post

Lonestar
07-22-2010, 06:27 PM
Brady didn't start year 1. He's the best QB of his era.

Montana is considered by many to be the best QB of all time. He was drafted in '79, started only 1 game as a rookie and 7 as a 2nd year player. He didn't take absolute control of the position until his 3rd season.

Unitas, another player considered to be in the mix as the best QB of all time, was drafted by the Steelers in 1955. He wasn't even good enough to play a game. In fact, he was cut. He didn't play his first game until the next season, after the Colts signed him as a free agent. Even then, he didn't start all the games. He took over when the team's #1 QB broke his leg.

I'd take those guys. You, apparently, wouldn't.

You forgot Steve Young a HOF player that sat a couple of years behind Joe after being traded from TB as a BUST.

elsid13
07-22-2010, 06:28 PM
There is no reason to rush him in. It's not like we are on the brink and waiting for that one player to take us over the top. Let him learn this season and let him compete for the starting spot next season

The best place to learn is on the field. He not going to get the snaps in practice to understand the speed of the game.

TXBRONC
07-22-2010, 06:29 PM
the first two had terrible teams....and rogers sat because he had one of the greatest qbs to ever play in front of him

I don't know if having a better around Akili Smith would have been much help. Like said earlier remember hearing he didn't have enough upstairs to be pro quarterback.

Jagsbch
07-22-2010, 06:29 PM
Leftwich (Leadfoot) was not a leader.

You are way out of line with that comment. Byron is a top 10 QB, JDR had him stuck in a rut of an ultra conservative offense. Don't make me, cause I will...

Byron Leftwich is my favorite NFL Starting QB in this league. He is hands down the most underated player in this league.

Pittsburgh Steelers, Byron Leftwich Poised to Assume Elite Status This Season

Two Jacksonville locals arguing about QB's on a Broncos forum. Priceless.

David Garrard is a fullback who proves the wild cat is fine and dandy as a gimick play, but not an every down play, considering the Jaguars have won all of a dozen games the last two seasons.

Jack used to have a winning team when Byron was there, in 2005 Byron managed to be a top 10 QB despite being in a ultra conservative system. He led the team to the playoffs.

The following season he was benched and replaced after having it out with the head coach on the sideline of the Texan game because of his ball and chain ultra conservative offense. Byron never started another game for the Jaguars after that. JDR made it seem like he had an injury, but the players knew Byron was fine... at least enough to play. players play with injuries all the time.

wait where were we oh ya Florio sucks:D:beer::D

broncohead
07-22-2010, 06:35 PM
The best place to learn is on the field. He not going to get the snaps in practice to understand the speed of the game.

He's got to learn the playbook. Even if he already does it takes a ton of repitition before being fluent and compfortable with the playbook, footwork, mechanics, routes, and building player report. It's easy to learn each serparately but when you have to put them all together thats the difficult part.

nevcraw
07-22-2010, 06:40 PM
I don't know what is wrong with you, but you seem to have replaced Nature
Boy as the official board Flamer and Baiter.

-----

Hold up a second! before you go handing over this jeweled crown to arapoe you may want to schedule a flame & bait off between him and Jr.

T.K.O.
07-22-2010, 07:10 PM
Hold up a second! before you go handing over this jeweled crown to arapoe you may want to schedule a flame & bait off between him and Jr.

oh crap ! i already voted:shocked:

Bosco
07-22-2010, 07:26 PM
I don't know what is wrong with you, but you seem to have replaced Nature
Boy as the official board Flamer and Baiter. Try to respond to my posts as if
your I.Q. is higher than your age.

Moreover, try to stay to the issue if you are to respond to me. I provided
some concrete reasons behind my opinion. You come back with maybe if
possibly perhaps, and that is your basis as to why.

Orton has proven two years in a row that he can do a damn fine job as a QB
when he is healthy. That is not maybe if possibly perhaps. That is history. It
did happen. No matter how much you don't want Orton to succeed, you
cannot deny his success when he is playing healthy.

You best go back to your old "Duh, he sucks" as your argument. That was
much stronger than what you are presenting now . . .

-----

http://scienceblogs.com/isisthescientist/knocked%20out%20of%20park.png

T.K.O.
07-22-2010, 07:29 PM
http://scienceblogs.com/isisthescientist/knocked%20out%20of%20park.png

:laugh: that was funny !

Apollo
07-22-2010, 07:35 PM
That true for every position except QB. The QB is appointed by the Head Coach as his field "general". Right now I am still mixed about Orton, but if we falter at all it is time to put Tebow in and see if has anything to be a starter.

But we all know how this will go. Every incompletion Orton has, every ball the receiver drops and every time he doesn't resemble Elway in every single way, the fans will viciously attack him. Eventually, the pressure will get to the coach who will put Tebow in...It's inevitable. Putting Tebow in too early, no matter how below average Orton plays, is Football suicide. Orton can manage a game, an inexperienced QB will just throw INT after INT.

If Orton is THAT consistently awful, the fine, but I fear he will get dumped too early.

tomjonesrocks
07-22-2010, 07:50 PM
Tend to agree--Orton has shown his very limited abilities give the team a very low ceiling. Might as well move on and see who might be able to reach a higher level of play at the position now.

The Broncos are obviously taking the more conservative approach, hedging their bets in the event the team gets off to an unexpected good start with the status quo. Waste of time if you ask me.

Northman
07-22-2010, 08:14 PM
Baltimore handed it over to Flacco, the Jets to Sanchez... the Chargers to Brees... and so many others to their NEW QB of which they are spending a TON of money TO BE the starter. If you are spending the draft picks, and the money, on a first round QB..... then you have already made the decision that the guy that has the job, isn't what you want.

If he was the guy you wanted, you would feel confident about him leading us to the Super Bowl. If that were the case, you wouldn't use a first round pick on a QB. If you know he is NOT the guy that you can count on leading you to the Super Bowl, then the only thing (I feel) he is doing... is taking valuable playing time and experience away from the guy that you spent draft picks, and money, to BE the guy to take you to the Super Bowl.

I see the writers point. WHAT is to be gained by the Broncos, by keeping a guy like Kyle Orton in the line-up, when you know he's not even going to be on the team in 2011? Learning (or learning more) a system that he's not going to play next year? Learning the timing with WRs he's not going to be teamed up with next year (and vice versa for the WRs).

Or is it just the "best player to win the spot" thing that people think is actually going to be present?? I mean, do we REALLY think that these guys are going to feel "its not fair" if Tebow is announced the starting QB now, after spending 4 picks to get him, and knowing that he was drafted to take over the starting QB spot? Most of these guys have moved around the NFL.... they understand the business of the league. They aren't different than we are, and KNOW that McD has put his future in the shoes of TT. That spells, VERY LOUDLY, "He's our starting QB. He's my future." This isn't hidden. Not even for one season.

So even if the QB (Tebow) has a bad rookie year.... its what happens with rookie QBs in the NFL.

So if Orton has a good season..... then is Tebow the QB in 2011, or is that considered being handed the job??? People already know the answer to this question. Tebow IS the starting QB in 2011. No matter how Orton performs this year, because Orton will NEVER be a QB a team considers to be a franchise QB. Thats already determined.

Exactly. Now you have Elway saying that because of the youth he isnt expecting too much so really, throw Tebow in the fire this way if we are going to lose might as well get the kid wet and let him take his lumps now. That worked for a guy like Manning.

jhildebrand
07-22-2010, 09:12 PM
the first two had terrible teams....and rogers sat because he had one of the greatest qbs to ever play in front of him

And you would classify our team as?

T.K.O.
07-22-2010, 09:19 PM
Tend to agree--Orton has shown his very limited abilities give the team a very low ceiling. Might as well move on and see who might be able to reach a higher level of play at the position now.

The Broncos are obviously taking the more conservative approach, hedging their bets in the event the team gets off to an unexpected good start with the status quo. Waste of time if you ask me.

uhhh... orton proved that as long as the defense does well he can keep us in or win any game...he was an early candidate for the probowl in his first year in the system and played the way he was coached to play.
why should we bench a guy that had 21td's and 12 picks while playing injured for most of the season?
don't tell me that we are better off with a guy who has a few weeks in the nfl...please

Tned
07-22-2010, 09:22 PM
uhhh... orton proved that as long as the defense does well he can keep us in or win any game...he was an early candidate for the probowl in his first year in the system and played the way he was coached to play.
why should we bench a guy that had 21td's and 12 picks while playing injured for most of the season?
don't tell me that we are better off with a guy who has a few weeks in the nfl...please

I'm guessing McDaniels will play the QB he thinks gives him the best chance of winning.

T.K.O.
07-22-2010, 09:31 PM
I'm guessing McDaniels will play the QB he thinks gives him the best chance of winning.

i would hope we can all agree on that !:salute:
unless he's a "superdufassmcdumshit":laugh:

Lonestar
07-22-2010, 09:33 PM
He's got to learn the playbook. Even if he already does it takes a ton of repitition before being fluent and compfortable with the playbook, footwork, mechanics, routes, and building player report. It's easy to learn each serparately but when you have to put them all together thats the difficult part.

Good post it amazes me how soon folks forget about all those minor things.

Reminds me of college kids telling a veteran in a company how to get the job done.

Book smart and job stupid.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Tned
07-22-2010, 09:39 PM
i would hope we can all agree on that !:salute:
unless he's a "superdufassmcdumshit":laugh:

He doesn't strike me as dumb.

jhildebrand
07-22-2010, 09:39 PM
Baltimore handed it over to Flacco, the Jets to Sanchez... the Chargers to Brees...

And look at the D those teams had! The Jets had the #1 overall D. We all know the D in Baltimore. Brees had a ton of #1 picks on his team.

As far as SD goes, Brees was a second round pick. I'm curious why you didn't mention Rivers. Afterall, he was a first round pick. He was drafted WAY higher then Tebow. If what you are saying holds true, he should have replaced Brees immediately because he was a #1 being paid a TON of money!

People keep mentioning Eli. The fact is Eli has been carried by his team. Were his name anything other than Manning, he wouldn't get all the acclaim he does!



and so many others to their NEW QB of which they are spending a TON of money TO BE the starter.

The Broncos drafted Cutler shortly after falling short in the 05 AFC CG. That team's strength was their D. Even then Shanahan didn't simply hand the reigns over to Cutler and Cutler was drafted 14 slots higher than Tebow.

Why do you suppose that was? :confused: Shanahan has admitted that one of the worst things he has done was simply hand the reigns to Griese. Why was it so bad? :confused: Because he lost the locker room especially the vets! Not one of them felt he earned it.

Now we are supposed to start Tebow simply because he was the 25th pick? C'mon! Tebow isn't money motivated either (which I love-not sure where I was going with that but I;m leaving it out there :D)



If you are spending the draft picks, and the money, on a first round QB..... then you have already made the decision that the guy that has the job, isn't what you want.

I guess I would simply reference the San Diego Chargers. Once again they had a 1st and second round (1st pick of the 2nd) on the roster at QB. I am sure you realize they were better for that from a competition standpoint. The only thing SD did was not get something for Brees.

SF started Alex Smith right away. How did that go? ATL had Matt Ryan. I think they are a team who most closely resembles us with regard to the team he took over. Either way it is a crap shoot.



If he was the guy you wanted, you would feel confident about him leading us to the Super Bowl.

Eventually. I don't think any coach takes a QB in the first round and has expectations of the SB in year one. Now certainly a Roethlisberger, Sanchez, and Flacco can come in and be successful. However, that is only because the other two phases and the rest of the O of those teams were STELLAR and could carry a rook. Pitt can run the ball. NYJ ran well. Pittsburgh ran well.

Denver's D is no where near those teams! In fact, I have already argued we will take a step back with Wink or at the least have growing pains.

Orton was relatively ineffective last year because teams could crowd the box. They didn't fear Orton's arm and they certainly had no respect for our run game. That is the difference, IMHO. Now if we had a Chris Johnson type back that teams fear, inserting Tebow immediately might be different.



If that were the case, you wouldn't use a first round pick on a QB. If you know he is NOT the guy that you can count on leading you to the Super Bowl, then the only thing (I feel) he is doing... is taking valuable playing time and experience away from the guy that you spent draft picks, and money, to BE the guy to take you to the Super Bowl.

