suck for Luck = lame fan

[BroncoBowlby 88]

Wanting your team to lose games? What is up with that nonsense? Love the team, get excited for the good things going on with this team, the new and lock out rested Brian Dawkins who is playing like an animal, Von Miller is going to be the heart and soul of this defense, finally a defensive minded coach who (along with the organization) are looking to build this team through the draft. I dont understand how someone could turn on their team and actually want them to lose so we could have a CHANCE at drafting a QB, that's ignorant. Enjoy the season, cheer for your team and get excited for wins!

[Lancane]

Wanting your team to lose games? What is up with that nonsense? Love the team, get excited for the good things going on with this team, the new and lock out rested Brian Dawkins who is playing like an animal, Von Miller is going to be the heart and soul of this defense, finally a defensive minded coach who (along with the organization) are looking to build this team through the draft. I dont understand how someone could turn on their team and actually want them to lose so we could have a CHANCE at drafting a QB, that's ignorant. Enjoy the season, cheer for your team and get excited for wins!

No one's turned on the team, just a fair majority are tired of mediocrity and that's where we are at this time!

[Northman]

I agree to a point.

Wanting your team to lose is crappy no matter what as a fan. But, i think for some they just dont believe we will win many games as it is. Some have no faith in ANY of the QB's we have and would much rather wash them all out. Fox is a great defensive guy but has a track record of 3 winning seasons out of 9 so despite some of the upside of a better defense at the end of the day you still have to win games as a HC. This team is rebuilding and has a long way to go.

[atwater27]

Jesus H ........ You know what dude? We suck anyways! Suck 4 Luck is just something fun to say while the inevitable losing is happening. I don't give a rip anyways what some fan policeman thinks about my status as a fan. mcDaniels and company ripped this freaking team apart in a way that will hurt us for many seasons. Getting a few more high draft positions (and more importantly choosing the right players with them) is what we truly need to accelerate the process. Even if we were lucky enough to go 8-8 and slither into the playoffs, do you really want to see a 55-0 ass whoopin once we got in with this team? Because that is what you would see. I'd rather see us develop the young players we have and fortify them with high round peers next April, so we can start fielding teams that actually HAVE a chance in the playoffs. So ******* sue me.

[chazoe60]

Settling for 4 to 8 wins year after year is lame.

Not having the lomg term vision to realize that drafting Andrew Luck is a much better thing for this franchise than winning 3 more games this season. I would take 2-14 and Andrew Luck over 5-11 or 6-10 any day. If that makes me a lame fan sobeit.

[Ravage!!!]

I think the only time I actually ROOTED for Denver to lose, was last season so that we could get McDaniels out of here as soon as possible. It actually hurt me to root against my team, but after we would lose, I would feel a little smile creeping across my lips as I would think to myself "**** you, mcdickhead."

[Simple Jaded]

Call it what you want, l call it "Rooting for the Broncos to fix a huge mistake and finally overhaul a pathetic and thoroughly dysfunctional QB situation".

What l call ignorant is pretending that 1-15 is a bad thing.......

[Simple Jaded]

Btw, for me it doesn't have to be Luck either, at this point it could be Jones or Barkley.

I have no doubt that l'm the only Broncos fan that wouldn't hate seeing the team go 3-45 over the next 3 seasons, as despicable as that may be, l can assure that l am rooting for what l think is best for the Broncos every bit as much as you are.

Getting behind an otherwise 5-8 win team and rooting/motivating/supporting them on to a championship makes a fine Disney movie, but l'm not interested in much of anything between that and another Top3 pick. And it's not like the important pieces couldn't survive a bad season after the whirlpool of bullshit that Leper Messiah left behind.

Either way, the way Broncos fans have been acting lately, l sincerely doubt that the players care what we think anyway. As if they ever did.......

[Lancane]

Either way, the way Broncos fans have been acting lately, l sincerely doubt that the players care what we think anyway. As if they ever did.......
You're probably dead on with this comment, I would say about about 90% of the players today don't give a shit about the fans, unlike the players of 90's, 80's or further back - that's what happens when they make more money then most television or film stars...I would say that money ruined the game far more then even the stupid crap Goodell has been doing.

[BroncoBJ]

yea stupidest shit I've ever heard. I'm all about winning games, even if it means go back to our 8-8 ways. Some people are mainly just fans of getting high draft picks and hoping for them all to pan out and then win games with them. I'd rather win now, then to be the joke of the league and have to hope Luck pans out to what everyone believes he will be. Even if we suck badly this year and end up with the #1 pick. I hope we either trade it down or don't draft Luck, just to piss everyone around here off.

[Simple Jaded]

yea stupidest shit I've ever heard. I'm all about winning games, even if it means go back to our 8-8 ways. Some people are mainly just fans of getting high draft picks and hoping for them all to pan out and then win games with them. I'd rather win now, then to be the joke of the league and have to hope Luck pans out to what everyone believes he will be. Even if we suck badly this year and end up with the #1 pick. I hope we either trade it down or don't draft Luck, just to piss everyone around here off.

Hoping your team, a team with a pathetic QB situation, passes on one of the best QB prospects in the last decade just to spite people you don't even know? Yeah, stupidest shit I've ever heard.

If your team would be that ****** stupid then they/you deserve 8-8.......

[Lancane]

yea stupidest shit I've ever heard. I'm all about winning games, even if it means go back to our 8-8 ways. Some people are mainly just fans of getting high draft picks and hoping for them all to pan out and then win games with them. I'd rather win now, then to be the joke of the league and have to hope Luck pans out to what everyone believes he will be. Even if we suck badly this year and end up with the #1 pick. I hope we either trade it down or don't draft Luck, just to piss everyone around here off.

That's the stupidest shit I've heard BJ, the point of the league is not to be mediocre, it's to win and not simply win half the games on the schedule but to be contenders. Haven't you heard the term 'there is no reward for second place'?

Do you really think that any team in this league is happy with mediocrity? Because that's what a .500 record is, it's utter mediocrity. Most of us would prefer to have a couple bad seasons then to eventually actually be contenders, win playoff games and possibly make it to the Super Bowl again. 8-8 teams don't usually see the playoffs and when they do it shows why they're an incapable ball club!

;)

[Simple Jaded]

Winning Is Everything/Win At All Cost doesn't apply for the most part, reasonable people know that there isn't much tangible difference between 8-8 and 1-15.

No, most people that argue against Luck are people who already have a dog in the hunt, as is always the case, Tim Tebow.

There are other people that actually think that you do put cart before the horse, but for the most part it's The Tebow thing.......

[DenBronx]

You know what dude? We suck anyways! Suck 4 Luck is just something fun to say while the inevitable losing is happening. I don't give a rip anyways what some fan policeman thinks about my status as a fan. mcDaniels and company ripped this freaking team apart in a way that will hurt us for many seasons. Getting a few more high draft positions (and more importantly choosing the right players with them) is what we truly need to accelerate the process. Even if we were lucky enough to go 8-8 and slither into the playoffs, do you really want to see a 55-0 ass whoopin once we got in with this team? Because that is what you would see. I'd rather see us develop the young players we have and fortify them with high round peers next April, so we can start fielding teams that actually HAVE a chance in the playoffs. So ******* sue me.


excellent post.....couldnt of said it any better.

[BroncoBowlby 88]

Jesus H ........ You know what dude? We suck anyways! Suck 4 Luck is just something fun to say while the inevitable losing is happening. I don't give a rip anyways what some fan policeman thinks about my status as a fan. mcDaniels and company ripped this freaking team apart in a way that will hurt us for many seasons. Getting a few more high draft positions (and more importantly choosing the right players with them) is what we truly need to accelerate the process. Even if we were lucky enough to go 8-8 and slither into the playoffs, do you really want to see a 55-0 ass whoopin once we got in with this team? Because that is what you would see. I'd rather see us develop the young players we have and fortify them with high round peers next April, so we can start fielding teams that actually HAVE a chance in the playoffs. So ******* sue me.

Yes, I admit it, I am that guy that would love to see the Broncos add 4 wins, and get into the playoffs. Because, guess what dude, thats called an improvement. That would mean that EFX has this team on the right track. So forgive me for hoping that the team can win now, and that we are miles away from being in a position to draft Luck next year.

And just for clarifications sake, if we draft Luck next year great! But you will never hear me wish for a loss, or count a season over (especially after one game) just to cheer and be happy that we get to draft #1 overall. LAME

[chazoe60]

Yes, I admit it, I am that guy that would love to see the Broncos add 4 wins, and get into the playoffs. Because, guess what dude, thats called an improvement. That would mean that EFX has this team on the right track. So forgive me for hoping that the team can win now, and that we are miles away from being in a position to draft Luck next year.

And just for clarifications sake, if we draft Luck next year great! But you will never hear me wish for a loss, or count a season over (especially after one game) just to cheer and be happy that we get to draft #1 overall. LAME

An improvement of 4 games won't get us in the playoffs fella.

Give me Andrew Luck and a decade or more of consitent competitiveness over 6 wins this season and I'll do backflips. You go ahead and take 6 wins and call everyone else lame but some of us can see the big picture.

[BroncoBJ]

Hoping your team, a team with a pathetic QB situation, passes on one of the best QB prospects in the last decade just to spite people you don't even know? Yeah, stupidest shit I've ever heard.

If your team would be that ****** stupid then they/you deserve 8-8.......

:lol: If we get Luck, then good, if we don't then good. But I sure don't wanna lose as many games as possible to have that happen. I'd rather just have that QB on the Roster, like Tebow. Don't just give up on him because the media and fans say he won't be any good. :lol:


That's the stupidest shit I've heard BJ, the point of the league is not to be mediocre, it's to win and not simply win half the games on the schedule but to be contenders. Haven't you heard the term 'there is no reward for second place'?

Do you really think that any team in this league is happy with mediocrity? Because that's what a .500 record is, it's utter mediocrity. Most of us would prefer to have a couple bad seasons then to eventually actually be contenders, win playoff games and possibly make it to the Super Bowl again. 8-8 teams don't usually see the playoffs and when they do it shows why they're an incapable ball club!

;)

So if we get Luck, we're superbowl contenders? People gotta stop getting caught up in hype :lol: Just sayin that I don't want to go thru another 4 win season or less just to get a top QB prospect that is hit or miss. I'd rather improve to 8 wins, fix more of our holes next year in our D and keep improving.

I hate 8-8 but I hate 4-12 more.

Call me crazy but I like to win so I'm not in the mood to just keep losing to get Luck :lol:

[Simple Jaded]

If you're rooting for 8-8 l think you've missed the point, a few more wins.......ya!

Seriously, once the season is over the only use the win/loss record will have is for arguments about how This QB should start over That QB.

And if have to argue whether This QB should start over That QB is This QB or That QB really worth building around?.......

[Ravage!!!]

Having ANY top QB makes you a Super Bowl contender. That has NOTHING to do with "hype." Some of you need to quit thinking that everytime a QB that doesnt' fit your favorite college team, is purely hype. The fact is, Luck is the best prospect to come out of college SINCE Elway. That says a TON. That kind of presence behind center, DOES make you a playoff contender each and every year... based PURELY on the QB. You have a top QB, you are a contender.. period.

So yeah... I could live with goingwith only 2 wins for the season to have the QB that makes the Broncos a contender for the next 15! Hell of a trade-off.

[sneakers]

Wanting your team to be the worst in the nfl is for turds.

[chazoe60]

Wanting your team to be the worst in the nfl is for turds.

Acutually we're wanting our team to be the best in the NFL for years to come instead of being the fifth worst this season andfor the foreseable future.

Ask the Colts if they're pissed that they picked first back in the 90s.

[Ravage!!!]

Acutually we're wanting our team to be the best in the NFL for years to come instead of being the fifth worst this season andfor the foreseable future.

Ask the Colts if they're pissed that they picked first back in the 90s.

Ask Bronco fans if they ever regret trading for the #1 overall pick back in '83.

[BroncoBJ]

If you're rooting for 8-8 l think you've missed the point, a few more wins.......ya!

Seriously, once the season is over the only use the win/loss record will have is for arguments about how This QB should start over That QB.

And if have to argue whether This QB should start over That QB is This QB or That QB really worth building around?.......

:lol: I'm not a Raiders fan. I don't get off by going 8-8. Just that, we have more problems then just a QB. If we get Luck then thats good, but if not then oh well.

But yea, Luck is the best prospect since Russell who was the best since Elway :lol:

Im just sayin that I don't want to lose now. If we get Luck and go to a SB in a few years and win some over his time, then I'll appreciate our shitty year. But I laugh at anyone who wants to lose. I just hope Tebow is the QB of the future. Just don't want to give up on him over a prospect. But you guys love the hype so no surprise there. :salute:

[Lancane]

Ask the Colts if they're pissed that they picked first back in the 90s.

I had to quote the statement you made... Because if we look at the Colts with Manning they're a perennial favorite to win their division and make the playoffs - now we see them without him and they are now as bad if not worse then us. And they do have some talent on that team besides Manning. It's rare that a team can slide in another quarterback and win like the Patriots did with Cassel, very rare. Where would Atlanta be without Ryan, Green Bay without Rodgers, Pittsburgh without Roethlisberger, New York (G) without Manning, Houston without Schaub, Dallas without Romo, San Diego without Rivers, New Orleans without Brees, New York (J) without Sanchez or Baltimore without Flacco. That's the importance of the position, the one that's considered the most important in the sport.

For all the years I played which was always on the defensive side of the ball, I always knew without the right quarterback that winning would always be more difficult, if not impossible. A good defense can hold opponents to less yards and fewer points, even get a turnover and score now and then. But a good quarterback gives the defense enough time to recuperate - to get their wind back on the sideline and to score the points needed to put the defense in a position to win the game.

[Lancane]

Im just sayin that I don't want to lose now. If we get Luck and go to a SB in a few years and win some over his time, then I'll appreciate our shitty year. But I laugh at anyone who wants to lose. I just hope Tebow is the QB of the future. Just don't want to give up on him over a prospect. But you guys love the hype so no surprise there. :salute:

Let me ask you a question then BJ...

Tebow has better numbers then Orton, has a better turnover ratio and a higher quarterback percentage...so why does Orton give us the best chance for winning?

I've heard the sorry ass excuses that no coach will start a rookie over a veteran, and it's horseshit...in fact I already disproved that a while back ago with several examples. What none of the Tebow supporters are grasping is that he might really not be the answer and Denver doesn't know what to do because they like him so much. It wouldn't be the first time that coaches and a front office didn't know what to do with a talented player they liked just not at the position he plays, and they certainly are not going to cut him till they know absolutely that he cannot help the team, after all he's already been paid a fare sum of money.

If he was really that talented, there is no way a coach will leave him to ride the pine and play a quarterback as sorry as Orton instead, because their entire focus is on winning!

I am not saying we should 'suck' but if we have a shot at Luck, then you take it...same with Jones or Barkley, maybe we take Lindley or Foles, then so be it, but we're not winning right now and I don't see us winning much of anything at this point.

[Ravage!!!]

:

But yea, Luck is the best prospect since Russell who was the best since Elway



This is just incorrect.....unless you are now taking Raider fans as your source of information.

[Ravage!!!]

But you guys love the hype so no surprise there. :salute:

:lol: You mean like the belief in the HYPE of Tebow? Whats the difference other than I have read time and time and time again, from people that actually grade QBs for a living, that ONE is the greatest prospect in the last 25 years... and the other wasn't even a good NFL prospect.

So who's believing "hype" and who's making judgements based on my substantial facts?

[BroncoBJ]

Let me ask you a question then BJ...

Tebow has better numbers then Orton, has a better turnover ratio and a higher quarterback percentage...so why does Orton give us the best chance for winning?

I've heard the sorry ass excuses that no coach will start a rookie over a veteran, and it's horseshit...in fact I already disproved that a while back ago with several examples. What none of the Tebow supporters are grasping is that he might really not be the answer and Denver doesn't know what to do because they like him so much. It wouldn't be the first time that coaches and a front office didn't know what to do with a talented player they liked just not at the position he plays, and they certainly are not going to cut him till they know absolutely that he cannot help the team, after all he's already been paid a fare sum of money.

If he was really that talented, there is no way a coach will leave him to ride the pine and play a quarterback as sorry as Orton instead, because their entire focus is on winning!

I am not saying we should 'suck' but if we have a shot at Luck, then you take it...same with Jones or Barkley, maybe we take Lindley or Foles, then so be it, but we're not winning right now and I don't see us winning much of anything at this point.

Theres been plenty of qbs to sit for a while. Tebow probably isn't going to be the future even tho I'd like him to be.

But Kyle going 3-15 in his last 18 games makes me laugh that hes the best chance to win. I'd hate to see who gives us the worse chance to win.

I'd rather just try out Tebow, suck with him, and get Luck, rather then suck with Orton and give up on Tebow and get Luck. If were gonna lose, just lose with Tebow. Because if we start him and he plays great and we win 10 or more games, then we know he may be our guy, if he sucks then we know that we may need to look elsewhere.

I already know what we have in Orton. But I'm fine with whoever. Just wanna win. Done too much losing the past few years for my liking.

I want a QB of the future. Its a good feeling to have a reliable QB. I just don't wanna give up on Tebow without seeing what he has in a full season. Only good thing about Tebow not being our QB, is we will lose all the Tebow fans that came here just cause of him. :fight:

[sneakers]

Acutually we're wanting our team to be the best in the NFL for years to come instead of being the fifth worst this season andfor the foreseable future.

Ask the Colts if they're pissed that they picked first back in the 90s.

