PDA

View Full Version : Broncos not dealing Orton for low picks



topscribe
05-26-2011, 12:27 PM
The Denver Broncos have got plenty of talent in the quarterback department and there are teams that would be happy to take veteran Kyle Orton(notes) off their hands, but NFL.com notes that it won't be easy, particularly since some folks with the team see him as the Broncos' starting QB whenever next season gets underway..

"If the right call comes in and the offer is strong, it will be considered," sources tell NFL.com, but "the idea that a third- or fourth-round pick might get it done is woefully misguided." The site claims "a high second-round pick that converts to a first-rounder based on production" might get it done.

The 28-year-old Orton, who is in the last year of his contract, has thrown 71 touchdowns and 49 interceptions since entering the league with the Chicago Bears in 2005. Last season, he threw for 281 yards on average per game and finished the season with 3,653 along with 20 touchdown passes.

Retrieved from Yahoo! Sports, 26 May 2011
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/rumors/post/Broncos-not-dealing-Orton-for-low-picks?urn=nfl-357700

-----

TXBRONC
05-26-2011, 12:31 PM
Read the something very similar from La Canforna just yesterday.

Ravage!!!
05-26-2011, 12:40 PM
I've always said that a second rounder is the going rate for a starting QB. But none are going to "convert" to a first rounder. I suppose if there are stipulations in there that state something to the effect of going-to, or winning, a Super Bowl.. then it might be a first rounder.

But, I think its getting more clear that Denver will be trading away Orton, and won't shock me in the least to get a 2nd rounder for him.

robert ethan
05-26-2011, 12:45 PM
Wasn't Favre traded to the Jets for a floating price that could have gone as high as two first round picks, based on performance? That is what I recall.

TXBRONC
05-26-2011, 12:47 PM
Wasn't Favre traded to the Jets for a floating price that could have gone as high as two first round picks, based on performance? That is what I recall.

I don't recall. :whoknows:

Slick
05-26-2011, 12:51 PM
...So we just get nothing for him when we don't resign him at the end of the year?

T.K.O.
05-26-2011, 12:52 PM
setting aside the future draft value for getting rid of Orton now.
it absolutely makes the most sense to keep him around for another year.
if the team improves on D as expected and we build a decent rushing attack,
there is no better situation than having a vet who can take the pressure off tebow and a duel threat (tebow) who can be used in certain situations,taking the pressuere off Orton.
it's a win win !
tebow gets more experience ,without being put in a place where the entire season rests on him alone.
lets remember ,even the coaches and scouts who LOVED tebow admitted it would be ideal for him to get a couple years to develop before being "THE MAN":salute:

TXBRONC
05-26-2011, 12:56 PM
...So we just get nothing for him when we don't resign him at the end of the year?

I guess it's going to depend on what the rules are for free agents.

T.K.O.
05-26-2011, 12:59 PM
...So we just get nothing for him when we don't resign him at the end of the year?

happens all the time....we will still have many picks .
i for one would prefer to have a better shot at winning now ,than more/higher draft picks in the future.
tebow could rip a hammy in TC (forgive me father for i have.....)
then what ?
just saying you can't win if you trade away good players just for the chance you will get a good player later.
this team needs veteran leadership in the worst way,say what you will about Orton's attitude ,but the fact is he picked up the system quickly and probably knows how to run it better than any other current option we have.
Tebow will see the field plenty either way.

Ravage!!!
05-26-2011, 01:01 PM
setting aside the future draft value for getting rid of Orton now.
it absolutely makes the most sense to keep him around for another year.
if the team improves on D as expected and we build a decent rushing attack,
there is no better situation than having a vet who can take the pressure off tebow and a duel threat (tebow) who can be used in certain situations,taking the pressuere off Orton.
it's a win win !
tebow gets more experience ,without being put in a place where the entire season rests on him alone.
lets remember ,even the coaches and scouts who LOVED tebow admitted it would be ideal for him to get a couple years to develop before being "THE MAN":salute:

The problem is that the managment already knows that Orton is NOT the guy they want as their future. So they have only a couple options. Keep Orton THIS year and watch him go via FA next, Trade him now, or sign him to an extension, and Orton isn't going to sign a short-term extension. People have stated that we could sign him, and then trade him away like NE did with Cassel. The difference is, Cassel only had ONE showing, so GMs didn't know what was there, and were taking a gamble on the "potential." They won't with Orton. We wouldn't get more for Orton after signing him to an extension, and would probably scare potential deals away because of the contract he would have had to sign with us.

That being the case, this will be the year the Broncos learn what they have, or don't have, in Tebow. We'll learn whether or not he's a guy we feel we can progress with...or if he's a guy that we need to draft another QB in the 2012 draft. But we won't know with him sitting on the bench, and not knowing makes a HUGE difference when it comes to Orton. Can't take that chance. This is why I won't be surprised that we trade Orton away now, for a 2nd rounder.

But... If we dont get the offers for Orton and he is on the roster... I expect him to start this season.

BORDERLINE
05-26-2011, 01:05 PM
The bears traded a first to get Rick Mirer. So there are teams stupid enough to give away picks for a would be starter. But the times done change a second for Orton would be equally great. I don't see it happening though

T.K.O.
05-26-2011, 01:07 PM
The problem is that the managment already knows that Orton is NOT the guy they want as their future. So they have only a couple options. Keep Orton THIS year and watch him go via FA next, Trade him now, or sign him to an extension, and Orton isn't going to sign a short-term extension. People have stated that we could sign him, and then trade him away like NE did with Cassel. The difference is, Cassel only had ONE showing, so GMs didn't know what was there, and were taking a gamble on the "potential." They won't with Orton. We wouldn't get more for Orton after signing him to an extension, and would probably scare potential deals away because of the contract he would have had to sign with us.