Well I certainly see your point. Or the coaches like Tebow more than the next two classes of QB's. With the right tuteledge and training, he could be the guy to take this team to the SB. Not this year mind you but you don't always draft a guy for this year.



I see the writers point. WHAT is to be gained by the Broncos, by keeping a guy like Kyle Orton in the line-up, when you know he's not even going to be on the team in 2011? Learning (or learning more) a system that he's not going to play next year? Learning the timing with WRs he's not going to be teamed up with next year (and vice versa for the WRs).

What will be gained is the very same the San Diego gained by letting Rivers sit behind Brees. Brees going into his last year was supposed to be possibly out as it was. Again, outside of not trading Brees and getting something for him, that worked out for SD quite nicely!



Or is it just the "best player to win the spot" thing that people think is actually going to be present?? I mean, do we REALLY think that these guys are going to feel "its not fair" if Tebow is announced the starting QB now, after spending 4 picks to get him, and knowing that he was drafted to take over the starting QB spot? Most of these guys have moved around the NFL.... they understand the business of the league. They aren't different than we are, and KNOW that McD has put his future in the shoes of TT. That spells, VERY LOUDLY, "He's our starting QB. He's my future." This isn't hidden. Not even for one season.

They understand that. However, they also expect him to EARN his job just as everyone of them has to. Again, the locker room turned on Shanahan, the QB guru, for giving Griese the job.



So even if the QB (Tebow) has a bad rookie year.... its what happens with rookie QBs in the NFL. Most not all.



So if Orton has a good season..... then is Tebow the QB in 2011, or is that considered being handed the job??? People already know the answer to this question. Tebow IS the starting QB in 2011. No matter how Orton performs this year, because Orton will NEVER be a QB a team considers to be a franchise QB. Thats already determined.

Well we'll have to see how Orton's year shakes out. I don't think we will be starting out 6-0 again. In fact, I bet by week 10 or 11 Tebow is starting. If that is the case he will have won the job the same way Cutler did...by default. But at least McDaniels wont worry about losing the locker room. It will be clear to all, with no uncertainty, that Orton has displayed his ceiling.

WARHORSE
07-22-2010, 10:24 PM
Its a 'lookatme' article.

He assuredly came up with the title first, then proceeded to find reasons to bench QBs.

I dont agree with anything FL-OREO said.


Fact is, Orton should be the starter. He has the experience of facing NFL caliber defenses on gameday, and that is something Tebow cannot manufacture no matter what he does in practice.

Can he improve rapidly? Yes. But learn on the job is not something any headcoach is going to go for when its their butt on the line and mistakes cost people games.

Orton will make less mistakes. He knows the offense far better. Tebow lacks the 5 years of experience Kyle has.

End of that story.

Will Tebow play? Most assuredly he will. If Tebow doesnt have certain packages this year where he comes in and plays, I'll kiss Al Davis right on the puck. (dang, Im tryin to accent my point with that, but that made me cringe!) That is, if Tebow is healthy.

Giving Tebow limited reps on the NFL field in my view is the perfect balance of what to do. Having this option is the best case scenario.

Heres ten out of many things that are good about this scenario:

1. It allows Tebow gameday experience.

2. It takes ALL the pressure off of him.

3. It allows him to show if he can make plays.

4. It lets you get game film on him.

5. Helps you find strengths and weaknesses.

6. It sets your opponent off balance.

7. It keeps the lockeroom happy.

8. If he makes plays and dominates, you can expand the Tebow package.

9. He will have opportunity to win the respect of his teamates.

10. If he struggles, you can scale it back.


Starting a rookie off the bat under center is extreme. Making him sit an entire year is extreme.

Tebow will see the field.

Tebow will give us a peek this year.


Tebow......I believe......wont let us down.


As for Kyle........he still has his opportunity, and to be honest, Im one who thinks he'll take great advantage of it.

We all heard what Reid said about Gaffney and Buck. They both said Kyle is light years ahead this year. He has the offense down pat.


That will allow a man to play differently.

Go Kyle. Go Tebow. Go Broncos.


All day, everyday.:coffee:

Lonestar
07-22-2010, 10:45 PM
well that seems to have all the answers in it.

I think we can close the thread now. Great post :salute:

Dirk
07-23-2010, 06:35 AM
Before closing the thread, I think that people are overlooking a couple of things.

1. McD went and got Brady Quinn because he needed a solid backup due to Simms horrid play. Not as a replacement for Orton.

2. If Tebow starts next year, why not pay Orton to stay on as back up? If he is OK with that, it's the way I would go and trade Quinn.

Sure, Orton will want to start somewhere, but if he doesn't get a call to do so, then staying in Denver would be his best bet.

Looking into my cracked crystal ball, I do however see Orton having a fantastic year and other teams will take notice (finally) and he will start for someone else in the league. So Quinn will be staying with the Broncos as the backup and Orton will go.

Tned
07-23-2010, 07:06 AM
Before closing the thread, I think that people are overlooking a couple of things.

1. McD went and got Brady Quinn because he needed a solid backup due to Simms horrid play. Not as a replacement for Orton.

2. If Tebow starts next year, why not pay Orton to stay on as back up? If he is OK with that, it's the way I would go and trade Quinn.

Sure, Orton will want to start somewhere, but if he doesn't get a call to do so, then staying in Denver would be his best bet.

Looking into my cracked crystal ball, I do however see Orton having a fantastic year and other teams will take notice (finally) and he will start for someone else in the league. So Quinn will be staying with the Broncos as the backup and Orton will go.


A couple reply points:

1. I don't think any of us know for sure if Quinn was brought in just to be a backup, or if he was brought in to compete for the starting job, or if he was brought in as a possible starter in 2011 after Orton's contract expired or if he was simply seen as a 'good buy' and worth taking a flyer on him without any exectation as to what role he would play. We simply don't know what McDaniels had in mind.

2. Personally, I would be very happy to have Orton stay as a backup. He's the type of steady, reliable player that is great to have on the bench as a backup. Whether or not he is ready to become a backup is the real question.

claymore
07-23-2010, 07:24 AM
Like florio or not..... The point of the article is that Orton is not the long term, or short term fix. The sooner we replace him the faster we are on our way to the future.

Tned
07-23-2010, 07:26 AM
Like florio or not..... The point of the article is that Orton is not the long term, or short term fix. The sooner we replace him the faster we are on our way to the future.

Hard to say he isn't the short term fix, unless we are sure that there is a better short term fix.

claymore
07-23-2010, 07:31 AM
Hard to say he isn't the short term fix, unless we are sure that there is a better short term fix.

Unless we are playoff contenders, which I really dont think we are, there is no short term fix. We have the Guy who is supposed to be the future in Tebow.

As long as Orton is the starter it screams "We are content with 8-8 or worse".

Id rather lose all the games this year grooming the future, than wasting a year at 8-8 and almost making the playoffs in a weak division.

JMO.

claymore
07-23-2010, 07:33 AM
Unless we are playoff contenders, which I really dont think we are, there is no short term fix. We have the Guy who is supposed to be the future in Tebow.

As long as Orton is the starter it screams "We are content with 8-8 or worse".

Id rather lose all the games this year grooming the future, than wasting a year at 8-8 and almost making the playoffs in a weak division.

JMO.

I would also be ok with starting Orton until a winning season/playoffs was mathmatically impossible. Then bench him.

Tned
07-23-2010, 07:34 AM
Unless we are playoff contenders, which I really dont think we are, there is no short term fix. We have the Guy who is supposed to be the future in Tebow.

As long as Orton is the starter it screams "We are content with 8-8 or worse".

Id rather lose all the games this year grooming the future, than wasting a year at 8-8 and almost making the playoffs in a weak division.

JMO.

While I don't agree that it's throwing in the hat and saying we are an 8-8 team, even if I did agree with that assertion, I would take the 8 wins and not worry about the future. The future is too uncertain, so I'll take as many wins this year as possible.

That said, there is no reason that the Broncos can't be a playoff contender.

spikerman
07-23-2010, 07:36 AM
While I don't agree that it's throwing in the hat and saying we are an 8-8 team, even if I did agree with that assertion, I would take the 8 wins and not worry about the future. The future is too uncertain, so I'll take as many wins this year as possible.

That said, there is no reason that the Broncos can't be a playoff contender.

Well if they are, somebody completely unexpected is going to have to step up because the Broncos are very light on playmakers on the offensive side of the ball.

Tned
07-23-2010, 07:41 AM
Well if they are, somebody completely unexpected is going to have to step up, because the Broncos are very light on playmakers on the offensive side of the ball.

Agreed, but they were pretty pathetic on offense last year and were in a lot of games. The defense should be improved this year. Moreno should be better. There are big questions on the offensive line, and WR. How quickly the young WR's are ready toi produce, along with Clady's health will go a long way to determining if this team can contend.

The other huge question marke of course is center. At least at LG, we can keep the status quo with Hochstein, but if Clady isn't ready, and there is nobody to step up at center, it could be a long year for the QB and running game.

claymore
07-23-2010, 07:53 AM
While I don't agree that it's throwing in the hat and saying we are an 8-8 team, even if I did agree with that assertion, I would take the 8 wins and not worry about the future. The future is too uncertain, so I'll take as many wins this year as possible.

That said, there is no reason that the Broncos can't be a playoff contender.

I am of the minority that roots for a loss if we are out of contention and it is the difference between 2-3 draft slots. So my opinion probably isnt shared by many here.

Unless we have a very strong team, which Orton is the clear leader, an offensive juggernaut propelling us to the SB, then every game he starts is a waste.

I have a hard time believing that Orton is the best option on our team anyway. He plays so safe that you could take away 50% of the plays and give it to a rookie and tell him he has 2 reads and produce the same 3 & out's.

Tned
07-23-2010, 09:28 AM
I am of the minority that roots for a loss if we are out of contention and it is the difference between 2-3 draft slots. So my opinion probably isnt shared by many here.

Unless we have a very strong team, which Orton is the clear leader, an offensive juggernaut propelling us to the SB, then every game he starts is a waste.

I have a hard time believing that Orton is the best option on our team anyway. He plays so safe that you could take away 50% of the plays and give it to a rookie and tell him he has 2 reads and produce the same 3 & out's.

I think there are a lot that think the way you do. I'm in the group that cherishes every win. I could be dead before next season, so I tend to focus on the now, not the future. Look at how much the high draft choices have done for Oak, TB, SF, etc.

In my mind, those 2-3 draft slots only 'slightly' increase the odds of the crap shoot that is the draft. So, I would rather have more wins to enjoy during those 17 weeks of the season, and am a firm believer that if you slip into the playoffs, anything can happen.

So, I would rather have a 9-7 wild card berth than a 5-11 season and a top 10 pick that 'might' improve the team the following year or 2-3 years down the road.

That's just me. I respect those that look at it differently. I just would rather have the wins this year.

claymore
07-23-2010, 09:55 AM
I think there are a lot that think the way you do. I'm in the group that cherishes every win. I could be dead before next season, so I tend to focus on the now, not the future. Look at how much the high draft choices have done for Oak, TB, SF, etc.

In my mind, those 2-3 draft slots only 'slightly' increase the odds of the crap shoot that is the draft. So, I would rather have more wins to enjoy during those 17 weeks of the season, and am a firm believer that if you slip into the playoffs, anything can happen.

So, I would rather have a 9-7 wild card berth than a 5-11 season and a top 10 pick that 'might' improve the team the following year or 2-3 years down the road.

That's just me. I respect those that look at it differently. I just would rather have the wins this year.

I would take the wild card berth every time. But if its a meaningless win against the vikings in the last game of the season, and we are eliminated from everything but a better draft spot, Im rooting for a graceful loss.

Northman
07-23-2010, 10:02 AM
Unless we are playoff contenders, which I really dont think we are, there is no short term fix. We have the Guy who is supposed to be the future in Tebow.

As long as Orton is the starter it screams "We are content with 8-8 or worse".

Id rather lose all the games this year grooming the future, than wasting a year at 8-8 and almost making the playoffs in a weak division.

JMO.