THEY PiCKED FIRST EVERY YEAR!!!!!!

And even when they picked Manning, it was a crap shoot to pick whether Manning or Leaf would be a better pro QB.

[zbeg]

You're probably dead on with this comment, I would say about about 90% of the players today don't give a shit about the fans, unlike the players of 90's, 80's or further back - that's what happens when they make more money then most television or film stars...I would say that money ruined the game far more then even the stupid crap Goodell has been doing.

Let's not romanticize. The players in the 90s and 80s also didn't give a crap about the fans any more than they do today.

[BroncoBJ]

:lol: You mean like the belief in the HYPE of Tebow? Whats the difference other than I have read time and time and time again, from people that actually grade QBs for a living, that ONE is the greatest prospect in the last 25 years... and the other wasn't even a good NFL prospect.

So who's believing "hype" and who's making judgements based on my substantial facts?

I'm not in to any hype. More people hate Tebow then like him and more people think he will suck then people thinking he will be good. I'd love to have Tebow prove everyone wrong on our team. But chances are is we will give up on him, and he'll end up being good elsewhere.

I'll let everyone keep believing all the hype. If we get Luck, then thats great. I'll cheer him on just like anyone else. I just wish we'd give Tebow a shot this year so we can know if hes our guy or not. Thats all I want. I'd rather have Tebow suck with us and at least know how he is rather then have us let him go, and have him tear it up with another team. Chances are though is that our QB of the future isn't on this team right now.

[broncobryce]

Denver is not getting Luck. So you're jacking off for no reason. Have fun with that.

[Simple Jaded]

There is no such thing as jacking off for no reason.......

[Simple Jaded]

I'm not in to any hype. More people hate Tebow then like him and more people think he will suck then people thinking he will be good. I'd love to have Tebow prove everyone wrong on our team. But chances are is we will give up on him, and he'll end up being good elsewhere.

I'll let everyone keep believing all the hype. If we get Luck, then thats great. I'll cheer him on just like anyone else. I just wish we'd give Tebow a shot this year so we can know if hes our guy or not. Thats all I want. I'd rather have Tebow suck with us and at least know how he is rather then have us let him go, and have him tear it up with another team. Chances are though is that our QB of the future isn't on this team right now.

You're kidding right? Tebow is the most overhyped athlete since Brian Bozworth.

This is what bothers me about Tebow fans, dude finally gets a small taste of criticism and his fans fall to pieces talking about how it's so unfair and that nobody likes him and that he's some underdog.

Tim Tebow could run for President and ******* win! You're full of shit on this one, no offense, dude is ridiculously popular.

As far as giving him a chance, he gets the same chance that any other 3rd-5th round prospect should, it should not be just given to him just because the starter is a bedwetting stiff or because he sells suites/seats/underwear and so far he's done nothing to earn it. He couldn't even outplay an average starters backup.

As for this supposed Luck hype, it's not hyperbole to say Luck showed fantastic NFL talent the second he became a starter.

Imo, if Tebow goes on to tear it up anywhere it will most likely be with a team willing to dramatically implement Urban Meyer elements into their offense, at least early on. l can't understand why anybody would be excited about an offense like that, that's the worst crap l've ever seen.......

[BroncoStud]

Wanting your team to lose games? What is up with that nonsense? Love the team, get excited for the good things going on with this team, the new and lock out rested Brian Dawkins who is playing like an animal, Von Miller is going to be the heart and soul of this defense, finally a defensive minded coach who (along with the organization) are looking to build this team through the draft. I dont understand how someone could turn on their team and actually want them to lose so we could have a CHANCE at drafting a QB, that's ignorant. Enjoy the season, cheer for your team and get excited for wins!

Starting threads proposing to accept mediocrity and bash fans who probably know 1,000 times more about football and the Broncos than you do - LAME.

Carry on. :welcome:

[claymore]

You're kidding right? Tebow is the most overhyped athlete since Brian Bozworth.

This is what bothers me about Tebow fans, dude finally gets a small taste of criticism and his fans fall to pieces talking about how it's so unfair and that nobody likes him and that he's some underdog.

Tim Tebow could run for President and ******* win! You're full of shit on this one, no offense, dude is ridiculously popular.

As far as giving him a chance, he gets the same chance that any other 3rd-5th round prospect should, it should not be just given to him just because the starter is a bedwetting stiff or because he sells suites/seats/underwear and so far he's done nothing to earn it. He couldn't even outplay an average starters backup.

As for this supposed Luck hype, it's not hyperbole to say Luck showed fantastic NFL talent the second he became a starter.

Imo, if Tebow goes on to tear it up anywhere it will most likely be with a team willing to dramatically implement Urban Meyer elements into their offense, at least early on. l can't understand why anybody would be excited about an offense like that, that's the worst crap l've ever seen.......

Link, All Tebow does is know how to win. Just like Kyle Orton used too.

:laugh:

[claymore]

As for the thread topic, "Suck for luck is stupid" etc... I dont find it any better for fans to want Tebow to start. "Who cares we will lose anyway"

I am not perfect, but would like to have some success with Orton this year, and then get luck with some trades in the offseason.

[Ravage!!!]

As for the thread topic, "Suck for luck is stupid" etc... I dont find it any better for fans to want Tebow to start. "Who cares we will lose anyway"



and right there is the contradiction that shows the true intent behind the thread. Its not the "suck for Luck" that is bothersome, its the fact that people want Luck to replace Tebow that doesn't sit well.

"Thats all I want. I'd rather have Tebow suck with us ..."


But I don't think ANYONE is saying they want the Broncos to INTENTIONALLY throw games. The "suck for Luck" is a chant some do after their SUCKING team loses... again. Lets face it, we suck!

[broncobryce]

There is no such thing as jacking off for no reason.......

:lol: Now that is funny!

[atwater27]

Plain and simple we have a known quantity with Orton. Average, no upside. we have an x factor in Tebow. Did I want to draft him? NO! At least not with a 1st rounder. He's young, he is strong as a blue ox, and has determination and intangibles through the roof. He would light a fire under the team no doubt, and at least make Denver exciting to watch. Give the bloke a chance.

[BroncoBowlby 88]

[QUOTE=atwater27;1364499]Plain and simple we have a known quantity with Orton. Average, no upside. we have an x factor in Tebow. Did I want to draft him? NO! At least not with a 1st rounder. He's young, he is strong as a blue ox, and has determination and intangibles through the roof. He would light a fire under the team no doubt, and at least make Denver exciting to watch. Give the bloke a chance.[/QUOTE

Not a huge Tebow fan, but I agree with this statement. Even though this new coach and VP didn't draft him it would be a waste of money and talent to waste this kid and not give him a shot.

I believe that this QB class in the 2012 draft is deep, and even if Luck is the best prospect in the draft, we could find a franchise QB later in the draft. I think we should keep with the same idea draft defense and throw in a RB and O-line.

[Lancane]

Plain and simple we have a known quantity with Orton. Average, no upside. we have an x factor in Tebow. Did I want to draft him? NO! At least not with a 1st rounder. He's young, he is strong as a blue ox, and has determination and intangibles through the roof. He would light a fire under the team no doubt, and at least make Denver exciting to watch. Give the bloke a chance.

Not a huge Tebow fan, but I agree with this statement. Even though this new coach and VP didn't draft him it would be a waste of money and talent to waste this kid and not give him a shot.

I believe that this QB class in the 2012 draft is deep, and even if Luck is the best prospect in the draft, we could find a franchise QB later in the draft. I think we should keep with the same idea draft defense and throw in a RB and O-line.

The quarterback class is deep, but everyone is forgetting the key factor...Elway. It's seems to me that people have forgotten that John Elway spoke in great detail about Cutler and how you don't give up quarterbacks like him, which points to the fact that Elway himself saw Cutler as a franchise quarterback, let's not forget that Fox and Elway along with Xanders studied in great detail the players we had, that's what the lockout did for them, they watched Tebow's three games, his pre-season games, they watched Orton's games all of them, of that I'll bet my house on...and they still looked at quarterbacks in the draft and that's all I need to know, add atop that Elway's comments about finding a franchise quarterback and even you'll start to see the big picture. The Broncos don't have to play Tebow, in fact if they do not then all he'll ever see is his annual income and roster bonuses, so fiscally it doesn't hurt the Broncos to draft a top-shelf quarterback at all.

Luck is not the only top-shelf quarterback in this draft, CBS Sports just released an updated list of their top draft prospects for 2012, Luck, Barkley and Jones were all in the Top Five, all three. If Denver is within reach of one of those three I see them taking one of them. Now it's a different story if we're drafting at say twelfth overall or even lower. Then I could see Denver going with Richardson, Worthy, Thompson, Paige-Moss, Reiff or even possibly trading down for more picks, in that kind of scenario I could see Denver going with Foles, Cousins, Tannehill, Lindley or even Keenum.

Another factor people need to realize is Bowlen, while Luck may be the top prospect there are some who are higher on Jones, don't forget that Bowlen is an Oklahoma alumni himself, he's close to the school and the football program. Jones will get some heavy looks from us, that's why I still believe that Jones may well be our first pick in the next draft unless we're in position for Luck.

[Agent of Orange]

The quarterback class is deep, but everyone is forgetting the key factor...Elway. It's seems to me that people have forgotten that John Elway spoke in great detail about Cutler and how you don't give up quarterbacks like him, which points to the fact that Elway himself saw Cutler as a franchise quarterback, let's not forget that Fox and Elway along with Xanders studied in great detail the players we had, that's what the lockout did for them, they watched Tebow's three games, his pre-season games, they watched Orton's games all of them, of that I'll bet my house on...and they still looked at quarterbacks in the draft and that's all I need to know, add atop that Elway's comments about finding a franchise quarterback and even you'll start to see the big picture. The Broncos don't have to play Tebow, in fact if they do not then all he'll ever see is his annual income and roster bonuses, so fiscally it doesn't hurt the Broncos to draft a top-shelf quarterback at all.

Luck is not the only top-shelf quarterback in this draft, CBS Sports just released an updated list of their top draft prospects for 2012, Luck, Barkley and Jones were all in the Top Five, all three. If Denver is within reach of one of those three I see them taking one of them. Now it's a different story if we're drafting at say twelfth overall or even lower. Then I could see Denver going with Richardson, Worthy, Thompson, Paige-Moss, Reiff or even possibly trading down for more picks, in that kind of scenario I could see Denver going with Foles, Cousins, Tannehill, Lindley or even Keenum.

Another factor people need to realize is Bowlen, while Luck may be the top prospect there are some who are higher on Jones, don't forget that Bowlen is an Oklahoma alumni himself, he's close to the school and the football program. Jones will get some heavy looks from us, that's why I still believe that Jones may well be our first pick in the next draft unless we're in position for Luck.

Pass on Barkley. Jones OK. Luck Yes!

[Nomad]

As for the thread topic, "Suck for luck is stupid" etc... I dont find it any better for fans to want Tebow to start. "Who cares we will lose anyway"
I am not perfect, but would like to have some success with Orton this year, and then get luck with some trades in the offseason.

Are you drunk.......you make no sense here!!


Anyway, Luck wins the title for King Neckbeard......he was sporting it big time last night!

[Lancane]

Pass on Barkley. Jones OK. Luck Yes!

Let's be honest, Barkley is the better fit for Fox's style of offense...so he's still an option. But I still feel at this time it's gonna be Jones.

[DenBronx]

As for the thread topic, "Suck for luck is stupid" etc... I dont find it any better for fans to want Tebow to start. "Who cares we will lose anyway"

I am not perfect, but would like to have some success with Orton this year, and then get luck with some trades in the offseason.

Trade who? There's no one to trade. Unless its Moreno for a 6th, which wont help.

Seriously, we should have tried harder to trade Orton. Not for just this year but to be able to move around in the draft if needed next year.

[Agent of Orange]

Let's be honest, Barkley is the better fit for Fox's style of offense...so he's still an option. But I still feel at this time it's gonna be Jones.

There is no "us". If you're going to go out on that limb, you're on your own. Something tells me this is your Trojan love talking.

[DenBronx]

ohhh god.....no Barkley.....please no Barkley. He isnt even in the same class as Luck.

It's like comparing Peyton Manning to Matt Lienart.

[Nick]

Wanting the team to lose for draft selection is a lame fan but understanding the reality of the state of the team and knowing we will have a shot at him is another.

Everyone wants to see the broncos winning but this is just not that good of a team. 75 percent of the team are just not nfl starters.

[BroncoBowlby 88]

I'm for whoever gets us wins now! Kyle, Quinn, or Tebow it doesn't matter, the point of the game is to win, not to get high draft picks! If for some sad reason we fall into a position to get Luck, get him, if he gives us the best chance to win. If not draft for need, DT OL RB, a QB is not going to fix all of our problems. Don't want to tell people how to enjoy Bronco football, but no Suck4Luck, and more Play2Win!

[Lancane]

There is no "us". If you're going to go out on that limb, you're on your own. Something tells me this is your Trojan love talking.

First and foremost, I'm not a USC fan, never have been and never will. The only team I like in the Pac-10 or Pac-12 now is Arizona State, but I am a Big Ten fan, especially since I am a Michigan State alumni myself, but you don't see me pimping Cousins...so people need to get a F'n grip, a serious one before they make themselves look like ass-hats.

For those of you who understand Fox's offensive philosophy and the offense he and McCoy like to run, then tell me who would be more attractive to them? Jones who is the most natural passer in the draft with tremendous upside and ability or the game manager with a pretty big arm that can spread the field, but doesn't take the risks of the more elite labeled quarterbacks? Think about it before you answer because it's looking right at you, staring you in the face. I think Bowlen and Elway would go with Jones, but Fox could make a case for Barkley. I remember a lot of people didn't believe that we would take Tebow when I said it's a possibility because he matched better with McDaniels' thinking and his style of offense, well how did that turn out? So I'll repeat what I said, do not discount Barkley, he is just as much of a possibility.

[Agent of Orange]

First and foremost, I'm not a USC fan, never have been and never will. The only team I like in the Pac-10 or Pac-12 now is Arizona State, but I am a Big Ten fan, especially since I am a Michigan State alumni myself, but you don't see me pimping Cousins...so people need to get a F'n grip, a serious one before they make themselves look like ass-hats.

OK, but this doesnt mean you're not being affected by the ever prevalent USC hype, whether it's your own or some draftniks.


For those of you who understand Fox's offensive philosophy and the offense he and McCoy like to run, then tell me who would be more attractive to them? Jones who is the most natural passer in the draft with tremendous upside and ability or the game manager with a pretty big arm that can spread the field, but doesn't take the risks of the more elite labeled quarterbacks?

I think you're way off on this. Jones might be the best at throwing the ball down field. This would negate your theory of him not being the guy you want taking risks.


Think about it before you answer because it's looking right at you, staring you in the face. I think Bowlen and Elway would go with Jones, but Fox could make a case for Barkley. I remember a lot of people didn't believe that we would take Tebow when I said it's a possibility because he matched better with McDaniels' thinking and his style of offense, well how did that turn out?

Saying it's a possibility is a pretty broad statement. It's a lot different from saying they would. Besides, it was probably more sound reasoning to say they wouldnt if you're going to base it on the QBs used in NEs offense. None of them have been overly mobile.


So I'll repeat what I said, do not discount Barkley, he is just as much of a possibility.

Again, this is awfully vague. You could say this about any player. Also, you seem to be going back and forth between preference and predictions. Saying they could draft Barkley because Fox could make a case for him, isnt really going out on a limb. That doesnt mean he would be a good choice or that Denver should draft him.

Part of me is starting to wonder whether there's some bias, whether it's regional or otherwise. If Elway drafts a blonde kid from LA, he might as welll just build a 50 ft statue of himself at midfield. And if he also better hope that Barkley is successful and Tebow isnt. Because if he's wrong, watch out.

[Lancane]

OK, but this doesnt mean you're not being affected by the ever prevalent USC hype, whether it's your own or some draftniks.

I'm not affected by any sort of hype whatsoever. I've watch Barkley, he's more of a game manager then Luck, he's got a good arm, though not as good as Jones or that of Luck and he has better mechanics then Sanchez.


I think you're way off on this. Jones might be the best at throwing the ball down field. This would negate your theory of him not being the guy you want taking risks.

When did I say that Jones isn't the quarterback you want taking risks? It's John Fox who doesn't like to take risks, he likes the game managing quarterbacks. If you compared any one of the top three which one reminds you more of Orton or Delhomme? I would say that without question that Barkley fits that mold more then Jones or Luck.


Saying it's a possibility is a pretty broad statement. It's a lot different from saying they would. Besides, it was probably more sound reasoning to say they wouldnt if you're going to base it on the QBs used in NEs offense. None of them have been overly mobile.

Not really, I don't think it's going to be Barkley, I've stated that numerous times because I think it's going to be Jones at this time because of Elway and Bowlen. But I could see Jones and Luck off the board and Denver contemplating on Barkley if he's available since he seems to fit McCoy's offense and Fox's philosophy. I wouldn't discount it as a possibility no matter if you or anyone else does.


Again, this is awfully vague. You could say this about any player. Also, you seem to be going back and forth between preference and predictions. Saying they could draft Barkley because Fox could make a case for him, isnt really going out on a limb. That doesnt mean he would be a good choice or that Denver should draft him.

Not really, making a case that Fox could favor him in his offense is simply nothing more then a statement. I'm not predicting anything, simply stating a possibility, you're treating it like an absolute when all I am saying is that it's plausible, you just don't agree.