That being the case, this will be the year the Broncos learn what they have, or don't have, in Tebow. We'll learn whether or not he's a guy we feel we can progress with...or if he's a guy that we need to draft another QB in the 2012 draft. But we won't know with him sitting on the bench, and not knowing makes a HUGE difference when it comes to Orton. Can't take that chance. This is why I won't be surprised that we trade Orton away now, for a 2nd rounder.

But... If we dont get the offers for Orton and he is on the roster... I expect him to start this season.

that's all good BUT, what about the potential of ruining your 1st rounder (TEBOW) by throwing him to the wolves too soon?
it has happened ?
my point is ....IF Orton is such a mediocre QB and has so little trade value? why bother trading a guy who could at the very least step in and keep the team competetive in the event of injury or just to use to keep pressure off Tebow until he adjusts to the NFL ?
so we lose a 3rd round pick....big whup?:confused:

Slick
05-26-2011, 01:13 PM
Ravage sums up how I feel. On a blackberry between dives... Excuse the brevity.

WARHORSE
05-26-2011, 01:15 PM
that's all good BUT, what about the potential of ruining your 1st rounder (TEBOW) by throwing him to the wolves too soon?
it has happened ?
my point is ....IF Orton is such a mediocre QB and has so little trade value? why bother trading a guy who could at the very least step in and keep the team competetive in the event of injury or just to use to keep pressure off Tebow until he adjusts to the NFL ?
so we lose a 3rd round pick....big whup?:confused:


His value is at its highest as he is coming off his two best seasons.


The situation calls for exactly whats happening. If we get a killer offer, Kyle will be gone.

If we dont, then Kyle will stay.

Liklihood? Kyle is going.

Quinn is a very servicable QB and honestly I dont believe he was given a chance last year because Orton was going to beat out both Tebow and Quinn due to his being in his second year in a complicated system, and Tebow because he was drafted high.

Quinn never had help in Cleveland, and he played fairly well. I still think he has yet to have his chance here.

Ravage!!!
05-26-2011, 01:16 PM
that's all good BUT, what about the potential of ruining your 1st rounder (TEBOW) by throwing him to the wolves too soon?
it has happened ?
my point is ....IF Orton is such a mediocre QB and has so little trade value? why bother trading a guy who could at the very least step in and keep the team competetive in the event of injury or just to use to keep pressure off Tebow until he adjusts to the NFL ?
so we lose a 3rd round pick....big whup?:confused:

In your opinion its happened before. I could just as easily point out allllll the QBs that have started from day one that were not ruined. If Tebow is to be the leader of this team, he needs to get ON the field. Even those that sat a year or so said that they didn't REALLY start learning until they were playing. Watching can only do so much. So I don't buy into this "starting him too soon will ruin him" stuff. Not one bit.

Players, every year, at every position "adjust to the NFL" without having to sit for 2 years to do it. IF Tebow hasn't "adjusted" by this time (and certainly by the end of next season after playing) then we know we need to move on. He may not be a good QB by then, but they will at least know if he has the skill set to move forward with. If not, then they draft another QB, and Tebow will still be on the roster and can still "learn and adjust" at the same time another rookie is doing the same thing.

I'm confused as to what you are talking about when you say "so little trade value?" The article and I have both have been talking about a 2nd round pick. Where do you think thats "little" trade value, and where did you come up with the third? Getting a 2nd (or even a third) for a guy that you don't plan on keeping around anyway, is getting SOMETHING for NOTHING.

BroncoStud
05-26-2011, 07:22 PM
...So we just get nothing for him when we don't resign him at the end of the year?

Yep, brilliance! :elefant:

BroncoStud
05-26-2011, 07:43 PM
I want Denver to get the most they can for him but at some point you have to realize that if you wait you get NOTHING for him. A 4th rounder is better than a NO-rounder. A 5th and a 6th is better than nothing, which is exactly what Denver gets if he sticks around. It's really not that complicated.

rcsodak
05-26-2011, 08:23 PM
happens all the time....we will still have many picks .
i for one would prefer to have a better shot at winning now ,than more/higher draft picks in the future.
tebow could rip a hammy in TC (forgive me father for i have.....)
then what ?
just saying you can't win if you trade away good players just for the chance you will get a good player later.
this team needs veteran leadership in the worst way,say what you will about Orton's attitude ,but the fact is he picked up the system quickly and probably knows how to run it better than any other current option we have.
Tebow will see the field plenty either way.

Good post.

Prepare yourself.....

rcsodak
05-26-2011, 08:31 PM
In your opinion its happened before. I could just as easily point out allllll the QBs that have started from day one that were not ruined. If Tebow is to be the leader of this team, he needs to get ON the field. Even those that sat a year or so said that they didn't REALLY start learning until they were playing. Watching can only do so much. So I don't buy into this "starting him too soon will ruin him" stuff. Not one bit.

Players, every year, at every position "adjust to the NFL" without having to sit for 2 years to do it. IF Tebow hasn't "adjusted" by this time (and certainly by the end of next season after playing) then we know we need to move on. He may not be a good QB by then, but they will at least know if he has the skill set to move forward with. If not, then they draft another QB, and Tebow will still be on the roster and can still "learn and adjust" at the same time another rookie is doing the same thing.

I'm confused as to what you are talking about when you say "so little trade value?" The article and I have both have been talking about a 2nd round pick. Where do you think thats "little" trade value, and where did you come up with the third? Getting a 2nd (or even a third) for a guy that you don't plan on keeping around anyway, is getting SOMETHING for NOTHING.

GB's SB winning QB was said to have "THE WORST" delivery he'd ever seen, from daddy simms. Then, when at their training camp in his 3rd yr, simms saw that he'd totally fixed it.

Sometimes, qb's, regardless of draft slot, need time to 'grow into their new skin'.