Totally agree. I think if by the bye week we arent showing that we are contenders than dont beat around the bush and start Tebow and start planning for a 2011 or 2012 run. Orton may be a veteran compared to some on this team but he isnt good enough to carry this team to the playoffs or more. It would take a LOT for this young team to compete for the division right now. Simply finishing 8-8 would be a waste of time right now.

Northman
07-23-2010, 10:06 AM
Agreed, but they were pretty pathetic on offense last year and were in a lot of games. The defense should be improved this year. Moreno should be better. There are big questions on the offensive line, and WR. How quickly the young WR's are ready toi produce, along with Clady's health will go a long way to determining if this team can contend.

The other huge question marke of course is center. At least at LG, we can keep the status quo with Hochstein, but if Clady isn't ready, and there is nobody to step up at center, it could be a long year for the QB and running game.

And thats just it, player personnel wise on defense we should be better but we lost the DC and are starting a new guy (yet again) who hasnt proven anything yet at that stage so thats a question mark. Then, as you pointed out all the new faces at the important positions on offense is also a huge question mark. So with all that saying that we will win 8-10 games is a real stretch. As you know chemistry and experience is just as important as talent and right now this team doesnt have that.

topscribe
07-23-2010, 11:09 AM
A couple reply points:

1. I don't think any of us know for sure if Quinn was brought in just to be a backup, or if he was brought in to compete for the starting job, or if he was brought in as a possible starter in 2011 after Orton's contract expired or if he was simply seen as a 'good buy' and worth taking a flyer on him without any exectation as to what role he would play. We simply don't know what McDaniels had in mind.

2. Personally, I would be very happy to have Orton stay as a backup. He's the type of steady, reliable player that is great to have on the bench as a backup. Whether or not he is ready to become a backup is the real question.

He isn't. Trust me, he isn't. He believes he is a starting QB, and if he doesn't
start here, he will not stay here. There are other teams for whom he could
start, and he knows that . . .

-----

arapaho2
07-23-2010, 11:16 AM
And, once again, you move the goalposts.....



Brady, Montana, Unitas..... determined by their respective coaching staffs to be not ready to handle the pressure and/or the position well enough to take over the starting jobs.

Again, I'd take them. You, apparently, wouldn't. Whether Orton will be around in 2011, or even by week 2 of 2010, is irrelevant to the argument of yours that I was responding to.

As for "WHY NOT GET THE ROOK HIS LUMPS NOW WHILE HE HAS A FELLER LIKE ORTON TO ASSIST HIM..."

"Because he's not ready" would be one pretty good reason. "Because Orton's better right now" would be a pretty good reason, too. As I noted, not all fans would be as patient as you, no doubt, would be.



P.S. Your Montana assertion is a riot given that Steve DeBerg was the starter at the time.


wrong again..montana wasnt even thought of as a qb with great potential..in fact if it wasnt for walsh he may not have even been drafted until the much later rounds..if at all

...montana wasnt even the starter at ND until his senior season...a season he started out as 3rd on the depth chart...he had one good season as a starter in his 5th yr due to his soph season being redshirted

he was ranked very low by all scouts coming into the draft...in fact i would bet 95% of the football world didnt know who montana was when the 9rs drafted him, he and brady were drafted to be backups and develop into a potential starter...neither was projected to be the imediatle starter...neither was benched as rookies because the coach thought they couldnt handle the pressure:lol::lol:

tebow came into the draft as a national icon...known by all
2× First-team All-American (http://www.broncosforums.com/wiki/All-American) (2007 (http://www.broncosforums.com/wiki/2007_College_Football_All-America_Team), 2008 (http://www.broncosforums.com/wiki/2008_College_Football_All-America_Team#Offense))
1× Second-team All-American (2009)
3× First-team All-SEC (2007, 2008, 2009)
AP (http://www.broncosforums.com/wiki/Associated_Press) Player of the Year (2007)
Davey O'Brien Award (http://www.broncosforums.com/wiki/Davey_O%27Brien_Award) (2007)
2× Maxwell Award (http://www.broncosforums.com/wiki/Maxwell_Award) (2007, 2008)
Heisman Trophy (http://www.broncosforums.com/wiki/Heisman_Trophy) (2007)
NCAA QB of the Year (http://www.broncosforums.com/wiki/Touchdown_Club_of_Columbus#Quarterback_of_the_Year ) (2007)
Manning Award (http://www.broncosforums.com/wiki/Manning_Award) (2008)
William V. Campbell Trophy (http://www.broncosforums.com/wiki/William_V._Campbell_Trophy) (2009)

theres a big diff between expecting him to start and a 3rd rd qb that nobody knew named montana:lol:

Lonestar
07-23-2010, 11:25 AM
Before closing the thread, I think that people are overlooking a couple of things.

1. McD went and got Brady Quinn because he needed a solid backup due to Simms horrid play. Not as a replacement for Orton.

2. If Tebow starts next year, why not pay Orton to stay on as back up? If he is OK with that, it's the way I would go and trade Quinn.

Sure, Orton will want to start somewhere, but if he doesn't get a call to do so, then staying in Denver would be his best bet.

Looking into my cracked crystal ball, I do however see Orton having a fantastic year and other teams will take notice (finally) and he will start for someone else in the league. So Quinn will be staying with the Broncos as the backup and Orton will go.

I was cracking wise about closing the thread as it is RARELY done here.

The rest of your post is pretty spot on.

That was the way I saw this falling out right after I realized two days before the draft we were picking Tebow if he was on the board after Jax picked.

While some think that quinn was brought in to automatically replace Orton it was because Simms stunk it up and they needed a backup that could push KO.

When Tebow was still on the board well enough said along with our other 2 QB's he also could develop into a FQB. Note I said develop and that he was not a franchise QB because he was drafted high.

Great post.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

topscribe
07-23-2010, 11:25 AM
That true for every position except QB. The QB is appointed by the Head Coach as his field "general". Right now I am still mixed about Orton, but if we falter at all it is time to put Tebow in and see if has anything to be a starter.

McDaniels has said Tebow is not ready to be a starter. A couple days ago,
Darrell Reid, who saw Tebow every day in OTAs, strongly implied Tebow is not
ready to be a starter - in fact, he said that, were Orton to go down, the team
would have to rally around the QB because they would have to carry the other
two, which they would not have to do with Orton.

You know, it just amazes me how so many fans think they know more than the
coaches or the players. Which has me to thinking: The Broncos would save a
lot of money doing away with the coaches and just putting the decisions up to
the fans for a vote . . .

-----

Lonestar
07-23-2010, 11:30 AM
A couple reply points:

1. I don't think any of us know for sure if Quinn was brought in just to be a backup, or if he was brought in to compete for the starting job, or if he was brought in as a possible starter in 2011 after Orton's contract expired or if he was simply seen as a 'good buy' and worth taking a flyer on him without any exectation as to what role he would play. We simply don't know what McDaniels had in mind.

2. Personally, I would be very happy to have Orton stay as a backup. He's the type of steady, reliable player that is great to have on the bench as a backup. Whether or not he is ready to become a backup is the real question.

FWIW every player save maybe the two kickers are on the team yo compete for the starting job.

I believe that Josh has made that abundantly clear.

I have yet to hear him say that anyones job is secure. That they need not fight for it.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Lonestar
07-23-2010, 11:47 AM
McDaniels has said Tebow is not ready to be a starter. A couple days ago,
Darrell Reid, who saw Tebow every day in OTAs, strongly implied Tebow is not
ready to be a starter - in fact, he said that, were Orton to go down, the team
would have to rally around the QB because they would have to carry the other
two, which they would not have to do with Orton.

You know, it just amazes me how so many fans think they know more than the
coaches or the players. Which has me to thinking: The Broncos would save a
lot of money doing away with the coaches and just putting the decisions up to
the fans for a vote . . .

-----

Wow pull that commment now before someone actually thinks you meant it.

:salute:
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

arapaho2
07-23-2010, 11:53 AM
I don't know if having a better around Akili Smith would have been much help. Like said earlier remember hearing he didn't have enough upstairs to be pro quarterback.


akili, like russel was college media hype

The Glue Factory
07-23-2010, 11:58 AM
Actually, GEM is one of the few good things about it. ;)

-----

My point exactly! :elefant::beer::elefant:

Tned
07-23-2010, 12:54 PM
He isn't. Trust me, he isn't. He believes he is a starting QB, and if he doesn't
start here, he will not stay here. There are other teams for whom he could
start, and he knows that . . .

-----

That's the way I see it as well.


FWIW every player save maybe the two kickers are on the team yo compete for the starting job.

I believe that Josh has made that abundantly clear.

I have yet to hear him say that anyones job is secure. That they need not fight for it.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

In theory, that's true on every team at every position. However, the backup QB's in NE, Indy, Dallas, etc. are not really competing for a starting job. Short of injury, they have no shot at winning the job in camp.

We don't know what McDaniels view of Orton is at this point. We don't know if it is a fully open comptetition among the three QBs, or if Orton is considered so entrenched as the starter that he would either have to get injuried, or play horrible (not just be outplayed by the other two) to lose his job.

Do you really think Champ's job is an open competition? If A. Smith has a great TC and Champ struggles, do you think Smith will get the starting nod? Of course not. Coaches don't really mean every job is a competition, but they do expect everyone to play as if they have to win their job.

Lonestar
07-23-2010, 02:03 PM
That's the way I see it as well.



In theory, that's true on every team at every position. However, the backup QB's in NE, Indy, Dallas, etc. are not really competing for a starting job. Short of injury, they have no shot at winning the job in camp.

We don't know what McDaniels view of Orton is at this point. We don't know if it is a fully open comptetition among the three QBs, or if Orton is considered so entrenched as the starter that he would either have to get injuried, or play horrible (not just be outplayed by the other two) to lose his job.

Do you really think Champ's job is an open competition? If A. Smith has a great TC and Champ struggles, do you think Smith will get the starting nod? Of course not. Coaches don't really mean every job is a competition, but they do expect everyone to play as if they have to win their job.


Yes I believe that every spot is open for competition and that the VETS better not get to comfortable because they have a fat contract. there will be NO Trevor Prices on this TEAM.

That said here you are comparing a HOF QBs in Manning and brady with Orton. as far as in DAL no we all know that jerry will never allow that to happen. But then the rolly polly HC there is not Josh either. yep that makes sense.

as far as Orton is concerned he is ahead of the other two because of default having been inside the scheme and program knowing the WR's better. Should he fubar it he will be gone from the starting lineup.

elsid13
07-23-2010, 05:53 PM
McDaniels has said Tebow is not ready to be a starter. A couple days ago,
Darrell Reid, who saw Tebow every day in OTAs, strongly implied Tebow is not
ready to be a starter - in fact, he said that, were Orton to go down, the team
would have to rally around the QB because they would have to carry the other
two, which they would not have to do with Orton.

You know, it just amazes me how so many fans think they know more than the
coaches or the players. Which has me to thinking: The Broncos would save a
lot of money doing away with the coaches and just putting the decisions up to
the fans for a vote . . .

-----

Did I say put Tebow in now? It is dependent on how Orton is doing, if the team is struggling it's time to bring in the rookie and get him the experience he needs to play in the NFL.

BTW your man-crush on Orton is out of control.

Ravage!!!
07-23-2010, 05:58 PM
FWIW every player save maybe the two kickers are on the team yo compete for the starting job.

I believe that Josh has made that abundantly clear.

I have yet to hear him say that anyones job is secure. That they need not fight for it.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

I'm pretty sure that McD has stated that the starting job is Orton's. Thats been abundantly clear.

topscribe
07-23-2010, 06:36 PM
Did I say put Tebow in now? It is dependent on how Orton is doing, if the team is struggling it's time to bring in the rookie and get him the experience he needs to play in the NFL.

BTW your man-crush on Orton is out of control.

You said, "If we falter at all it is time to put Tebow in and see if has anything
to be a starter." My reply was that McDaniels has already said that Tebow is
not ready to be a starter - in other words, at this time there is not anything
to be a starter.

I don't know why that offended you so much, or how you interpret that as a
defense of Orton. That was a defense of Tebow: Why would we want Tebow
thrown in there before he is ready? If I mildly disagree with you, is that cause
for you to come back with a snide remark like that?

