PDA

View Full Version : John Elway will be on FM104.3the fan today



Denver Native (Carol)
03-30-2011, 03:28 PM
John will be on there around 3:00 MDT - I am sure Mike Evans and Scott Hastings will be talking draft with him.

Denver Native (Carol)
03-30-2011, 04:27 PM
Still not on - wrapping up a meeting.

Here is website - to listen online

http://www.1043thefan.com/home.aspx

He's on now

rcsodak
03-30-2011, 04:35 PM
Expecting you to transcribe, carol. :salute:
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Denver Native (Carol)
03-30-2011, 04:55 PM
Here is link to listen to what was said:

http://www.1043thefan.com/channels/MikeEvansScottHastings/Story.aspx?ID=1394007

rcsodak
03-30-2011, 05:05 PM
Here is link to listen to what was said:

http://www.1043thefan.com/channels/MikeEvansScottHastings/Story.aspx?ID=1394007

Ummm...maybe I wasn't clear enough........

Or how about, PLEASE?

; )
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

HORSEPOWER 56
03-30-2011, 05:38 PM
Ummm...maybe I wasn't clear enough........

Or how about, PLEASE?

; )
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

They talked to Elway about a lot of different things and I'll try to hit the important stuff:

- They complemented Elway about the new "openness" regarding the team to the media and fans.

- Elway stressed the need on defense. The way he spoke, he left little doubt that we'd be drafting defense early and often. Talked about why it was harder to find talented D-line later in the draft and because of the big drop off in talent after the first few rounds, you just don't find the talented D-linemen with the right mix of size/speed late.

- When asked if all the QB scouting was just a smokescreen, he said it wasn't and that they really did have to do their homework on everyone because they weren't positive that any of the guys currently on the roster were "franchise" type of QBs and because we're drafting so high they need to make sure we hit on that pick. They radio guys told Elway that the fans want Tebow and will freak out if we draft a QB at #2.

- He gave props to the offense, in particular that offensive line (called them all out individually by name - except for Harris). Said it was "unfortunate" about Demaryius Thomas and the FO hopes to have him back by mid-season. Seems pretty comfortable with the offense and the players we have there.

- They talked about the spread offense and why it really won't ever fully be utilized at the pro level like it is in college. Elway said it basically came down to having to effectively run the ball and you just can't have your QB carrying the ball 20+ times per game in the NFL.

- Last of all, they joked with John about getting Hillis back.

underrated29
03-30-2011, 05:51 PM
They talked to Elway about a lot of different things and I'll try to hit the important stuff:

- They complemented Elway about the new "openness" regarding the team to the media and fans.

- Elway stressed the need on defense. The way he spoke, he left little doubt that we'd be drafting defense early and often. Talked about why it was harder to find talented D-line later in the draft and because of the big drop off in talent after the first few rounds, you just don't find the talented D-linemen with the right mix of size/speed late.

- When asked if all the QB scouting was just a smokescreen, he said it wasn't and that they really did have to do their homework on everyone because they weren't positive that any of the guys currently on the roster were "franchise" type of QBs and because we're drafting so high they need to make sure we hit on that pick. They radio guys told Elway that the fans want Tebow and will freak out if we draft a QB at #2.

- He gave props to the offense, in particular that offensive line (called them all out individually by name - except for Harris). Said it was "unfortunate" about Demaryius Thomas and the FO hopes to have him back by mid-season. Seems pretty comfortable with the offense and the players we have there.

- They talked about the spread offense and why it really won't ever fully be utilized at the pro level like it is in college. Elway said it basically came down to having to effectively run the ball and you just can't have your QB carrying the ball 20+ times per game in the NFL.

- Last of all, they joked with John about getting Hillis back.



Did John say anything after they mentioned the fans wanting tebow and freaking out at a Qb at #2?

HORSEPOWER 56
03-30-2011, 05:59 PM
Did John say anything after they mentioned the fans wanting tebow and freaking out at a Qb at #2?

They talked a little about Tebow and John pretty much repeated the same stuff he'd been saying all offseason. He complimented Tim's intangibles, work ethic, and leadership, but said he was "raw". John went on to talk about making the transition from a spread QB to a pro QB and about taking snaps under center.

I'm really not too terribly worried because I just don't think we'll take a QB (John said we were looking at all of them but didn't really let on that we were interested in any of them) until he and Fox can get a no-shit look at what the guys we have bring to the table. Elway and Fox have been in Denver almost 4 months now and haven't even been able watch these guys throw passes in shorts, yet. That's just ridiculous. I kinda understand why they are looking at QBs, they can't look at the ones we actually have! Maybe they use all this scouting to compare the guys we have once we get to camp for better analysis for the next draft.

Ravage!!!
03-30-2011, 06:11 PM
I bet John has a pretty good idea, and has watched Tebow at practice more than we realize.

tomjonesrocks
03-30-2011, 06:44 PM
Can't help but wonder what John's thoughts are. He was the prototypical QB, had the total physical package--and in most of our opinions the best of all time.

Could very well be that he's searching for a guy closer to his skillset (like there is one out there) to lead the franchise.

Dzone
03-30-2011, 06:48 PM
Maybe Elway forgets how raw he was. So raw that he got yanked and replaced by Steve Deberg. So raw early on that fans even wanted him replaced by Kubiak. Thank goodness the franchise stuck behind him. He needs to do the same for Tebow.

rcsodak
03-30-2011, 06:54 PM
Off topic, but....
some on Sirius nfl put more weight into je's comments about TT, and their looking at qb's. They see him trading with the jags if the compensation is right.
Jim miller says he" has no doubt" that the team would rather play behind KO vs TT. That TT would not have won as many games as KO. That if they needed the qb to take a 7step drop, look off a S and then make a completion on a '7route'(?), in a tight space, he had no confidence he could make it.
He says he's not a tebowhater, as some call him. He like TT and thinks he can be a good qb. But its gonna take alot of hard work and time.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

rcsodak
03-30-2011, 06:58 PM
Maybe Elway forgets how raw he was. So raw that he got yanked and replaced by Steve Deberg. So raw early on that fans even wanted him replaced by Kubiak. Thank goodness the franchise stuck behind him. He needs to do the same for Tebow.

I don't think je was 'raw'. He didn't have to work on C snaps/footwork/throwing motion/reading defenses.

.....unless you consider putting an 'X' on wr chests as 'raw'.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Dzone
03-30-2011, 07:08 PM
"They radio guys told Elway that the fans want Tebow and will freak out if we draft a QB at #2."
If Tebow goes on to success elsewhere, fans might never forgive Elway and his legacy will be forever tarnished. This is Denver , man. We dont put up with that kinda shyt here.

tomjonesrocks
03-30-2011, 07:29 PM
Off topic, but....
some on Sirius nfl put more weight into je's comments about TT, and their looking at qb's. They see him trading with the jags if the compensation is right.
Jim miller says he" has no doubt" that the team would rather play behind KO vs TT. That TT would not have won as many games as KO. That if they needed the qb to take a 7step drop, look off a S and then make a completion on a '7route'(?), in a tight space, he had no confidence he could make it.
He says he's not a tebowhater, as some call him. He like TT and thinks he can be a good qb. But its gonna take alot of hard work and time.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Very interesting. Though I don't think I would want to waste years on the Tebow project--I would give him next year and draft all defense this year. I don't really buy into Tebow, but I also don't see a QB I "have to have" this year. Might as well draft for defense and see if I guy I like better is there next year. Perhaps John feels differently.

Actually I do think from Elway's comments I feel like he's not enamored with Tebow. I don't think you say essentially trading Cutler was a mistake if you have good feelings about Tebow being a stud later. He obviously isn't convinced the answer isn't on the roster.

Nomad
03-30-2011, 07:52 PM
"They radio guys told Elway that the fans want Tebow and will freak out if we draft a QB at #2."
If Tebow goes on to success elsewhere, fans might never forgive Elway and his legacy will be forever tarnished. This is Denver , man. We dont put up with that kinda shyt here.

I would like to give Tebow his shot and there's no QB in this draft that's a must-have.

Elway will always be the reason I became a BRONCOS fan and the GOAT as far as QBs in my eyes, but he still has to prove himself as an NFL FO VP......hopefully he knows what he is doing!! I'm glad he sees defense as #1 priority!

chazoe60
03-30-2011, 08:18 PM
Did John even mention eyOrton's name? We can debate whether we, or Eleway, believe Tebow is the future of the team till we're all blue in the face but one thing seems extremely obvious and that is no one in the organization thinks bOreton is.

HORSEPOWER 56
03-30-2011, 08:30 PM
Did John even mention eyOrton's name? We can debate whether we, or Eleway, believe Tebow is the future of the team till we're all blue in the face but one thing seems extremely obvious and that is no one in the organization thinks bOreton is.

IIRC, he did... but just in passing when he was talking about not knowing if we have a true franchise QB on the roster. The Radio guys didn't bring him up, though. Most of the discussion was about Tebow or the draft... as usual.

LTC Pain
03-30-2011, 09:51 PM
Maybe Elway forgets how raw he was. So raw that he got yanked and replaced by Steve Deberg. So raw early on that fans even wanted him replaced by Kubiak. Thank goodness the franchise stuck behind him. He needs to do the same for Tebow.

Mega 10-4! :salute::salute::salute:

broncobryce
03-30-2011, 10:03 PM
Did John even mention eyOrton's name? We can debate whether we, or Eleway, believe Tebow is the future of the team till we're all blue in the face but one thing seems extremely obvious and that is no one in the organization thinks bOreton is.

Exactly what I've been saying. Elway has said something to the effect "We need a franchise guy, we may have that in Tim but we don't know yet."
He never said 'Tim or Kyle or Brady.' Just that we may have it in Tim.