And I know simms isn't dilfer or jaws, but......

rcsodak
05-26-2011, 08:32 PM
...So we just get nothing for him when we don't resign him at the end of the year?
:confused:
I guess I missed that quote.

:rolleyes:

TXBRONC
05-26-2011, 08:39 PM
that's all good BUT, what about the potential of ruining your 1st rounder (TEBOW) by throwing him to the wolves too soon?
it has happened ?
my point is ....IF Orton is such a mediocre QB and has so little trade value? why bother trading a guy who could at the very least step in and keep the team competetive in the event of injury or just to use to keep pressure off Tebow until he adjusts to the NFL ?
so we lose a 3rd round pick....big whup?:confused:

I have never understood the argument a quarterback can be ruined if he plays to soon. That's like saying well he has sit for couple of years until he gains more experience. Sitting on the bench only gives you experience on how to sit on the bench. Real learning comes from being on the field.

rcsodak
05-26-2011, 09:05 PM
I have never understood the argument a quarterback can be ruined if he plays to soon. That's like saying well he has sit for couple of years until he gains more experience. Sitting on the bench only gives you experience on how to sit on the bench. Real learning comes from being on the field.
Ask the 49'ers Smith, Hou's Carr, etc.

Most teams realize you need to have the base set before you add the qb.

Does denver have a good base in your opinion?
OL?
RB?
D?
TE?
WR?

Ravage!!!
05-26-2011, 09:16 PM
Actually... most teams believe that you have the get the QB when you have the chance. THer is no reason to believe that Carr or Smith would have succeeded no matter the situation. There have been many many QBs that have started from day one, and did just fine. There is absolutely no proof to suggest that starting them early "ruined" them. Just means they didn't succeed.

TXBRONC
05-26-2011, 09:24 PM
Ask the 49'ers Smith, Hou's Carr, etc.

Most teams realize you need to have the base set before you add the qb.

Does denver have a good base in your opinion?
OL?
RB?
D?
TE?
WR?

In my opinion:

Our offensive line is fine if it stay healthy. Elway had a crappy offensive line the majority of his career and it didn't ruin him.

Our running backs are serviceable. When our offensive line improved so did the running game.

We don't know what we'll have on defense but considering who our head coach is I have a feeling it will be better.

Our tight ends are sub par in my opinion but if the other parts are workable you still make it work.

I don't why you brought up wide receiver because that's a strength.

Finally you can't treat every quarterback exactly the same. The mental make up of every quarterback is different.

TXBRONC
05-26-2011, 09:26 PM
Actually... most teams believe that you have the get the QB when you have the chance. THer is no reason to believe that Carr or Smith would have succeeded no matter the situation. There have been many many QBs that have started from day one, and did just fine. There is absolutely no proof to suggest that starting them early "ruined" them. Just means they didn't succeed.

Exactly. It's very subjective.

Ravage!!!
05-26-2011, 09:28 PM
GB's SB winning QB was said to have "THE WORST" delivery he'd ever seen, from daddy simms. Then, when at their training camp in his 3rd yr, simms saw that he'd totally fixed it.

Sometimes, qb's, regardless of draft slot, need time to 'grow into their new skin'.

And I know simms isn't dilfer or jaws, but......

and? SO you are saying that he couldn't/wouldn't have fixed it in the same amount of time while Playing??? That doesn't make sense. He would have still been working on the same mechanics while getting more experience in reading NFL defenses on the field.

There is no reason to believe that Rodgers woudln't have been the same QB he is today had he started much earlier. He has said on MANY occasions that he learned MUCH more while playing than he did while sitting.

So whos word should we believe? The actual player, or people on a message board speculating that he wouldn't have been any good had he played from day one?

Northman
05-26-2011, 09:29 PM
Ask the 49'ers Smith, Hou's Carr, etc.

Most teams realize you need to have the base set before you add the qb.

Does denver have a good base in your opinion?
OL?
RB?
D?
TE?
WR?

Also ask Tom Brady and Peyton Manning....err....wait....

Ravage!!!
05-26-2011, 09:31 PM
Also ask Tom Brady and Peyton Manning....err....wait....

Drew Brees, Matt Ryan, Ben Rothlesburger, Eli Manning, Bradford....

RebelRocker
05-26-2011, 11:17 PM
that's all good BUT, what about the potential of ruining your 1st rounder (TEBOW) by throwing him to the wolves too soon?
it has happened ?
my point is ....IF Orton is such a mediocre QB and has so little trade value? why bother trading a guy who could at the very least step in and keep the team competetive in the event of injury or just to use to keep pressure off Tebow until he adjusts to the NFL ?
so we lose a 3rd round pick....big whup?:confused:

Tebow's had a year to "develop". The time has come for him to step up. This new regime owes him nothing and will not hesitate to get "their guy", as proof by their interest in all of the top QB's in the draft this year. He's got this year to do something and that's it.

Ravage!!!
05-26-2011, 11:28 PM
Drew Brees, Matt Ryan, Ben Rothlesburger, Eli Manning, Bradford....

Cutler, Flacco, Sanchez, Freeman...

chazoe60
05-27-2011, 12:02 AM
Um, what is the FO suposed to say? "Ah, we'll take whatever we can get."

TXBRONC
05-27-2011, 09:45 AM
Um, what is the FO suposed to say? "Ah, we'll take whatever we can get."

Yes. :D

rcsodak
05-27-2011, 09:57 AM
Exactly. It's very subjective.
The MAIN thing a team needs for a rook qb to have even a fair chance to succeed, is an OL. So they don't get beatdown/gunshy. Agree?

A running game, to take pressure off of him.

And as elway said, a good defense so you don't feel you have to score 35ppg.

Have that to start, and build from there, imo.