All you people who insist on being so hostile, if you cannot stick to the issue
and resist personally attacking each other, then please don't post at all . . .

-----

Tned
07-23-2010, 06:38 PM
I'm pretty sure that McD has stated that the starting job is Orton's. Thats been abundantly clear.


"We've got a guy [Orton] who's going to go into camp as the starter, no question about it and he deserves it," McDaniels said. "If somebody comes in there and plays better than he does then that player will play."

...

"He is the starter, no doubt," McDaniels nonchalantly said.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5280422

Lonestar
07-23-2010, 06:55 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5280422

thanks for clarifying that as it is "easily understood or misquoted, I will hi-lite the pertinent part.


"We've got a guy [Orton] who's going to go into camp as the starter, no question about it and he deserves it," McDaniels said. "If somebody comes in there and plays better than he does then that player will play."

...

"He is the starter, no doubt," McDaniels nonchalantly said.

that should be clear enough now.

Tned
07-23-2010, 07:03 PM
thanks for clarifying that as it is "easily understood or misquoted, I will hi-lite the pertinent part.

that should be clear enough now.

Isn't that the same as with Champ, DJ, Dawkins and every other player that is the current 'starter'?

GGMoogly
07-23-2010, 07:04 PM
You know, it just amazes me how so many fans think they know more than the
coaches or the players.

-----

I don't know about you, but I certainly do. If only Josh would call... :call:

TXBRONC
07-23-2010, 10:53 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5280422

Yes McDaniels has left the door open so if that Tebow or Quinn prove to be better in camp he'll make the switch.

Personally I think McDaniels would like to see Tebow unseat Orton.

Ravage!!!
07-24-2010, 11:12 AM
Yes McDaniels has left the door open so if that Tebow or Quinn prove to be better in camp he'll make the switch.

Personally I think McDaniels would like to see Tebow unseat Orton.

Absolutely he would. He didn't take the gigantic chance on Tebow to watch him be beat-out by the likes of a Kyle Orton.

Tned
07-24-2010, 02:00 PM
Absolutely he would. He didn't take the gigantic chance on Tebow to watch him be beat-out by the likes of a Kyle Orton.

It wasn't that big a chance (we aren't talking Maurice Clarret here), and there is no nead for a QB to start game one of season one to prove the coach right in drafting him. Sitting a year is not even close to out of the ordinary.

Northman
07-24-2010, 02:03 PM
It wasn't that big a chance (we aren't talking Maurice Clarret here), and there is no nead for a QB to start game one of season one to prove the coach right in drafting him. Sitting a year is not even close to out of the ordinary.

True. However, if the starter isnt that much of an upgrade of the rookie i would rather see the rookie start. He will take his lumps but the experience is better to be gained now than later. If not Tebow, than at least let Quinn go in and see what he can do. There is no clear cut winner here in my opinion.

Lonestar
07-24-2010, 02:06 PM
How ABOUT we allow the coach to make those decisions based on What they know about each player .

NOW that would be an amazing concept.

IN fact I have to wonder How the coaches ever managed to win games without the internet forums.

Must have been equal to doing the job.

Tned
07-24-2010, 02:08 PM
True. However, if the starter isnt that much of an upgrade of the rookie i would rather see the rookie start. He will take his lumps but the experience is better to be gained now than later. If not Tebow, than at least let Quinn go in and see what he can do. There is no clear cut winner here in my opinion.

Hey, it's widely known that I don't think much of Orton. I think he is a 'solid' QB, but not much more. However, that said, there is a very good chance that Tebow starting game one would be a severe downgrade to Orton or Quinn. He's never played an NFL game, so he has to deal with the speed of the NFL game, learning a completely new system, trying to master his new mechanics, etc.

Don't get me wrong, my ideal season would be Tebow winning the job in camp, starting game one and leading the Broncos to a winning season. I just think it's a long shot that it will go down that way and that it's unlikely (possible, but unlikely) that Tebow will be the best QB option when training camp ends.

Tned
07-24-2010, 02:10 PM
How ABOUT we allow the coach to make those decisions based on What they know about each player .

NOW that would be an amazing concept.

IN fact I have to wonder How the coaches ever managed to win games without the internet forums.

Must have been equal to doing the job.

Kind of like how you have to wonder how they possibly came up with good 'player contracts' without Internet forums and fans to tell them how to do it?

This is a DISCUSSION forum, where we discuss our opinions about players, front office decisions, etc. Just like you do on a daily basis, just like so many of us do.

NorCalBronco7
07-24-2010, 02:49 PM
The whole starter issue for the Broncos this year is very interesting.

Im not sold Orton is, or ever was, capable of leading our team to the playoffs. I do though have a lot of respect for his professionalism and team-first mentality, and also his upright character. His talent is uninspiring, but he doesnt throw ints that much.

Should Orton be benched though? I completely see both sides of the coin on this one. On one hand, Tebow is a first round pick. Many say he is a project, but getting him in the first deems him the future, sooner rather than later, if not in most cases immediate. This is the chief reason why Orton needed to be benched in the article. The flip is the experince and realiability of Orton. Being a proven NFL player means somebodys got to take his job by fighting for it. Orton has earned the repsect to be the starter for now, and whos to say he doesnt improve.

What I dont know is how far along Tebow is with the system, and if at any point in the year he can be a sufficient starter. Can he infact be a spark to our offense this year if we need a jolt? I dont really know. Either way, Orton doenst need to be bench just because Tebows a first rounder. And his play at the QB postion isnt a detriment to our team as of now. Maybe not a strength, but not a weakness.

Tned
07-24-2010, 02:56 PM
The whole starter issue for the Broncos this year is very interesting.

Im not sold Orton is, or ever was, capable of leading our team to the playoffs. I do though have a lot of respect for his professionalism and team-first mentality, and also his upright character. His talent is uninspiring, but he doesnt throw ints that much.

Should Orton be benched though? I completely see both sides of the coin on this one. On one hand, Tebow is a first round pick. Many say he is a project, but getting him in the first deems him the future, sooner rather than later, if not in most cases immediate. This is the chief reason why Orton needed to be benched in the article. The flip is the experince and realiability of Orton. Being a proven NFL player means somebodys got to take his job by fighting for it. Orton has earned the repsect to be the starter for now, and whos to say he doesnt improve.

What I dont know is how far along Tebow is with the system, and if at any point in the year he can be a sufficient starter. Can he infact be a spark to our offense this year if we need a jolt? I dont really know. Either way, Orton doenst need to be bench just because Tebows a first rounder. And his play at the QB postion isnt a detriment to our team as of now. Maybe not a strength, but not a weakness.

Well said. This pretty much mirrors my thoughts on Orton and the QB position.

TXBRONC
07-24-2010, 03:00 PM
Hey, it's widely known that I don't think much of Orton. I think he is a 'solid' QB, but not much more. However, that said, there is a very good chance that Tebow starting game one would be a severe downgrade to Orton or Quinn. He's never played an NFL game, so he has to deal with the speed of the NFL game, learning a completely new system, trying to master his new mechanics, etc.

Don't get me wrong, my ideal season would be Tebow winning the job in camp, starting game one and leading the Broncos to a winning season. I just think it's a long shot that it will go down that way and that it's unlikely (possible, but unlikely) that Tebow will be the best QB option when training camp ends.

This is what I've been trying to say for the last few months. McDaniels imo has made it clear that he's leaving the door open for both Quinn and Tebow beat out Orton for the starting role. It doesn't mean that will happen in fact I agree with you it more than likely wont happen.

If nothing else I would like to see Tebow push Orton to the max.

T.K.O.
07-24-2010, 03:01 PM
tebow memorized the playbook on his flight home from denver:D

Lonestar
07-24-2010, 03:02 PM
The whole starter issue for the Broncos this year is very interesting.

Im not sold Orton is, or ever was, capable of leading our team to the playoffs. I do though have a lot of respect for his professionalism and team-first mentality, and also his upright character. His talent is uninspiring, but he doesnt throw ints that much.

Should Orton be benched though? I completely see both sides of the coin on this one. On one hand, Tebow is a first round pick. Many say he is a project, but getting him in the first deems him the future, sooner rather than later, if not in most cases immediate. This is the chief reason why Orton needed to be benched in the article. The flip is the experince and realiability of Orton. Being a proven NFL player means somebodys got to take his job by fighting for it. Orton has earned the repsect to be the starter for now, and whos to say he doesnt improve.

What I dont know is how far along Tebow is with the system, and if at any point in the year he can be a sufficient starter. Can he infact be a spark to our offense this year if we need a jolt? I dont really know. Either way, Orton doenst need to be bench just because Tebows a first rounder. And his play at the QB postion isnt a detriment to our team as of now. Maybe not a strength, but not a weakness.

great post..

I personally think that Orton will have a great contract year, that is not taking anything way from TEbow nor Quinn who are both "late to the party" (term a lot of folks like to use here).

Now i'm not sure if Orton can take us to the promised land or not, but I'm willing to give him the year as a starter to find out.

many others want to start the rookie and take our lumps if need be.

BUT to bench Orton because we have a rookie first rounder until he proves he can't do the job is foolish IMO.

I'm glad we have a real GM and HC to make those decisions.

TXBRONC
07-24-2010, 03:02 PM
The whole starter issue for the Broncos this year is very interesting.

Im not sold Orton is, or ever was, capable of leading our team to the playoffs. I do though have a lot of respect for his professionalism and team-first mentality, and also his upright character. His talent is uninspiring, but he doesnt throw ints that much.

Should Orton be benched though? I completely see both sides of the coin on this one. On one hand, Tebow is a first round pick. Many say he is a project, but getting him in the first deems him the future, sooner rather than later, if not in most cases immediate. This is the chief reason why Orton needed to be benched in the article. The flip is the experince and realiability of Orton. Being a proven NFL player means somebodys got to take his job by fighting for it. Orton has earned the repsect to be the starter for now, and whos to say he doesnt improve.

What I dont know is how far along Tebow is with the system, and if at any point in the year he can be a sufficient starter. Can he infact be a spark to our offense this year if we need a jolt? I dont really know. Either way, Orton doenst need to be bench just because Tebows a first rounder. And his play at the QB postion isnt a detriment to our team as of now. Maybe not a strength, but not a weakness.

Ditto on this being well said.

Also welcome to Broncos Forums. :welcome:

Ravage!!!
07-24-2010, 03:14 PM
The whole starter issue for the Broncos this year is very interesting.

Im not sold Orton is, or ever was, capable of leading our team to the playoffs. I do though have a lot of respect for his professionalism and team-first mentality, and also his upright character. His talent is uninspiring, but he doesnt throw ints that much.

Should Orton be benched though? I completely see both sides of the coin on this one. On one hand, Tebow is a first round pick. Many say he is a project, but getting him in the first deems him the future, sooner rather than later, if not in most cases immediate. This is the chief reason why Orton needed to be benched in the article. The flip is the experince and realiability of Orton. Being a proven NFL player means somebodys got to take his job by fighting for it. Orton has earned the repsect to be the starter for now, and whos to say he doesnt improve.

What I dont know is how far along Tebow is with the system, and if at any point in the year he can be a sufficient starter. Can he infact be a spark to our offense this year if we need a jolt? I dont really know. Either way, Orton doenst need to be bench just because Tebows a first rounder. And his play at the QB postion isnt a detriment to our team as of now. Maybe not a strength, but not a weakness.


I think another side, is .. we know Orton is farther along in the playbook and knowing the system. We know Orton is going to be 'more consistant' this year as a starter. He has veteran experience, and never takes any chances. So yeah, he's not going to throw INTs, and is going to make smarter decisions with the ball. At the same time, he's going to be boring, never take any chances, and be exactly what we know with Orton.

So its not whether or not we know Orton is going to be better for the team THIS year. Its if you believe that Tebow getting starting time is going to be benefit for the team NEXT year. He has to have his first starting season, some time.

I don't believe he should start BECAUSE he's a first round pick. But because he's a first round pick on this particular team. Meaning, we don't have the surrounding talent that is going to take Orton into the playoffs, thus we might lose a chance for this season. I mean "could" it happen.. of course. But realistically, this isn't much of a playoff caliber team yet.