Part of me is starting to wonder whether there's some bias, whether it's regional or otherwise. If Elway drafts a blonde kid from LA, he might as welll just build a 50 ft statue of himself at midfield. And if he also better hope that Barkley is successful and Tebow isnt. Because if he's wrong, watch out.

I don't think so Agent, I think it's just feels that way...we have to remember that three of the better quarterback prospects are from Cali, Luck from Stanford, Barkley from Southern Cal and Lindley from San Diego State, but there are things about all three that a lot of people like. Lindley has a wickedly big arm, Luck is the favored big-time prospect and Barkley is that game manager with a good arm. Literally there are no good east coast products at the position that will be in the draft, no SEC or ACC quarterbacks and so forth. All the east coast program quarterbacks are currently graded as fifth round or latter graded picks; Davis, Brantley, Manuel, Jefferson, Harris or Jacoby.

And nor do I believe anyone really wants Tebow to fail, there well may be some who do...I don't, and I don't believe anyone on here does either.

[BroncoStud]

Man I just don't see the hype around Barkley... Also, Jones struggles under pressure and against top competition, he isn't exactly the epitome of clutch. Though he did have a nice couple of throws last night to extend the lead at FSU.

There is just a big gap between Luck and the others. I hope that if Luck is gone we keep building the defense with our top pick next year.

[Lancane]

Man I just don't see the hype around Barkley... Also, Jones struggles under pressure and against top competition, he isn't exactly the epitome of clutch. Though he did have a nice couple of throws last night to extend the lead at FSU.

There is just a big gap between Luck and the others. I hope that if Luck is gone we keep building the defense with our top pick next year.

I've watched a lot of film and I can comfortably say that Jones is head and shoulders better then Bradford, Ryan and Stafford when coming out. Barkley is more on the same level as they were, better then then Sanchez.

[Northman]

Sorry Luck fanbois, you just lost a notch on that belt and got further away from your goal. Scary is that KC is moving closer to it. lmao

[Lancane]

Sorry Luck fanbois, you just lost a notch on that belt and got further away from your goal. Scary is that KC is moving closer to it. lmao

One shit win doesn't mean anything North! Only one team in history went 0-16! ;)

[Northman]

One shit win doesn't mean anything North! Only one team in history went 0-16! ;)

Building blocks. ;)

[Lancane]

Building blocks. ;)

A franchise quarterback is a building block, I think that's obvious at this point! :D

[Northman]

A franchise quarterback is a building block, I think that's obvious at this point! :D


Not this year.... :D

[Lancane]

Not this year.... :D

Repeat after me, "Drugs are baaaaadddd!", no worries... I will be your sponsor buddy! ;)

:D

:laugh:

[Nomad]

Sorry Luck fanbois, you just lost a notch on that belt and got further away from your goal. Scary is that KC is moving closer to it. lmao

The football gods are on Indy's side. KC would ruin Luck!

[chazoe60]

As long as we have someone other than the boring 3&out machine we have now I will be happy.


The sad thing for Orton is that he's actually expecting a huge payday after this season and I bet dollars to donuts he'll be getting a backup gig with an outside chance at being the starter.

His career will be all but done after this season. Yay us, we get to be the last team dumb enough to have him as a starter.

[Nick]

The football gods are on Indy's side. KC would ruin Luck!

which will suck... Because then it will be indy 2.0

[Nomad]

which will suck... Because then it will be indy 2.0

Yep, Nick! Manning coaching up Luck would be lethal!

BTW, how ya feeling today :lol:

[Joel]

Fans want the best for their team; they rarely all agree completely on what that is. In this case it's a matter of perspective, in a number of ways. I don't want to "suck for Luck," because there's (at least) one Ryan Leaf for every Peyton Manning, and even people who scout for a living have trouble telling them apart until they've been in the pros 2-3 years. Folks in Tampa thought Vinny Testaverde hung the moon when he was at Miami; by the end of his rookie NFL season they were putting up their OWN billboards claiming he was color blind and demanding he leave town yesterday. It's a well known risk with college stars, but worst for QBs, largely because of fans convinced their team is ONLY 5-11 because the QB sucks, and equally CERTAIN a Pro Bowl QB will lead them to a Super Bowl. That's an ignorantly irrational attitude I don't waste time debating; I can only take solace in the knowledge NFL owners rarely entrust important decisions to people who think like that (it happens though; sometimes they even misplace confidence in someone so unworthy of ANY kind of trust that they'll try to trade a Pro Bowl QB behind his back, then lie to his face when he asks about it after someone ELSE tells him. :tsk:)

As to the larger question, it depends whether one thinks a decade of 9-7 good or bad. Most Detroit fans would probably say, "good," but it could be argued Detroits eager aspiration to mediocrity explains why they've only won a single playoff game in the past half century (with apologies to Bobby Layne. ;)) Fans who know their team will (or already HAS) take(n) more than its fair share of lumps this year naturally seek a silver lining to exploit in subsequent seasons, and high draft picks are the quintessential NFL example. As long as the Broncos have a statistical chance at the playoffs, and thus a statistical chance at a ring, I'll want them to win but, frankly, I don't expect that to be true very long this year. The INSTANT SB XLVI becomes unattainable my goal will become SB XLVII (and, ideally, others as well), not finishing at .500. At that point winning more games will become an active impediment to that larger and (IMHO) greater goal. Winning the final regular season game won't make me feel any better about a 6-10 finish; I'll feel worse, because it will mean NOTHING more or less than lower 2012 draft picks, which do NOT help the team and are therefore undesirable. Of course, a high draft pick doesn't guarantee a Hall of Famer, because the first pick can be and often is a bust. Yet that's at least as likely with the thirty-second pick; the difference is that the team with the top pick isn't rolling the dice on a couple dozen other teams' leftovers--and the team with the last pick is the defending Super Bowl Champion. ;)

The reality of professional sports with drafts, particularly those with salary caps, is that team talent generally goes in cycles. Very good teams have very bad draft picks, and very little surplus money for great free agents, because great players have already claimed much of their payroll. Very bad teams "earn" very good and very desperately needed draft picks, and usually have more money for free agents, because demanding huge contracts would get most of their players cut. Most teams, at any given time, fall somewhere in between, and winning championships has a lot to do with accurately diagnosing ones location and direction in that cycle (but the best way to move forward is a bit tangential to this thread.*) The point is that it's very hard for teams who don't pay their dues and take their lumps as whipping boys to ever become champions, because the one upside of being todays whipping boy is that it brings the best opportunities to become tomorrows champions. Teams that fixate on 9-7 or 10-6 may never have to worry about being 2-14, but they also may never exult in being 14-2. No one WANTS to be 2-14, but some consider suffering through that for a couple seaons a cheap price for a decade of playoff appearances and a couple rings. Others can live with long championship or even playoff droughts as long as the team languishes in anonymity rather than outright ignominy. It's not really fair to suggest either view is disloyal; they're both very loyal, but simply emphasize different priorities.

As someone who grew up in TX in the '80s, I definitely have my own preference. There were two teams in TX then, as now, but which was better depends entirely on whether one takes a long term championship perspective or a short term season record perspective. Dallas was 7-8 in 1987, 3-13 the following year, then they were sold, their iconic (and until then only) coach was fired and they went 1-15. Houston made the playoffs all three years, as well as each of the next four, while Warren Moon shattered League passing records. Here's what most people remember today about those two teams during that era:

Houston blew a 32 point playoff lead against Buffalo and Dallas won back to back Super Bowls; NOT that Dallas was 54-55 while Houston was 70-39.

Seriously, I'm a big fan of both teams and I wouldn't believe those records if I hadn't just looked them up and done the math. Ask the 15-1 '98 Vikings or the 16-0 '07 Patriots how much people care about a great regular season record with lots of wins; unless you win the big one it just makes you a choking laughingstock. Plenty of people bought shirts commemorating the Pats historic '07 season, but none of them were NE fans. ;) The Bears managed an undefeated regular season, not once, but TWICE within a decade (1934 and 1942), but that's chiefly memorable now because they lost the Championship both times.

But let's bring it a little closer to home: The year after Dallas' last Super Bowl the 1996 Denver Broncos finished 13-3, tied with Green Bay for the Leagues best record and assured homefield advantage throughout the playoffs--where a second year expansion team shocked them with a first round loss. The following year Denver was 12-4 and a wildcard team forced to go on the road against Pitt and KC before beating Green Bay in the Super Bowl. Which season do you remember more often and more fondly?

Nobody's rooting against the Broncos, but just as some people think drafting a QB instead of the RB we "must have" is tantamount to sabotage while others insist it's the other way around, some people think sucking it up and enduring a few seasons of double digit losses is better for the team long run than sitting at 8-8 and watching the post season perpetually. Pat Bowlen may be among them; he fired a guy who had a total of TWO losing seasons in 14 years (and one of those was 7-9), whose predecessors record was 16-16.

I get and even sympathize with a lot of the GENERAL logic, though 1-1 is a BIT too early to give up on the 2011 season; if/when we hit 9 losses I'll be thrilled to see that number mount ever higher, but until then I want to win every game we play and hope that means "until early February." I do NOT in any sense subscribe to the "we need to lose all our games and draft Andrew Luck because two QBs drafted in the first round aren't enough to save our team; we still need an All American QB at punter" madness. First we HAD to have Tebow, then we HAD to have Newton, now we HAVE to have Luck. Because if we draft enough HoF QBs the fact our ONE good CB and safety are in their mid-thirties, we can't stop the run up the gut, we have horribly inconsistent blocking and we lack an every down back will just magically go away. Sorry, I'm too old to drink Kool Aid. :tongue:





*But I'll do it anyway 'cos that's my thing, and in this case it needs to be said: When a team has a top three pick they're ALL positions of need; take the best available (non-special teams) athlete because

1) He's likely THE best available athlete,

2) You can use him immediately; all your players awful,

3) He's not an expensive banged up band-aid who'll retire next year, forcing you to re-solve the same problem and

4) Unless you're willing to go 2-14 for five years straight, you may not get another top three pick until this years rookie is in the Hall of Fame.

Once a team drops out of the top ten draft picks (i.e. is no longer one of the ten worst teams) need begins to become the priority because

1) You don't need a seventh Pro Bowl safety,

2) THE best available athlete will be long gone before you pick, along with the runners up; unless the draft is full of Hall of Famers you probably won't get one,

3) You're no longer doing a total rebuild, you're looking for the final pieces of the championship puzzle, which means

4) That expensive free agent with the long medical report/rap sheet still might leave you with the same problem next year--but if he gets you a Lombardi this year you won't care. Neil Smith was only a Bronco for three years, but they were the three best years in team history.

[silkamilkamonico]

You need a franchise QB to win. Look around the league. The best QB's in the NFL are ripping apart the best defenses in the NFL. What is building a great defense going to do when Aaron Rodgers, Drew Brees, Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, Phillip Rivers, etc, are going to shred it anyways?

[Joel]

You need a franchise QB to win. Look around the league. The best QB's in the NFL are ripping apart the best defenses in the NFL. What is building a great defense going to do when Aaron Rodgers, Drew Brees, Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, Phillip Rivers, etc, are going to shred it anyways?
Define "franchise QB." If you mean a reliable starting quality player, yes, but that's true of most positions; it's just more obvious at QB. If you mean a Pro Bowl calibre QB, I disagree; it helps, but it's never been essential and, even as pass happy as the NFL is now, still isn't. You can still win championships with a merely average to slightly above average QB as long as the rest of the team is championship quality. For the record, I don't think Brees or Rivers are all that great (and apparently there's not even a unanimous consensus among the Saints and Chargers since they basically swapped them.) Brees doesn't have to be stellar because he has a good team around him (though their secondary is still questionable, IMHO) and the Chargers haven't been the same since the Pats beat them out for a trip to the SB. Tomlinson's gone, Gates is gone, Jamal Willliams is gone; give them three or four years and they'll be where we are.

*returns from tangent*
Anyway, yes, a Manning or Brady (I need more than one really solid season from Rodgers to put him in that group) instantly make a team very dangerous, but if they have three guys in their face at the snap they'll still be lucky to go 6-10. Or if their backs are so slow and fragile they have to throw on every down. Or if all the guys they're throwing TO are built like Flipper (to be fair to Rivers, Gates was pretty much all he had until the last couple years.) Or if they cut their punt returner because they never get a chance to use him. If they're SOLID at all those other points a team can win with a QB whose primary duty is "don't screw up and don't choke;" Ben Roethlisberger and Mark Sanchez get down on their knees every night and thank God for that fact. Is Eli Manning really better than Tom Brady, or did the Giants just have a brutal pass rush and David "Human Stickum" Tyree? Was Trent Dilfer a franchise QB, or just along for the ride? Matt Hasselbeck and Rex Grossman aren't exactly perennial Pro Bowlers, but their teams won Conference Championships even if they didn't win Super Bowls. That's just in the modern era; I'm conceding things are different now than in the days of guys like Jim McMahon, Doug Williams or Phil Simms (there, I said it; he's forgotten more about riding great Giant defenses to titles than Eli Manning will ever know.)

I'm not saying any monkey can do it; depending on the QB he'll call anywhere from "many" (Roethlisberger) to "virtually all" (Brady and Manning) plays, and read the defenses before and after every snap, each of which will be to him when he barks the right word. He's the most important SINGLE player on the offense--but if all his fellow starters are great they can drag a mediocre or better QB to a championship, and have. More importantly, if all his fellow starters are garbage it doesn't matter how good the QB is; when the Raiders were giving up 70+ sacks how much do you think a Brady or Manning would've improved their 2-14 record? 4-12? 6-10? That's about as high as I'd go.

In Denvers particular case we have SO many other hole where plugging in the top athlete in next years draft would immediately improve us a lot, and we already have TWO first round QBs riding our bench; I want to see them for at least four or five games before deciding we're wasting money and roster space on them and drafting the next Ryan Leaf. At this point, Denver's spent enough first day picks on QBs, OTs, DEs to last me quite a while; we're at least five years overdue for some high picks on Gs and DTs, and a good MLB to be the quarterback of our 4-3 wouldn't hurt either (I suspect Miller may end up there, but I consider a good backup MLB as important to a 4-3 as a good backup QB is to the offense.) Then there's our secondary in this passing League, which consists of the very young, the very old and/or the very untalented. There are a lot of places we could go, and if we're drafting so highly Luck is even an option I'll almost always want the best available athlete simply because top draft picks are rare, painfully obtained, and proof positive that WHOEVER'S the best available athlete is someone who'll immediately and significantly improve your team. If you KNOW you're looking at a Steve Atwater or Shannon Sharpe on draft day the ONLY reason to pass on him for a "position of need" is because you're already stacked at his position. I can't think of many positions on the Broncos roster where that's the case, so if we're drafting highly I want the best guy out there; if that's a QB, fine, but I'd have to be VERY sure of that, because it would use up that pick and leave me shopping QBs no one wants to other teams, without helping a bit with the teams many many other gaping holes.

[DenBronx]

not reading all of that.

[Lancane]

Define "franchise QB." If you mean a reliable starting quality player, yes, but that's true of most positions; it's just more obvious at QB. If you mean a Pro Bowl calibre QB, I disagree; it helps, but it's never been essential and, even as pass happy as the NFL is now, still isn't. You can still win championships with a merely average to slightly above average QB as long as the rest of the team is championship quality.

Actually, your not entirely wrong...but far from correct. Those few teams you're referring to, which did not have a franchise quarterback are so few in number in the modern era that they can be counted on one hand, that's an absolute fact. Which consists of the 87' Redskins, 00' Ravens and 02' Buccaneers, we could add the 91' Redskins but Mark Rypien was a 2-time Pro Bowl selection, and the 85' Bears could be added to that list as well, except Jim McMahon for all his short comings was also a 1-time Pro Bowl selection. I guess the 83' Raiders should likewise be on that list. Other then that, every other team to win the Super Bowl had franchise capable quarterbacks most of whom were multiple Pro-Bowlers and All-Pros; were talking Joe Montana, Joe Theissman, Phil Simms, Troy Aikman, Steve Young, Kurt Warner, John Elway, Brett Favre, Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, Ben Roethlisberger, Aaron Rodgers, Drew Brees, even Eli Manning, all of whom are considered franchise quarterbacks. Granted there are some who haven't won it, such as Phillip Rivers, but it's been pretty much proven beyond a doubt that those with franchise quarterbacks are more likely to succeed then those without.

[Joel]

Actually, your not entirely wrong...but far from correct. Those few teams you're referring to, which did not have a franchise quarterback are so few in number in the modern era that they can be counted on one hand, that's an absolute fact. Which consists of the 87' Redskins, 00' Ravens and 02' Buccaneers, we could add the 91' Redskins but Mark Rypien was a 2-time Pro Bowl selection, and the 85' Bears could be added to that list as well, except Jim McMahon for all his short comings was also a 1-time Pro Bowl selection. I guess the 83' Raiders should likewise be on that list. Other then that, every other team to win the Super Bowl had franchise capable quarterbacks most of whom were multiple Pro-Bowlers and All-Pros; were talking Joe Montana, Joe Theissman, Phil Simms, Troy Aikman, Steve Young, Kurt Warner, John Elway, Brett Favre, Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, Ben Roethlisberger, Aaron Rodgers, Drew Brees, even Eli Manning, all of whom are considered franchise quarterbacks. Granted there are some who haven't won it, such as Phillip Rivers, but it's been pretty much proven beyond a doubt that those with franchise quarterbacks are more likely to succeed then those without.
Well, yeah, I conceded it's easier with a franchise QB than without one; it's easier to win with an elite player at a given position in any sport than without one. What I dispute is that "you need a franchise QB to win", that you CANNOT win without one and (at least the implication) that you WILL win with one. Maybe I'm reading too much in with that last part, but Tarkenton, Kelly, Marino and Moon can tell you a great QB isn't enough, sometimes even if with a good team.