BroncoStud
05-27-2011, 10:06 AM
The MAIN thing a team needs for a rook qb to have even a fair chance to succeed, is an OL. So they don't get beatdown/gunshy. Agree?

A running game, to take pressure off of him.

And as elway said, a good defense so you don't feel you have to score 35ppg.

Have that to start, and build from there, imo.

I think Tebow helps the running game with his ability to do playaction bootlegs and scramble. It's going to be tough for defenses to key on Moreno when Tebow can nail you for 15 yards in a matter of seconds with his feet as well.

I would really like to see him utilized something between what we did with Plummer (and Cutler to a degree) and how the 49ers eventually used Steve Young in a quick-hitting west coast-style offense.

rcsodak
05-27-2011, 10:09 AM
and? SO you are saying that he couldn't/wouldn't have fixed it in the same amount of time while Playing??? That doesn't make sense. He would have still been working on the same mechanics while getting more experience in reading NFL defenses on the field.

There is no reason to believe that Rodgers woudln't have been the same QB he is today had he started much earlier. He has said on MANY occasions that he learned MUCH more while playing than he did while sitting.

So whos word should we believe? The actual player, or people on a message board speculating that he wouldn't have been any good had he played from day one?
Simms said he was TERRIBLE.

And I heard him say he learned ALOT from sitting behind a '1st ballot HOF qb' in Favre, with no pressure on him, early.
Maybe simms concurred what scouts saw, when almost everybody passed on the 'sure top5 pick'.

TXBRONC
05-27-2011, 10:09 AM
The MAIN thing a team needs for a rook qb to have even a fair chance to succeed, is an OL. So they don't get beatdown/gunshy. Agree?

A running game, to take pressure off of him.

And as elway said, a good defense so you don't feel you have to score 35ppg.

Have that to start, and build from there, imo.

Sure it gives a rookie quarterback a chance to succeed but it doesn't absolutely guarantee it.

I've said myself rookie/inexperienced quarterback's best friends are:

1.) A sound running game.

2.) A good receiving tight end.

3.) Solid defense.

Certainly a strong offensive line doesn't hurt. But again having all those things does not guarantee success nor lacking anyone of them guarantee failure.

rcsodak
05-27-2011, 10:12 AM
Also ask Tom Brady and Peyton Manning....err....wait....Your point?
Err....wait.... :coffee:

TXBRONC
05-27-2011, 10:35 AM
Your point?
Err....wait.... :coffee:

RC you drink way to much coffee. ;)

rcsodak
05-27-2011, 10:37 AM
Cutler, Flacco, Sanchez, Freeman...
Impressive. So are you just listing qb's that are better than TT, or ones that went to playoff teams? And without looking, I'd say all but Sam, maybe josh, had the pieces together when they got there.

Ravage!!!
05-27-2011, 10:41 AM
Simms said he was TERRIBLE.

And I heard him say he learned ALOT from sitting behind a '1st ballot HOF qb' in Favre, with no pressure on him, early.
Maybe simms concurred what scouts saw, when almost everybody passed on the 'sure top5 pick'.

Simms' said his (Rodgers') FORM was terrible. That's not saying the QB himself is terrible, because Rodgers was NOT terrible. If that was Simms' opinion, then fine, that's his opinion. But that doesn't mean we discount every OTHER scout that said otherwise.

I'm also sure that Rodgers DID learn a lot sitting behind Favre. Of course he did, why wouldn't he? But that doesn't mean Rodgers would have failed had he had the experience of starting early. It means he got to learn from Brett Favre. I'm also certain Rodgers would tell you that sitting for 3 years wasn't the plan, and that he felt he was ready to start much earlier (especially sitting for one year). He would be the first to tell you that he learned a LOT LOT more by playing than he did by sitting. Not to mention, what else would Rodgers say... "I didn't learn anything sitting behind a HoF'er?"

But we don't have Tebow sitting behind a HoF'er. We have him sitting behing Kyle Orton. Carson Palmer sat a year behind Kitna. ONE year behind Kitna. There was no reason to sit him more than one, and he thrived (and they didn't have a better team than we do now).

Most teams do NOT try and build EVERYTHING and then try and draft their star QB. They get their star QB when they have the opportunity, and build AROUND him while he's getting experience and learning the speed and the reads of the NFL. GM/coaches/fans know that no matter what, when he is actually starting, he has to have a learning curve anyway. Why waste the 'years' of building and THEN getting him the needed experience? That's backwards.

rcsodak
05-27-2011, 10:41 AM
I think Tebow helps the running game with his ability to do playaction bootlegs and scramble. It's going to be tough for defenses to key on Moreno when Tebow can nail you for 15 yards in a matter of seconds with his feet as well.

I would really like to see him utilized something between what we did with Plummer (and Cutler to a degree) and how the 49ers eventually used Steve Young in a quick-hitting west coast-style offense.
Agreed. But does mccoy/fox utilize that? Or is it up to elway to 'help' them?

rcsodak
05-27-2011, 10:43 AM
Sure it gives a rookie quarterback a chance to succeed but it doesn't absolutely guarantee it.

I've said myself rookie/inexperienced quarterback's best friends are:

1.) A sound running game.

2.) A good receiving tight end.

3.) Solid defense.

Certainly a strong offensive line doesn't hurt. But again having all those things does not guarantee success nor lacking anyone of them guarantee failure.

Nowhere did I say success was guaranteed, tx. But it sure as heck improves their early chances.

rcsodak
05-27-2011, 10:44 AM
RC you drink way to much coffee. ;)
not as much as you'd think. ;)

TXBRONC
05-27-2011, 10:45 AM
Nowhere did I say success was guaranteed, tx. But it sure as heck improves their early chances.

RC I never you did.

I agree with you it improves their chances.

BroncoStud
05-27-2011, 10:46 AM
Agreed. But does mccoy/fox utilize that? Or is it up to elway to 'help' them?