So if we get 'close' to the playoffs this year with Orton.... who was the one benefitting from the season? The guy that isn't even going to play on this team, in this system, no with these WRs again next year.

I guess, I just don't see the benefit of starting Orton. I don't really think Orton is a guy that inspires anyone sitting behind him to want to emulate him.

I just want to push things along. If Tebow isn't starting by the end of this season, then we have to take the 'system' part of his experience into next season and get him PLAYING experience. I just wnat to push that learning curve along, instead of wasting more time with Orton.

Ravage!!!
07-24-2010, 03:20 PM
It wasn't that big a chance (we aren't talking Maurice Clarret here), and there is no nead for a QB to start game one of season one to prove the coach right in drafting him. Sitting a year is not even close to out of the ordinary.

It was a big chance.

Trading away a top talent for a particular QB instead of better draft picks, then using 4 draft picks on a QB in the first round (for a guy that many didn't think should be drafted before the 3rd).. to REPLACE the chosen QB.. its taking a BIG chance.

But how many first round QBs have sat down their first season over the last 10 seasons? 2 (Rivers and Quinn)? Something like that? So I would say its out of the ordinary.

TXBRONC
07-24-2010, 03:27 PM
I mean "could" it happen.. of course. But realistically, this isn't much of a playoff caliber team yet.

I think there is a solid chance of getting to the playoffs but imho it will be depend more on the defense and what strides they make. On paper it looks like we're better but we're also older on the defensive line. If Jamal Williams is 80% of what he was with San Diego he would still be better than anyone else we have on the defensive line again imo. If that case then only other hurtle that I can see atm is can Jamal and for the matter everyone else stay realatively healthy.

Northman
07-24-2010, 03:33 PM
I think there is a solid chance of getting to the playoffs but imho it will be depend more on the defense and what strides they make. On paper it looks like we're better but we're also older on the defensive line. If Jamal Williams is 80% of what he was with San Diego he would still be better than anyone else we have on the defensive line again imo. If that case then only other hurtle that I can see atm is can Jamal and for the matter everyone else stay realatively healthy.


I dont know, im pretty much with Rav here. We havent shown that we can beat SD without special things going our way in recent years. There are too many question marks on offense right now with the lack of experience and play calling. Defensively, we made some improvements on the line but its basically a 50/50 chance of actually panning out the way we hope. Throw in the fact that our DC is new to his position himself it puts that much more pressure on him to succeed where Nolan failed late in the year last year. There just hasnt been enough time for chemistry to build for this team to really make that jump in my opinion. And we still have trouble taking care of business at home especially against teams that we "should" beat just doesnt make for a positive 2010 outlook. Had we made the 6-0 run late last year there might be something to be positive about but right now i just dont see it.

NorCalBronco7
07-24-2010, 03:49 PM
I think another side, is .. we know Orton is farther along in the playbook and knowing the system. We know Orton is going to be 'more consistant' this year as a starter. He has veteran experience, and never takes any chances. So yeah, he's not going to throw INTs, and is going to make smarter decisions with the ball. At the same time, he's going to be boring, never take any chances, and be exactly what we know with Orton.

So its not whether or not we know Orton is going to be better for the team THIS year. Its if you believe that Tebow getting starting time is going to be benefit for the team NEXT year. He has to have his first starting season, some time.

I don't believe he should start BECAUSE he's a first round pick. But because he's a first round pick on this particular team. Meaning, we don't have the surrounding talent that is going to take Orton into the playoffs, thus we might lose a chance for this season. I mean "could" it happen.. of course. But realistically, this isn't much of a playoff caliber team yet.

So if we get 'close' to the playoffs this year with Orton.... who was the one benefitting from the season? The guy that isn't even going to play on this team, in this system, no with these WRs again next year.

I guess, I just don't see the benefit of starting Orton. I don't really think Orton is a guy that inspires anyone sitting behind him to want to emulate him.

I just want to push things along. If Tebow isn't starting by the end of this season, then we have to take the 'system' part of his experience into next season and get him PLAYING experience. I just wnat to push that learning curve along, instead of wasting more time with Orton.

I completely understand where you are coming from. Tebow is the future, so why not get him the experince this year? Why wait?

To me, and all broncos fans, it has come down to playoffs. Who gives us the best chance to win? Right now, today, its has to be Orton. He is at least a proven NFL caliber player, and based on his experience alone, gives us the best chance to go to the playoffs. Our chances might be slim with Orton, but they will probably be slimmer with Tebow. Why throw our chances of the playoffs away on playing experience for a rookie Qb? If its at the cost of even a slim playoff chance, then hell no. Im already tweakin like a crackhead because its been so long since we got to the playoffs!



I however think our defense could carry Ortons limited game to the playoffs. We are in a weak division, with a pretty easy schedual, so I see no reason to hold back on this year a not put up our best fight. :fight:

Tned
07-24-2010, 03:57 PM
But how many first round QBs have sat down their first season over the last 10 seasons? 2 (Rivers and Quinn)? Something like that? So I would say its out of the ordinary.

Almost all of the first round QBs selected in the last 10 years either sat out the entire first year, or didn't become the starter until an injury occurred or the team was out of the playoff hunt (typically around mid-season).

Here are some of the first round QBs in the last 10 years that completely sat out their first season, or didn't come in until injury/out of playoffs or something like that happened:

Carson Palmer
Big Ben was supposed to and was pressed into service by injuries
Jamarcus Russel
Jason Campbell (played part of first year)
Alex Smith (started part of first year)
Quinn
J.P. Losman
Cutler sat most of first year -- came in after losing streak
Patrick Ramsey (started part of first year)
Aaron rodgers
Michael Vick (mostly came in for changeup and to run -- wasn't the 'starting' QB)
Pennington
akili smith
Culpepper
Josh Freeman (Began starting week 9 or 10 or something)

Lonestar
07-24-2010, 04:14 PM
Lots of the start Tebow now folks. Have been in the past win at any cost fans.

When some suggested a few years ago all would not be lost if we were to get a better draft choice if we muffed the last few games since we were out of the PO hunt. The responses by them were they'd rather win out and damn the choices.

Now it seems some have changed their minds and want to take a lower odds/ chance on winning.

Go figure, waffles anyone.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Ravage!!!
07-24-2010, 04:14 PM
I completely understand where you are coming from. Tebow is the future, so why not get him the experince this year? Why wait?

To me, and all broncos fans, it has come down to playoffs. Who gives us the best chance to win? Right now, today, its has to be Orton. He is at least a proven NFL caliber player, and based on his experience alone, gives us the best chance to go to the playoffs. Our chances might be slim with Orton, but they will probably be slimmer with Tebow. Why throw our chances of the playoffs away on playing experience for a rookie Qb? If its at the cost of even a slim playoff chance, then hell no. Im already tweakin like a crackhead because its been so long since we got to the playoffs!



I however think our defense could carry Ortons limited game to the playoffs. We are in a weak division, with a pretty easy schedual, so I see no reason to hold back on this year a not put up our best fight. :fight:


But then we have the same situation the next year, right? Tim will still have no playing experience, Orton will still be the veteran, and our defense will still be the stronger unit. I COMPLETELY see what you are saying. Its all about today, but although I was NOT on board with the Tebow pick, I have to be on board now. I want to get the ball rolling to FIND that franchise QB, because I think we can all agree that we know Orton is absolutely NOT that guy. So no matter who he's starting in front of, he's (imo) taking away valuable experience time from a guy that MIGHT evolve into something more.

TXBRONC
07-24-2010, 04:18 PM
I dont know, im pretty much with Rav here. We havent shown that we can beat SD without special things going our way in recent years. There are too many question marks on offense right now with the lack of experience and play calling. Defensively, we made some improvements on the line but its basically a 50/50 chance of actually panning out the way we hope. Throw in the fact that our DC is new to his position himself it puts that much more pressure on him to succeed where Nolan failed late in the year last year. There just hasnt been enough time for chemistry to build for this team to really make that jump in my opinion. And we still have trouble taking care of business at home especially against teams that we "should" beat just doesnt make for a positive 2010 outlook. Had we made the 6-0 run late last year there might be something to be positive about but right now i just dont see it.

I hear ya. That's why I said on paper it looks like we are improved on defense. When I say that I think we have shot at getting to the playoffs I'm thinking along the lines of a possible Wild Card slot. You're right there are a lot question marks on this team I can't deny that. Assuming (as dangerous as that is) that some of these questions are answered in the positive then maybe we have shot and as old as this may get only time will tell.

Tned
07-24-2010, 04:20 PM
Lots of the start Tebow now folks. Have been in the past win at any cost fans.

When some suggested a few years ago all would not be lost if we were to get a better draft choice if we muffed the last few games since we were out of the PO hunt. The responses by them were they'd rather win out and damn the choices.

Now it seems some have changed their minds and want to take a lower odds/ chance on winning.

Go figure, waffles anyone.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

My first thought was to ask "who" are these mythical folks?

My second thought is why are you so concerned with what others think or to try and embarrass them if they changed their mind? :confused:

TXBRONC
07-24-2010, 04:25 PM
My first thought was to ask "who" are these mythical folks?

My second thought is why are you so concerned with what others think or to try and embarrass them if they changed their mind? :confused:

:whoknows:

Ravage!!!
07-24-2010, 04:41 PM
Almost all of the first round QBs selected in the last 10 years either sat out the entire first year, or didn't become the starter until an injury occurred or the team was out of the playoff hunt (typically around mid-season).

Here are some of the first round QBs in the last 10 years that completely sat out their first season, or didn't come in until injury/out of playoffs or something like that happened:

Carson Palmer
Big Ben was supposed to and was pressed into service by injuries
Jamarcus Russel
Jason Campbell (played part of first year)
Alex Smith (started part of first year)
Quinn
J.P. Losman
Cutler sat most of first year -- came in after losing streak
Patrick Ramsey (started part of first year)
Aaron rodgers
Michael Vick (mostly came in for changeup and to run -- wasn't the 'starting' QB)
Pennington
Mcnabb
akili smith
Culpepper
Josh Freeman (Began starting week 9 or 10 or something)


Are these really almost all of the QBs taken in the first round? Most of these didn't sit the entire first season. Ben started 15 games. McNabb started 6 bfore getting hurt himself. Losman started 9 games (and sucked), Alex smith started 7. Now, I obviously didn't do the research, and took the memory of another post somewhere in another thread, and mistakingly took it as a fact when making my off-the-hand comment (something I know better than).

I know Carson Palmer made it VERY clear that he didn't feel his experience sitting on the sideline was nearly as valuable as his first year starting. Aaron Rodgers was supposed to sit for a single season behind a HoF QB, thinking that HoF QB was going to retire. Not exactly the same situation.

I think we already covered QBs that started early and succeeded, started early and failed, sat and succeeded, and sat and failed.

In fact, how many on that list would you say sat out and continued on to reach the expectations of being a first-round pick QB? We can't even include Rodgers, Cutler and Freeman in on that question since they are all very early in their careers.

But other than that, I'm not sure this list really makes a good argument for sitting.

NorCalBronco7
07-24-2010, 04:47 PM
But then we have the same situation the next year, right? Tim will still have no playing experience, Orton will still be the veteran, and our defense will still be the stronger unit. I COMPLETELY see what you are saying. Its all about today, but although I was NOT on board with the Tebow pick, I have to be on board now. I want to get the ball rolling to FIND that franchise QB, because I think we can all agree that we know Orton is absolutely NOT that guy. So no matter who he's starting in front of, he's (imo) taking away valuable experience time from a guy that MIGHT evolve into something more.

Tebow sitting under Orton for a year, learning this complicated system, as well as learning the rigors of the NFL has zero downfall in my mind. It is the norm for many NFL as Tned says.

Next year Tebow will be better prepared for the starting role with him taking starter reps in OTAs and TC (assuming Orton is gone) as well a year of NFL experience.

Funny I was not at all on board with Tebow either. I even said to my friend in March, who didnt believe Tebow would be a first round pick, that "some dumb team would be impressed with him and jump up and take him at the end of the first." lol. Who knew that dumb team was mine! :lol: Im completley on board with him now, and am surprisingly excited to watch him develope.