After going from "must get Tebow" to "must get Newton" and now to "must get Luck" I've gotten a little jaded about the topic and started to wonder which amateur star we'll HAVE to get next year to avoid inescapable doom. :tongue: It's just one guy, folks, out of 11; he's not even on the field for half the game. Sure a great QB helps a lot, just like a great WR or RB or LB, but unless he's exceptionally good/bad he's not going to make or break the team. I'd rather have Elam in his prime than Prater, too, but don't lie awake nights worrying about it. ;)

I think I'm setting the bar for a franchise QB higher though, so that might be part of it; I DO agree you do have to a QB who's not a net DETRIMENT to the team. A lot of the guys you list qualify as mediocre to slightly above average, not only to me, but according to their career passer ratings. Have a look:

Marino 86.4
Kelly 84.4
Moon 80.9
Tarkenton 80.2
Roethlisberger 79. 4
Rypien 78.9
Simms 78.5
McMahon 78.2
Theismann 77.4

The top four are all in the HoF despite never winning a Super Bowls (Marino only played in one, which is still one more than Moon.) The bottom five all won Super Bowls but are not in the HoF (though Simms and Theismann will likely end up there at some point if only because their media careers keep them visible, and Ben has a good shot IF he doesn't collapse.)

If we drop McMahon, whose lone PRO BOWL appearance was even a result of being in the right place at the right time, we're left with 4 HoFers and 4 non-HoFers who each made 9 Super Bowls; all the HoFers lost every time--but have significantly higher career passer ratings than the guys who won (two of whom beat them in those games.) That's a pretty strong argument you don't need a franchise QB to win; Simms and Rypien beat Kelly in Super Bowls and Simms beat Elway in another, but I'm not even sure he would say he was better than either HoFer. Theismann presaged Simms in being an OK QB who rode a great D (not to mention offensive line, running back, receiver and cornerback) to glory, and first Doug Williams (whose 69.4 passer rating I think we can officially call, "subpar," despite his SB win) then Mark Rypien were his heir in that respect as well as the more obvious one. They were good enough rather than very good, but you can win like that IF you have a great team around you, and provided you don't have the misfortune Tarkenton and Kelly did of repeatedly facing some of the all time great teams (seriously, making anyone play the '70s Cowboys just to GET to the '70s Steelers is cruel even before throwing in the Dolphins coming off their perfect season.)

[Cugel]

I think the only time I actually ROOTED for Denver to lose, was last season so that we could get McDaniels out of here as soon as possible. It actually hurt me to root against my team, but after we would lose, I would feel a little smile creeping across my lips as I would think to myself "**** you, mcdickhead."
I felt exactly the same, so you're not alone. The losses would mount up and it would be humiliating and depressing. But, at least I knew McMoron was one game closer to being FIRED!

And nothing good could happen to the Broncos with him around, so the sooner they fired him the better. Hence, losing = long term good.

BUT Fox is NOT guaranteed to lose. He's got a chance to build a VERY GOOD TEAM if he's given the chance.

It's definitely not exciting football, but playing sound run defense and running the ball effectively IS how you win the NFL. (Unless you have Tom Brady or Aaron Rogers or Peyton Manning and then you can pass your way to a SB championship).

This team was utterly destroyed by McMoron. Now we see what a LONG TERM rebuilding job there is ahead.

But, that doesn't mean they should start Tebow!

You have to TRY and win every game. You can't just give up on the season. Losing 2 seasons in a row automatically means you are the Cleveland Browns, the OLD Lions (when Matt Millen was their GM) and, yes, the Bengals and probably now the Chiefs.

LOSING TEAMS. Losing breeds losing. And once a losing mentality is instilled in a team it's VERY HARD to get rid of it as those losing franchises can all attest.

Guys start looking over their shoulders when thing start to go wrong and they get down, thinking "here we go again."

Just as winning clubs think they're going to win every game and just go out and play expecting good things to happen, losing teams start EXPECTING to lose.

And privately the players are thinking "I may not tell anybody, but I'm calling my agent to see if I can get out of here" or "I may talk about 'teamwork' but really I'm putting on a SALARY DRIVE because who knows if I'll be around here next year, so I better pad my stats for my resume."

Starting Tebow when he's not the best QB on your roster right now is a very dangerous game. That's how a team gets ingrained into losing.

Now come week 10 if Orton is tanking and the team is tanking, it will be a different story! But, not until then!

[NightTerror218]

Fans want the best for their team; they rarely all agree completely on what that is. In this case it's a matter of perspective, in a number of ways. I don't want to "suck for Luck," because there's (at least) one Ryan Leaf for every Peyton Manning, and even people who scout for a living have trouble telling them apart until they've been in the pros 2-3 years. Folks in Tampa thought Vinny Testaverde hung the moon when he was at Miami; by the end of his rookie NFL season they were putting up their OWN billboards claiming he was color blind and demanding he leave town yesterday. It's a well known risk with college stars, but worst for QBs, largely because of fans convinced their team is ONLY 5-11 because the QB sucks, and equally CERTAIN a Pro Bowl QB will lead them to a Super Bowl. That's an ignorantly irrational attitude I don't waste time debating; I can only take solace in the knowledge NFL owners rarely entrust important decisions to people who think like that (it happens though; sometimes they even misplace confidence in someone so unworthy of ANY kind of trust that they'll try to trade a Pro Bowl QB behind his back, then lie to his face when he asks about it after someone ELSE tells him. :tsk:)

As to the larger question, it depends whether one thinks a decade of 9-7 good or bad. Most Detroit fans would probably say, "good," but it could be argued Detroits eager aspiration to mediocrity explains why they've only won a single playoff game in the past half century (with apologies to Bobby Layne. ;)) Fans who know their team will (or already HAS) take(n) more than its fair share of lumps this year naturally seek a silver lining to exploit in subsequent seasons, and high draft picks are the quintessential NFL example. As long as the Broncos have a statistical chance at the playoffs, and thus a statistical chance at a ring, I'll want them to win but, frankly, I don't expect that to be true very long this year. The INSTANT SB XLVI becomes unattainable my goal will become SB XLVII (and, ideally, others as well), not finishing at .500. At that point winning more games will become an active impediment to that larger and (IMHO) greater goal. Winning the final regular season game won't make me feel any better about a 6-10 finish; I'll feel worse, because it will mean NOTHING more or less than lower 2012 draft picks, which do NOT help the team and are therefore undesirable. Of course, a high draft pick doesn't guarantee a Hall of Famer, because the first pick can be and often is a bust. Yet that's at least as likely with the thirty-second pick; the difference is that the team with the top pick isn't rolling the dice on a couple dozen other teams' leftovers--and the team with the last pick is the defending Super Bowl Champion. ;)

The reality of professional sports with drafts, particularly those with salary caps, is that team talent generally goes in cycles. Very good teams have very bad draft picks, and very little surplus money for great free agents, because great players have already claimed much of their payroll. Very bad teams "earn" very good and very desperately needed draft picks, and usually have more money for free agents, because demanding huge contracts would get most of their players cut. Most teams, at any given time, fall somewhere in between, and winning championships has a lot to do with accurately diagnosing ones location and direction in that cycle (but the best way to move forward is a bit tangential to this thread.*) The point is that it's very hard for teams who don't pay their dues and take their lumps as whipping boys to ever become champions, because the one upside of being todays whipping boy is that it brings the best opportunities to become tomorrows champions. Teams that fixate on 9-7 or 10-6 may never have to worry about being 2-14, but they also may never exult in being 14-2. No one WANTS to be 2-14, but some consider suffering through that for a couple seaons a cheap price for a decade of playoff appearances and a couple rings. Others can live with long championship or even playoff droughts as long as the team languishes in anonymity rather than outright ignominy. It's not really fair to suggest either view is disloyal; they're both very loyal, but simply emphasize different priorities.

As someone who grew up in TX in the '80s, I definitely have my own preference. There were two teams in TX then, as now, but which was better depends entirely on whether one takes a long term championship perspective or a short term season record perspective. Dallas was 7-8 in 1987, 3-13 the following year, then they were sold, their iconic (and until then only) coach was fired and they went 1-15. Houston made the playoffs all three years, as well as each of the next four, while Warren Moon shattered League passing records. Here's what most people remember today about those two teams during that era:

Houston blew a 32 point playoff lead against Buffalo and Dallas won back to back Super Bowls; NOT that Dallas was 54-55 while Houston was 70-39.

Seriously, I'm a big fan of both teams and I wouldn't believe those records if I hadn't just looked them up and done the math. Ask the 15-1 '98 Vikings or the 16-0 '07 Patriots how much people care about a great regular season record with lots of wins; unless you win the big one it just makes you a choking laughingstock. Plenty of people bought shirts commemorating the Pats historic '07 season, but none of them were NE fans. ;) The Bears managed an undefeated regular season, not once, but TWICE within a decade (1934 and 1942), but that's chiefly memorable now because they lost the Championship both times.

But let's bring it a little closer to home: The year after Dallas' last Super Bowl the 1996 Denver Broncos finished 13-3, tied with Green Bay for the Leagues best record and assured homefield advantage throughout the playoffs--where a second year expansion team shocked them with a first round loss. The following year Denver was 12-4 and a wildcard team forced to go on the road against Pitt and KC before beating Green Bay in the Super Bowl. Which season do you remember more often and more fondly?

Nobody's rooting against the Broncos, but just as some people think drafting a QB instead of the RB we "must have" is tantamount to sabotage while others insist it's the other way around, some people think sucking it up and enduring a few seasons of double digit losses is better for the team long run than sitting at 8-8 and watching the post season perpetually. Pat Bowlen may be among them; he fired a guy who had a total of TWO losing seasons in 14 years (and one of those was 7-9), whose predecessors record was 16-16.

I get and even sympathize with a lot of the GENERAL logic, though 1-1 is a BIT too early to give up on the 2011 season; if/when we hit 9 losses I'll be thrilled to see that number mount ever higher, but until then I want to win every game we play and hope that means "until early February." I do NOT in any sense subscribe to the "we need to lose all our games and draft Andrew Luck because two QBs drafted in the first round aren't enough to save our team; we still need an All American QB at punter" madness. First we HAD to have Tebow, then we HAD to have Newton, now we HAVE to have Luck. Because if we draft enough HoF QBs the fact our ONE good CB and safety are in their mid-thirties, we can't stop the run up the gut, we have horribly inconsistent blocking and we lack an every down back will just magically go away. Sorry, I'm too old to drink Kool Aid. :tongue:





*But I'll do it anyway 'cos that's my thing, and in this case it needs to be said: When a team has a top three pick they're ALL positions of need; take the best available (non-special teams) athlete because

1) He's likely THE best available athlete,

2) You can use him immediately; all your players awful,

3) He's not an expensive banged up band-aid who'll retire next year, forcing you to re-solve the same problem and

4) Unless you're willing to go 2-14 for five years straight, you may not get another top three pick until this years rookie is in the Hall of Fame.

Once a team drops out of the top ten draft picks (i.e. is no longer one of the ten worst teams) need begins to become the priority because

1) You don't need a seventh Pro Bowl safety,

2) THE best available athlete will be long gone before you pick, along with the runners up; unless the draft is full of Hall of Famers you probably won't get one,

3) You're no longer doing a total rebuild, you're looking for the final pieces of the championship puzzle, which means

4) That expensive free agent with the long medical report/rap sheet still might leave you with the same problem next year--but if he gets you a Lombardi this year you won't care. Neil Smith was only a Bronco for three years, but they were the three best years in team history.

ok....seriously simmer down. Your post are too long to read. I dont ever try.

[silkamilkamonico]

Define "franchise QB."

A franchise QB is one who leads your team, runs the system to dictate the defense, can play well in clutch moments, your team responds too, and dictates the tempo of the game. A 'reliable starting player" is hardly a franchise QB. The NFl is loaded with those kind of players at the QB position and all they are are stop gaps for the team actually looking for a franchise QB.

I honestly believe your argument takes a huge hit when you claimed Drew Brees or Phillip Rivers, who are both arguably top 5 QB's in the NFL, "not all that great". Phillip Rivers is one of the few active QB's who has a winning playoff record, with no help to Tomlinson who was utterly garbage in the playoffs in his time at SD.

You can win with a great offense and bad defense. You cannot win with a great defense and bad offense.

You know what's overrated in the NFL today? Defense. Is anyone playing defense in today's NFL? I am struggling to find defenses who can consistently hold teams under 25 points.

Aaron Rodgers absolutely shredded 3 of the top 12 NFL defenses, including the almighty Pittsbugh Steelers (#2 overall defense) and Chicago Bears (#9 overall defense in Chicago) on his way to winning the SuperBowl MVP last year.

Offenses win in todays game, and so do franchise QB's.

[SOCALORADO.]

Joel. Stop typing so much.

SUCK4LUCK

[slim]

Joel. Stop typing so much.

SUCK4LUCK

Yeah, there are a lot of words in this thread.

[Mike]

No need to want your team to suck. Ours just does. I am not rooting against Denver, but I am not pissed when they lose anymore either. Especially if losses expedites the bums ticket to the bench and then out of town.

I am guessing that no way does Denver finish worse than KC, Indy, or Seattle. Come on Seattle, I know you got it in you :pray:.

Denver might be bad enough to draft in the 4-10 range. Any other QBs coming out who are worth it? Who are they comparable to? How do they compare to Luck?

[BroncoJoe]

I'm almost as sick of the Luck talk as I am the Tebow talk.

[Nomad]

I'm almost as sick of the Luck talk as I am the Tebow talk.

It's only gonna get worse especially if the BRONCOS don't win anymore. Though the kid is fun to watch!

BTW, there are some long winded posters here.......fingers must get tired!

[G_Money]

Us long winded folks make sure to stretch properly beforehand and keep to our workout schedule. ;) We have a diligent training regimen.

~G

[silkamilkamonico]

I'm almost as sick of the Luck talk as I am the Tebow talk.

I am sick of this garbage product Denver has put out on the field the last 2+ seasons.

[LTC Pain]

Joel. Stop typing so much.

SUCK4LUCK

Quad! :listen:

[Cugel]

When a team has a top three pick they're ALL positions of need; take the best available (non-special teams) athlete because

1) He's likely THE best available athlete,

2) You can use him immediately; all your players awful,

3) He's not an expensive banged up band-aid who'll retire next year, forcing you to re-solve the same problem and

4) Unless you're willing to go 2-14 for five years straight, you may not get another top three pick until this years rookie is in the Hall of Fame.

Once a team drops out of the top ten draft picks (i.e. is no longer one of the ten worst teams) need begins to become the priority because

1) You don't need a seventh Pro Bowl safety,

2) THE best available athlete will be long gone before you pick, along with the runners up; unless the draft is full of Hall of Famers you probably won't get one,

3) You're no longer doing a total rebuild, you're looking for the final pieces of the championship puzzle, which means

4) That expensive free agent with the long medical report/rap sheet still might leave you with the same problem next year--but if he gets you a Lombardi this year you won't care. Neil Smith was only a Bronco for three years, but they were the three best years in team history.

This post is at least worth responding to.

But, it's not really correct either. There's a draft value by position which the "draft the best player available" philosophy simply ignores. That philosophy was what made Matt Millen a special kind of imbecile. He kept finding that WRs were the "best player available" on his board when he picked and he kept taking them.

And it flat doesn't work!

Identify your positions of need. If it's "all of them" then identify what's HARDEST to find (QB, pass rushing DT, LT, pass rushing DE or OLB, CB, LB, RT, WR, TE, G, C, S, RB, K/P roughly in that order).

Because you're competing against other teams in the draft, so what matters is not just how good the player you're drafting is, but when OTHER teams are likely to draft him. You don't just go best player first, you have to have an idea whether other teams are likely to take a player in the first, second or third.

If a guy is a consensus 3rd rounder you want to take him in the 3rd if at all possible, and don't REACH for a player just because he's top on your board and you want to "get your guy."

That kind of stupidity is how McMoron made so many blunders in the draft. He didn't care if he threw draft picks away and lost value on trades just as long as "he got his guy."

What he failed to realize is that there's probably another guy just as likely to succeed at that or another position of need. So, he passed up Brian Orakpo and Clay Matthews in order to get "his guys" -- Moreno and Ayers. He threw draft picks away in stupid trades because he just HAD to have Tim Tebow -- despite the fact that Tebow was a 2nd round prospect and there were other QBs he could have gotten to develop either that year or the next.

So, who you draft is heavily influenced by who other teams are likely to draft and when.

And it's especially influenced by how hard it is to find a player in the draft. There are fewer dominant DTs than LBs because there are fewer guys 6'6" and 290 who are fast and athletic than guys who are 6'2" 245 who are fast and athletic.

Thus, it's smart to take a DT or a pass rushing DE over a LB if you need both because DTs normally are taken higher. The exception of course is if you play a 3-4 when pass-rushing OLB is a higher value pick than DE, (but not NT).

[Nomad]

I'm almost as sick of the Luck talk as I am the Tebow talk.

Listening to Les & JoJo and they're playing clips from a JE interview, I wonder what the 'suck for Luck' crowd here thinks when Elway says they're not true BRONCO fans.

[BroncoJoe]

Listening to Les & JoJo and they're playing clips from a JE interview, I wonder what the 'suck for Luck' crowd here thinks when Elway says they're not true BRONCO fans.