I think it's a very slippery slope if Elway decides to help coach the team... I hope, for the sake of the organization, that if the coaching isn't up to par and Elway wants changes made, he does it through hiring / firing and not imposing his will into the day-day coaching regiment.

Ravage!!!
05-27-2011, 10:51 AM
Actually labeling off QBs that started their first years and have succeeded just fine without having to "sit for years while the team built."

You want to cherry pick. Sam, Matt Ryan, Josh Freeman, and they succeeded even though they didn't sit 2 years and have EVERYTHING built around them. The Colts didn't pick #1 overall because they were good. The Chargers didn't pick at #1 because they were good.

The Jets, Ravens, Steelers.. didn't use 1st round draft picks on QBs and start their 1st round pick because they were already GOOD at QB (yes, Roth started due to injury, but he still succeeded as a rookie).

Quit trying to make it sound as though these guys are so fragile that they "fail" if they start early. That's a falsity. Tebow has already sat one year. He has as nearly as much starting time as Cutler had coming out his rookie season. To say that sitting him is to keep him from "ruining" their careers is stretching purely for the sake of stretching.

rcsodak
05-27-2011, 10:52 AM
Simms' said his (Rodgers') FORM was terrible. That's not saying the QB himself is terrible, because Rodgers was NOT terrible. If that was Simms' opinion, then fine, that's his opinion. But that doesn't mean we discount every OTHER scout that said otherwise.

I'm also sure that Rodgers DID learn a lot sitting behind Favre. Of course he did, why wouldn't he? But that doesn't mean Rodgers would have failed had he had the experience of starting early. It means he got to learn from Brett Favre. I'm also certain Rodgers would tell you that sitting for 3 years wasn't the plan, and that he felt he was ready to start much earlier (especially sitting for one year). He would be the first to tell you that he learned a LOT LOT more by playing than he did by sitting. Not to mention, what else would Rodgers say... "I didn't learn anything sitting behind a HoF'er?"

But we don't have Tebow sitting behind a HoF'er. We have him sitting behing Kyle Orton. Carson Palmer sat a year behind Kitna. ONE year behind Kitna. There was no reason to sit him more than one, and he thrived (and they didn't have a better team than we do now).

Most teams do NOT try and build EVERYTHING and then try and draft their star QB. They get their star QB when they have the opportunity, and build AROUND him while he's getting experience and learning the speed and the reads of the NFL. GM/coaches/fans know that no matter what, when he is actually starting, he has to have a learning curve anyway. Why waste the 'years' of building and THEN getting him the needed experience? That's backwards.

Carr is what happens when you throw them to the wolves without an OL/plan. Teams are stupid or desparate if they allow their overpaid new toy to get ruined. By not protecting them.

If you disagree with that, then i guess there's no use continuing this discussion.

Ravage!!!
05-27-2011, 10:54 AM
I think it's a very slippery slope if Elway decides to help coach the team... I hope, for the sake of the organization, that if the coaching isn't up to par and Elway wants changes made, he does it through hiring / firing and not imposing his will into the day-day coaching regiment.

I don't think Elway is going to be a daily coach. He might make pointer and suggestions while at practice from time to time, but he's not going to be the QB coach on the daily schedule.

He's a smart business man, and thats a conflict of interest.

Ravage!!!
05-27-2011, 10:56 AM
Carr is what happens when you throw them to the wolves without an OL/plan. Teams are stupid or desparate if they allow their overpaid new toy to get ruined. By not protecting them.

If you disagree with that, then i guess there's no use continuing this discussion.

No. YOu want to believe that Carr was a sure fire success if he didn't play for the Texans. Thats nothing more than pure speculation. How is it that other QBs succeed just fine with expansion teams, yet Carr is the "example" of how QBs fail if they start too soon?

I say its just as reasonable to believe that Carr just wasn't NFL material. NFL franchises do it every year, yet you want to believe you know more about what makes teams "smart or stupid" because you believe poor Carr was mistreated.

rcsodak
05-27-2011, 10:56 AM
Actually labeling off QBs that started their first years and have succeeded just fine without having to "sit for years while the team built."

You want to cherry pick. Sam, Matt Ryan, Josh Freeman, and they succeeded even though they didn't sit 2 years and have EVERYTHING built around them. The Colts didn't pick #1 overall because they were good. The Chargers didn't pick at #1 because they were good.

The Jets, Ravens, Steelers.. didn't use 1st round draft picks on QBs and start their 1st round pick because they were already GOOD at QB (yes, Roth started due to injury, but he still succeeded as a rookie).

Quit trying to make it sound as though these guys are so fragile that they "fail" if they start early. That's a falsity. Tebow has already sat one year. He has as nearly as much starting time as Cutler had coming out his rookie season. To say that sitting him is to keep him from "ruining" their careers is stretching purely for the sake of stretching.

I never said TT needed to be sat more. That was somebody else. I simply ASKED if denver had the parts around him already, and pointed out where others haven't agreed.

Ravage!!!
05-27-2011, 11:02 AM
Do they ahve the parts? Do they have 11 on the field when the offense is on the field? Do they have players that played last year? Don't we have a 3rd year RB and 2nd-8 year WRs? Don't we have a stud LT and 2nd year center? What kind of parts are you hoping for in order to start Tebow without believing he's going to be ruined?

I'll agree that I don't think Tebow is ready to start for a lot of reasons, but it has nothing to do with believing that putting him in the lineup now is going to "ruin" him. If anything, its going to make him better, and hopefully we'll see enough by the end of the season to know if he's going to be a good enough passer to start in the NFL.

I just find it silly to believe that we don't have enough to start Tebow.

BroncoStud
05-27-2011, 11:05 AM
I never said TT needed to be sat more. That was somebody else. I simply ASKED if denver had the parts around him already, and pointed out where others haven't agreed.