But I want to find that franchise Qb as well. I just want to go to the playoffs more. Ortons not that franchise guy, but he gives us the best chance to win. In the spirit of Herm Edwards, "You play to win the game!".

NorCalBronco7
07-24-2010, 04:55 PM
Are these really almost all of the QBs taken in the first round? Most of these didn't sit the entire first season. Ben started 15 games. McNabb started 6 bfore getting hurt himself. Losman started 9 games (and sucked), Alex smith started 7. Now, I obviously didn't do the research, and took the memory of another post somewhere in another thread, and mistakingly took it as a fact when making my off-the-hand comment (something I know better than).

I know Carson Palmer made it VERY clear that he didn't feel his experience sitting on the sideline was nearly as valuable as his first year starting. Aaron Rodgers was supposed to sit for a single season behind a HoF QB, thinking that HoF QB was going to retire. Not exactly the same situation.

I think we already covered QBs that started early and succeeded, started early and failed, sat and succeeded, and sat and failed.

In fact, how many on that list would you say sat out and continued on to reach the expectations of being a first-round pick QB? We can't even include Rodgers, Cutler and Freeman in on that question since they are all very early in their careers.

But other than that, I'm not sure this list really makes a good argument for sitting.

I dont think hes trying and make an argument for sitting first round Qbs, I thinks he just saying thats what NFL teams typically do. I would have to agree.

I challange you to make the argument for starting 1st round Qbs based on simply their production. I believe most have minimal success which results in lower win totals.

Ravage!!!
07-24-2010, 04:59 PM
Tebow sitting under Orton for a year, learning this complicated system, as well as learning the rigors of the NFL has zero downfall in my mind. It is the norm for many NFL as Tned says.

Next year Tebow will be better prepared for the starting role with him taking starter reps in OTAs and TC (assuming Orton is gone) as well a year of NFL experience.

Funny I was not at all on board with Tebow either. I even said to my friend in March, who didnt believe Tebow would be a first round pick, that "some dumb team would be impressed with him and jump up and take him at the end of the first." lol. Who knew that dumb team was mine! :lol: Im completley on board with him now, and am surprisingly excited to watch him develope.

But I want to find that franchise Qb as well. I just want to go to the playoffs more. Ortons not that franchise guy, but he gives us the best chance to win. In the spirit of Herm Edwards, "You play to win the game!".

Herm made that quote after making a terrible decision and had to justify it :lol: To bad he wasn't good enough to follow his own thought process.

Well... watching this 'supposedly' complicated system (I don't see how throwing five yard screen passes is all that hard, seriously, I don't think this system is as complicated as some would want to believe) isn't nearly as important as learning implement the system while actually seeing, feeling, reading, watching, real NFL defenses when on the field.

But...I've said that I expect Tebow to be starting by 10th-12th game of the season (if not sooner if Orton follows his norm and gets injured). At least thats some playing time. But this situation reminds me a lot of the Cinci situation with Palmer, and the Rothlesburger situation in Pitt. Roth got in a lot sooner than expected.... and Palmer sat behing Kitna. Both organizations drafted a QB to replace their lame incumbent. Palmer has made it clear that his experience on the sidelines was not NEARLY as productive as his learning experience on the field. I don't think Palmer learned much sitting behind Kitna. I don't think he learned NEARLY enough to justify sitting him. Just as I don't think Rothlesburger WOULD have learned enough sitting behind.. whats-hos-face... had he not gotten to start 15 games.

So I understand you saying "whats to lose".. but I say that the loss is that there is nothing really to be gained. The playing time w ould be better experience by 10-fold than sitting and watching Kyle Orton.

Plus... it might give us a better idea on whether or not we should go ahead and sign Orton to a longer contract, or not.

Ravage!!!
07-24-2010, 05:04 PM
I dont think hes trying and make an argument for sitting first round Qbs, I thinks he just saying thats what NFL teams typically do. I would have to agree.

I challange you to make the argument for starting 1st round Qbs based on simply their production. I believe most have minimal success which results in lower win totals.

Rothlesburger, Young, Flacco, Ryan, Sanchez.. just to name a few off the top of my head as of late.

Then, as I've stated. Considering the experience they learned from actually playing.. who's to say that Mannning didn't learn more from playing than his brother did from sitting most his first year? I'm betting Stafford makes a lot more strides in his second year as the starter (especially since you could see the strides he was already making by the 2nd half of the season when watching him play).. than a QB that sat and watched. Brees didn't start off well in his career in SD, but by his 3rd season he was coming into his own. Would that have happened had he sat? :whoknows:

NorCalBronco7
07-24-2010, 05:08 PM
Herm made that quote after making a terrible decision and had to justify it :lol: To bad he wasn't good enough to follow his own thought process.

Well... watching this 'supposedly' complicated system (I don't see how throwing five yard screen passes is all that hard, seriously, I don't think this system is as complicated as some would want to believe) isn't nearly as important as learning implement the system while actually seeing, feeling, reading, watching, real NFL defenses when on the field.

But...I've said that I expect Tebow to be starting by 10th-12th game of the season (if not sooner if Orton follows his norm and gets injured). At least thats some playing time. But this situation reminds me a lot of the Cinci situation with Palmer, and the Rothlesburger situation in Pitt. Roth got in a lot sooner than expected.... and Palmer sat behing Kitna. Both organizations drafted a QB to replace their lame incumbent. Palmer has made it clear that his experience on the sidelines was not NEARLY as productive as his learning experience on the field. I don't think Palmer learned much sitting behind Kitna. I don't think he learned NEARLY enough to justify sitting him. Just as I don't think Rothlesburger WOULD have learned enough sitting behind.. whats-hos-face... had he not gotten to start 15 games.

So I understand you saying "whats to lose".. but I say that the loss is that there is nothing really to be gained. The playing time w ould be better experience by 10-fold than sitting and watching Kyle Orton.

Plus... it might give us a better idea on whether or not we should go ahead and sign Orton to a longer contract, or not.

You are really concerned with the development of Tebow. Im down with that. But do you see that the developement of Tebow could come at the expense of the Broncos making the playoffs? If you cant see that, you either think Tebows better, right now, than Orton, or the Broncos have a 0% chance of making the playoffs? Which one is it?:confused:

Northman
07-24-2010, 05:09 PM
Rav brings up some interesting points. Its one thing when you can take a first round Qb and let him sit behind a guy like Favre, Elway, Montana, etc. But Tebow is sitting behind Orton who is still young himself so there's no real benefit there as Tebow is probably already as good or better than Orton in terms of overall talent. This is why i think it would just be a wash to have either Quinn or Tebow play in place of Orton. There just isnt a real benefit other than Orton knows the playbook a little better. But if that knowledge doesnt really translate to more wins than why not start Tebow and take the lumps now? The team is simply just not a contender right now so there's no benefit to having Orton start.

Northman
07-24-2010, 05:09 PM
You are really concerned with the development of Tebow. Im down with that. But do you see that the developement of Tebow could come at the expense of the Broncos making the playoffs? If you cant see that, you either think Tebows better, right now, than Orton, or the Broncos have a 0% chance of making the playoffs? Which one is it?:confused:

Probably a little bit of both.

NorCalBronco7
07-24-2010, 05:14 PM
Rothlesburger, Young, Flacco, Ryan, Sanchez.. just to name a few off the top of my head as of late.

Then, as I've stated. Considering the experience they learned from actually playing.. who's to say that Mannning didn't learn more from playing than his brother did from sitting most his first year? I'm betting Stafford makes a lot more strides in his second year as the starter (especially since you could see the strides he was already making by the 2nd half of the season when watching him play).. than a QB that sat and watched. Brees didn't start off well in his career in SD, but by his 3rd season he was coming into his own. Would that have happened had he sat? :whoknows:

The thing is with those Qbs and really most rookie Qbs, is if they do infact start, it is out of nessesity. Can you name 3 that didnt? In other words, what rookie Qbs have came into a situation where a proven vertern exist and the rookie supplanted him? You'll be hard pressed to find em.

Our Qb situation is such that we dont need to start Tebow because we have another viable option. Thats the difference between our Qbs and the ones you listed. Its just better for the team if Orton starts.

Tned
07-24-2010, 05:18 PM
Are these really almost all of the QBs taken in the first round? Most of these didn't sit the entire first season. Ben started 15 games. McNabb started 6 bfore getting hurt himself. Losman started 9 games (and sucked), Alex smith started 7. Now, I obviously didn't do the research, and took the memory of another post somewhere in another thread, and mistakingly took it as a fact when making my off-the-hand comment (something I know better than).

I know Carson Palmer made it VERY clear that he didn't feel his experience sitting on the sideline was nearly as valuable as his first year starting. Aaron Rodgers was supposed to sit for a single season behind a HoF QB, thinking that HoF QB was going to retire. Not exactly the same situation.

I think we already covered QBs that started early and succeeded, started early and failed, sat and succeeded, and sat and failed.

In fact, how many on that list would you say sat out and continued on to reach the expectations of being a first-round pick QB? We can't even include Rodgers, Cutler and Freeman in on that question since they are all very early in their careers.

But other than that, I'm not sure this list really makes a good argument for sitting.

I didn't say that it made a good argument for sitting, only showing that most first round QBs sat or it was the HC's initial intention for them to sit. You seemed to be under the impression that only a few of the first round QBs over the last 10 years didn't start right away. That's just not the case. One note on Big Ben, I included him because it was Cowher's intention for him to sit the entire year (well publicized) and it was only Maddox's injury that thrust him into the starting role and then Cowher protected him in his run heavy offense.

As to it being good or bad idea to start a rookie QB or sit him, you and I went round and round on that after Cutler was drafted, so I'll let you have that discussion with someone else this time around. ;)

NorCalBronco7
07-24-2010, 05:19 PM
Rav brings up some interesting points. Its one thing when you can take a first round Qb and let him sit behind a guy like Favre, Elway, Montana, etc. But Tebow is sitting behind Orton who is still young himself so there's no real benefit there as Tebow is probably already as good or better than Orton in terms of overall talent. This is why i think it would just be a wash to have either Quinn or Tebow play in place of Orton. There just isnt a real benefit other than Orton knows the playbook a little better. But if that knowledge doesnt really translate to more wins than why not start Tebow and take the lumps now? The team is simply just not a contender right now so there's no benefit to having Orton start.

You think Tebows more talented than Orton, and we all have to know this to be true. But, is Tebow a better football player than Orton right now, I say no way. Maybe he grows leaps and bounds in TC, and I hope he does. But Orton is a proven vetern and we cannot take that away from him.

We may or may not be a contender, but Im sure as hell not ready to throw the towel in yet.

Northman
07-24-2010, 05:24 PM
You think Tebows more talented than Orton, and we all have to know this to be true. But, is Tebow a better football player than Orton right now, I say no way. Maybe he grows leaps and bounds in TC, and I hope he does. But Orton is a proven vetern and we cannot take that away from him.

We may or may not be a contender, but Im sure as hell not ready to throw the towel in yet.


It has nothing to do with throwing in the towel brother. Do you think the Jets were throwing in the towel when they started Sanchez? Of course not and it ended up paying in dividends as they made the playoffs and got him some very valuable playoff experience. The problem with your arguement is that you seem to think that Orton can carry this team on his back which just isnt the case. He's never been able to do that whether here in Denver or Chicago. Fact is, the Denver Broncos are rebuilding and starting a rookie or even Quinn for that matter really isnt going to hurt us anymore than it is with Orton at the helm.

Tned
07-24-2010, 05:25 PM
Rav brings up some interesting points. Its one thing when you can take a first round Qb and let him sit behind a guy like Favre, Elway, Montana, etc. But Tebow is sitting behind Orton who is still young himself so there's no real benefit there as Tebow is probably already as good or better than Orton in terms of overall talent. This is why i think it would just be a wash to have either Quinn or Tebow play in place of Orton. There just isnt a real benefit other than Orton knows the playbook a little better. But if that knowledge doesnt really translate to more wins than why not start Tebow and take the lumps now? The team is simply just not a contender right now so there's no benefit to having Orton start.

Palmer was clearly more 'talented' then Kitna, but the decision was made to sit Palmer for a year, rather than throw him in. The Bengals were a woeful team, so it wasn't like they had an exectation of being a playoff contender with Kitna. As it turned out, Kitna had a career year, but that certainly wsn't expected when they decided to sit Palmer his first year.