When people say they aren't convinced Tebow is a franchise guy, how can you be RIGHT NOW?
He started 3 games and had ups and downs, like any rookie in 3 games.
People throw around 'franchise QB' too much.
There aren't many in the league as it is.
Tebow will get his chance, Elway is not stupid enough to let him go without getting a chance to succeed.
It may or may not be this year, but he will get a shot.

broncobryce
03-30-2011, 10:07 PM
I was paraphrasing, so if anyone wants the link....

http://www.fannation.com/truth_and_rumors/view/274230-elway-tebow-not-there-yet-looking-at-qbs

Juriga72
03-31-2011, 06:29 AM
Maybe Elway forgets how raw he was. So raw that he got yanked and replaced by Steve Deberg. So raw early on that fans even wanted him replaced by Kubiak. Thank goodness the franchise stuck behind him. He needs to do the same for Tebow.

So raw he lined up under his guard for a snap....LMAO

TXBRONC
03-31-2011, 08:52 AM
Did John even mention eyOrton's name? We can debate whether we, or Eleway, believe Tebow is the future of the team till we're all blue in the face but one thing seems extremely obvious and that is no one in the organization thinks bOreton is.

He mentioned Tebow specifically because Tebow's name came up specifically. However, Orton was mentioned indirectly when Elway said "we're not sure we have a franchise guy on the roster right now." It's not real good news for either one but it's proably worse for Orton given the fact that four of his sevens in the League he's been a starter.

TXBRONC
03-31-2011, 08:57 AM
IIRC, he did... but just in passing when he was talking about not knowing if we have a true franchise QB on the roster. The Radio guys didn't bring him up, though. Most of the discussion was about Tebow or the draft... as usual.

Yeah it was indirectly with his comment about they're not sure if they have a franchise quarterback on the roster right now. Imho that's worse news for Orton than it is Tebow.

Dzone
03-31-2011, 09:18 AM
Elway played terrible in his first couple years here. So bad that many were calling him a bust. So bad that a lot of people thought Kubiak was a better quarterback. Elway would throw an interception a nd fans a t Mile High would scream "Put Kubiak in!!!" That aint no shit either. I remember it vividly.

rcsodak
03-31-2011, 09:33 AM
Whichway Elway. Hard to forget the headlines.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Dzone
03-31-2011, 09:38 AM
Ok, Im an Elway the football player fan, who isnt? But his interviews lately all sound the same. He's boring as hell.

Denver Native (Carol)
03-31-2011, 10:31 AM
http://www.877theticket.com/

Under Ticket Replay - Vic & Gary

claymore
03-31-2011, 10:31 AM
Love Elway. I want to get rid of tebow just because people are questioning him over this stuff.

Eff tebow.

rcsodak
03-31-2011, 10:37 AM
Didn't somebody here say TT is on the 2011 tix or program or something?
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Denver Native (Carol)
03-31-2011, 11:25 AM
Didn't somebody here say TT is on the 2011 tix or program or something?
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

From the season ticket renewal package:

"Pay in full by March 1, 2011 and receive a limited edition 20" x 24" Tim Tebow and Demaryius Thomas poster print."

BigSarge87
03-31-2011, 11:27 AM
Ok, Im an Elway the football player fan, who isnt? But his interviews lately all sound the same. He's boring as hell.

It's interesting to see the different opinions on him. I thought he nailed the interview. The radio guys were kind of being d-bags and JE just rolled with it. I was very impressed with his responses which, to me, gave us an impression of what he was looking for but didn't tip his hand.

In fact, after listening to this, I'm willing to bet he's leaning more towards Tebow than people think. Listen to what he says when he WASN'T talking directly about Tebow. He mentions several times that leadership, desire, character, a common goal, dedication to the team, etc. are what you need for a SB caliber team. He talked about 'getting in the endzone' as opposed to 'putting up yards'. He said running the spread in the pros WILL score a lot of points if you have a running game to back it up. He then talked about the O-line being a solid group. If you allow yourself to fill in the gaps a bit, the picture gets a little clearer.

If you listen to what he values in a QB when he's not talking about Tebow, it all adds up to giving Tim a chance to improve and become 'that guy'. JMO.

SoCalImport
03-31-2011, 11:27 AM
From the season ticket renewal package:

"Pay in full by March 1, 2011 and receive a limited edition 20" x 24" Tim Tebow and Demaryius Thomas poster print."

That must be the one that has DT showing off his new crutches.

rcsodak
03-31-2011, 11:41 AM
From the season ticket renewal package:

"Pay in full by March 1, 2011 and receive a limited edition 20" x 24" Tim Tebow and Demaryius Thomas poster print."

Thx carol....shoulda just asked you. Lol

So....who really thinks the FO is going to trade away a player they're promoting on their tix pkgs?
Raise your hands.....


...anybody......



...anybody........
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Denver Native (Carol)
03-31-2011, 11:43 AM
It's interesting to see the different opinions on him. I thought he nailed the interview. The radio guys were kind of being d-bags and JE just rolled with it. I was very impressed with his responses which, to me, gave us an impression of what he was looking for but didn't tip his hand.

In fact, after listening to this, I'm willing to bet he's leaning more towards Tebow than people think. Listen to what he says when he WASN'T talking directly about Tebow. He mentions several times that leadership, desire, character, a common goal, dedication to the team, etc. are what you need for a SB caliber team. He talked about 'getting in the endzone' as opposed to 'putting up yards'. He said running the spread in the pros WILL score a lot of points if you have a running game to back it up. He then talked about the O-line being a solid group. If you allow yourself to fill in the gaps a bit, the picture gets a little clearer.

If you listen to what he values in a QB when he's not talking about Tebow, it all adds up to giving Tim a chance to improve and become 'that guy'. JMO.

Totally agree - Sounds like some would prefer that Elway comes out and says - Tebow is our starter, we will trade Orton, and oh by the way, we will be drafting (insert name) with our #2 pick.:tsk:

Also, on post 29, I posted the link where you can listen to Fox and Xanders talking about the draft this morning on the ticket.

TXBRONC
03-31-2011, 12:38 PM
It's interesting to see the different opinions on him. I thought he nailed the interview. The radio guys were kind of being d-bags and JE just rolled with it. I was very impressed with his responses which, to me, gave us an impression of what he was looking for but didn't tip his hand.

In fact, after listening to this, I'm willing to bet he's leaning more towards Tebow than people think. Listen to what he says when he WASN'T talking directly about Tebow. He mentions several times that leadership, desire, character, a common goal, dedication to the team, etc. are what you need for a SB caliber team. He talked about 'getting in the endzone' as opposed to 'putting up yards'. He said running the spread in the pros WILL score a lot of points if you have a running game to back it up. He then talked about the O-line being a solid group. If you allow yourself to fill in the gaps a bit, the picture gets a little clearer.

If you listen to what he values in a QB when he's not talking about Tebow, it all adds up to giving Tim a chance to improve and become 'that guy'. JMO.

Agreed and like I think comment about they not being sure about sure if they have a franchise quarterback on the roster right now is more of problem for Orton than Tebow. Obviously even though Tebow has all those intangibles that can't assume he's guy but I do think they want to find out if he is.

Nomad
03-31-2011, 12:38 PM
It's interesting to see the different opinions on him. I thought he nailed the interview. The radio guys were kind of being d-bags and JE just rolled with it. I was very impressed with his responses which, to me, gave us an impression of what he was looking for but didn't tip his hand.

In fact, after listening to this, I'm willing to bet he's leaning more towards Tebow than people think. Listen to what he says when he WASN'T talking directly about Tebow. He mentions several times that leadership, desire, character, a common goal, dedication to the team, etc. are what you need for a SB caliber team. He talked about 'getting in the endzone' as opposed to 'putting up yards'. He said running the spread in the pros WILL score a lot of points if you have a running game to back it up. He then talked about the O-line being a solid group. If you allow yourself to fill in the gaps a bit, the picture gets a little clearer.

If you listen to what he values in a QB when he's not talking about Tebow, it all adds up to giving Tim a chance to improve and become 'that guy'. JMO.

Well, Sarge, you could be right. I am anxious to see a full year of what Tebow can do and anxious to see what kind of decision making Elway does for the BRONCOS. I am hoping for positive outcomes for the better of the BRONCOS!

rcsodak
03-31-2011, 01:43 PM
Everybody that wants TT to start gm 1 better start praying judge judy rules FOR the players and the lockout ends. Agents are telling the players not to be preparing outside of their normal workouts, for fear of injuries.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

KCL
03-31-2011, 01:50 PM
Everybody that wants TT to start gm 1 better start praying judge judy rules FOR the players and the lockout ends. Agents are telling the players not to be preparing outside of their normal workouts, for fear of injuries.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Forget it..Judge Judy is down for the count I think.

Traveler
03-31-2011, 01:59 PM
Elway has been pretty consistent in all his statements regarding our QB situation. The following comment from a recent DP article did catch my attention.


"I think sometimes your eyes migrate to the style you played," Elway said. "You don't have to be that way. You look at Peyton Manning and Tom Brady, the success they've had. But I think it's getting harder and harder to play that position and not have mobility."

http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_17669350#ixzz1ICknGy1F

Should one read more into his comment this what he stated? Is that a signal that Orton isn't going to be here?

Ravage!!!
03-31-2011, 02:36 PM
Elway has been pretty consistent in all his statements regarding our QB situation. The following comment from a recent DP article did catch my attention.



http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_17669350#ixzz1ICknGy1F

Should one read more into his comment this what he stated? Is that a signal that Orton isn't going to be here?

i don't think so. Although mobility is nice, its still very much a passing league, and in fact is becoming more and MORE a passing league made by the rules to protect the PASSER (not the runner) and letting WRs have open reign to have free releases.

The best in the NFL are still your dominant passers.

Lonestar
03-31-2011, 03:08 PM
i don't think so. Although mobility is nice, its still very much a passing league, and in fact is becoming more and MORE a passing league made by the rules to protect the PASSER (not the runner) and letting WRs have open reign to have free releases.

The best in the NFL are still your dominant passers.

I could be wrong but mobility does not mean a running QB just someone that can get out of their own way.
Most of the dominant passers are less than mobile. While they can evade a rusher they are no threat to run.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Ravage!!!
03-31-2011, 03:19 PM
I could be wrong but mobility does not mean a running QB just someone that can get out of their own way.
Most of the dominant passers are less than mobile. While they can evade a rusher they are no threat to run.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

If thats the definition of being a mobile QB, then we can't say the more dominant passers are 'less' than mobile. Brady, Rivers, Brees.. .are certainly not running QBs but are absolutely very good about moving in the pocket.