I think Denver is pretty talented offensively, have been since 1992.

Of course Peyton Hillis would help, along with Brandon Marshall (if he isn't getting stabbed), but there is still enough to work with, we aren't the Cleveland Browns by any means (other then the aforementioned Hillis).

Defense is where we need the help, immediately. I really like the change back to the 4-3, we're just suited better for it. I also think that Fox will makes us 5-10 spots better on defense alone.

I really think the defense will improve this year to a top 20 squad, and if the offense can improve on 3rd down and in the redzone by even 5%, the Broncos could threaten the division. I simply do not think the Broncos are as bad as their record indicates. I also think that if / when Tebow gets a chance to do things on offense as the starter people will realize just how limiting Kyle Orton has been to the Broncos.

You can just do so much more with a guy like Tebow and it should reflect on conversion downs, which in turn will take pressure off of the defense. I have high hopes for improvement this year.

T.K.O.
05-27-2011, 11:33 AM
Tebow was a known "project qb" that needed alot of work on mechanics and playing from under center etc... that's different than a guy like bradford who was considered the most nfl ready qb in his class.
i am not saying it is a bad idea to start tebow....i'm just saying that it may be smart to keep Orton around to see how Tebow plays when named the starter and in case of injury.
to me having a vet who knows the team and system is more valuable than a future 3rd round pick (and apparently the F.O. agrees)
now if some hard up team offers a high 2nd or cond. 1st...:confused:

Ravage!!!
05-27-2011, 11:50 AM
Then he shouldn't have been drafted in the first round if he's not ready to start by the second season. If he was/is that kind of project, then it was stupid to use 4 picks to get him (and thats the stance I've had from the beginning).

But dont' you think there will be QB controversy if Orton is on the roster? Do you think Orton is going to be the guy that is "ok" with sitting?

If Orton is on the roster, he will start. That I know. He's the more polished QB of the two, no question. So he would absolutely be the starter, because there is no way the coaches/GM is going to state a "fair QB competition" and then start Tebow. Wouldn't be fair for every other position on the field to state we are going to play the one that is the best, and then start Tebow at QB.

But Orton isn't our guy of the future. He's NOT the QB this team needs to build around and build for. He's purely a "temp" QB that will hold down the fort. Although I know Tebow is not ready now, we need to know where we should be looking for 2012. Keeping Orton here for 2011 isn't going to help us for 2012. Orton will be moving on, one way or the other.

So the heck with needing Orton as some kind of insurance policy. Lets get Tebow in the lineup, let him take his errors and his learning curve while playing, and find out if we need to draft another QB in 2012. Lets find out if Tebow can prove to be a player we NEED him to be. We can't do that if Orton is starting and taking all the real-time reps. Besides, Orton is not going to be here in 2012 anyway.

If we need to draft another QB in 2012, then we still have Tebow on the roster to learn and develop.

T.K.O.
05-27-2011, 12:01 PM
many thought he would'nt be drafted in the 1st.....what does that have to do with the fact that he WAS ?
does that mean you base current decisions on where he was drafted ?
it is what it is and you make the best of the current situation.
should we not look at other RB's because we drafted Moreno at #12 ?
hell no
the new coaches and FO have to base their decisions on who they think gives the team the best chance of being competetive....NOT if the fans will be upset because we missed out on a draft pick or so & so should be better because of their draft position.:confused:

Ravage!!!
05-27-2011, 12:15 PM
many thought he would'nt be drafted in the 1st.....what does that have to do with the fact that he WAS ?
does that mean you base current decisions on where he was drafted ?
it is what it is and you make the best of the current situation.
should we not look at other RB's because we drafted Moreno at #12 ?
hell no
the new coaches and FO have to base their decisions on who they think gives the team the best chance of being competetive....NOT if the fans will be upset because we missed out on a draft pick or so & so should be better because of their draft position.:confused:

You are missing the point.

For one, you HAVE to make decisions based on where a player was drafted. That absolutely HAS to be considered. Tebow WAS drafted by this organization, in the f1st round. He's getting 1st round money, thus he HAS to have success faster than players drafted later. Thats why Moreno is expected to have a faster rate of success than some 4th round RB. Thats just the reality. You have to get a faster rate of return. Unfortunately many players have failed in the NFL, not because of their play, but because of where they were drafted. If they were drafted in the 2nd or 3rd round, they wouldn't have had the higher expectations, nor the higher pay.

But you aren't reading what I'm saying. Do you REALLY think Orton is the future of this team? If you do, then there is nothing to discuss, because I'm going to assume you believe that Orton will then sign a long-term contract with the Broncos and will be here for another 5+ years.

If you don't, then you understand that we have to find out what Tebow is, or what he isn't. If he IS the kind of talent that we NEED at QB, then we know in 2012 we don't need to use another 1st round pick for a QB. If he's not, then we have to draft another QB. Our FO can't make that determination with Orton starting. If you think that we should start Orton and then bring Tebow in later in the season, then that means you are assuming we are going to have a bad year. If we are going to have a bad year, bring in Tebow now.

If you think we should start Orton and let him play throughout the season, then where does that leave us in 2012? Orton is going to either want a long-term contract, or will walk via FA and get it somewhere else.

Then we are RIGHT back to where we are now. Not knowing what we have with Tebow.

TXBRONC
05-27-2011, 04:17 PM
Carr is what happens when you throw them to the wolves without an OL/plan. Teams are stupid or desparate if they allow their overpaid new toy to get ruined. By not protecting them.

If you disagree with that, then i guess there's no use continuing this discussion.

I understand your point but are saying our offensive will be as bad as the Texans' offensive line when they drafted Carr? I honestly don't.

BroncoStud
05-28-2011, 01:04 AM
It ultimately boils down to this...