I heard that and LOL'd.

John's a smart man.

[Hawaii73]

Thats what we are doing. Yes it's going to be a long road but just think, we get to watch it develop and form into the winning team we all know we can be. Just have a little faith and patience. Let it develop. All teams go through hard times, I mean look at Dallas. When you think of it that way, we aren't so bad off lol

[SOCALORADO.]

I heard that and LOL'd.

John's a smart man.

Smart enough to know Luck is the future in DEN. :D

[elsid13]

No need to want your team to suck. Ours just does. I am not rooting against Denver, but I am not pissed when they lose anymore either. Especially if losses expedites the bums ticket to the bench and then out of town.

I am guessing that no way does Denver finish worse than KC, Indy, or Seattle. Come on Seattle, I know you got it in you :pray:.

Denver might be bad enough to draft in the 4-10 range. Any other QBs coming out who are worth it? Who are they comparable to? How do they compare to Luck?

Luck is heads and shoulders above the other top two QB prospects - Jones and Barkley. Luck doesn't have Elway's or Cutler physical gifts as QB, (in Matt Ryan arm strength range), but he has great feet/mobility in the pocket makes quick decision and throws very accurate short and middle zone ball.

Jones is very much a Kevin Kolb clone. Above average arm, ok feet and benefits from playing in spread offense.

Barkley is a stronger arm Matt Hassaback (sp?). Good WCO QB, with mobility out of the pocket and quick release.

There are number of other QBs in this class that have strong opportunity to be starting NFL QB for 10 plus years. Most will be available in the early second round.

[SOCALORADO.]

Luck is heads and shoulders above the other top two QB prospects - Jones and Barkley. Luck doesn't have Elway's or Cutler physical gifts as QB, (in Matt Ryan arm strength range), but he has great feet/mobility in the pocket makes quick decision and throws very accurate short and middle zone ball.

Jones is very much a Kevin Kolb clone. Above average arm, ok feet and benefits from playing in spread offense.

Barkley is a stronger arm Matt Hassaback (sp?). Good WCO QB, with mobility out of the pocket and quick release.

There are number of other QBs in this class that have strong opportunity to be starting NFL QB for 10 plus years. Most will be available in the early second round.


I would say all 3 have cannons, big time NFL arms, and can make any throw.
Luck and Barkley also can throw excellent touch balls, and are both extremely lethal pocket passers.
Landry Jones has the smoothest throwing motion of them all.
Luck and Barkley can also scamble, and are good throwing on the run.
They all benefit from a pro-style offense at their respective schools, and can run any kind of offense.
Honestly, i have no doubt all 3 will be gone by pick #6.

[NightTerror218]

Smart enough to know Luck is the future in DEN. :D

I think that win just knocked us out of the running. Unless we lose to KC twice.

Seattle/KC/Indy will prob take Luck.

[elsid13]

I would say all 3 have cannons, big time NFL arms, and can make any throw.
Luck and Barkley also can throw excellent touch balls, and are both extremely lethal pocket passers.
Landry Jones has the smoothest throwing motion of them all.
Luck and Barkley can also scamble, and are good throwing on the run.
They all benefit from a pro-style offense at their respective schools, and can run any kind of offense.
Honestly, i have no doubt all 3 will be gone by pick #6.

They are all very good QBs, but I wouldn't claim any of them have elite arm strength (like Cutler). The QB with strongest arm is most like Tannehill out of TAMU for this class. Tannehill is another player that will get some attention as the year goes along.

[Lancane]

Well, yeah, I conceded it's easier with a franchise QB than without one; it's easier to win with an elite player at a given position in any sport than without one. What I dispute is that "you need a franchise QB to win", that you CANNOT win without one and (at least the implication) that you WILL win with one. Maybe I'm reading too much in with that last part, but Tarkenton, Kelly, Marino and Moon can tell you a great QB isn't enough, sometimes even if with a good team.

Can it be done? Sure, a team can win the Super Bowl without a franchise capable quarterback, but as you said what is a franchise quarterback; to me, a franchise quarterback doesn't have to be elite, but they have to be able to lead a team no matter the odds, and can even step it up for the team and try to carry them to victory, even if it's on his shoulders alone...for he never says die, never surrenders...sort to speak.

But, here's another fact Joel, no team without a franchise quarterback has ever won back to back Super Bowls, heck, few ever return to the Super Bowl.

[/QUOTE]After going from "must get Tebow" to "must get Newton" and now to "must get Luck" I've gotten a little jaded about the topic and started to wonder which amateur star we'll HAVE to get next year to avoid inescapable doom. :tongue: It's just one guy, folks, out of 11; he's not even on the field for half the game. Sure a great QB helps a lot, just like a great WR or RB or LB, but unless he's exceptionally good/bad he's not going to make or break the team. I'd rather have Elam in his prime than Prater, too, but don't lie awake nights worrying about it. ;)[/QUOTE]

A lot of people never wanted Tebow, so that's a complete misconception...most Bronco fans were cursing the pick, as for me...it made sense knowing McDaniels' neurotic, erratic ways. Bowlen wanted a franchise quarterback, I think that McDaniels drafted him to save his job, to appease the owner, believing that he could turn him into an NFL quarterback. As for Cam Newton, I don't remember one fan wanting him, maybe one or two...but not to this level, where you have fans behind drafting Luck, some wanting Luck but also would be happy with Jones, then others cool with Barkley. The entire fan base is ready to be rid of Orton, the majority is split some wanting to give Tebow a chance, the other ready to draft someone.


I think I'm setting the bar for a franchise QB higher though, so that might be part of it; I DO agree you do have to a QB who's not a net DETRIMENT to the team. A lot of the guys you list qualify as mediocre to slightly above average, not only to me, but according to their career passer ratings. Have a look:

Marino 86.4
Kelly 84.4
Moon 80.9
Tarkenton 80.2
Roethlisberger 79. 4
Rypien 78.9
Simms 78.5
McMahon 78.2
Theismann 77.4

The top four are all in the HoF despite never winning a Super Bowls (Marino only played in one, which is still one more than Moon.) The bottom five all won Super Bowls but are not in the HoF (though Simms and Theismann will likely end up there at some point if only because their media careers keep them visible, and Ben has a good shot IF he doesn't collapse.)

If we drop McMahon, whose lone PRO BOWL appearance was even a result of being in the right place at the right time, we're left with 4 HoFers and 4 non-HoFers who each made 9 Super Bowls; all the HoFers lost every time--but have significantly higher career passer ratings than the guys who won (two of whom beat them in those games.) That's a pretty strong argument you don't need a franchise QB to win; Simms and Rypien beat Kelly in Super Bowls and Simms beat Elway in another, but I'm not even sure he would say he was better than either HoFer. Theismann presaged Simms in being an OK QB who rode a great D (not to mention offensive line, running back, receiver and cornerback) to glory, and first Doug Williams (whose 69.4 passer rating I think we can officially call, "subpar," despite his SB win) then Mark Rypien were his heir in that respect as well as the more obvious one. They were good enough rather than very good, but you can win like that IF you have a great team around you, and provided you don't have the misfortune Tarkenton and Kelly did of repeatedly facing some of the all time great teams (seriously, making anyone play the '70s Cowboys just to GET to the '70s Steelers is cruel even before throwing in the Dolphins coming off their perfect season.)

Not really Joel, because there is a difference between a franchise quarterback and an elitist. What is an elitist to begin with? It's someone who's very play revolutionized the game itself or their given position. How many elite players has Denver had? I myself would say six...John Elway, Shannon Sharpe, Steve Atwater, Randy Gradishar, Terrell Davis and Champ Bailey. They're not just great players, they're continual All-Pros' who revolutionized football with their presence alone. Now, who are the elite quarterbacks of the NFL now? I would say that at this time there are three, Phillip Rivers, Tom Brady and Peyton Manning. Rivers being on there, he's really the next Marino, but when you have a front office that believes in letting talent go and that the quarterback can do it all, then that's what you see for players such as them...the same with Moon, they may have some talent around them...but not great talent.

I look back on teams like Parcell's Giants who had good franchise quarterbacks, the thing is that they had elite players on their roster in a few places, the Giants had Lawrence Taylor, Leonard Marshall, Mark Bavaro and Joe Morris not to mention a few other key pieces.

Heck, look at the 97' & 98' Broncos, can you tell me how many Pro-Bowlers and All-Pro's made up that team? How many were considered elite or possible elite? Go look at the accolades for those who made up those two squads, I think you'll be surprised by the number of All-Pro's and Pro-Bowlers which made up those two championship teams - they were formed to win, and to win it all.

And I happen to disagree with a lot of the fan base, I think we're closer to the promise land then people yet realize, but we're missing only a few key pieces, one of which is a franchise capable quarterback. IMHO if we get a franchise capable quarterback with the receivers we have, add another solid guard or center, fix the scheme we utilize on the offensive line then the offense is ready, defensively I still say that we should add a defensive end, kick Ayers inside to the defensive tackle position, add another solid corner and we're already better then we are now. I truly believe the major key piece in all this is a franchise capable quarterback or an elite, right now if we could draft someone, other then Jones or Luck...or trade for Phillip Rivers, I would say trade the pick for Rivers, because a player like Phillip Rivers, Luck or even Jones added on a squad with the pieces we have in place, the team is already a favorite to win and win big.

[Lancane]

They are all very good QBs, but I wouldn't claim any of them have elite arm strength (like Cutler). The QB with strongest arm is most like Tannehill out of TAMU for this class. Tannehill is another player that will get some attention as the year goes along.

Tannehill doesn't have elite arm strength like Cutler...I don't know where you heard that, but they lied to you. Tannehill doesn't have a bad arm, he's closer to Foles and Barkley in arm strength and more of a game manager like those two, maybe closer to Cousins or Luck, but he doesn't have a better arm then Jones or Lindley, those two have the bigger arms in this class, Lindley is more on par with Cutler though. And having that sort of arm really doesn't matter, when you look at this class and see who can throw down field and spread the field, I think we could say that there are a number of quarterbacks with the capability, but it has more to do with every aspect of the position and their overall abilities which make the difference. I don't think Tannehill is a bad quarterback and he could well make a case to be drafted higher then he's graded now, but I don't see him as having elitist abilities.

[chazoe60]

I'm a little sick of the fan police. There's an interesting debate going on at the other joint asking the question "would you root for a loss if it meant a QB change?" and of course anyone who dare say anything close to "yes I would" is being branded a non-fan.

Well the way I look at it is I want whatever will help this team win a SB the fastest to happen. I happen to believe you need a FQB to win a SB, we do not currently have a FQB, that we know of. Orton is a bottom third of the league QB and is incapable of raking this team anywhere near the SB ever. Tebow is a complete unknown. Those that say he'll never be able to play in the NFL didn't catch the last three games last season. Those that think he's destined to be the best QB ever need to get their heads out of the clouds and take into consideration that he can't even beat out a shitty QB like Orton

The long term health of this franchise is not aided one iotta by starting Orton. The only reason he's in there IMO is because the Coaching staff can't go into the season acknowledging that we have no shot this season. Once we're out of the playoff race we'll see some mix of Quinn and Tebow. So sue me if part of me wishes that inevitable situation would come about sooner rather than later, and thus giving us a longer look at a couple guys who actually have a snowball's chance in Hell of being on our team next season.

I look at it like this: hich situation would you choose?

A. Orton starts all season and we go 5-11 with Orton doing just enough to keep his inclutch ass off the bench.

B. We go 5-11 with Quinn or Tebow taking over at some point early in the season and despite our poor record he shows great promise and gives us hope that we have our FQB and we can draft a DT in round 1 instead of going another roumd on the QB carousel.

C. We go 2-14 with Quinn and Tebow taking over for Orton with plenty of games to evaluate and both prove to be shit. We draft a FQB hopeful and try to develope him.

I know what I'd pick. I'd pick it in this order B, C.............................A


Scenario A is a complete disaster. The other two at a minimum nudge us in a logical direction going forward. Scenario A leaves us in a lurch, no better off than we are right now.

I'm not going to apologize for wanting what's best for this franchise in the long term.

[Nomad]

No fan police here, I was just wondering what the 'suck for Luck' crowd thought of Elway's comments.

Fans can do what the hell they want regardless of what others say even the GOAT. But if they feel guilty about it then they must not a confident in their wants & actions as they say.

Luck will not be a BRONCOS......you can bank on it because the BRONCOS will not suck as bad as KC or Indy or Sea!

[chazoe60]

No fan police here, I was just wondering what the 'suck for Luck' crowd thought of Elway's comments.

Fans can do what the hell they want regardless of what others say even the GOAT. But if they feel guilty about it then they must not a confident in their wants & actions as they say.

Luck will not be a BRONCOS......you can bank on it because the BRONCOS will not suck as bad as KC or Indy or Sea!

I'm not actively rooting fpr the broncos to lose but I'd be lying if I told you that at the end of the year I wouldn't be happier picking 1st than 6th. That's all I'm saying.

Also I agree those teams are worse than us but you also have to look at our schedule, it is brutal. I would not be surprised if we were not favored again all season except for KC at home.

[Nomad]

I'm not actively rooting fpr the broncos to lose but I'd be lying if I told you that at the end of the year I wouldn't be happier picking 1st than 6th. That's all I'm saying.

Also I agree those teams are worse than us but you also have to look at our schedule, it is brutal. I would not be surprised if we were not favored again all season except for KC at home.

I agree chaz! It's hard to see a win until we play KC in Denver.....some wins are in that schedule I just don't know where.

Anyway, Elway set the precedent as far as what BRONCO fans are when it comes to the fans wanting to lose to draft Luck....he said they're not BRONCO fans. Elway is the most respected man with the BRONCOS and for him to say that must make some fans think twice about booing a win or wanting to 'suck for Luck'.

[Agent of Orange]

Part of the problem is how people decide who is a franchise QB. People like pretending that the QB is the sole factor in determining winning and losing. And so when some teams win SBs, you have a lot of dumbasses (in the media and otherwise) suddenly wanting to reverse-engineer a QB into being an elite QB...again, based solely on the fact that he played on a team that won the SB.

There were a lot of people saying Eli Manning was fringe elite when the Giants won the SB. In the time sense, those people have quieted. The problem is though, they keep doing this with other QBs. I'm not so sure Ben Roethlisberger is an elite QB, not in the same sense that the real elite QBs are. The Steelers defense is consistently one of the best and often is the best (or best two). This allows games to remain close and Roethlisberger to win games by making plays in isolated spots. It works for Pittsburgh. But he doesnt do the same thing the elite QBs do. Yet, many would insist on making him elite since he has two SB rings.

[chazoe60]

I agree chaz! It's hard to see a win until we play KC in Denver.....some wins are in that schedule I just don't know where.

Anyway, Elway set the precedent as far as what BRONCO fans are when it comes to the fans wanting to lose to draft Luck....he said they're not BRONCO fans. Elway is the most respected man with the BRONCOS and for him to say that must make some fans think twice about booing a win or wanting to 'suck for Luck'.

Elway has to say that, he's a representative of the team. I guarantee you if the number one pick comes down to the last game of the season and we win and pick second, there will be some shit broken in Elway's office.

[Agent of Orange]

I'm not actively rooting fpr the broncos to lose but I'd be lying if I told you that at the end of the year I wouldn't be happier picking 1st than 6th. That's all I'm saying.

Also I agree those teams are worse than us but you also have to look at our schedule, it is brutal. I would not be surprised if we were not favored again all season except for KC at home.

If we go 2-14, we'll have an excellent chance at the #1 pick. People keep talking about how much worse other teams are like there's no way they'll win. People need to remember that the NFL season is a long grind with a lot of highs and lows for most teams. Only one team in history has ever gone 0-16.

[MileHiLife]

First off, the odds we'll finish below the Chiefs are appearing very low at this early stage to land that coveted "Lucky" number 1 pick.

Lets not "root" to embarrass ourselves anymore than we have already post Shanna-han era.

Go Broncos!

[Lancane]

Part of the problem is how people decide who is a franchise QB. People like pretending that the QB is the sole factor in determining winning and losing. And so when some teams win SBs, you have a lot of dumbasses (in the media and otherwise) suddenly wanting to reverse-engineer a QB into being an elite QB...again, based solely on the fact that he played on a team that won the SB.

There were a lot of people saying Eli Manning was fringe elite when the Giants won the SB. In the time sense, those people have quieted. The problem is though, they keep doing this with other QBs. I'm not so sure Ben Roethlisberger is an elite QB, not in the same sense that the real elite QBs are. The Steelers defense is consistently one of the best and often is the best (or best two). This allows games to remain close and Roethlisberger to win games by making plays in isolated spots. It works for Pittsburgh. But he doesnt do the same thing the elite QBs do. Yet, many would insist on making him elite since he has two SB rings.

First and foremost is to decipher the difference between franchise capable, a franchise quarterback and an elite quarterback. Franchise capable in my opinion is someone with the intangibles to be a franchise quarterback, that really depends of course, some have crashed and burned, but others have picked up those mantles and have run with it. A franchise quarterback not only has the tangibles, but they can lead when the team is in need, they can pick up those around them, put them on his shoulders and do whatever it takes to try and win the game. Elite quarterbacks are the ones who do that and more, they make a team better simply by their presence, they can do things which boggle the mind and make a team better mostly by themselves, they're the ones who revolutionize the position.

If I was going to give the elite title to any quarterbacks of the modern era, it would be Joe Montana, John Elway, Brett Favre, Peyton Manning, Drew Brees, Jim Kelly, Tom Brady, Phillip Rivers and Dan Marino.