Since we can all see that even Peyton Manning can absolutely move in the pocket. Going by the context of the discussion and sentences from John,I don't think that's what he was referring to when stating about 'mobile' QBs. Every QB in the NFL can move.

Dzone
03-31-2011, 04:25 PM
That must be the one that has DT showing off his new crutches.

LMAO!!! hahaha..thats great..I want to get me one

TXBRONC
03-31-2011, 04:46 PM
If thats the definition of being a mobile QB, then we can't say the more dominant passers are 'less' than mobile. Brady, Rivers, Brees.. .are certainly not running QBs but are absolutely very good about moving in the pocket.

Since we can all see that even Peyton Manning can absolutely move in the pocket. Going by the context of the discussion and sentences from John,I don't think that's what he was referring to when stating about 'mobile' QBs. Every QB in the NFL can move.

I guess that means Orton is immobile.

BigSarge87
03-31-2011, 05:08 PM
i don't think so. Although mobility is nice, its still very much a passing league, and in fact is becoming more and MORE a passing league made by the rules to protect the PASSER (not the runner) and letting WRs have open reign to have free releases.

The best in the NFL are still your dominant passers.

But how much more of a dominant passer could you be if the defense HAS to dedicate itself to keeping you from running it also?

I think the position is just starting to evolve. Guys like Tebow, Newton, Locker, Kaepernick, etc. are evidence of that. If these guys can prove to be effective passers, they are going to be good. If any of them can become great passers, they will be unstoppable. Defenses are going to have a hell of a time trying to play both the run and the pass every time the QB drops back. I think true passers with no ability to run are going to become obsolete soon. They will always be predictable because they're a one trick pony. If they drop back everyone knows they are throwing the ball.

There's always been mobile QB's and they've been marginally effective because they've been small and quick and get beat down by big DL/LB's who are just as fast. Not to mention none of them have been great passers. But now we're seeing HUGE athletic guys coming out that can deliver a hit as well as take one and STILL throw the ball well. It's gonna change everything and they're just going to get bigger and faster as that type of QB finds success in the NFL.

It opens up so many options for the offense. It's pretty exciting. This is just a theory, feel free to rape it with fire.

BigSarge87
03-31-2011, 05:13 PM
Oh, wait, my brother just informed me that 'Rape' is an offensive word, it's now more socially acceptable to use the term 'suprise sex'.

Denver Native (Carol)
03-31-2011, 05:15 PM
For those who did not listen to John yesterday on the fan, here is the transcript:

http://sportsradiointerviews.com/2011/03/31/john-elway-on-the-denver-broncos-possibly-drafting-a-quarterback-were-not-sure-we-have-a-franchise-guy-on-our-team-right-now/

HORSEPOWER 56
03-31-2011, 05:37 PM
But how much more of a dominant passer could you be if the defense HAS to dedicate itself to keeping you from running it also?

I think the position is just starting to evolve. Guys like Tebow, Newton, Locker, Kaepernick, etc. are evidence of that. If these guys can prove to be effective passers, they are going to be good. If any of them can become great passers, they will be unstoppable. Defenses are going to have a hell of a time trying to play both the run and the pass every time the QB drops back. I think true passers with no ability to run are going to become obsolete soon. They will always be predictable because they're a one trick pony. If they drop back everyone knows they are throwing the ball.

There's always been mobile QB's and they've been marginally effective because they've been small and quick and get beat down by big DL/LB's who are just as fast. Not to mention none of them have been great passers. But now we're seeing HUGE athletic guys coming out that can deliver a hit as well as take one and STILL throw the ball well. It's gonna change everything and they're just going to get bigger and faster as that type of QB finds success in the NFL.

It opens up so many options for the offense. It's pretty exciting. This is just a theory, feel free to rape it with fire.

I understand what you're saying Sarge, but QBs like that have been around for a long time. There's really nothing any different between Tebow, Newton, Kaepernick, etc and Elway or guys like Cutler, Rapelesberger, or Aaron Rodgers except that Elway, Cutler, Rapelesberger, and Rodgers guys were established passers as well as mobile QBs coming out of college.

I agree that a mobile QB provides more problems for the defense, but the "new breed" of guys aren't really anything new. The big difference is that they played in the spread offense and were one-read and then run QBs. They have to prove that they can make pre-snap reads, adjust protection schemes and audible if necessary, go through a progression, find the open man, and make the throw. That's all the coaches and scouts are looking for.

There's a difference between being a "mobile" QB and being a "running" QB. Elway and Rodgers are mobile QBs. Tebow and Newton are running QBs. History shows that it takes longer to make a "running" QB into a productive NFL "mobile" QB. Both Randall Cunningham and Mike Vick struggled mightily early on as passers before they settled down and started to rely more on their arm.

Don't get me wrong, I still want Tebow to be our starting QB this fall. IMO, he's shown that he can play and lead the offense at the pro level. That's all I really care about. I really could care less how "pretty" or textbook of a passer he is.

Tebow threw for 300 yards in a game as a rookie in one of his only three games. Matt Ryan only threw for 300 yds twice in 16 games his rookie season. He threw for under 200 yards 7 times his rookie year. Sam Bradford only threw for 300 yards once in 16 games last year and threw for under 200 8 times.

Tebow is just as good a passer as they are, IMO and is more dangerous when the play breaks down. He's got a lot to learn, but I like what I saw.

bcbronc
03-31-2011, 05:59 PM
Tebow is just as good a passer as Ryan and Bradford because he passed for 300 yards in a game. Awesome!
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

HORSEPOWER 56
03-31-2011, 06:15 PM
Tebow is just as good a passer as Ryan and Bradford because he passed for 300 yards in a game. Awesome!
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

If you look at the numbers he is, bc. Other than the fact that both Bradford and Ryan have pro-bowl running backs helping them out and Tebow had to create his own running game, then yeah, I'd say he's as good.

Did you actually watch any of Sam Bradford's games (other than the Broncos game)? He averaged some thing like 2 attempted passes over 15 yards PER GAME. Most of his passes were 5 yards or less... seriously. NTM, he had Steven Jackson to hand the ball to...

Ravage!!!
03-31-2011, 06:22 PM
But how much more of a dominant passer could you be if the defense HAS to dedicate itself to keeping you from running it also?

I think the position is just starting to evolve. Guys like Tebow, Newton, Locker, Kaepernick, etc. are evidence of that. If these guys can prove to be effective passers, they are going to be good. If any of them can become great passers, they will be unstoppable. Defenses are going to have a hell of a time trying to play both the run and the pass every time the QB drops back. I think true passers with no ability to run are going to become obsolete soon. They will always be predictable because they're a one trick pony. If they drop back everyone knows they are throwing the ball.

There's always been mobile QB's and they've been marginally effective because they've been small and quick and get beat down by big DL/LB's who are just as fast. Not to mention none of them have been great passers. But now we're seeing HUGE athletic guys coming out that can deliver a hit as well as take one and STILL throw the ball well. It's gonna change everything and they're just going to get bigger and faster as that type of QB finds success in the NFL.

It opens up so many options for the offense. It's pretty exciting. This is just a theory, feel free to rape it with fire.


56 already has answered (and well at that) most of what I was going to say. The mobile QB isn't new. The running QB isn't new. Hell, look at Fran Tarkenton. They've been around a LONG time, and despite people thinking the game of football is "evolving" to more running QBs, its the opposite. Teams NEED the passing QB to succeed. The teams, and QBs, that rely too much on their legs are not NEARLY as successful as the teams that have QBs that can out-pass the other team. The NFL is a PASSING league, BECAUSE its sooo hard to run for the QB. That, and the QB is just too valuable of a commodity to continue to put in harm's way by having him run. The owners do NOT want the QB to run 20 times a game! The NFL does NOT want injured QBs because thats a lesser product.

Although I completely disagree with 56 on his assessment of Tebow's passing being even CLOSE to being as good as Ryan's and Bradford (its not close), the hesitations come from what 56 touched on.... Tebow, Newton, Young... these guys came from spread offenses where they never took snaps from center, made a single read, and would bolt on the run while in college.. That lil step that Tebow took at each snap to threaten the run while in college, isn't going to help in the NFL, because they will WANT him to run.

The Defenses will stack against the run, putting people in the box so they can get pressure, FORCING Tebow to either try and make a quick read or.. run.

True passers, are always going to be the king of the NFL. Just look at Vince Young. He's not a good NFL passer, and not a good NFL QB. But he sure could run in college.

BigSarge87
03-31-2011, 06:43 PM
I understand what you're saying Sarge, but QBs like that have been around for a long time. There's really nothing any different between Tebow, Newton, Kaepernick, etc and Elway or guys like Cutler, Rapelesberger, or Aaron Rodgers except that Elway, Cutler, Rapelesberger, and Rodgers guys were established passers as well as mobile QBs coming out of college.
None of those guys were even considered ‘mobile’ coming out of college except for maybe Elway and you can’t possibly say that they are even in the same realm as Tebow, Newton, and Locker as far as running ability goes.

I agree that a mobile QB provides more problems for the defense, but the "new breed" of guys aren't really anything new. The big difference is that they played in the spread offense and were one-read and then run QBs. They have to prove that they can make pre-snap reads, adjust protection schemes and audible if necessary, go through a progression, find the open man, and make the throw. That's all the coaches and scouts are looking for.
Agreed, and that’s why the spread is getting more popular every year in the NFL. Tebow showed us it can be successful in the three games he played. If the ‘new breed’ can adapt the more conventional passing formations into their game, and be good at it, it will be fun to watch.