Right now, there are two different schools of thought on starting or sitting rookie QBs. Most head coaches seem to lean towards sitting them, but with the big contracts being given to first rounders, and coaches realizing they have a short window to win or get fired, it seems there are more first rounders starting now then in past years.

NorCalBronco7
07-24-2010, 05:40 PM
It has nothing to do with throwing in the towel brother. Do you think the Jets were throwing in the towel when they started Sanchez? Of course not and it ended up paying in dividends as they made the playoffs and got him some very valuable playoff experience. The problem with your arguement is that you seem to think that Orton can carry this team on his back which just isnt the case. He's never been able to do that whether here in Denver or Chicago. Fact is, the Denver Broncos are rebuilding and starting a rookie or even Quinn for that matter really isnt going to hurt us anymore than it is with Orton at the helm.

Sanchise is a completely different situation. He started out of need. There were no proven veterns that he was competeing with. He was the unquestioned guy there. Kellen Clemons is garbage as well as that other dude....??? He comepeted with himself.

Tebow is competing with a proven vertern in Orton. Dont get me wrong I really dispise Orton and his overall dink and dunk game. Watching him play Qb makes me embarresed and watching him never throw above ten yards is a disgrace :mad: But, as Ive said before and Ill say it again, he gives us a better chance to win than Tebow does this year. I guess you might not think so. You might think Tebow is already a better Qb than Orton is, but thats really hard for someone to rationalize when he hasnt even participated in a NFL TC yet...

Lonestar
07-24-2010, 05:44 PM
Tebow sitting under Orton for a year, learning this complicated system, as well as learning the rigors of the NFL has zero downfall in my mind. It is the norm for many NFL as Tned says.

Next year Tebow will be better prepared for the starting role with him taking starter reps in OTAs and TC (assuming Orton is gone) as well a year of NFL experience.

Funny I was not at all on board with Tebow either. I even said to my friend in March, who didnt believe Tebow would be a first round pick, that "some dumb team would be impressed with him and jump up and take him at the end of the first." lol. Who knew that dumb team was mine! :lol: Im completley on board with him now, and am surprisingly excited to watch him develope.

But I want to find that franchise Qb as well. I just want to go to the playoffs more. Ortons not that franchise guy, but he gives us the best chance to win. In the spirit of Herm Edwards, "You play to win the game!".


good post

I also believe that having Tebow hold the clip board, listening to the plays as they are sent in and setting through all of the film sessions that they have. Along with that we all know he is going to get reps this year even if they are limited to 3rd and short or in the redone, that in itself will help him to get that game speed feel without putting the world on his shoulders until he is ready.

IMO that will do so much more than having him start most of the year and wind up causing mistakes to happen that could most likely set his career back.

I doubt there are many on this forum that have studied this Kid that think he is going to fail. That is not to say that many outside the Broncos world share the same thought.

Will he be a FQB time will tell but it is not like we have to push him into starting this year, like some other clubs have been forced to do with awfully mixed results.

Northman
07-24-2010, 05:49 PM
Sanchise is a completely different situation. He started out of need. There were no proven veterns that he was competeing with. He was the unquestioned guy there. Kellen Clemons is garbage as well as that other dude....??? He comepeted with himself.

Tebow is competing with a proven vertern in Orton. Dont get me wrong I really dispise Orton and his overall dink and dunk game. Watching him play Qb makes me embarresed and watching him never throw above ten yards is a disgrace :mad: But, as Ive said before and Ill say it again, he gives us a better chance to win than Tebow does this year. I guess you might not think so. You might think Tebow is already a better Qb than Orton is, but thats really hard for someone to rationalize when he hasnt even participated in a NFL TC yet...

Oh no, im not a huge Tebow fan so im not saying he is better than anyone. Im just saying i dont think he could be much worse than Orton. Tebow could easily do the dink and dunk and be far more mobile in the process.

NorCalBronco7
07-24-2010, 05:51 PM
good post

I also believe that having Tebow hold the clip board, listening to the plays as they are sent in and setting through all of the film sessions that they have. Along with that we all know he is going to get reps this year even if they are limited to 3rd and short or in the redone, that in itself will help him to get that game speed feel without putting the world on his shoulders until he is ready.

IMO that will do so much more than having him start most of the year and wind up causing mistakes to happen that could most likely set his career back.

I doubt there are many on this forum that have studied this Kid that think he is going to fail. That is not to say that many outside the Broncos world share the same thought.

Will he be a FQB time will tell but it is not like we have to push him into starting this year, like some other clubs have been forced to do with awfully mixed results.

Right, we're not forced to start Tebow, so why rush it? I will say this though, if we are out of the playoff hunt, start Tebow (right after hes done beating the crap out of Orton).

Lonestar
07-24-2010, 05:53 PM
Palmer was clearly more 'talented' then Kitna, but the decision was made to sit Palmer for a year, rather than throw him in. The Bengals were a woeful team, so it wasn't like they had an exectation of being a playoff contender with Kitna. As it turned out, Kitna had a career year, but that certainly wsn't expected when they decided to sit Palmer his first year.

Right now, there are two different schools of thought on starting or sitting rookie QBs. Most head coaches seem to lean towards sitting them, but with the big contracts being given to first rounders, and coaches realizing they have a short window to win or get fired, it seems there are more first rounders starting now then in past years.

a good an reasonable approach.


Josh does not have to worry about being fired this year or the next unless perhaps they go 2-14.

When he took Tebow it was with Pats blessing and knowing that it may take up to 3 years to make him into a starting QB. EVERYONE said that, everyone.

Since Pat is not stupid (conventional wisdom not shared by all) the assumption is made by most logical folks Josh has another 3 years to get this team and Tebow up and running playoff (wins) before Pat is likely to fire him. Unlike all the other HC that go into bottom feeders and Have to start the rookie because frankly they do not have a starting quality QB or they most likely would not be bottom feeders.

Even more logical those teams are drafting said QB it the top 10-15 and have a lot more money invested in them UP front than we "should" in Tebow.

NorCalBronco7
07-24-2010, 05:55 PM
Oh no, im not a huge Tebow fan so im not saying he is better than anyone. Im just saying i dont think he could be much worse than Orton. Tebow could easily do the dink and dunk and be far more mobile in the process.

Whether he a little worse or a lot worse, who cares I say. If he dosent give us the best chance to win than it the wrong choice.

Northman
07-24-2010, 05:58 PM
Whether he a little worse or a lot worse, who cares I say. If he dosent give us the best chance to win than it the wrong choice.

But we really dont know that. I dont agree with the theory that Orton gives us the best chance only that its basically a wash.

NorCalBronco7
07-24-2010, 06:00 PM
But we really dont know that. I dont agree with the theory that Orton gives us the best chance only that its basically a wash.

A wash. How so? :confused:

Northman
07-24-2010, 06:03 PM
A wash. How so? :confused:

He's just not that great of a QB. You just cant sell me on the theory that Quinn and Tebow cant do what he does. Orton is not a playmaker and if the team makes the playoffs because of the surrounding talent than most definitely Quinn or Tebow can steer the ship. There just isnt anything that Tebow is going to learn from Orton. Nothing.

topscribe
07-24-2010, 06:06 PM
watching him never throw above ten yards is a disgrace :mad:

Here's something, then, to put you in a better mood . . .


http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-videos/09000d5d8157ccd9/Kyle-Orton-Highlight-WK-17-vs-Chiefs-2009

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-videos/09000d5d8157cffa/Kyle-Orton-Highlight-WK-17-vs-Chiefs-2009

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-videos/09000d5d8157d532/Kyle-Orton-Highlight-WK-17-vs-Chiefs-2009

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-videos/09000d5d8157dddd/Kyle-Orton-Highlight-WK-17-vs-Chiefs-2009

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-videos/09000d5d815527af/Kyle-Orton-Highlight-WK-16-vs-Eagles-2009

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-videos/09000d5d815268bf/Kyle-Orton-Highlight-WK-15-vs-Raiders-2009

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-videos/09000d5d81485d3e/Kyle-Orton-Highlight-WK-12-vs-Giants-2009

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-videos/09000d5d81485e78/Kyle-Orton-Highlight-WK-12-vs-Giants-2009

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-videos/09000d5d81485fb5/Kyle-Orton-Highlight-WK-12-vs-Giants-2009

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-videos/09000d5d8146c5d0/Kyle-Orton-Highlight-WK-11-vs-Chargers-2009

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-videos/09000d5d8143d08d/Kyle-Orton-Highlight-WK-10-vs-Redskins-2009

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-videos/09000d5d8143d0af/Kyle-Orton-Highlight-WK-10-vs-Redskins-2009

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-videos/09000d5d8138f65f/Kyle-Orton-Highlight-WK-06-vs-Chargers-2009

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-videos/09000d5d8138f6c6/Kyle-Orton-Highlight-WK-06-vs-Chargers-2009

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-cant-miss-plays/09000d5d813263e0/WK-4-Can-t-Miss-Play-Grand-Marshall

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-fantasy/09000d5d812cb4f0/Kyle-Orton-Highlight-WK-02-vs-Browns-2009

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-fantasy/09000d5d812cc6fa/Kyle-Orton-Highlight-WK-02-vs-Browns-2009

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-fantasy/09000d5d812cca3d/Kyle-Orton-Highlight-WK-02-vs-Browns-2009

http://www.nfl.com/videos/cincinnati-bengals/09000d5d8129c22d/Kyle-Orton-Highlight-WK-01-vs-Bengals-2009

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/09000d5d80db8b0b/Kyle-Orton-Highlight-WK-17-vs-Texans-2008

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/09000d5d80d22fea/Kyle-Orton-Highlight-WK-14-vs-Jaguars-2008

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/09000d5d80d2421f/Kyle-Orton-Highlight-WK-14-vs-Jaguars-2008

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/09000d5d80cbf7c1/Kyle-Orton-Highlight-WK-12-vs-Rams-2008

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/09000d5d80b672f9/Kyle-Orton-Highlight-WK-05-vs-Lions-2008

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/09000d5d80b6768c/Kyle-Orton-Highlight-WK-05-vs-Lions-2008

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/09000d5d80b677fd/Kyle-Orton-Highlight-WK-05-vs-Lions-2008

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/09000d5d80b67b0f/Kyle-Orton-Highlight-WK-05-vs-Lions-2008

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/09000d5d80b0629f/Kyle-Orton-Highlight-WK-03-vs-Buccaneers-2008

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/09000d5d80aa2733/Kyle-Orton-Highlight-WK-01-vs-Colts-2008

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/09000d5d80ad2b7a/Kyle-Orton-Highlight-WK-02-vs-Panthers-2008

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/09000d5d805a03f3/Kyle-Orton-Highlight-WK-17-vs-Saints-2007


:D

-----

Tned
07-24-2010, 06:10 PM
a good an reasonable approach.


Josh does not have to worry about being fired this year or the next unless perhaps they go 2-14.

When he took Tebow it was with Pats blessing and knowing that it may take up to 3 years to make him into a starting QB. EVERYONE said that, everyone.

Since Pat is not stupid (conventional wisdom not shared by all) the assumption is made by most logical folks Josh has another 3 years to get this team and Tebow up and running playoff (wins) before Pat is likely to fire him. Unlike all the other HC that go into bottom feeders and Have to start the rookie because frankly they do not have a starting quality QB or they most likely would not be bottom feeders.

Even more logical those teams are drafting said QB it the top 10-15 and have a lot more money invested in them UP front than we "should" in Tebow.

Actually, I doubt you will find too many 'logical' people that believe McDaniels has three more years to turn the team into a playoff contender. Most would say one or two.

That aside, do you have anything to document the fact that Bowlen "gave his blessing" with the knowledge that it would take three years for McDaniels to turn Tebow into a starting QB? I haven't seen this published anywhere.

Lonestar
07-24-2010, 06:10 PM
Right, we're not forced to start Tebow, so why rush it? I will say this though, if we are out of the playoff hunt, start Tebow (right after hes done beating the crap out of Orton).

I'm not all the sure starting him TILL he is ready accomplishes anything but setting him back.