Those I would label as franchise quarterbacks, those who could lead and at times carry their respective teams but not alone would be Troy Aikman, Randall Cunningham, Ben Roethlisberger, Dan Fouts, Phil Simms, Boomer Esiason, Bernie Kosar, Joe Theissman, Ken Anderson, Steve Young, Joe Flacco, Matt Ryan, Aaron Rodgers, Ken O'Brien, Jim Everett, Warren Moon, Tony Romo, Drew Bledsoe, Matt Schaub and Donovan McNabb.

The franchise capable would be Bill Kenney, Matthew Stafford, Tommy Kramer, Jay Cutler, Steve Bartkowski, Sam Bradford, Danny White, Eli Manning, Lynn Dickey, Ron Jaworski, Matt Hasselbeck, Neil Lomax, Michael Vick, Mark Sanchez, Josh Freeman and Kevin Kolb.

Even the franchise capable are better on average then most in the league, whether or not they become franchise quarterbacks is up to them and what they do in such a role. When you look at Kenney, Bartowski, Kramer, Dickey, Jaworski and Lomax, they had the tangibles to be franchise quarterbacks, but never really crossed into that mantle like Fouts, Cunningham, Moon, Bledsoe, Everett, Kosar, Anderson and so on. I think the difference is apparent, but I think we all can agree that we'd take almost anyone on any three lists over Orton...that's how you know, that's what we see - because the difference in talent is apparent.

[Agent of Orange]

First and foremost is to decipher the difference between franchise capable, a franchise quarterback and an elite quarterback. Franchise capable in my opinion is someone with the intangibles to be a franchise quarterback, that really depends of course, some have crashed and burned, but others have picked up those mantles and have run with it. A franchise quarterback not only has the tangibles, but they can lead when the team is in need, they can pick up those around them, put them on his shoulders and do whatever it takes to try and win the game. Elite quarterbacks are the ones who do that and more, they make a team better simply by their presence, they can do things which boggle the mind and make a team better mostly by themselves, they're the ones who revolutionize the position.

If I was going to give the elite title to any quarterbacks of the modern era, it would be Joe Montana, John Elway, Brett Favre, Peyton Manning, Drew Brees, Jim Kelly, Tom Brady, Phillip Rivers and Dan Marino.

Those I would label as franchise quarterbacks, those who could lead and at times carry their respective teams but not alone would be Troy Aikman, Randall Cunningham, Ben Roethlisberger, Dan Fouts, Phil Simms, Boomer Esiason, Bernie Kosar, Joe Theissman, Ken Anderson, Steve Young, Joe Flacco, Matt Ryan, Aaron Rodgers, Ken O'Brien, Jim Everett, Warren Moon, Tony Romo, Drew Bledsoe, Matt Schaub and Donovan McNabb.

The franchise capable would be Bill Kenney, Matthew Stafford, Tommy Kramer, Jay Cutler, Steve Bartkowski, Sam Bradford, Danny White, Eli Manning, Lynn Dickey, Ron Jaworski, Matt Hasselbeck, Neil Lomax, Michael Vick, Mark Sanchez, Josh Freeman and Kevin Kolb.

Even the franchise capable are better on average then most in the league, whether or not they become franchise quarterbacks is up to them and what they do in such a role. When you look at Kenney, Bartowski, Kramer, Dickey, Jaworski and Lomax, they had the tangibles to be franchise quarterbacks, but never really crossed into that mantle like Fouts, Cunningham, Moon, Bledsoe, Everett, Kosar, Anderson and so on. I think the difference is apparent, but I think we all can agree that we'd take almost anyone on any three lists over Orton...that's how you know, that's what we see - because the difference in talent is apparent.

Im not going to go into who I think was elite in the 90s. But I think there was more quality at QB in the 90s than there has been this most recent decade. I think a lot is skewed because the QBs this decade have all been propped up by a lot of ridiculous rules changes. Everyone and their brother threw for over 300 yards in week 1. Brady has 500 yards in week 1. Does the media mention one word, which should be obvious, that it's a lot easier to pass now? No, the media totally ignores this out of fear it will somehow challenge the greatness of Brady.

Having said that, this is who I would consider to be elite now: Brees, Manning, Brady, Rodgers, Rivers. Thats it. Over the past couple of years, you could make a case for each of them being better than the other 4. You really cant say that about any other QBs in the league.

[Ravage!!!]

Yes.. they mention all the time that this is a PASSING league that is define by rules the BENEFIT the passer. EVERY Sunday we hear this. EVERY Sunday we hear that the NFL is about the elite passers, and getting TO the passer. Why? Because the rules are made for the offense. Time and time and time its mentioned.

[Lancane]

Im not going to go into who I think was elite in the 90s. But I think there was more quality at QB in the 90s than there has been this most recent decade. I think a lot is skewed because the QBs this decade have all been propped up by a lot of ridiculous rules changes. Everyone and their brother threw for over 300 yards in week 1. Brady has 500 yards in week 1. Does the media mention one word, which should be obvious, that it's a lot easier to pass now? No, the media totally ignores this out of fear it will somehow challenge the greatness of Brady.

Having said that, this is who I would consider to be elite now: Brees, Manning, Brady, Rodgers, Rivers. Thats it. Over the past couple of years, you could make a case for each of them being better than the other 4. You really cant say that about any other QBs in the league.

Agreed, but sadly Orton doesn't even belong on the list of franchise capable, he's so mediocre it's sad and it's evident, I think that's what makes it even sadder, anyone who watches him play can see the difference between him and the likes of Jay Cutler or Matthew Stafford both of whom I consider franchise capable thus far, even Matt Ryan or Aaron Rodgers who are themselves franchise quarterbacks.

Alex Smith looked better then him last year, look at how good Andy Dalton looked compared to Orton...I just don't see how people can not see beyond his empty stats that Kyle is so mediocre it gives mediocrity a bad rap!

[Agent of Orange]

Agreed, but sadly Orton doesn't even belong on the list of franchise capable, he's so mediocre it's sad and it's evident, I think that's what makes it even sadder, anyone who watches him play can see the difference between him and the likes of Jay Cutler or Matthew Stafford both of whom I consider franchise capable thus far, even Matt Ryan or Aaron Rodgers who are themselves franchise quarterbacks.

Alex Smith looked better then him last year, look at how good Andy Dalton looked compared to Orton...I just don't see how people can not see beyond his empty stats that Kyle is so mediocre it gives mediocrity a bad rap!

The annoying thing is all the other midling ex-QBs like Jim Miller who have jobs in the media that defend this turd. It makes you realize that there are entirely too many QBs announcing games and employed as analysts.

[MOtorboat]

The annoying thing is all the other midling ex-QBs like Jim Miller who have jobs in the media that defend this turd. It makes you realize that there are entirely too many QBs announcing games and employed as analysts.

You're right. People who post on internet message boards are clearly more intelligent and insightful than those who have played quarterback in the NFL.

It's preposterous, frankly, that networks don't hire random fans like you to call games, after all, they are smarter then people who have played the game at the highest level.

[jhildebrand]

The same people who bash Tebow are usually the same people promoting the suck for luck idea. Hypocritical much?

[Lancane]

You're right. People who post on internet message boards are clearly more intelligent and insightful than those who have played quarterback in the NFL.

It's preposterous, frankly, that networks don't hire random fans like you to call games, after all, they are smarter then people who have played the game at the highest level.

I wouldn't go that far, but it's absurd that you so readily believe someone simply because they've been a quarterback in this league. Just look at how many former NFL players become good coaches or personnel guys in the league...oh wait, that's right, they mostly fail and that's pretty much become a fact - there are few, very few exceptions. So why is that? I guess that it's a fluke that they can not succeed beyond playing, or maybe just maybe what I've been saying all along holds more weight then you want to admit, and that is that there is a difference between playing, coaching and evaluating talent. Some can learn, of that I am sure...but it's rare that they can cross into that other area of expertise. Look at Chavous, he's become a draftnik of some repute, but he even said it was something he was interested in before he did it full-time but that it's not as easy as people believe.

[tubby]

http://chzallnighter.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/party-fails-lets-hope-thats-pudding.jpg

[Lancane]

The same people who bash Tebow are usually the same people promoting the suck for luck idea. Hypocritical much?

Jhil, I don't find it hypocritical, especially when you think about it carefully. I am not on either bandwagon... I don't believe any team should lose for a better draft pick, however I can grasp why some fans may wish for it to happen - they simply don't have faith in Tebow, but believe that another quarterback is a better option, and wish for us to draft the best one...so how is that hypocritical?

I believe we'll draft a quarterback in the first round, if we are in position to do so...but if we're not then I suspect we'll go in a different direction. I don't have faith in Tebow even though there is a lot about Tim that I do like, I just am not sure he's the answer at the quarterback position. I don't believe we'll be in reach of Luck though, that's why I think Landry Jones will be the pick. But as to what you stated, that bashing Tebow or questioning him is comparable to some wanting us to fail for a better quarterback really has nothing to do with one another.

[randyschwimmer7]

Yes, I admit it, I am that guy that would love to see the Broncos add 4 wins, and get into the playoffs. Because, guess what dude, thats called an improvement. That would mean that EFX has this team on the right track. So forgive me for hoping that the team can win now, and that we are miles away from being in a position to draft Luck next year.

And just for clarifications sake, if we draft Luck next year great! But you will never hear me wish for a loss, or count a season over (especially after one game) just to cheer and be happy that we get to draft #1 overall. LAME

An improvement of 4 games won't get us in the playoffs fella.

Give me Andrew Luck and a decade or more of consitent competitiveness over 6 wins this season and I'll do backflips. You go ahead and take 6 wins and call everyone else lame but some of us can see the big picture.

The last paragraph says it all for me. To win 6 games and be the 7 pick in the draft is stupid. Andrew Luck IS JOHN ELWAY 2.0, and you can mark my words right now. He will be to Denver, what Manning is to Indy. Win 2 more games and we get the beat consolidation prize since Peyton Manning was drafted.

And finally for anyone that wants say I am not a true fan, you can kiss my a$$. I have two Broncos tattoos and I know everyone on the teams position, number and spot on the depth chart. Being a true fan of a team means that you stick through thick and thin. What better a consolidation prize of sticking by your team, then being able to hear commissioner Godell say with the first pick of the 2012 NFL draft the Denver Broncos select a man that is going to win them 3 more super bowls, ANDREW LUCK.

[SOCALORADO.]

The last paragraph says it all for me. To win 6 games and be the 7 pick in the draft is stupid. Andrew Luck IS JOHN ELWAY 2.0, and you can mark my words right now. He will be to Denver, what Manning is to Indy. Win 2 more games and we get the beat consolidation prize since Peyton Manning was drafted.

And finally for anyone that wants say I am not a true fan, you can kiss my a$$. I have two Broncos tattoos and I know everyone on the teams position, number and spot on the depth chart. Being a true fan of a team means that you stick through thick and thin. What better a consolidation prize of sticking by your team, then being able to hear commissioner Godell say with the first pick of the 2012 NFL draft the Denver Broncos select a man that is going to win them 3 more super bowls, ANDREW LUCK.

Relax, Randall. Luck will be a Bronco. I have no doubts whatsoever in Elway.

[Mike]

So here is the remaining schedule:

@TEN
@GB
SD
@Mia
Det
@Oak
@KC
NYJ
@SD
@Min
Chi
NE
@Buf
KC

The only game (singular) that I am counting on as a win is the KC game in Denver. The game in KC is winnable, but it is KC in the winter where Denver usually plays bad. They could beat Miami, but the game is in Miami where Denver regularly sucks and Miami seems to have Denver's number anyway. They could beat Minnesota, but I am having visions of Peterson running for 250. I am just having difficulty seeing more than 2-3 more wins on that schedule.

While KC/Sea/Indy have to be the favorites right now, Denver will very much in the hunt for the worst record.

[SOCALORADO.]

So here is the remaining schedule:

@TEN
@GB
SD
@Mia
Det
@Oak
@KC
NYJ
@SD
@Min
Chi
NE
@Buf
KC

The only game (singular) that I am counting on as a win is the KC game in Denver. The game in KC is winnable, but it is KC in the winter where Denver usually plays bad. They could beat Miami, but the game is in Miami where Denver regularly sucks and Miami seems to have Denver's number anyway. They could beat Minnesota, but I am having visions of Peterson running for 250. I am just having difficulty seeing more than 2-3 more wins on that schedule.

While KC/Sea/Indy have to be the favorites right now, Denver will very much in the hunt for the worst record.

Yeah, that schedule is brutal. I have no idea how anyone thought this team was gonna have a bunch of wins. Whats crazy is that last game could be the deciding factor in where DEN ends up.
I see 9 straight losses comin DENs way starting this weekend. Possibly 13.

[CoachChaz]

The last paragraph says it all for me. To win 6 games and be the 7 pick in the draft is stupid. Andrew Luck IS JOHN ELWAY 2.0, and you can mark my words right now. He will be to Denver, what Manning is to Indy. Win 2 more games and we get the beat consolidation prize since Peyton Manning was drafted.

And finally for anyone that wants say I am not a true fan, you can kiss my a$$. I have two Broncos tattoos and I know everyone on the teams position, number and spot on the depth chart. Being a true fan of a team means that you stick through thick and thin. What better a consolidation prize of sticking by your team, then being able to hear commissioner Godell say with the first pick of the 2012 NFL draft the Denver Broncos select a man that is going to win them 3 more super bowls, ANDREW LUCK.

The only part of this post that I have a hard time with. Getting really sick of the lame crystal ball predictions. He's rated higher than Manning was...but if I recall, many had Leaf rated higher than Manning, so that means nothing.

Let the kid get drafted and then we'll see what happens.

[Mike]

Yeah, that schedule is brutal. I have no idea how anyone thought this team was gonna have a bunch of wins. Whats crazy is that last game could be the deciding factor in where DEN ends up.
I see 9 straight losses comin DENs way starting this weekend. Possibly 13.

Can you imagine Denver and KC being tied for the worst record going into the final game? That game would be epic. :lol:

[CoachChaz]

Can you imagine Denver and KC being tied for the worst record going into the final game? That game would be epic. :lol:

And if Denver is wise...they'll trade the top pick to an NFC team drooling for Luck and get more picks.

[SOCALORADO.]

The only part of this post that I have a hard time with. Getting really sick of the lame crystal ball predictions. He's rated higher than Manning was...but if I recall, many had Leaf rated higher than Manning, so that means nothing.

Let the kid get drafted and then we'll see what happens.

I dont recall "many" having Leaf rated higher than Manning. :lol:
I recall...a few. Just a few.

[SOCALORADO.]

and if denver is wise...they'll trade the top pick to an nfc team drooling for luck and get more picks.

suck4luck

[CoachChaz]

I dont recall "many" having Leaf rated higher than Manning. :lol:
I recall...a few. Just a few.

Sorry to hear about your memory loss

[CoachChaz]

suck4luck

Good "luck". One QB will not fix the problems we have any time soon

[BroncoJoe]

Sorry to hear about your memory loss

It, at the time, was considered a coin-flip between the two.

[SOCALORADO.]

Sorry to hear about your memory loss

Keep hampster wheeling your little exaggerations ! :lol:

[SOCALORADO.]

Good "luck". One QB will not fix the problems we have any time soon

No kidding, its the start to fixing the immense problems.
And since DEN doesnt have a "QB", they need one. :welcome:

[Slick]

I'm sorry man. I really am.

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

[CoachChaz]

No kidding, its the start to fixing the immense problems.
And since DEN doesnt have a "QB", they need one. :welcome:

They do....but without a better OL, better receivers, a better D and a serviceable RB, he'll be useless. Sorry if I refuse to get in line to be the next to kneel before The Savior so I can have a taste of his manhood, but one very good college QB is not the answer. Too many people are infatuated with Mr. Luck. He has become the new Tebow around here and it's borderline ridiculous. Yes, he's a good QB, but he is not perfect and is not the ONLY good QB that will be available. Denver would be better served to try and fix as many problems as possible. If we can add a starter at another position and a QB later, we'll be in a better situation. I refuse to hope my team "sucks" for the purpose of drafting a good QB. It would serve the team better to do as well as we can so we can better assess our immediate needs. The top pick can be turned into 2 Pro-Bowl players if handled right and Denver needs more distributed talent more than they need the best QB in the draft.

[SOCALORADO.]

They do....but without a better OL, better receivers, a better D and a serviceable RB, he'll be useless. Sorry if I refuse to get in line to be the next to kneel before The Savior so I can have a taste of his manhood, but one very good college QB is not the answer. Too many people are infatuated with Mr. Luck. He has become the new Tebow around here and it's borderline ridiculous. Yes, he's a good QB, but he is not perfect and is not the ONLY good QB that will be available. Denver would be better served to try and fix as many problems as possible. If we can add a starter at another position and a QB later, we'll be in a better situation. I refuse to hope my team "sucks" for the purpose of drafting a good QB. It would serve the team better to do as well as we can so we can better assess our immediate needs. The top pick can be turned into 2 Pro-Bowl players if handled right and Denver needs more distributed talent more than they need the best QB in the draft.


I disagree. I feel a team in rebuild should first and foremost begin the rebuild with a true, elite, franchise QB. Period. And what better prospect to aquire than one who is considered by "many" to be the most highly rated, most talented, physically athletic, mentally mature QB coming out of college since Peyton.