There's a difference between being a "mobile" QB and being a "running" QB. Elway and Rodgers are mobile QBs. Tebow and Newton are running QBs. History shows that it takes longer to make a "running" QB into a productive NFL "mobile" QB. Both Randall Cunningham and Mike Vick struggled mightily early on as passers before they settled down and started to rely more on their arm.
Exactly, I’m saying “running” QB’s. I’m talking about QB’s who can stuff it off tackle on third and short just as easy as they can drop it over the LB’s into a TE or fake it altogether and throw a deep seem route. Cunningham and Vick are both examples of guys who weren’t big enough to pull it off. Both those guys can scramble well, but neither could execute a running game like Tebow has the potential to do.

Tebow threw for 300 yards in a game as a rookie in one of his only three games. Matt Ryan only threw for 300 yds twice in 16 games his rookie season. He threw for under 200 yards 7 times his rookie year. Sam Bradford only threw for 300 yards once in 16 games last year and threw for under 200 8 times.
We know he can make the throws, we all seen him do it. That’s another reason why a lot of this worry about Elway and Fox not liking him has to be unfounded. It’s just a matter of getting consistent, and that should come with experience and hard work.

Tebow is just as good a passer as they are, IMO and is more dangerous when the play breaks down. He's got a lot to learn, but I like what I saw.
We know Tebow can make plays when things break down, but that’s not what I’m talking about with these new guys. I’m talking about intentionally running the football with your QB. Guys like Peyton Manning and Tom Brady have made such an impression on the league over the last ten years that every thinks they can’t be successful without someone like that. Everyone has this mentality that they need to find the next Peyton Manning for their team, I’m just putting out the idea that maybe the next Peyton Manning will be great because of his ability to put his head down and get over the goal line as well as throw it on the ‘red x’ (that one’s for you KCL) 60 yards down the field. I’m just sayin there’s guys out there that can do that now and I think that’s pretty new to the NFL.

BigSarge87
03-31-2011, 06:58 PM
56 already has answered (and well at that) most of what I was going to say. The mobile QB isn't new. The running QB isn't new. Hell, look at Fran Tarkenton. They've been around a LONG time, and despite people thinking the game of football is "evolving" to more running QBs, its the opposite. Teams NEED the passing QB to succeed. The teams, and QBs, that rely too much on their legs are not NEARLY as successful as the teams that have QBs that can out-pass the other team. The NFL is a PASSING league, BECAUSE its sooo hard to run for the QB. That, and the QB is just too valuable of a commodity to continue to put in harm's way by having him run. The owners do NOT want the QB to run 20 times a game! The NFL does NOT want injured QBs because thats a lesser product.

Although I completely disagree with 56 on his assessment of Tebow's passing being even CLOSE to being as good as Ryan's and Bradford (its not close), the hesitations come from what 56 touched on.... Tebow, Newton, Young... these guys came from spread offenses where they never took snaps from center, made a single read, and would bolt on the run while in college.. That lil step that Tebow took at each snap to threaten the run while in college, isn't going to help in the NFL, because they will WANT him to run.

The Defenses will stack against the run, putting people in the box so they can get pressure, FORCING Tebow to either try and make a quick read or.. run.

True passers, are always going to be the king of the NFL. Just look at Vince Young. He's not a good NFL passer, and not a good NFL QB. But he sure could run in college.

I admittingly wasn't around when Fran was playing so I can't attest to that. I understand a teams reservations about thier main signal caller getting beat up. But I still think if a guy can show he can play that way and stay healthy it going to happen. Coordinators are hungry to find the next edge to beating a defense, and it's going to happen. I'm not talking about the QB being the sole running threat, but just creating the threat of running on ever snap. Great! make the LB's and Safetys stack the box and force them to throw. No problem, man on man baby!

Guys like Peyton and Brady are probably not fair to compare against. Obviously they are HOFers and next to impossible to find. Compare the 'new breed' to the average 'pure passer' in the league. If you could have a guy that could throw like Ryan or Bradford, and still force the defense to respect the off tackle on third and short in a no-back set, wouldn't you want that?

Ravage!!!
03-31-2011, 11:57 PM
Guys like Peyton and Brady are probably not fair to compare against. Obviously they are HOFers and next to impossible to find. Compare the 'new breed' to the average 'pure passer' in the league. If you could have a guy that could throw like Ryan or Bradford, and still force the defense to respect the off tackle on third and short in a no-back set, wouldn't you want that?

Dude. You are exaggerating the skills of Tebow and every QB on your list. They are not a "new breed" as you proclaim. We've seen this for YEARS. Im guessing you are pretty young, and think the players of the 80s don't compare to the players of today. I thought the same thing when I was young, and have learned through the years, that I was wrong. The athletes of today are not better than those 20 years ago. They just aren't. These guys are NOT the "new breed" and don't bring something to the NFL we haven't seen over and over and over again. But what we've seen and learned, is that its the passers that are the hardest to stop, the hardest to beat, and the ones that are the most consistent winners.

Passing is where its at in the NFL. ITs a passing league, where passers rule supreme. Tebow is not the passer that Bradford is, and never will be. He's not a good passer, and as Elway has said... the Spread offense has NOT proved to be what you are making it out to be, at allllll.

Vick was a better runner. Vince Young was a better passer. Elway was a MUCH better athlete than Tebow, and found that throwing the ball is how you succeed in the NFL. Steve Young. These guys all proved that throwing the ball, despite having the ability to run, is how you succeed.

I guarantee you. If Vick couldn't run with success in the NFL for a span of time, No way Tebow does.

bcbronc
04-01-2011, 02:15 AM
If you look at the numbers he is, bc. Other than the fact that both Bradford and Ryan have pro-bowl running backs helping them out and Tebow had to create his own running game, then yeah, I'd say he's as good.

Did you actually watch any of Sam Bradford's games (other than the Broncos game)? He averaged some thing like 2 attempted passes over 15 yards PER GAME. Most of his passes were 5 yards or less... seriously. NTM, he had Steven Jackson to hand the ball to...

ya, I watched some of Bradford's games last season. Lucky me, my "local" team is in the NFC West. And his accuracy and consistency are much better than Tebow's.




Exactly, I’m saying “running” QB’s. I’m talking about QB’s who can stuff it off tackle on third and short just as easy as they can drop it over the LB’s into a TE or fake it altogether and throw a deep seem route. Cunningham and Vick are both examples of guys who weren’t big enough to pull it off. Both those guys can scramble well, but neither could execute a running game like Tebow has the potential to do.



it's just a bad idea. NFL defenders hit too damn hard to be using your QB as a powerback. For one thing, NFL QBs don't wear the same armour as NFL RBs do. second, you're giving the defenses biggest, meanest, dirtiest players time in piles with your most important player. Third, we've already seen how ineffective Tebow has been when his OC tries to force feed QB draws up the gut.

If Tebow can't make DCs respect his arm, they're not going to give him lanes to run.

If Elway does decide to draft a "franchise" QB, I'd be okay with keeping Tebow and building a redzone package around his skill set.

gobroncsnv
04-01-2011, 05:24 PM
Still not entirely sure if this isn't just pre-draft gamesmanship... Yeah, Tebow is gonna need work to get molded into a pro QB... But there is quite a lot at stake holding a #2 pick, and I'm for them using every technique to get the most out of that pick. Not looking forward to going through another year where we earn such a high pick , but hoping they bluff their butts off to pay this card as well as it can be played.

Sinthor
04-02-2011, 02:21 PM
Dude. You are exaggerating the skills of Tebow and every QB on your list. They are not a "new breed" as you proclaim. We've seen this for YEARS. Im guessing you are pretty young, and think the players of the 80s don't compare to the players of today. I thought the same thing when I was young, and have learned through the years, that I was wrong. The athletes of today are not better than those 20 years ago. They just aren't. These guys are NOT the "new breed" and don't bring something to the NFL we haven't seen over and over and over again. But what we've seen and learned, is that its the passers that are the hardest to stop, the hardest to beat, and the ones that are the most consistent winners.

Passing is where its at in the NFL. ITs a passing league, where passers rule supreme. Tebow is not the passer that Bradford is, and never will be. He's not a good passer, and as Elway has said... the Spread offense has NOT proved to be what you are making it out to be, at allllll.

Vick was a better runner. Vince Young was a better passer. Elway was a MUCH better athlete than Tebow, and found that throwing the ball is how you succeed in the NFL. Steve Young. These guys all proved that throwing the ball, despite having the ability to run, is how you succeed.

I guarantee you. If Vick couldn't run with success in the NFL for a span of time, No way Tebow does.

Sorry, but athletes ARE better today than 20 years ago. Even the older athletes say the same. Guys are bigger, faster and stronger than they were that long ago. No way they're the same. Also, who says Vick can't and hasn't run effectively in the league? He's still doing it! How many 100+ yard rushing games did he have before he went to jail? How often did he run it this past year? I submit he can and will continue doing the same too. The only difference is that he looked to run first early in his career and now he tends to keep looking to pass even while running. THAT's the balance that needs to be in play. No, you don't want your QB running a lot of actual designed runs or taking off to run most plays. But having a guy with the ability to do so is deadly. Elway was the same kind of QB, just not as good (at running) as Michael Vick and co. Wouldn't surprise me to see a guy like this (maybe Tebow) that can effectively pass and also run end up owning the league.

bcbronc
04-02-2011, 02:30 PM
Sorry, but athletes ARE better today than 20 years ago. Even the older athletes say the same. Guys are bigger, faster and stronger than they were that long ago.

maybe if you compare two players from the different eras, but relative to their peers they're not any bigger etc.

today we have 280lb LBs, but we also have 340lb OTs, so it's about the same as when 240lbs was a big LB and 300lbs was a big OT.

rcsodak
04-02-2011, 02:36 PM
Tebow is just as good a passer as Ryan and Bradford because he passed for 300 yards in a game. Awesome!
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

TT for HOF!
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

broncobryce
04-02-2011, 02:42 PM
Still not entirely sure if this isn't just pre-draft gamesmanship... Yeah, Tebow is gonna need work to get molded into a pro QB... But there is quite a lot at stake holding a #2 pick, and I'm for them using every technique to get the most out of that pick. Not looking forward to going through another year where we earn such a high pick , but hoping they bluff their butts off to pay this card as well as it can be played.