I saw a lot of QB's forced into starting jobs get ruined up front. Once they lose the confidence they are toast.

Although Tebow seems to be one of the most confident guys I have ever seen.

I'd still like to give quinn those starts to see what we have or do not have in him was he one of them ruined by forcing him in to fast? We are going to need a good back up next year IF Tebow is then ready to start. and unless Orton FUBARS it this year he is gone with another team. so we also need to see what BQ can do ids he worth keeping around as a back up or paying his last years contract to him or is he another Simms.


I'm not saying do not play Tebow but pick and choose those spot to build him UP.

NorCalBronco7
07-24-2010, 06:17 PM
He's just not that great of a QB. You just cant sell me on the theory that Quinn and Tebow cant do what he does. Orton is not a playmaker and if the team makes the playoffs because of the surrounding talent than most definitely Quinn or Tebow can steer the ship. There just isnt anything that Tebow is going to learn from Orton. Nothing.

You cant just start Tebow based on what Orton isn't. As much as it pains me to say it, Orton is a winner in the NFL. Now I beleive thats because he has had some very good defenses behind him, but his game manager approach meshes well with what our team can possibly do. If our defense is very good this year, which I beielve will be, Orton will most likely have success. Im sure you can make that argument for any Qb, but its his abiliity to protect the ball and play will above average intellience thats seperates him from the unproven nature of Tebow and Quinn.

I put a lot of weight in what a player has done for several season. I thinks its very important to have proven vertens at several key postions to have success. The pure gamble, and thats exactly what starting Tebow over Orton is, is a pretty bad one in my opinion. Who knows, Tebow could start game one and lead us to the playoffs, for for a rookie Qb to do that would be rare. Yes, rare.

Lonestar
07-24-2010, 06:17 PM
Actually, I doubt you will find too many 'logical' people that believe McDaniels has three more years to turn the team into a playoff contender. Most would say one or two.

That aside, do you have anything to document the fact that Bowlen "gave his blessing" with the knowledge that it would take three years for McDaniels to turn Tebow into a starting QB? I haven't seen this published anywhere.


1. Do you really think that Josh and Xman did not talk this over with Pat?

Come on think about that unless he said NO and they took him anyway that is a blessing.

2.There is not one, not ONE talking head coach, analyst, other GM that has said the Tebow is anything besides a "project" 2 to 3 year PROJECT.

3. SO unless he is living under a rock out east of town on a ranch he would had heard these things.

Can we agree on those 3 points?

If so then the LOGICAL conclusion is Pat is going to stick with his wunderkin for at least those 3 years.


Even Pat Knows that young QBs seldom IF ever lead their team to the super bowl and WIN.

If we can't then we will have to agree to disagree.

NorCalBronco7
07-24-2010, 06:25 PM
Here's something, then, to put you in a better mood . . .


http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-videos/09000d5d8157ccd9/Kyle-Orton-Highlight-WK-17-vs-Chiefs-2009

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-videos/09000d5d8157cffa/Kyle-Orton-Highlight-WK-17-vs-Chiefs-2009

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-videos/09000d5d8157d532/Kyle-Orton-Highlight-WK-17-vs-Chiefs-2009

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-videos/09000d5d8157dddd/Kyle-Orton-Highlight-WK-17-vs-Chiefs-2009

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-videos/09000d5d815527af/Kyle-Orton-Highlight-WK-16-vs-Eagles-2009

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-videos/09000d5d815268bf/Kyle-Orton-Highlight-WK-15-vs-Raiders-2009

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-videos/09000d5d81485d3e/Kyle-Orton-Highlight-WK-12-vs-Giants-2009

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-videos/09000d5d81485e78/Kyle-Orton-Highlight-WK-12-vs-Giants-2009

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-videos/09000d5d81485fb5/Kyle-Orton-Highlight-WK-12-vs-Giants-2009

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-videos/09000d5d8146c5d0/Kyle-Orton-Highlight-WK-11-vs-Chargers-2009

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-videos/09000d5d8143d08d/Kyle-Orton-Highlight-WK-10-vs-Redskins-2009

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-videos/09000d5d8143d0af/Kyle-Orton-Highlight-WK-10-vs-Redskins-2009

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-videos/09000d5d8138f65f/Kyle-Orton-Highlight-WK-06-vs-Chargers-2009

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-videos/09000d5d8138f6c6/Kyle-Orton-Highlight-WK-06-vs-Chargers-2009

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-cant-miss-plays/09000d5d813263e0/WK-4-Can-t-Miss-Play-Grand-Marshall

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-fantasy/09000d5d812cb4f0/Kyle-Orton-Highlight-WK-02-vs-Browns-2009

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-fantasy/09000d5d812cc6fa/Kyle-Orton-Highlight-WK-02-vs-Browns-2009

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-fantasy/09000d5d812cca3d/Kyle-Orton-Highlight-WK-02-vs-Browns-2009

http://www.nfl.com/videos/cincinnati-bengals/09000d5d8129c22d/Kyle-Orton-Highlight-WK-01-vs-Bengals-2009

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/09000d5d80db8b0b/Kyle-Orton-Highlight-WK-17-vs-Texans-2008

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/09000d5d80d22fea/Kyle-Orton-Highlight-WK-14-vs-Jaguars-2008

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/09000d5d80d2421f/Kyle-Orton-Highlight-WK-14-vs-Jaguars-2008

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/09000d5d80cbf7c1/Kyle-Orton-Highlight-WK-12-vs-Rams-2008

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/09000d5d80b672f9/Kyle-Orton-Highlight-WK-05-vs-Lions-2008

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/09000d5d80b6768c/Kyle-Orton-Highlight-WK-05-vs-Lions-2008

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/09000d5d80b677fd/Kyle-Orton-Highlight-WK-05-vs-Lions-2008

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/09000d5d80b67b0f/Kyle-Orton-Highlight-WK-05-vs-Lions-2008

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/09000d5d80b0629f/Kyle-Orton-Highlight-WK-03-vs-Buccaneers-2008

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/09000d5d80aa2733/Kyle-Orton-Highlight-WK-01-vs-Colts-2008

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/09000d5d80ad2b7a/Kyle-Orton-Highlight-WK-02-vs-Panthers-2008

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/09000d5d805a03f3/Kyle-Orton-Highlight-WK-17-vs-Saints-2007


:D

-----

I was being facetious and we all know my sediment there!

:lol:

One thing you are missing however is Ortons epic left-handed MISSLES!

topscribe
07-24-2010, 06:29 PM
I was being facetious and we all know my sediment there!

:lol:

One thing you are missing however is Ortons epic left-handed MISSLES!

:doh: How could I have missed that?

-----

Tned
07-24-2010, 06:32 PM
You cant just start Tebow based on what Orton isn't. As much as it pains me to say it, Orton is a winner in the NFL. Now I beleive thats because he has had some very good defenses behind him, but his game manager approach meshes well with what our team can possibly do. If our defense is very good this year, which I beielve will be, Orton will most likely have success. Im sure you can make that argument for any Qb, but its his abiliity to protect the ball and play will above average intellience thats seperates him from the unproven nature of Tebow and Quinn.

I put a lot of weight in what a player has done for several season. I thinks its very important to have proven vertens at several key postions to have success. The pure gamble, and thats exactly what starting Tebow over Orton is, is a pretty bad one in my opinion. Who knows, Tebow could start game one and lead us to the playoffs, for for a rookie Qb to do that would be rare. Yes, rare.

Agreed. Orton isn't likely to carry a team on his back, but if the pieces are around him, he has shown he can get the job done. Unless they are ready to just throw in the towell on the '10 season, chances are that Orton is their best chance to put W's on the board.


1. Do you really think that Josh and Xman did not talk this over with Pat?

Come on think about that unless he said NO and they took him anyway that is a blessing.

2.There is not one, not ONE talking head coach, analyst, other GM that has said the Tebow is anything besides a "project" 2 to 3 year PROJECT.

3. SO unless he is living under a rock out east of town on a ranch he would had heard these things.

Can we agree on those 3 points?

If so then the LOGICAL conclusion is Pat is going to stick with his wunderkin for at least those 3 years.


Even Pat Knows that young QBs seldom IF ever lead their team to the super bowl and WIN.

If we can't then we will have to agree to disagree.

Many, possibly even most, think he will take several years to develop. However, where I disagree is in your belief that McDaniels gets a pass for three years until Tebow is ready. McDaniels has two other QB's, one he got when he traded the teams former starter, one he got in a trade in the offseason.

I will be very surprised if Bowlen doesn't have an expection for McDaniels to win with those QBs. He might still get a pass this year due to the massive roster changes, but after trading away the startng QB and one of the most productive WR in league history (to start a career), if he isn't fielding a contender by his third year, he is almost certainly going to be on the hot seat.

Many of those same talking heads you refer to that say Tebow will take three years to develop are also saying that McDaniels is already on the hot seat.

NorCalBronco7
07-24-2010, 06:40 PM
Agreed. Orton isn't likely to carry a team on his back, but if the pieces are around him, he has shown he can get the job done. Unless they are ready to just throw in the towell on the '10 season, chances are that Orton is their best chance to put W's on the board.



Many, possibly even most, think he will take several years to develop. However, where I disagree is in your belief that McDaniels gets a pass for three years until Tebow is ready. McDaniels has two other QB's, one he got when he traded the teams former starter, one he got in a trade in the offseason.

I will be very surprised if Bowlen doesn't have an expection for McDaniels to win with those QBs. He might still get a pass this year due to the massive roster changes, but after trading away the startng QB and one of the most productive WR in league history (to start a career), if he isn't fielding a contender by his third year, he is almost certainly going to be on the hot seat.

Many of those same talking heads you refer to that say Tebow will take three years to develop are also saying that McDaniels is already on the hot seat.

Traditionally, Pat has a very short leash for HCs. Id be surprised if at the end of year 3 we are not playoff contenders, McDaniels doesnt get canned.

Lonestar
07-24-2010, 06:58 PM
Agreed. Orton isn't likely to carry a team on his back, but if the pieces are around him, he has shown he can get the job done. Unless they are ready to just throw in the towell on the '10 season, chances are that Orton is their best chance to put W's on the board.



Many, possibly even most, think he will take several years to develop. However, where I disagree is in your belief that McDaniels gets a pass for three years until Tebow is ready. McDaniels has two other QB's, one he got when he traded the teams former starter, one he got in a trade in the offseason.

I will be very surprised if Bowlen doesn't have an expection for McDaniels to win with those QBs. He might still get a pass this year due to the massive roster changes, but after trading away the startng QB and one of the most productive WR in league history (to start a career), if he isn't fielding a contender by his third year, he is almost certainly going to be on the hot seat.

Many of those same talking heads you refer to that say Tebow will take three years to develop are also saying that McDaniels is already on the hot seat.

I never said Pat does not have expectations to win with KO and BQ but he also KNOWS that Tebow is heir apparent. and because of that he is going to allow more time for it to happen.

I'll bet the kid will be starting next year after a lot of spot time this year, then perhaps Pat might pull the plug after year three if there is not progress but unless Tebow stinks it up he will be selling out gear and seats for years to come.

Yes I know about season ticket waiting list, (I once had a 1700 or so priority) but there are always the road team allotment that does not always sell at full prices either.



Traditionally, Pat has a very short leash for HCs. Id be surprised if at the end of year 3 we are not playoff contenders, McDaniels doesnt get canned.

The only reason mikeys predecessor got only two years was he had Mikey in the bullpen knowing all he had to do was give total control to mike. After all mike turned the job down when reeves was fired because he wanted that control.


After that he allowed mikey 10 years with one PO win..

I do not see it unless they really digress.

Tned
07-24-2010, 07:04 PM
I never said Pat does not have expectations to win with KO and BQ but he also KNOWS that Tebow is heir apparent. and because of that he is going to allow more time for it to happen.


Even if he believes Tebow is the "heir apparent", it doesn't mean he will give McDaniels whatever length of time it takes to develop Tebow into a starting QB.

If the team doesn't win this year and next, it is very possible he will bring in a new HC to develop Tebow. That's the way it typically works in the NFL. We've been spoiled with long-tenured HC's, but that doesn't mean that Bowlen will always keep HC's for 14+ year stints.