If Denver keeps Orton, he walks next year or will want a longterm deal, which he isn't going to get.

If Denver trades him THIS year they at least get SOMETHING of value for him and Tebow gets a full season of evaluation so the front office can determine where they stand at QB in 2012.

Keeping Orton just doesn't make sense. There are guys like Alex Smith and Drew Stanton who we could bring in to challenge Brady Quinn while Tebow starts. If Tebow gets hurt we see what we have in Quinn or whoever else there is on the roster. Afterall, we did trade for Quinn, he too needs to be evaluated.

Lonestar
05-28-2011, 04:39 AM
It ultimately boils down to this...if Denver keeps Orton, he walks next year or will want a longterm deal, which he isn't going to get.
If Denver trades him THIS year they at least get SOMETHING of value for him and Tebow gets a full season of evaluation so the front office can determine where they stand at QB in 2012.
Keeping Orton just doesn't make sense. There are guys like Alex Smith and Drew Stanton who we could bring in to challenge Brady Quinn while Tebow starts. If Tebow gets hurt we see what we have in Quinn or whoever else there is on the roster. Afterall, we did trade for Quinn, he too needs to be evaluated.

Surprise one moe time we agree

rcsodak
05-28-2011, 07:20 AM
I understand your point but are saying our offensive will be as bad as the Texans' offensive line when they drafted Carr? I honestly don't.

Nope...I'm not saying that, but some aree.

BroncoStud
05-28-2011, 10:11 AM
I understand your point but are saying our offensive will be as bad as the Texans' offensive line when they drafted Carr? I honestly don't.

Whoever thinks or says that knows NOTHING about football. The Texans had a horrible offensive line and Tony Boselli was supposed to anchor it, but never got healthy once he went to Houston. The Texans got Carr killed, our offensive line is 1,000 TIMES better than theirs was.

rcsodak
05-28-2011, 06:55 PM
Whoever thinks or says that knows NOTHING about football. The Texans had a horrible offensive line and Tony Boselli was supposed to anchor it, but never got healthy once he went to Houston. The Texans got Carr killed, our offensive line is 1,000 TIMES better than theirs was.

You just need to look back thru posts.... ;)

horsepig
05-29-2011, 12:49 AM
setting aside the future draft value for getting rid of Orton now.
it absolutely makes the most sense to keep him around for another year.
if the team improves on D as expected and we build a decent rushing attack,
there is no better situation than having a vet who can take the pressure off tebow and a duel threat (tebow) who can be used in certain situations,taking the pressuere off Orton.
it's a win win !
tebow gets more experience ,without being put in a place where the entire season rests on him alone.
lets remember ,even the coaches and scouts who LOVED tebow admitted it would be ideal for him to get a couple years to develop before being "THE MAN":salute:

This might be a workable situation.

GEM
05-29-2011, 01:13 AM
If orton makes it to the end of this season, he walks or signs a ne deal. If he signs a new deal, it is at starter money, not backup. I also dont see him being comfortable with the goofy special situations when they bring tebow in.

horsepig
05-29-2011, 01:14 AM
Throw them to the "wolves"? Wolves are what populate the defenses in the NFL.
Elway needs to understand that the new guys can't have a 3/4 year grace period, like he had.

Elway was a slow learner. Was it Elway's fault, or Reeves? I think it was Elway.

Reeves felt like he had to "protect" Elway from the realities of the pro game. It actually worked quite well. When the chips were down and they needed a miracle, they had a guy that could actually do that.

Elway took four mediocre teams to Super Bowls, nobody else has even come close to achieving that. Maybe Jim Kelly, but those Bills te4ams had all the key ingredients in place, which John's team's didn't.

Giove John Thurman Thomas and Bruce Smith and I think things might have turned out differntly in some of thoise games.

My point is that Elway learnd very little from watching Steve Deberg play QB. I was there, in the north stands...........DEN 21-BAL 19. That was the day boys. That was the day Elway showed just what a superior talent, driven by ultra-competiveness, could achieve.

horsepig
05-29-2011, 01:19 AM
I personally feel that Tebow has that talent. His most important asset though, is his drive. Even the def4ense seems to pick up their play when he's on the field.

Call me a fool, but that's the guy I want running my TEAM.

Lonestar
05-29-2011, 09:51 AM
Yo HP, reeves was a fool e held John back with his stupid run run and then hope John will pull his ass out of the fire to make the third down.
Had danny had a mikey type OC earlier thereis little doubt in my mind. All of the passing records farve just role would have been johns.

Dano having been an ex half back really skewed his approach to Coaching. Talk about one coach that did not properly use a player (like mikey And Josh with hills).


Considering the circumstances last year of a two year contract, while I beleive he is a very good QB. I'd rather take my chances with Tebow As I see him as the next Duke that I if Fox dies not dano him.

atwater27
05-29-2011, 10:38 AM
Elway took four mediocre teams to Super Bowls, nobody else has even come close to achieving that. Maybe Jim Kelly, but those Bills te4ams had all the key ingredients in place, which John's team's didn't.

Giove John Thurman Thomas and Bruce Smith and I think things might have turned out differntly in some of thoise games.



Elway didn't have half the talent in the 80's as the Bills. Hell, Thurman, Bruce, Cornelius Bennett, Henry Jones, an awesome, perrenial pro bowl offensive line, James Lofton and Andre Reed at receiver... plus great backups at alot of positions... they were just hella unlucky, first with the mised FG that would have won it, then with having to play the uberdominant NFC East every time.

BroncoJoe
05-29-2011, 10:55 AM
Throw them to the "wolves"? Wolves are what populate the defenses in the NFL.
Elway needs to understand that the new guys can't have a 3/4 year grace period, like he had.

Elway was a slow learner. Was it Elway's fault, or Reeves? I think it was Elway.