If it's not a smokescreen, Elway is not as smart as I thought. But keep in mind this quote from the Bills GM:

“It’s not a sin to tell a lie pre-draft,” Nix said. “Everybody does it. It’s accepted. So everything you hear or read or see, you need to keep in mind that about 10 percent of it’s the truth.”

Sinthor
04-03-2011, 10:52 AM
maybe if you compare two players from the different eras, but relative to their peers they're not any bigger etc.

today we have 280lb LBs, but we also have 340lb OTs, so it's about the same as when 240lbs was a big LB and 300lbs was a big OT.

Yes, absolutely you're right. But I said this in response to someone who said players of today are NOT any better than those from the 80's. It's like boxing or any other sport. There may well be, in fact there likely are at least a few exceptions to this, but for the most part, due to more advanced medical knowledge, better training techniques, etc., today's athletes outstrip those of earlier generations. It's to be expected though. Just using the example of bcbronc here above you can see that with football. How many 300+ lb players existed in the 80's that could run as fast as those we have today? "Refrigerator" Perry was not very fast at all. Albert Haynesworth IS.

Elevation inc
04-03-2011, 11:17 AM
i don't think so. Although mobility is nice, its still very much a passing league, and in fact is becoming more and MORE a passing league made by the rules to protect the PASSER (not the runner) and letting WRs have open reign to have free releases.

The best in the NFL are still your dominant passers.

i disagree who played the SB this year GB/Pitt each team had a very mobile and athletic qb who could extend plays, its helps both are good passers, but neither is the passer brady or peyton is but they made plays happen and extended them when needed they also both had mediocre OL;s and still got it done...i didnt see that these playoffs from brady or manning and it cost them....

Nomad
04-03-2011, 11:21 AM
How's DC treating you INC......miss Aviano??

Elevation inc
04-03-2011, 11:29 AM
How's DC treating you INC......miss Aviano??

big time im actually here in italy now on vacation for 2 weeks, had to get away from the cold of the North east...very sad...DC is culture shock man....big time i miss the laid back life of italy in a big way

Ravage!!!
04-03-2011, 11:35 AM
i disagree who played the SB this year GB/Pitt each team had a very mobile and athletic qb who could extend plays, its helps both are good passers, but neither is the passer brady or peyton is but they made plays happen and extended them when needed they also both had mediocre OL;s and still got it done...i didnt see that these playoffs from brady or manning and it cost them....

Both are passers, ESPECIALLY Rodgers. If you are going to use SBs as your example, who was in the Super Bowl the prior season... Manning and Brees.

As I said, Mobility is NICE, but mobility in the pocket is more important in the long run.

Elevation inc
04-03-2011, 11:46 AM
Both are passers, ESPECIALLY Rodgers. If you are going to use SBs as your example, who was in the Super Bowl the prior season... Manning and Brees.

As I said, Mobility is NICE, but mobility in the pocket is more important in the long run.

lol rav in my own post i did say both are good passers..not sure how you missed that...lol anyway the mobility was a key factor in helping them get there....i dodnt disagree you need to be a great passer but look at kyle for instance he threw all over the field but when push come to shove he couldnt make a play and alot of that was becasue you could tackle orton just by breathing on him....having a mobile Qb, that can pass and has the intagibles of tebow or john elway??? thats what you want in a QB...if cutler had tebows intagibles he would be revered in denver right now and would still be here....we still have plenty of time for tebow to grow as a passer but he has 2 of 3 things you really want. The ability to extend plays and make things happen and that fire and leadership

lets hope he develops into the passer aaron rodgers has become or even bi ben for that matter....

Ravage!!!
04-03-2011, 12:34 PM
Sorry, but athletes ARE better today than 20 years ago. Even the older athletes say the same. Guys are bigger, faster and stronger than they were that long ago. No way they're the same. Also, who says Vick can't and hasn't run effectively in the league? He's still doing it! How many 100+ yard rushing games did he have before he went to jail? How often did he run it this past year? I submit he can and will continue doing the same too. The only difference is that he looked to run first early in his career and now he tends to keep looking to pass even while running. THAT's the balance that needs to be in play. No, you don't want your QB running a lot of actual designed runs or taking off to run most plays. But having a guy with the ability to do so is deadly. Elway was the same kind of QB, just not as good (at running) as Michael Vick and co. Wouldn't surprise me to see a guy like this (maybe Tebow) that can effectively pass and also run end up owning the league.

They aren't better ATHLETES than 20 years ago.

The QBs of today aren't more athletic than Elway. Adrian Peterson is NOT a better athlete than Bo Jackson or Herschel Walker. Where are all the guys that are better ATHLETES than Deion Sanders? Where are all the guys that are better ATHLETES than Walter Peyton? How many RBs of today are the ATHLETE of Barry Sanders? If you want to cross sports, where are all the basketball players that are better ATHLETES than Jordan? A guy having better ripped abs, and being better fit doesn't make him a better ATHLETE. Hell, the guys aren't more naturally athletes today than Jim Thorpe!

Perhaps you associate a guys physical size with athleticism? If that's your definition, we have different perspectives. Athletes are definitely bigger today, but thats not what makes a natural athlete. Their natural athleticism is not better today than it was 20 years ago. "Their ability to use a variety of motor abilities to effectively and efficiently perform a wide variety of sporting actions" has not changed. What has changed is diet, nutrition, and the availability of weights and work out regimes.

Just because a guy is bigger than I am, can run in a straight line faster than me, or jump higher than I can, doesn't make him a better athlete than me when it comes to performing athletic actions within an athletic environment (or sporting EVENT). Athleticism can be improved with training. A guy can improve his forty times, his bench press, and even his vertical jump... but that doesn't improve his natural motor skills nor coordination.

Don't think just because a guy is bigger, stronger, and faster.. that he's a better ATHLETE. It's the combination of those attributes, with the natural athleticism, that makes the superior players.

Moving on.

I never said that a mobile QB isn't nice. I said that a PASSING QB is the need for success. If your mobile QB isn't a great passer, then your team will ultimately have moderate success compared to a team that does. I absolutely believe that having a mobile QB is the best to have, as long as the mobility is used to buy time to make PASSES and not rushing yards.

Hell, Mike Vick is the perfect example for both discussions. When it comes to talking about athleticism, Mike Vick came in to the league a decade ago. How many QBs today are as good of athletes as he is? He's the best rushing QB in the NFL.... ever. How many playoff wins does he have? Who would you rather have behind center....Vick or Manning? Vick or Brees? Vick or Brady? Vick or Rivers? Vick or Ryan?

atwater27
04-03-2011, 01:04 PM
They aren't better ATHLETES than 20 years ago.

The QBs of today aren't more athletic than Elway. Adrian Peterson is NOT a better athlete than Bo Jackson or Herschel Walker. Where are all the guys that are better ATHLETES than Deion Sanders? Where are all the guys that are better ATHLETES than Walter Peyton? If you want to cross sports, where are all the basketball players that are better ATHLETES than Jordan? A guy having better ripped abs, and being better fit doesn't make him a better ATHLETE. Hell, the guys aren't more naturally athletes today than Jim Thorpe!

Perhaps you associate a guys physical size with athleticism? If that's your definition, we have different perspectives. Athletes are definitely bigger today, but thats not what makes a natural athlete. Their natural athleticism is not better today than it was 20 years ago. "Their ability to use a variety of motor abilities to effectively and efficiently perform a wide variety of sporting actions" has not changed. What has changed is diet, nutrition, and the availability of weights and work out regimes.

Just because a guy is bigger than I am, can run in a straight line faster than me, or jump higher than I can, doesn't make him a better athlete than me when it comes to performing athletic actions within an athletic environment (or sporting EVENT). Athleticism can be improved with training. A guy can improve his forty times, his bench press, and even his vertical jump... but that doesn't improve his natural motor skills nor coordination.

Don't think just because a guy is bigger, stronger, and faster.. that he's a better ATHLETE. It's the combination of those attributes, with the natural athleticism, that makes the superior players.

Moving on.

I never said that a mobile QB isn't nice. I said that a PASSING QB is the need for success. If your mobile QB isn't a great passer, then your team will ultimately have moderate success compared to a team that does. I absolutely believe that having a mobile QB is the best to have, as long as the mobility is used to buy time to make PASSES and not rushing yards.

Hell, Mike Vick is the perfect example for both discussions. When it comes to talking about athleticism, Mike Vick came in to the league a decade ago. How many QBs today are as good of athletes as he is? He's the best rushing QB in the NFL.... ever. How many playoff wins does he have? Who would you rather have behind center....Vick or Manning? Vick or Brees? Vick or Brady? Vick or Rivers? Vick or Ryan?

Exactly.... Where's the next Christian Okoye? I thought athletes were bigger , stronger and faster than the past. Where is Earl Campbell, Jim Brown? Those guys today would still dominate.

Ravage!!!
04-03-2011, 01:07 PM
lol rav in my own post i did say both are good passers..not sure how you missed that...lol anyway the mobility was a key factor in helping them get there....i dodnt disagree you need to be a great passer but look at kyle for instance he threw all over the field but when push come to shove he couldnt make a play and alot of that was becasue you could tackle orton just by breathing on him....having a mobile Qb, that can pass and has the intagibles of tebow or john elway??? thats what you want in a QB...if cutler had tebows intagibles he would be revered in denver right now and would still be here....we still have plenty of time for tebow to grow as a passer but he has 2 of 3 things you really want. The ability to extend plays and make things happen and that fire and leadership

lets hope he develops into the passer aaron rodgers has become or even bi ben for that matter....

Lol... you are using Orton as your example? If you are going to use an example of non-running QBs.. you certainly picked one at the bottom. Orton is a lot more mobile than Rivers, Peyton, and Brady. He absolutely isn't the QB as well. But I don't think it came down to his mobility.

As stated several times. If the QB is mobile to buy time, thats great. Wonderful.. fantastic.. preferred. But ultimately, it comes down to passing.