Also, i dont know if you noticed but i personally dropped a line to the Pac 12 and let them know i felt it was OK if they allowed your no talent, assclown TT turdburglers to come over for a routine beat down in my conference.
I figured you guys would be a nice scrimmage warm up for the season, and since you guys cant seem to find a home, no suprise there, i allowed it.
This way, we teach you guys some football fundamentals and as a bonus your women can mate with us if we feel so inclined!:D
J/K!

[Northman]

Stephen Garcia FTW.....

[Ravage!!!]

The QB is the place ANY franchise woudl START to build if they were a brand new team in the league. Why is it any different if we are a team that needs a TON of players??

We pretty much need EVERYTHING. Thanks to McDoosh, we are void of any true talent across the board. He completely removed any and all we had on the offense.

So knowing we are pretty void across the team, why would we think we need to start somewhere different than any brand-new franchise would?

They would start with QB, LT, DE, Safety, Center, and MLB... probably in that order. With today's NFL, you might throw a stud TE/WR into that mix.

But ANYONE, given the choice, would start with the QB first. We should be no different.

[SOCALORADO.]

Stephen Garcia FTW.....

The "Ryan Leaf" of college football!

[CoachChaz]

I disagree. I feel a team in rebuild should first and foremost begin the rebuild with a true, elite, franchise QB. Period. And what better prospect to aquire than one who is considered by "many" to be the most highly rated, most talented, physically athletic, mentally mature QB coming out of college since Peyton.


Also, i dont know if you noticed but i personally dropped a line to the Pac 12 and let them know i felt it was OK if they allowed your no talent, assclown TT turdburglers to come over for a routine beat down in my conference.
I figured you guys would be a nice scrimmage warm up for the season, and since you guys cant seem to find a home, no suprise there, i allowed it.
This way, we teach you guys some football fundamentals and as a bonus your women can mate with us if we feel so inclined!:D
J/K!

That's great, bro. Except... I'm an Aggie and we're heading to THE conference. Sorry.

But feel free to slap Tech around as much as you want.

[CoachChaz]

The QB is the place ANY franchise woudl START to build if they were a brand new team in the league. Why is it any different if we are a team that needs a TON of players??

We pretty much need EVERYTHING. Thanks to McDoosh, we are void of any true talent across the board. He completely removed any and all we had on the offense.

So knowing we are pretty void across the team, why would we think we need to start somewhere different than any brand-new franchise would?

They would start with QB, LT, DE, Safety, Center, and MLB... probably in that order. With today's NFL, you might throw a stud TE/WR into that mix.

But ANYONE, given the choice, would start with the QB first. We should be no different.

I typically would not disagree. But if we can trade back and still add a blue chip QB as well as another piece. I'm all for it

[Northman]

The "Ryan Leaf" of college football!

Could very well be.

But then again he could be the next Tom Brady. :laugh:

[Ravage!!!]

I typically would not disagree. But if we can trade back and still add a blue chip QB as well as another piece. I'm all for it

Ahh.. I see what you are saying.

I'm with you, depending on what we find where we are at in the draft. Although I don't think we can be in position to get Luck, if we are, we don't trade that pick away. Smart QBs with that kind of QBing don't come around twice in a generation. Some of you will call that over-hype, and that's cool....because even though I think he's going to be GREAT, its going to be a rough road early for him BECAUSE of all the hype. For that reason, I feel bad for him already. ITs like Tebow. Those guys didn't ask for people th drool over them, they just simply played the game.

But if we are in a position to get the top three QBs (although I think its too early to give so much hype to the kid from OK)... I think thats something we do instead of trading down as well.

The top teams in the NFL have top QBs. It's not a coincidence. It helps the defense get better when you have a good QB, it helps the OL, it helps the running game, and it obviously helps the scoring. The faster you have that TOP QB, the easier and faster your team gets better. So I'm 100% behind doing whatEVER we can to get a TOP guy. The rest will fall into place MUCh faster once youhave that single piece.

[SOCALORADO.]

That's great, bro. Except... I'm an Aggie and we're heading to THE conference. Sorry.

But feel free to slap Tech around as much as you want.

hAggies...turdburglers. Its all the same beat down to us! :D

[CoachChaz]

Ahh.. I see what you are saying.

I'm with you, depending on what we find where we are at in the draft. Although I don't think we can be in position to get Luck, if we are, we don't trade that pick away. Smart QBs with that kind of QBing don't come around twice in a generation. Some of you will call that over-hype, and that's cool....because even though I think he's going to be GREAT, its going to be a rough road early for him BECAUSE of all the hype. For that reason, I feel bad for him already. ITs like Tebow. Those guys didn't ask for people th drool over them, they just simply played the game.

But if we are in a position to get the top three QBs (although I think its too early to give so much hype to the kid from OK)... I think thats something we do instead of trading down as well.

The top teams in the NFL have top QBs. It's not a coincidence. It helps the defense get better when you have a good QB, it helps the OL, it helps the running game, and it obviously helps the scoring. The faster you have that TOP QB, the easier and faster your team gets better. So I'm 100% behind doing whatEVER we can to get a TOP guy. The rest will fall into place MUCh faster once youhave that single piece.

That's the thing. I think whoever gets the top pick may have a hard time dealing it. The teams in desperate need of a QB could look at Barkley, Jones, Nole, etc...and feel like they are content with one of those guys as opposed to giving up the farm for Luck. That's my same philosophy on trading the #1 spot. Drop back a few spots, still get a stud QB and add another pick or two to add addition al pieces to the puzzle.

It's not like either route is a losing scenario...just a matter of preference.

[chazoe60]

Look at it this way

Even as bad as our team was last year, with a better QB we win the Jax, SF, and second KC games for sure. Just upgrading our QB was at minimum (I say at minimum because I believe there was some other games we'd have won also) worth 3 games.


I also think we'd have won the Jets game amd had a damn good shot at the AZ game also, we were within three points until late when our defense crumbled from exaustion.

QB is the most important position on the field and when you have a bad one, like we do, then the entire team suffers.

[SOCALORADO.]

Look at it this way

Even as bad as our team was last year, with a better QB we win the Jax, SF, and second KC games for sure. Just upgrading our QB was at minimum (I say at minimum because I believe there was some other games we'd have won also) worth 3 games.


I also think we'd have won the Jets game amd had a damn good shot at the AZ game also, we were within three points until late when our defense crumbled from exaustion.

QB is the most important position on the field and when you have a bad one, like we do, then the entire team suffers.

Basically what many understand is that you just cant put a price on a true franchise QB. Its the most important position in all of sports.
And the fact that Luck is the most highly rated, highly accomplished QB with an absolute great IQ, and a great attitiude since Peyton should be a slam dunk in anyones mind. You get Luck and your team is set for 10 years.

[I Eat Staples]

I cheer for the Broncos each and every game, because that's the way I am and the games wouldn't be fun otherwise. But I sure won't be disappointed if we end up with the first overall pick.

[chazoe60]

I cheer for the Broncos each and every game, because that's the way I am and the games wouldn't be fun otherwise. But I sure won't be disappointed if we end up with the first overall pick.

That's pretty much where I'm at. Week to week Go Broncos, but if we're destinedfor a top seven or so pick anyway I hope it's number 1 when its all said and done.

[CoachChaz]

Basically what many understand is that you just cant put a price on a true franchise QB. Its the most important position in all of sports.
And the fact that Luck is the most highly rated, highly accomplished QB with an absolute great IQ, and a great attitiude since Peyton should be a slam dunk in anyones mind. You get Luck and your team is set for 10 years.

Assuming he does well in the NFL. But if we had 2 top picks and got a different QB and another player...it could be better. Example: Would anyone be quite as upset about Ayers if Moreno was a stud? Vice versa? So if Luck turns into Rodgers and Barkley turns into Brees, would you rather Rodgers or Brees AND another starter?

It's ALL assumption and speculation, but there are many variables. That being said...I will NOT be disappointed if we draft Luck. I would rather we see what we may or may not have in Tebow before we focus on QB, but Luck would be nice. I just wouldnt expect him to make a difference for quite a few years until we put a team around him.

[Ravage!!!]

That's the thing. I think whoever gets the top pick may have a hard time dealing it. The teams in desperate need of a QB could look at Barkley, Jones, Nole, etc...and feel like they are content with one of those guys as opposed to giving up the farm for Luck. That's my same philosophy on trading the #1 spot. Drop back a few spots, still get a stud QB and add another pick or two to add addition al pieces to the puzzle.

It's not like either route is a losing scenario...just a matter of preference.

I don't think any team that gets the #1 spot will even be LOOKING to trade it. No one is going to be foolish enough to trade Luck. There is a big big drop off from Luck to the next guy. That, and as a GM you would like like a total dipshit.

[NightTerror218]

I don't think any team that gets the #1 spot will even be LOOKING to trade it. No one is going to be foolish enough to trade Luck. There is a big big drop off from Luck to the next guy. That, and as a GM you would like like a total dipshit.

I dont know about that. A lot of teams have rookies and could stick with them rather then drafting luck. Vikings, Cinci, 49ers, carolina, and titans.

[Ravage!!!]

I dont know about that. A lot of teams have rookies and could stick with them rather then drafting luck. Vikings, Cinci, 49ers, carolina, and titans.

If any of them end up with the #1 overall pick, I will bet money that they don't pass up on Luck. They can then trade their young QB and get that compensation BACk..even better for them.

[CoachChaz]

If any of them end up with the #1 overall pick, I will bet money that they don't pass up on Luck. They can then trade their young QB and get that compensation BACk..even better for them.

So you would draft a QB in the 1st this year...see him be successful (assuming Newton and Dalton keep it up) or not even give him a chance yet...and still draft Luck and trade away what you have for below market value?

And it will be below value because a team is not going to look at you with 2 young QB's and give you a 1st for one of them.

[silkamilkamonico]

So you would draft a QB in the 1st this year...see him be successful (assuming Newton and Dalton keep it up) or not even give him a chance yet...and still draft Luck and trade away what you have for below market value?

And it will be below value because a team is not going to look at you with 2 young QB's and give you a 1st for one of them.

In our consideration, yes. Luck is so far above Tebow from a prospect standpoint I don't think you even hesitate. Hell, Luck is so much better than Newton and Dalton from a grading and prospect analysis you don't question it I don't think.

I don't have much hope for TT. I hated the pick from the start but started to change my tune after last year seeing him play (regardless of his below 50% completion) Ultimately, he has obviously regressed in that Quinn possibly beat him out as a backup.

TT all but had the starting QB position in Denver. They even tried to trade Orton. And then camp comes and TT was closer to losing out to Quinn, than he was beating out Orton.

TT might be able to make plays, but the guy cannot run an offense in a conventional manner than you need to be successful in the NFL.

Below 50% completion percentage? GTFOH

[Ravage!!!]

So you would draft a QB in the 1st this year...see him be successful (assuming Newton and Dalton keep it up) or not even give him a chance yet...and still draft Luck and trade away what you have for below market value?

And it will be below value because a team is not going to look at you with 2 young QB's and give you a 1st for one of them.

With the rookie cap, and a prospect as good as Luck.. YES. If I had Dalton, and had the #1 overall pick where I could take Luck.... yes, I bring both into camp... absolutely.

What makes youthink I would get less than a first round pick for Dalton and Newton? I wouldn't. I would abso-LUTELY get that much back, and probably MORE. So it's hardly 'below' market value.

You would give me a first round pick for a QB if you needed a QB. Why wouldn't you? Why would you think that because I have 2 QBs, that the one YOU need isn't worth trading for instead of me trading to someone else? Thats not how supply and demand works. I have the supply, you have the demand. If you don't want to give up a 1st round pick for the QB, fine. SOmeone else will... and maybe your division rival. You think I'm simply going to drop him and that YOUR team will be the one that can pick him up?

No... what you are saying doesn't make sense.

[NightTerror218]

In our consideration, yes. Luck is so far above Tebow from a prospect standpoint I don't think you even hesitate. Hell, Luck is so much better than Newton and Dalton from a grading and prospect analysis you don't question it I don't think.

I don't have much hope for TT. I hated the pick from the start but started to change my tune after last year seeing him play (regardless of his below 50% completion) Ultimately, he has obviously regressed in that Quinn possibly beat him out as a backup.

TT all but had the starting QB position in Denver. They even tried to trade Orton. And then camp comes and TT was closer to losing out to Quinn, than he was beating out Orton.

TT might be able to make plays, but the guy cannot run an offense in a conventional manner than you need to be successful in the NFL.

Below 50% completion percentage? GTFOH

That was only 3 games. He has 50% if you add in his 1 TD pass to larson. BTW there are other QBs who have below 50% for a game or 2 during the season. Orton barely got above it last week, Bradford had under 50% last night. 1 bad game will skew your results if you count 1 bad game. Tebow had below 50% against the Chargers, who had the #1 defense. Sam Bradford the #1 pick, bounced around all season between 50-60 mostly with a few games in the 70s and 1 in the 40s.

Like I said 3 games is not enough to judge how a player will be. Could be fluke, rookie jitters, or a number or other thinks.

[NightTerror218]

With the rookie cap, and a prospect as good as Luck.. YES. If I had Dalton, and had the #1 overall pick where I could take Luck.... yes, I bring both into camp... absolutely.

What makes youthink I would get less than a first round pick for Dalton and Newton? I wouldn't. I would abso-LUTELY get that much back, and probably MORE. So it's hardly 'below' market value.

You would give me a first round pick for a QB if you needed a QB. Why wouldn't you? Why would you think that because I have 2 QBs, that the one YOU need isn't worth trading for instead of me trading to someone else? Thats not how supply and demand works. I have the supply, you have the demand. If you don't want to give up a 1st round pick for the QB, fine. SOmeone else will... and maybe your division rival. You think I'm simply going to drop him and that YOUR team will be the one that can pick him up?

No... what you are saying doesn't make sense.

I dont think you would get a 1st for either. Most likely a 2nd. 1st rounders only go to play makers and game changers. Hard to risk a 1st rounder on a non-draft pick who is unproven.

[silkamilkamonico]

That was only 3 games. He has 50% if you add in his 1 TD pass to larson. BTW there are other QBs who have below 50% for a game or 2 during the season. Orton barely got above it last week, Bradford had under 50% last night. 1 bad game will skew your results if you count 1 bad game. Tebow had below 50% against the Chargers, who had the #1 defense. Sam Bradford the #1 pick, bounced around all season between 50-60 mostly with a few games in the 70s and 1 in the 40s.

Like I said 3 games is not enough to judge how a player will be. Could be fluke, rookie jitters, or a number or other thinks.

3 games?

The guy can't even complete a simple out route in practice. TT cannot even beat Kyle Orton out, who's probably the 24th best starting QB in the NFL.

[Dreadnought]

I don't think any team that gets the #1 spot will even be LOOKING to trade it. No one is going to be foolish enough to trade Luck. There is a big big drop off from Luck to the next guy. That, and as a GM you would like like a total dipshit.

The way the Texans looked like idiots for not drafting Reggie Bush at #1 and picking Mario Williams instead? I'd take that kind of dipshittery, and it helps illustrate the fact that nobody knows for sure what will happen to draftees - even (perhaps even especially) alleged draft gurus.

[Ravage!!!]

I dont think you would get a 1st for either. Most likely a 2nd. 1st rounders only go to play makers and game changers. Hard to risk a 1st rounder on a non-draft pick who is unproven.

Who's the unproven, Dalton or Newton? Don't teams spend 1st round picks on "unprovens" every draft? If you were a team that had the player on MY roster as a high prospect, and your team still needed a QB... why wouldn't you spend a 1st round pick on the kid that now has 1 year of NFL camp and practices and simply lost his job to Andrew Luck ( not Kyle Orton)?

If you were still in need of a young QB, and you knew I had the QB that you wanted last year... there is no reason you wouldn't be willing to give the same for him THIS year as you would have Last year (unless of course he was injured or came onto the field and looked bad).

[silkamilkamonico]

The way the Texans looked like idiots for not drafting Reggie Bush at #1 and picking Mario Williams instead? I'd take that kind of dipshittery, and it helps illustrate the fact that nobody knows for sure what will happen to draftees - even (perhaps even especially) alleged draft gurus.

Or like the 49ers passed on Aaron Rodgers, who was graded as the best QB in that draft, to draft Alex Smith. Along with the 23 other teams that passed on him. That was dipshittery at an all time high.

[Ravage!!!]

The way the Texans looked like idiots for not drafting Reggie Bush at #1 and picking Mario Williams instead? I'd take that kind of dipshittery, and it helps illustrate the fact that nobody knows for sure what will happen to draftees - even (perhaps even especially) alleged draft gurus.

Yeah..but the difference here is that you are talking about a QB, and a RB. Most GMs will rate an top DE higher in the draft over a top RB. Parcells before the draft said that he would take Mario in a heartbeat over a RB.

Luck is a QB. A QB that has the highest rating of any PLAYER to come out of college since Elway.

Can they be wrong, ABSOLUTELY... of course. But would YOU want to be the GM that passed on the QB that has that kind of rating purely because you have Dalton on your roster as a one year starter?

This kid is not just getting the top rankings of this particular draft class, you guys get that, right?

[NightTerror218]

3 games?

The guy can't even complete a simple out route in practice. TT cannot even beat Kyle Orton out, who's probably the 24th best starting QB in the NFL.

Been at practice a lot? Can complete a simple route? Did you watch the preseason games at all? He out played Orton in those.....with his ARM!

[Ravage!!!]

:lol: preseason :lol:

[silkamilkamonico]

Been at practice a lot? Can complete a simple route? Did you watch the preseason games at all? He out played Orton in those.....with his ARM!