Reeves felt like he had to "protect" Elway from the realities of the pro game. It actually worked quite well. When the chips were down and they needed a miracle, they had a guy that could actually do that.

Elway took four mediocre teams to Super Bowls, nobody else has even come close to achieving that. Maybe Jim Kelly, but those Bills te4ams had all the key ingredients in place, which John's team's didn't.

Giove John Thurman Thomas and Bruce Smith and I think things might have turned out differntly in some of thoise games.

My point is that Elway learnd very little from watching Steve Deberg play QB. I was there, in the north stands...........DEN 21-BAL 19. That was the day boys. That was the day Elway showed just what a superior talent, driven by ultra-competiveness, could achieve.

Seriously? The Broncos were 13-3 in 1984. His 2nd year.

T.K.O.
05-29-2011, 01:17 PM
Tebow's had a year to "develop". The time has come for him to step up. This new regime owes him nothing and will not hesitate to get "their guy", as proof by their interest in all of the top QB's in the draft this year. He's got this year to do something and that's it.

ummmm.... no not really.
my point is and has been that tebow was widely considered to need MORE than the usual time to develop because of his mechanics and style of offense he played.
has nothing to do with where he was drafted or exactly how fast he gets the starting nod.
so many people keep saying if we dont trade Orton now we will get NOTHING ?
having Orton for another year in either the starting or back up roll is not the end of the world because we miss out on 1 draft pick....there is value in having a solid vet at back up.
some would say more value than losing 3-4 games because you were unprepared for emergency etc....

Ravage!!!
05-29-2011, 01:24 PM
Having Orton for a year that we aren't going anywhere, gains us nothing. The draft pick that we could get, could very Easily be a better player for Denver's FUTURE.. which is where our wins will be, because they certainly are not in the present.

To think that this year is SOOOO important, that we must try to make our run NOW with Orton, is short-sighted. This is not a contending team.

horsepig
05-29-2011, 01:54 PM
Seriously? The Broncos were 13-3 in 1984. His 2nd year.

Like I said, Reeves knew how to win a lotta football games.

Ravage!!!
05-29-2011, 01:58 PM
:lol:

T.K.O.
05-29-2011, 02:18 PM
Having Orton for a year that we aren't going anywhere, gains us nothing. The draft pick that we could get, could very Easily be a better player for Denver's FUTURE.. which is where our wins will be, because they certainly are not in the present.

To think that this year is SOOOO important, that we must try to make our run NOW with Orton, is short-sighted. This is not a contending team.

bet Fox and Elway want to win games THIS season.....they know the fanbase wants to see W's .
many teams have gone from a shitty record to the playoffs in one season.
i will never buy into the philosophy of "we're gonna suck anyway,might as well plan for next year" it just doesnt work in pro sports.
you still plan for the future ,but you better be doing all you can to win NOW as well !

Ravage!!!
05-29-2011, 02:23 PM
bet Fox and Elway want to win games THIS season.....they know the fanbase wants to see W's .
many teams have gone from a shitty record to the playoffs in one season.
i will never buy into the philosophy of "we're gonna suck anyway,might as well plan for next year" it just doesnt work in pro sports.
you still plan for the future ,but you better be doing all you can to win NOW as well !

True, but there HAS to be a give-n-take. You have to weigh your benefits from your losses, and since you are going to lose Orton (a guy that is OBVIOUSLY not the future of this team) next season anyway, why would you want to lose the chance to get a high round draft pick. That pick has a MUCh higher chance of helping this team for YEARS down the road.

In the meantime, you get your 1st round draft pick some playing time, some learning time, and get an evaluation as to WHERE our QB position is. It makes NO sense to keep Orton around.

chazoe60
05-29-2011, 03:17 PM
I don't buy the idea that Orton gives the team a better chance to win now.

T.K.O.
05-29-2011, 03:17 PM
either way it is important to have a ready back up qb in the event of injury etc....
if it's late november and the broncos are leading the afcw and have a playoff shot...i want a guy ready to get the job done.
none of these scenarios may play out but ,they could.
and that's what the game is all about...getting a shot at the playoffs and as usual for this time of year....the broncos are tied for 1st in their division.
and i will not waiver or believe they are not playoff bound until they are mathematically eliminated !:elefant:
if quinn or somebody else proves capable of holding down the #2 spot....i have absolutely no issue with trading Orton.
but i want the best options available....at all positions.

i want the broncos to win !!!!!!!!!!
often !!!!!:salute:

Ravage!!!
05-29-2011, 03:32 PM
So you feel its a better scenario to have the QB controversy that is SURE to surround the Broncos if Orton is on the roster? You really think it makes sense to have Orton sit on the sidelines, as a back-up, instead of getting a 2nd round pick for him? Really? A guy that isn't going to be on the team next season anyway?

That just makes no sense to me. Orton isn't the long-term guy. He's going to be gone, either way.

topscribe
05-29-2011, 04:42 PM
I don't buy the idea that Orton gives the team a better chance to win now.

You don't have to, my friend.

The final decision is not yours . . . http://i258.photobucket.com/albums/hh256/AZDynamics/Smilies/wink-2.gif

-----

TXBRONC
05-29-2011, 06:14 PM
bet Fox and Elway want to win games THIS season.....they know the fanbase wants to see W's .
many teams have gone from a shitty record to the playoffs in one season.
i will never buy into the philosophy of "we're gonna suck anyway,might as well plan for next year" it just doesnt work in pro sports.
you still plan for the future ,but you better be doing all you can to win NOW as well !

True win even as you build, but I don't see it a given if Orton is the starting quarterback.

BroncoStud
05-29-2011, 08:17 PM
I don't buy the idea that Orton gives the team a better chance to win now.

Yeah, in my opinion Orton holds the offense back, and when Tebow gets a chance I am willing to bet any amount of money I will be proven right.