BigSarge87
04-04-2011, 11:59 AM
Dude. You are exaggerating the skills of Tebow and every QB on your list. They are not a "new breed" as you proclaim. We've seen this for YEARS. Im guessing you are pretty young, and think the players of the 80s don't compare to the players of today. I thought the same thing when I was young, and have learned through the years, that I was wrong. The athletes of today are not better than those 20 years ago. They just aren't. These guys are NOT the "new breed" and don't bring something to the NFL we haven't seen over and over and over again. But what we've seen and learned, is that its the passers that are the hardest to stop, the hardest to beat, and the ones that are the most consistent winners.

Passing is where its at in the NFL. ITs a passing league, where passers rule supreme. Tebow is not the passer that Bradford is, and never will be. He's not a good passer, and as Elway has said... the Spread offense has NOT proved to be what you are making it out to be, at allllll.

Vick was a better runner. Vince Young was a better passer. Elway was a MUCH better athlete than Tebow, and found that throwing the ball is how you succeed in the NFL. Steve Young. These guys all proved that throwing the ball, despite having the ability to run, is how you succeed.

I guarantee you. If Vick couldn't run with success in the NFL for a span of time, No way Tebow does.

Pretty much every sentence in that post can be viably debated. It's all just your opinion. I see where you are getting it, and I understand your reasoning and, your probably right. History typically can be counted on to see what will work in the future. I'm just trying to think out of the box for the fun of it. Things are slow.

I think by saying "we've seen this over and over for years" is missing my point. Vick isn't a runner (he's a scrambler, and kind of a puss, to be honest), Young isn't a runner (or a passer and saying he's a better passer than Tebow is a bit premature, and he's definately a puss.) Elway and Young, although a million times tougher than Vick/Young, weren't runners either. None of those guys had gameplans that were specifically drawn up and practiced to provide them with opportunities to move the chains running the ball as a FIRST option. All of them were taught 'if it isn't there, then go'. They were all taught to be passers first from the start.

If some offensive guy wanted to get creative and put this into the gameplan, I just think the opportunity is there to exploit a defense this way. If it worked, then completing passes would obviously be less challenging for that player. You can't deny that Tebow had defenses guessing in those three games and he was getting better every time playing just the way I've been discussing.

bcbronc
04-04-2011, 06:00 PM
^might want to go watch some of Vick's early games with ATL. Vick running as a first option was very much a part of their game plan, and it worked well enough to get them to a NFCCG.

rcsodak
04-04-2011, 08:02 PM
Exactly.... Where's the next Christian Okoye? I thought athletes were bigger , stronger and faster than the past. Where is Earl Campbell, Jim Brown? Those guys today would still dominate.
So one guy/decade is your argument? Lol
I'd say Adrian Peterson is as big and yet faster than all three. But because ALL of the current players are bigger/faster/stronger and yes, more athletic than 99.99% of those that played 20yrs ago, he'll prolly not last as long.

I can't tell you how many times a legend is asked how they think they'd fare vs todays athletes, and down to the man, will admit they're in a different league than in his time.

One could prolly make a case that the above mentioned legends were 'ahead of their time', and played against lesser athletes, overall.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

rcsodak
04-04-2011, 08:06 PM
^might want to go watch some of Vick's early games with ATL. Vick running as a first option was very much a part of their game plan, and it worked well enough to get them to a NFCCG.

Yep. Plus now, isn't he one of the most sacked?
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

BigSarge87
04-05-2011, 10:46 AM
^might want to go watch some of Vick's early games with ATL. Vick running as a first option was very much a part of their game plan, and it worked well enough to get them to a NFCCG.

So what your saying is that it worked until they realized the small, fragile, girlieman decided he couldn't make a living taking an occasional hit?

I haven't heard anything yet that convinces me that having a BIG QB that can provide a valid running threat between the tackles (not just scrambling) wouldn't completely change the way a defense has to play you. It gives you so many options in short yardage/goaline situations that the defense cannot cover all of them. It turns into a situation like a free kick in soccer where the goalie pretty much has to guess which way the kick is going. If these guys can prove to throw an accurate ball, read defenses, and stay healthy, they are going to be FQB's by virtue of their skillset alone.

BigSarge87
04-05-2011, 10:58 AM
Exactly.... Where's the next Christian Okoye? I thought athletes were bigger , stronger and faster than the past. Where is Earl Campbell, Jim Brown? Those guys today would still dominate.

Mmmm, I disagree. If those guys did succeed in todays game, it would be because of heart and desire, not pure athleticism. Those guys were great because they were flat warriors, not because they were just faster or stronger than those around them. If they had to go up against todays athletes, I'm not sure it would get them as far. No disrespect to the older generation here. I think we've had this conversation before and I got lambasted (I think by GEM, actually) for saying that, but it's just true, IMO.

TXBRONC
04-05-2011, 01:28 PM
So what your saying is that it worked until they realized the small, fragile, girlieman decided he couldn't make a living taking an occasional hit?

I haven't heard anything yet that convinces me that having a BIG QB that can provide a valid running threat between the tackles (not just scrambling) wouldn't completely change the way a defense has to play you. It gives you so many options in short yardage/goaline situations that the defense cannot cover all of them. It turns into a situation like a free kick in soccer where the goalie pretty much has to guess which way the kick is going. If these guys can prove to throw an accurate ball, read defenses, and stay healthy, they are going to be FQB's by virtue of their skillset alone.

Are you saying that all the extra hits would take by being a main cog in the running game wont effect him? Did you see the preseason game against the Bengals? Last play of game on a goal line scramble Tebow ended up with bruised ribs against scrubs and missed the next two games.

No disrespect intended I see multiple flaws in what you're saying. I don't know a lot soccer but I do know that in free kick situation the kicker doesn't worry that someone is going to come up knock the chocolate out of them. You can say that but it's not as easy as you're trying to make it sound. In goal line situations you have far less real estate to cover. Things get pretty congested in those small spaces so even if some isn't covered you can't guarantee the quarterback is going to find and open receiver. So then he decides to run the ball but he could still run into the same problems. Even if he gets you can't guarantee he'll get in unscathed. Just go back to Tebow his first game. He got the touchdown running the ball but end up with bruised ribs that I think ended up costing him playing time in the preseason.

arapaho2
04-05-2011, 03:53 PM
I don't think je was 'raw'. He didn't have to work on C snaps/footwork/throwing motion/reading defenses.

.....unless you consider putting an 'X' on wr chests as 'raw'.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums


john was raw in the sense he had no touch...couldnt throw the little lob...the easy shit, close and lite

with john it was full blast full speed no matter the down or distance...it took him a few years to really develop touch

rcsodak
04-05-2011, 04:06 PM
john was raw in the sense he had no touch...couldnt throw the little lob...the easy shit, close and lite

with john it was full blast full speed no matter the down or distance...it took him a few years to really develop touch

And I agree with that fact of his not having touch.. But that, imo, doesn't constitute the 'raw' label....especially when compared to the 'raw' label of TT, CN, JL, et al.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

arapaho2
04-05-2011, 04:13 PM
i don't think so. Although mobility is nice, its still very much a passing league, and in fact is becoming more and MORE a passing league made by the rules to protect the PASSER (not the runner) and letting WRs have open reign to have free releases.

The best in the NFL are still your dominant passers.

yes its a passing league but evolving into a move around the pocket mobile, extend the play and pass

mobile passers with the ability to move around the pocket , extend plays and take off if needed in the post season
drew brees
jay cutler
matt ryan
big ben
tom brady..although not fast or real nimble he moves well extends plays
a rodger
m sanchez
flaco
vick

pure pocket passers
hassleback
p manning
cassel

now if you were the gm of the broncos and right now both aron rodgers and philip rivers were made available to you...who you pick?

the mobile, nimble extend the play accuate passer rogers...or the pure passer, slow statue like rivers

i doubt any do not take rodgers for the additional he brings

underrated29
04-05-2011, 04:26 PM
Are you saying that all the extra hits would take by being a main cog in the running game wont effect him? Did you see the preseason game against the Bengals? Last play of game on a goal line scramble Tebow ended up with bruised ribs against scrubs and missed the next two games.

No disrespect intended I see multiple flaws in what you're saying. I don't know a lot soccer but I do know that in free kick situation the kicker doesn't worry that someone is going to come up knock the chocolate out of them. You can say that but it's not as easy as you're trying to make it sound. In goal line situations you have far less real estate to cover. Things get pretty congested in those small spaces so even if some isn't covered you can't guarantee the quarterback is going to find and open receiver. So then he decides to run the ball but he could still run into the same problems. Even if he gets you can't guarantee he'll get in unscathed. Just go back to Tebow his first game. He got the touchdown running the ball but end up with bruised ribs that I think ended up costing him playing time in the preseason.




Remember the charger game? Last game of the year? 4th down and 1. TT right off the RG, gets Blasted by a charger LB-full on collision, stops him short. TT gives a second effort and moves to the left after absorbing the dead on collision and pushes forward for the first down.

The pre season bengals game was his first ever experience. Plus TT usually delivers the hit, rarely is he ever hit strait up like on that bengals play. Rarely are people even hit like that. And the guy TT did hit on the bengals plays did not get up very quickly either. He did not like it. It was the other bengals player who dished out the hit after TT got sorta redirected into him.

TXBRONC
04-05-2011, 05:05 PM
Remember the charger game? Last game of the year? 4th down and 1. TT right off the RG, gets Blasted by a charger LB-full on collision, stops him short. TT gives a second effort and moves to the left after absorbing the dead on collision and pushes forward for the first down.

The pre season bengals game was his first ever experience. Plus TT usually delivers the hit, rarely is he ever hit strait up like on that bengals play. Rarely are people even hit like that. And the guy TT did hit on the bengals plays did not get up very quickly either. He did not like it. It was the other bengals player who dished out the hit after TT got sorta redirected into him.

What I think some people are missing is that don't want your quarterback taking extra hits if at all possilbe. Also I have yet to see even one team have quarterback be the main cog in the running attack win a Super Bowl let alone win one. So he delivers a blow so do running backs like Adrian Peterson and they still get hurt. Just Tebow is 240 lbs doesn't mean he's invincible. To have him take the punishmet of running back plus the hits he'll take as quarterback adds up. By about the midway point the season this is very good chance he would so beat to shit that he would ineffect as quarterback.

I don't know of even one team that has quarterback that the main rushing threat win a Super Bowl let even get to one.

bcbronc
04-05-2011, 05:56 PM
So what your saying is that it worked until they realized the small, fragile, girlieman decided he couldn't make a living taking an occasional hit?

you're contradicting yourself. How does a QB only take an "occasional hit" if he's a key component to the running game? doesn't make any sense.


I haven't heard anything yet that convinces me that having a BIG QB that can provide a valid running threat between the tackles (not just scrambling) wouldn't completely change the way a defense has to play you. It gives you so many options in short yardage/goaline situations that the defense cannot cover all of them. It turns into a situation like a free kick in soccer where the goalie pretty much has to guess which way the kick is going. If these guys can prove to throw an accurate ball, read defenses, and stay healthy, they are going to be FQB's by virtue of their skillset alone.

and therein lies the problem. How many teams run with a "stud buffalo" RB these days? Just about everyone runs a two back, or even three back system. The ones that don't, like St. Lou, tend to see their back get banged up and miss significant time.

you can't risk your QB by consistently running him between the tackles, unless you plan on going QB by committee. If running backs can't handle the pounding, what makes you think a QB could?


Mmmm, I disagree. If those guys did succeed in todays game, it would be because of heart and desire, not pure athleticism. Those guys were great because they were flat warriors, not because they were just faster or stronger than those around them. If they had to go up against todays athletes, I'm not sure it would get them as far. No disrespect to the older generation here. I think we've had this conversation before and I got lambasted (I think by GEM, actually) for saying that, but it's just true, IMO.
again, you're missing
something obvious here. If a guy from 1970 was playing today, he'd have the same training techniques, coaching, nutrition programs etc as today's athletes do. That's where the difference comes from when comparing straight across eras. But give yesterday's dominant player today's workout regimes, he's still going to be a dominant player.

the one thing I do agree with, the "worst" player today is likely much better than the "worst" player of past eras. but that's because the money allows it to be a year round job now and training is a 11 month of the year activity. In past eras there was always a bunch of players that didn't train much, if at all, during the offseason, so that's a big difference.

but dominant players from any era would still be dominant today. I mean, ya if you time-warped Jim Brown into the 2011 season, he wouldn't be as dominant. but if he had grown up with modern training/coaching/nutrition his pure beastliness would still shine through.

rcsodak
04-05-2011, 06:31 PM
you're contradicting yourself. How does a QB only take an "occasional hit" if he's a key component to the running game? doesn't make any sense.



and therein lies the problem. How many teams run with a "stud buffalo" RB these days? Just about everyone runs a two back, or even three back system. The ones that don't, like St. Lou, tend to see their back get banged up and miss significant time.

you can't risk your QB by consistently running him between the tackles, unless you plan on going QB by committee. If running backs can't handle the pounding, what makes you think a QB could?


again, you're missing
something obvious here. If a guy from 1970 was playing today, he'd have the same training techniques, coaching, nutrition programs etc as today's athletes do. That's where the difference comes from when comparing straight across eras. But give yesterday's dominant player today's workout regimes, he's still going to be a dominant player.

the one thing I do agree with, the "worst" player today is likely much better than the "worst" player of past eras. but that's because the money allows it to be a year round job now and training is a 11 month of the year activity. In past eras there was always a bunch of players that didn't train much, if at all, during the offseason, so that's a big difference.

but dominant players from any era would still be dominant today. I mean, ya if you time-warped Jim Brown into the 2011 season, he wouldn't be as dominant. but if he had grown up with modern training/coaching/nutrition his pure beastliness would still shine through.

A. If a player from the 70s was playing today, he'd be older than favre.
B. Why do you think world records are constantly being broken? BETTER ATHLETES. The better training just goes hand in hand with everything improving.
High schoolfootball players are bigger and more athletic than 20yrs ago. Why? How about looking at his family. Each generation's gene pool gets improved; with better nutrition/lifestyle playing its part.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

bcbronc
04-05-2011, 08:54 PM
A. If a player from the 70s was playing today, he'd be older than favre.
B. Why do you think world records are constantly being broken? BETTER ATHLETES. The better training just goes hand in hand with everything improving.
High schoolfootball players are bigger and more athletic than 20yrs ago. Why? How about looking at his family. Each generation's gene pool gets improved; with better nutrition/lifestyle playing its part.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

yes, better athletes over all. But NOT in relation to their peers. Yes Tebow is a bigger version of the mobile QB. But he's going against bigger, faster, quicker LB/DT/DE/S/CBs too.

Ravage!!!
04-05-2011, 11:36 PM
john was raw in the sense he had no touch...couldnt throw the little lob...the easy shit, close and lite

with john it was full blast full speed no matter the down or distance...it took him a few years to really develop touch

John STILL has the highest rating of ANY Player (of any positin) to come out of college. I don't think "raw" is really the correct word to use when describing Elway.

Ravage!!!
04-05-2011, 11:56 PM
No. Athleticism can be IMPROVED due to training and nutrition, but Athleticism is natural. Coordination and motor skills are something that comes naturally, NOT by diet and exercise.

Records are meant to be broken. They eventually are ALWAYS broken. That doesn't prove anything. Doesn't matter if it took 2 years to break, or 20. If it took 20 years to break a record, its because the athletes 20 years past are better, but the athletes 19 years past aren't?? :confused:

The ATHLETICISM of today's athletes are no better than those 60 years ago. Just because they are BIGGER does NOT mean they are superior in motor skills, coordination, and athletic ability. It just means they are bigger.

Tebow is NOT a better ATHLETE then John Elway. Elway is the better athlete, despite Tebow being taller and heavier. Adrian Peterson is NOT a better athlete (at all) then Hershell Walker. If these athletes were so much better through generations, why wouldn't the better athletes of today be HEADS above those 30 years ago??

60 years isn't that long ago, and 20 years ABSOLUTELY isn't that long ago.

200 years ago isn't really that long ago. If you are 40 years old, thats just 5 of you, and using musket rifles to fight for the independence of our country. Yet the natural "athleticism" of the men back then, are still not "less" than those of today.

Too many people want to associate speed and size with athleticism. Thats just not fact.

Many times we would see the new kid walk out onto the field, and you would think to yourself "now there is an athlete" because of his size and build. Then you would see him move and it was apparent, RIGHT away, what kind of athlete he was dESPITE him being able to bench more lbs. Motor-skills and coordination is the difference. If not, you would see every top QB in the NFL today being better "athletes" than the Elways that were drafted nearly 30 years ago. But they aren't. Mike Vick is probably the only QB in the NFL that is a better "athlete."

ANYONE that doesn't realize that the QBs from the 60s, still could QB today, aren't being realistic. They absolutely could.

Ravage!!!
04-06-2011, 12:08 AM
Vick isn't a runner (he's a scrambler, and kind of a puss, to be honest),
What??? you can't be serious. Vick is/was the ULTIMATE in running QBs. He used to have VERY good RBs on his team, and the consensus amongst ALL of them was that Mike Vick was the best RB on the team.


Young isn't a runner (or a passer and saying he's a better passer than Tebow is a bit premature, and he's definately a puss.)
Did you watch him in college at ALLL?? He's nothing but a running QB and is why he's slack as an NFL QB. What football are you watching???


Elway and Young, although a million times tougher than Vick/Young, weren't runners either.
They were runners, but weren't running QBs. They were QBs that could Run. Again, you really need to catch up on your football history. But Steve Young and Elway makes my point about NOT running to run, but running to buy time (or the obvious broken play).


None of those guys had gameplans that were specifically drawn up and practiced to provide them with opportunities to move the chains running the ball as a FIRST option.
RIGHT and Wrong. Vick and Young both have had plays designed for them to run. However, they have been worked with and worked with NOT to look at that as their first option, despite it being nearly inate for them to run first.


All of them were taught 'if it isn't there, then go'. They were all taught to be passers first from the start.
Mmm..kay. And you think it should be different?


If some offensive guy wanted to get creative and put this into the gameplan, I just think the opportunity is there to exploit a defense this way. If it worked, then completing passes would obviously be less challenging for that player. You can't deny that Tebow had defenses guessing in those three games and he was getting better every time playing just the way I've been discussing.

Wow. You really do think its a good idea to have 'run first' options for Tebow and think this is going to work in teh NFL. Ok.

Well.. since this is how you actually believe, there really is nothing more to discuss.

Juriga72
04-06-2011, 06:49 AM
And I agree with that fact of his not having touch.. But that, imo, doesn't constitute the 'raw' label....especially when compared to the 'raw' label of TT, CN, JL, et al.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

How many times did TT line up for a snap under our guard?

like THAT "Raw"???

BigSarge87
04-06-2011, 09:21 AM
I'm not saying to have TT be the main running back in our system. Sure, if he got that kind of work in day in and day out he would be pretty beat up as the season goes along. So would any RB. I'm just talking about having that be PART of our specific gameplan on offense. Showing formations that tell the defense 'hey we're going to run it with Tim right up your ass' and then have him do his cute little jump pass to the TE over the middle COULD be pretty successful. Your getting the effect of play action without having to use the time or personnel to fake a handoff.

Also, some of you guys are making sound like he's going to get lambasted every time he runs. Aren't most of the big hits QB's take from the blindside or when they are in the process of throwing? Isn't that pretty much the only time he got hurt in college? If he's running the ball he'll be prepared to take a hit and can defend himself a little better.

Guys I'm not betting my retirement on this idea, I'm just saying if offenses start finding success playing this way, it could change what is expected of the QB position in the future. It will be a LOT easier to find guys like TT/Newton than it will to find Peyton Mannings. If I'm a O Coord or a HC, I think it's worth a shot (escpecially now with the TT experiment) to work it into my main gameplan and see what happens. Things are so competitive and elite talent is so hard to find, everyone is looking for an edge and this could help.

BigSarge87
04-06-2011, 09:35 AM
Wow Rav, nearly 9,000 posts and still haven't learned how to debate without making personal attacks. Impressive.

God Bless.

rcsodak
04-06-2011, 09:52 AM
Wow Rav, nearly 9,000 posts and still haven't learned how to debate without making personal attacks. Impressive.

God Bless.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

TXBRONC
04-06-2011, 10:20 AM
I'm not saying to have TT be the main running back in our system. Sure, if he got that kind of work in day in and day out he would be pretty beat up as the season goes along. So would any RB. I'm just talking about having that be PART of our specific gameplan on offense. Showing formations that tell the defense 'hey we're going to run it with Tim right up your ass' and then have him do his cute little jump pass to the TE over the middle COULD be pretty successful. Your getting the effect of play action without having to use the time or personnel to fake a handoff.

Also, some of you guys are making sound like he's going to get lambasted every time he runs. Aren't most of the big hits QB's take from the blindside or when they are in the process of throwing? Isn't that pretty much the only time he got hurt in college? If he's running the ball he'll be prepared to take a hit and can defend himself a little better.

Guys I'm not betting my retirement on this idea, I'm just saying if offenses start finding success playing this way, it could change what is expected of the QB position in the future. It will be a LOT easier to find guys like TT/Newton than it will to find Peyton Mannings. If I'm a O Coord or a HC, I think it's worth a shot (escpecially now with the TT experiment) to work it into my main gameplan and see what happens. Things are so competitive and elite talent is so hard to find, everyone is looking for an edge and this could help.

Denver has in the past incorporated specific rushing plays for the quarterback. I don't know if things like that are baked into the game specifically or if it's play of opportunity. My guess offensive coordinators don't put those plays into the game plan specifically. Honesty I think it wouldn't be prudent to do so. It's gadget play that teams will eventually catch onto if it used to much.

It always harder to find Hall of Fame quarterbacks like Peyton Manning. Players like Tebow and Newton are easier to find. They run a lot in college because they're not that accurate of passers. If they were they might be running in a pro style offense like the one Andrew Luck runs.

The idea Tebow is so unusual I don't buy into it. Guys like him been around forever. There isn't a huge difference in physical attributes between him and Steve Young when he played other than weight. So I don't see Tebow changing the quarterback position. He will either develop as passer or he wont be the League. I like the kid and I really want to succeed but he's going have learn how to win with his arm not his legs.

BigSarge87
04-06-2011, 10:48 AM
Denver has in the past incorporated specific rushing plays for the quarterback. I don't know if things like that are baked into the game specifically or if it's play of opportunity. My guess offensive coordinators don't put those plays into the game plan specifically. Honesty I think it wouldn't be prudent to do so. It's gadget play that teams will eventually catch onto if it used to much.

It always harder to find Hall of Fame quarterbacks like Peyton Manning. Players like Tebow and Newton are easier to find. They run a lot in college because they're not that accurate of passers. If they were they might be running in a pro style offense like the one Andrew Luck runs.

The idea Tebow is so unusual I don't buy into it. Guys like him been around forever. There isn't a huge difference in physical attributes between him and Steve Young when he played other than weight. So I don't see Tebow changing the quarterback position. He will either develop as passer or he wont be the League. I like the kid and I really want to succeed but he's going have learn how to win with his arm not his legs.


Like I said before, you guys are probably right. You all obviously follow football much more than I do. However, I still think it would be fun to see what would (and probably will) happen if we use TT that way.

I must see TT differently than you because he really does seem to be in a different sort of class than anyone I can remember playing in the NFL. I can't think of anyone that has been similar in skillset to TT. We've talked about guys from Vick to Vince Young to Steve Young to Randall Cunningham and (to me, at least) none of those guys are the same player Tebow is. I'm not saying he's better than them, just a different combination of talents. I think we should take full advantage of it and see what happens. If he gets hurt too much and it isn't going to work out, fine, start looking for a passer.

We've beat this to a pulp and still disagree, but that's part of what makes it fun to come comment here. Thanks for your opinions, and thanks for respecting mine.

(I gotta check out for a while. I'm actually pretty busy today.)

TXBRONC
04-06-2011, 11:00 AM
Like I said before, you guys are probably right. You all obviously follow football much more than I do. However, I still think it would be fun to see what would (and probably will) happen if we use TT that way.

I must see TT differently than you because he really does seem to be in a different sort of class than anyone I can remember playing in the NFL. I can't think of anyone that has been similar in skillset to TT. We've talked about guys from Vick to Vince Young to Steve Young to Randall Cunningham and (to me, at least) none of those guys are the same player Tebow is. I'm not saying he's better than them, just a different combination of talents. I think we should take full advantage of it and see what happens. If he gets hurt too much and it isn't going to work out, fine, start looking for a passer.

We've beat this to a pulp and still disagree, but that's part of what makes it fun to come comment here. Thanks for your opinions, and thanks for respecting mine.

(I gotta check out for a while. I'm actually pretty busy today.)

What about his skill set that is different from that of Young. I agree his are different from Vick, V. Young, and Cunningham but I guess I'm just not understanding what you see being so different from Steve Young other than weight.

:salute:

Ravage!!!
04-06-2011, 11:06 AM
What about his skill set that is different from that of Young. I agree his are different from Vick, V. Young, and Cunningham but I guess I'm just not understanding what you see being so different from Steve Young other that weight.

:salute:

Steve Young was a MUCH better passer, for 1

rcsodak
04-06-2011, 11:12 AM
What about his skill set that is different from that of Young. I agree his are different from Vick, V. Young, and Cunningham but I guess I'm just not understanding what you see being so different from Steve Young other that weight.

:salute:

SYoung...now there's a 'raw' qb. Wallowing in the USFL, taking his lumps, then picked up by walsh and then stuck (learning) behind montana. Raw-wise, they're a closer match. In fact, RGannon was just talking about their comparison yesterday on Sirius nfl.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

TXBRONC
04-06-2011, 11:13 AM
Steve Young was a MUCH better passer, for 1

He wasn't when he first got to the NFL but he eventually became one and that is one of the reasons he's in the Hall of Fame.

Ravage!!!
04-06-2011, 12:13 PM
He wasn't when he first got to the NFL but he eventually became one and that is one of the reasons he's in the Hall of Fame.

I guess. I just remember the guy that set NCAA records for his passing completion percentage (at the time) (71%) while throwing for 4000 yrds. Then later setting the NFL record for passing percentage.

I think you are right. Steve Young was such an exceptional athlete and runner, (as well as being left handed) is a great comparison (although I still feel Steve was the much better passer :lol: ).

HORSEPOWER 56
04-06-2011, 01:53 PM
I guess. I just remember the guy that set NCAA records for his passing completion percentage (at the time) (71%) while throwing for 4000 yrds. Then later setting the NFL record for passing percentage.

I think you are right. Steve Young was such an exceptional athlete and runner, (as well as being left handed) is a great comparison (although I still feel Steve was the much better passer :lol: ).

But if you look at stats alone, Tebow looked like the best passer in the nation:

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/player/profile?playerId=183484

His WORST season he had a completion percentage of 67.8% 21 TDs and only 5 INTs. That's ridiculous. There's a reason that stats don't tell the story nor does the analysis of a "throwing motion". Somewhere in the middle is where the real truth lies.

rcsodak
04-06-2011, 02:02 PM
But if you look at stats alone, Tebow looked like the best passer in the nation:

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/player/profile?playerId=183484

His WORST season he had a completion percentage of 67.8% 21 TDs and only 5 INTs. That's ridiculous. There's a reason that stats don't tell the story nor does the analysis of a "throwing motion". Somewhere in the middle is where the real truth lies.
Having superior teammates vs opponents tend to do that.

But around here, college stats don't count. ;)
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

BigSarge87
04-06-2011, 04:36 PM
What about his skill set that is different from that of Young. I agree his are different from Vick, V. Young, and Cunningham but I guess I'm just not understanding what you see being so different from Steve Young other that weight.

:salute:

Weight is a pretty big factor when your talking about the style of play I'm referring to isn't it? I don't remember a lot of how Young played. Did he run between the tackles much? Seems like most of his rushing success came from "OMG I'm about to die I need to **** right now!" kind of plays, weren't they?

Attitude is a big difference too. How many of those guys were willing to put a hit on a LBer? TT seems almost excited about getting dirty in the trenches.

TXBRONC
04-06-2011, 04:48 PM
Weight is a pretty big factor when your talking about the style of play I'm referring to isn't it? I don't remember a lot of how Young played. Did he run between the tackles much? Seems like most of his rushing success came from "OMG I'm about to die I need to **** right now!" kind of plays, weren't they?

Attitude is a big difference too. How many of those guys were willing to put a hit on a LBer? TT seems almost excited about getting dirty in the trenches.

The guy he's most compared did but he learned when to take risks and when not too. Young used to run with reckless abandon but then learned to temper that discretion. Tebow's mobility is an asset but it's arm that will get to where he wants to be not his legs.

HORSEPOWER 56
04-06-2011, 07:29 PM
Having superior teammates vs opponents tend to do that.

But around here, college stats don't count. ;)
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Superior teammates compared to whom? The rest of the SEC? It's not like Tebow got to play division 2 teams every week. His stats do represent something. My point was, he's not as bad a passer as people say, he still had to make those throws, but he's not Joe Montana yet, either.

FanInAZ
04-06-2011, 08:22 PM
again, you're missing
something obvious here. If a guy from 1970 was playing today, he'd have the same training techniques, coaching, nutrition programs etc as today's athletes do. That's where the difference comes from when comparing straight across eras. But give yesterday's dominant player today's workout regimes, he's still going to be a dominant player.

the one thing I do agree with, the "worst" player today is likely much better than the "worst" player of past eras. but that's because the money allows it to be a year round job now and training is a 11 month of the year activity. In past eras there was always a bunch of players that didn't train much, if at all, during the offseason, so that's a big difference.

but dominant players from any era would still be dominant today. I mean, ya if you time-warped Jim Brown into the 2011 season, he wouldn't be as dominant. but if he had grown up with modern training/coaching/nutrition his pure beastliness would still shine through.

That's a very good point that I've never heard anyone bring up before when comparing players from different eras.