Anyone who followed with training camp, and read the countless reports of "Tebow is one bouncing 7 yard curls", could easily get a jist of just how bad is accuracy was during TC. I would imagine that would have something to do with John Fox bouncing him virtually from the starting QB position down to 3rd on the depth chart behind Brady Quinn.

I cannot believe you argued preseason games. Congratulations on subtly naming Bruce Gradkowski one of the best QB's in the NFL.

[NightTerror218]

Who's the unproven, Dalton or Newton? Don't teams spend 1st round picks on "unprovens" every draft? If you were a team that had the player on MY roster as a high prospect, and your team still needed a QB... why wouldn't you spend a 1st round pick on the kid that now has 1 year of NFL camp and practices and simply lost his job to Andrew Luck ( not Kyle Orton)?

If you were still in need of a young QB, and you knew I had the QB that you wanted last year... there is no reason you wouldn't be willing to give the same for him THIS year as you would have Last year (unless of course he was injured or came onto the field and looked bad).

ALL DRAFT PICKS ARE UNPROVEN untill they get onto the field and earn their pay checks.

jamarcus russell, Ki-Jana Carter, Tony Mandarich, Kelly Stouffer, Andre Ware. All top 10 busts.

There is the label "BUST" for a reason. Not all draft picks make it. That is why they are all unproven. Look at Clausen a high 2nd rounder who looks to be a bust. He was talked about being a 1st rounder for much of off-season.

[Ravage!!!]

ALL DRAFT PICKS ARE UNPROVEN untill they get onto the field and earn their pay checks.

jamarcus russell, Ki-Jana Carter, Tony Mandarich, Kelly Stouffer, Andre Ware. All top 10 busts.

There is the label "BUST" for a reason. Not all draft picks make it. That is why they are all unproven. Look at Clausen a high 2nd rounder who looks to be a bust. He was talked about being a 1st rounder for much of off-season.

Yes.. thats what I just said. All draft picks are unproven, and yet teams used first round picks on them each and every year. How does this prove your point that a team wouldn't use a first round pick to trade for a one year QB on my roster? :confused:

[Dreadnought]

Yeah..but the difference here is that you are talking about a QB, and a RB. Most GMs will rate an top DE higher in the draft over a top RB. Parcells before the draft said that he would take Mario in a heartbeat over a RB.

Luck is a QB. A QB that has the highest rating of any PLAYER to come out of college since Elway.

Can they be wrong, ABSOLUTELY... of course. But would YOU want to be the GM that passed on the QB that has that kind of rating purely because you have Dalton on your roster as a one year starter?

This kid is not just getting the top rankings of this particular draft class, you guys get that, right?

Well, in any event, we might as well look at Plan B. The Broncos will win too many games to be in the running regardless, whether anyone likes it or not. Not saying we'll be good, just that we aren't a 2 or 3 win team, and that's the kind of suckitude it will take at a bare minimum. We aren't really in the running, so best bet is to root for Tebow to get his shot and shock every supposed expert out there, making QB a position of non-need, or for Orton to somehow find his inner Johnny Unitas. I suspect the Tebow scenario is the more likely of two arguably unlikely scenarios.

[NightTerror218]

Anyone who followed with training camp, and read the countless reports of "Tebow is one bouncing 7 yard curls", could easily get a jist of just how bad is accuracy was during TC. I would imagine that would have something to do with John Fox bouncing him virtually from the starting QB position down to 3rd on the depth chart behind Brady Quinn.

I cannot believe you argued preseason games. Congratulations on subtly naming Bruce Gradkowski one of the best QB's in the NFL.

Well you must have read different reports then I have. I read all the ones posted on here. I followed Twitter that had play by play action of every pass they threw during camp. And he is still not the 3rd round QB and I think he would play more then Quinn if Orton goes down.

I never mentioned Bruce. But hey what the hell he could be an upgrade over Orton. He beat us with the raiders.

[NightTerror218]

Yes.. thats what I just said. All draft picks are unproven, and yet teams used first round picks on them each and every year. How does this prove your point that a team wouldn't use a first round pick to trade for a one year QB on my roster? :confused:

Unless they are the 2nd coming of manning. They do not have enough time in the league to show if they can make it or not.

[SOCALORADO.]

Andrew Luck = 2nd coming of Peyton Manning.

SUCK4LUCK.

[NightTerror218]

Andrew Luck = 2nd coming of Peyton Manning.

SUCK4LUCK.

That is quite possible. I think KC has him locked up though. Barkley is going to be a nice Pete Carroll present since he trades up for him. That leaves us with Jones or the 2nd rounders.

[Ravage!!!]

Unless they are the 2nd coming of manning. They do not have enough time in the league to show if they can make it or not.

What are you talking about? I think we are having two different conversations.

You said that no team would spend a 1st round pick on an unproven player. I then countered that by saying, "but teams use 1st round picks on unproven players every year." You then said "ALL DRAFT PICKS ARE UNPROVEN untill they get onto the field and earn their pay checks." To which I responded with.."thats what I just said."

Lets say team A uses a 1st round pick on a QB in last years draft, and the player that team A drafted was a player that team B had high on their draft board.

Now this year, team A finds themselves in a position to draft #1 overall, and they are going to draft Andrew Luck. Are you saying, that the player team B had high on their draft board last year, isn't still a player of interest to them? If they are still in need of a young QB prospect, why wouldn't they spend the first round pick for the kid they had high on their draft board last season, and use it on him this season? Not only was he "unproven" when he was drafted, but now he has 1 year under his belt in the NFL. You saying he lost value purely because he was replaced by a prospect that is considered the best prospect in 20 years?

If we are talking about Dalton and Newton in these examples... you don't think they get enough playing time to prove that their value is worth a 1st round pick? Actually, I have no idea what you are saying.

[Ravage!!!]

I will say that I don't think that Carolina would use the #1 pick on Luck if they were in position to get him. I think they would trade that pick and keep Newton.... but in the long run that will bite them in the ass.

[CoachChaz]

That is quite possible. I think KC has him locked up though. Barkley is going to be a nice Pete Carroll present since he trades up for him. That leaves us with Jones or the 2nd rounders.

Nick Foles!!!!

[SOCALORADO.]

That is quite possible. I think KC has him locked up though. Barkley is going to be a nice Pete Carroll present since he trades up for him. That leaves us with Jones or the 2nd rounders.

Ok, Phil! I think it will be close, but in the end i will not underestimate the master, Elway and his ability to get what he wants. And thats Luck.
Its early, we'll see.

[CoachChaz]

I look at it this way. The Colts have had the 1st version of Manning and have 1 ring to show for it. The Pack has a QB that was blown off by 24 teams, the Pats have a 6th rounder, the Saints have a 2nd rounder that was dumped by his first team, etc.

You dont have to have Manning...or even the 2nd coming of Manning to win a title. If we dont get Luck...I'm not concerned

[CoachChaz]

Ok, Phil! I think it will be close, but in the end i will not underestimate the master, Elway and his ability to get what he wants. And thats Luck.
Its early, we'll see.

Glad you have that much faith in him. I do know that it will piss me off if he gives up multiple picks to get Luck. We need too much to throw picks away for one player

[SOCALORADO.]

Nick Foles!!!!

Wish he didnt play outta the shotgun all damn game.
He needs 2 years of development. Solid pick though, and after Saturdays performance, i think hes moved up into the top of the 2nd round, well ahead of Lindley/Cousins/Moore.

I tell ya, this will be the best QB class since 83.
And knowing this, i just cannot see Elway/Bowlen F'ing this up.
Not after the QB/HC/Player(s) debacle DEN just went through.
I just dont see it.

[chazoe60]

If I had to make a guess today I woukd say Landry Jones becomes the next FQB of this team. I don't think we'll get the #1 pick, hough I think it's possible. I say we pick somewhere like 4 and I think Barkley gets picked before Jones and we end uo with Jones. I would be fine with this scenario BTW.

[CoachChaz]

Wish he didnt play outta the shotgun all damn game.
He needs 2 years of development. Solid pick though, and after Saturdays performance, i think hes moved up into the top of the 2nd round, well ahead of Lindley/Cousins/Moore.

I tell ya, this will be the best QB class since 83.
And knowing this, i just cannot see Elway/Bowlen F'ing this up.
Not after the QB/HC/Player(s) debacle DEN just went through.
I just dont see it.

He is definitely a "project". But what I like about him is he can play with the big boys and be on a bad team and still have his name near the top of the list, yet...he is still raw. Imagine what he could be if he were more polished. In my mind, he has the highest ceiling of all the better QB's coming out.

And considering we are still a few years from contending, he'll have time to develop. However...I see him going in the first. Lot's of teams need QB's. If Ponder went round 1...Foles can too.

[CoachChaz]

If I had to make a guess today I woukd say Landry Jones becomes the next FQB of this team. I don't think we'll get the #1 pick, hough I think it's possible. I say we pick somewhere like 4 and I think Barkley gets picked before Jones and we end uo with Jones. I would be fine with this scenario BTW.

Trade back, get extra picks, draft Foles

[chazoe60]

Trade back, get extra picks, draft Foles

Hey I'm with ya. I like Foles a lot, even made a thread about him. I just don't think that's what will happen. I would be happy with Luck, Jones, Foles, or Moore. With a little more proof I might even like RGIII. So anything that nets us one of those guys will be cool by me.

[SOCALORADO.]

He is definitely a "project". But what I like about him is he can play with the big boys and be on a bad team and still have his name near the top of the list, yet...he is still raw. Imagine what he could be if he were more polished. In my mind, he has the highest ceiling of all the better QB's coming out.

And considering we are still a few years from contending, he'll have time to develop. However...I see him going in the first. Lot's of teams need QB's. If Ponder went round 1...Foles can too.

OH! QFT! How Ponder ever was drafted that high is just beyond me.
Foles is lightyears ahead of Ponder in just physical ability alone.
Foles has a huge arm, is himself huge,(6'5" 240) and hes a b!tch to bring down. If only he played in a pro-style offense.
Watching that game SAT, you could still see the huge difference between the 2. Luck is just a fantastic, well trained, well groomed QB, with all the intangibles.

[BigDaddyBronco]

Wish he didnt play outta the shotgun all damn game.
He needs 2 years of development. Solid pick though, and after Saturdays performance, i think hes moved up into the top of the 2nd round, well ahead of Lindley/Cousins/Moore.

I tell ya, this will be the best QB class since 83.
And knowing this, i just cannot see Elway/Bowlen F'ing this up.
Not after the QB/HC/Player(s) debacle DEN just went through.
I just dont see it.

I need to watch Lindley play some. I have watched most of the others and have the Mtn West network.

[BigDaddyBronco]

OH! QFT! How Ponder ever was drafted that high is just beyond me.
Foles is lightyears ahead of Ponder in just physical ability alone.
Foles has a huge arm, is himself huge,(6'5" 240) and hes a b!tch to bring down. If only he played in a pro-style offense.
Watching that game SAT, you could still see the huge difference between the 2. Luck is just a fantastic, well trained, well groomed QB, with all the intangibles.

Yea, it really sucks that so many QB's play in the shotgun in the spread. Jones didn't look even rometly as good playing under center vs. the shotgun in the Oklahoma-Florida St. game.

Luck and Barkley do play a pro-style offense, they have that going for them.

Foles has a great arm and looks as big as Rapistburger.

[CoachChaz]

I need to watch Lindley play some. I have watched most of the others and have the Mtn West network.

Lindley will put up big yardage numbers, but if he completes more than 55% of his attempts...mark it on the calendar. His accuracy is horrible

[CoachChaz]

OH! QFT! How Ponder ever was drafted that high is just beyond me.
Foles is lightyears ahead of Ponder in just physical ability alone.
Foles has a huge arm, is himself huge,(6'5" 240) and hes a b!tch to bring down. If only he played in a pro-style offense.
Watching that game SAT, you could still see the huge difference between the 2. Luck is just a fantastic, well trained, well groomed QB, with all the intangibles.

I agree...but I think Foles can get there with good coaching

[SOCALORADO.]

I agree...but I think Foles can get there with good coaching

Foles is very much a Ryan Mallet type of QB.

As for Lindley, in his defense, all of his recievers left him this year.
Hes kinda starting over, so i give him a little pass there, but hes always had accuracy issue....
Lindley really is the 4 year, back-up project.
If he goes to the right team, he could end up really, really good down the road.

[silkamilkamonico]

I don't like any young "protege" with our current coaching staff. I simply do not have any faith whatsoever in Mike McCoy, who sadly is our most intellectual offensive mind on staff, to possess any ability whatsoever to actually develop a QB.

[slim]

The last time we had a super intellectual offensive mind on staff, things didn't turn out so well.

Maybe dumbing it down a bit is a good thing.

[silkamilkamonico]

The last time we had a super intellectual offensive mind on staff, things didn't turn out so well.

Maybe dumbing it down a bit is a good thing.

From a developing standpoint, I disagree. Anyone who could turn Kyle f'n Orton into a, dare I say, "field general" of sorts, is ok in my book in terms of developing young talent.

For as bad as we were offensively under McDaniels, it was a problem with running the ball, certainly not with Kyle Orton.

[Northman]

From a developing standpoint, I disagree. Anyone who could turn Kyle f'n Orton into a, dare I say, "field general" of sorts, is ok in my book in terms of developing young talent.

For as bad as we were offensively under McDaniels, it was a problem with running the ball, certainly not with Kyle Orton.

Not entirely true. While the running game had problems (still does) Kyle's ability to complete 3rd downs and keep drives alive was terrible. If you cant keep the chains moving to at the very least spell the defense it is just a blueprint for failure. While Orton may not be the only problem on this team he is certainly a big part of it.

[slim]

From a developing standpoint, I disagree. Anyone who could turn Kyle f'n Orton into a, dare I say, "field general" of sorts, is ok in my book in terms of developing young talent.

For as bad as we were offensively under McDaniels, it was a problem with running the ball, certainly not with Kyle Orton.

From a developmental stanpoint, who is to say that Adam Gase and McCoy will be any less effective than Josh or his little brother (I forget his name)?

Gase hasn't had a chance to prove anything yet (good or bad). And I think the argument can be made that McCoy did a respectable job as the QB coach in Carolina. I mean, Delhomme was not exactly a seasoned vet when Carolina signed him as a FA.

Also, don't forget that McCoy was the QB coach here. So some of Orton's development has to be attributed to him (we can speculate how much).

[silkamilkamonico]

Not entirely true. While the running game had problems (still does) Kyle's ability to complete 3rd downs and keep drives alive was terrible. If you cant keep the chains moving to at the very least spell the defense it is just a blueprint for failure. While Orton may not be the only problem on this team he is certainly a big part of it.

Kyle Orton couldn't complete third downs in Chicago either. We had a top 5 passing attack with Orton. Yes, some of that was attributed to we couldn't run the ball, but none of the less Denver had absolutely no problems moving the ball down the field, something Orton could not do in Chicago. We were a below average offense efficiently with Orton, but that didn't all of a sudden happen when he got to Denver. The proof is there that if there was one thing McDaniels could actually get right, it was getting Orton to be productive in at least some areas of passing.

[silkamilkamonico]

From a developmental stanpoint, who is to say that Adam Gase and McCoy will be any less effective than Josh or his little brother (I forget his name)?

Gase hasn't had a chance to prove anything yet (good or bad). And I think the argument can be made that McCoy did a respectable job as the QB coach in Carolina. I mean, Delhomme was not exactly a seasoned vet when Carolina signed him as a FA.

Also, don't forget that McCoy was the QB coach here. So some of Orton's development has to be attributed to him (we can speculate how much).

Adam Gase and McCoy have developed who? Nobody? If someone doesn't want to give credit to McDaniels for Cassel, that's fine, they cannot do that with Orton.

SO right there is McDaniels/little brother 1, Gase/McCoy 0.

[Jsteve01]

Foles is very much a Ryan Mallet type of QB.

As for Lindley, in his defense, all of his recievers left him this year.
Hes kinda starting over, so i give him a little pass there, but hes always had accuracy issue....
Lindley really is the 4 year, back-up project.
If he goes to the right team, he could end up really, really good down the road.

I don't know what to think about Foles. I was on the bandwagon even a few weeks ago, but then I went back and watched tape and well honestly his arm underwhelmed me. I m not the guy that thinks you must have a cannon to play in the league but I think I just took i for granted that because he was big his arm was too. I don't see it in the film I've seen on him.

[slim]

Adam Gase and McCoy have developed who? Nobody? If someone doesn't want to give credit to McDaniels for Cassel, that's fine, they cannot do that with Orton.

SO right there is McDaniels/little brother 1, Gase/McCoy 0.

Well, McCoy helped develop Delhomme (who was a better QB than Cassel). :noidea:

[silkamilkamonico]

Foles looks good. He does play very conservative in the redzone though, a little too conservative for my liking.

[silkamilkamonico]

Well, McCoy helped develop Delhomme (who was a better QB than Cassel). :noidea:

Delhomme sucks, in 12 years he had 2 fluke seasons. Ever Derek Anderson has had 2 fluke seasons, and in less time of a career.

[slim]

Delhomme sucks, in 12 years he had 2 fluke seasons. Ever Derek Anderson has had 2 fluke seasons, and in less time of a career.

He isn't great, I won't argue that. But he was still a better QB than Cassel will ever be.

[CoachChaz]

Foles looks good. He does play very conservative in the redzone though, a little too conservative for my liking.

Consider the talent he has to work with.

[Slick]

I just can't get my hopes up for any particular player when it comes to the Broncos and drafting.

I wanted Reed instead of Lelie
I wanted Wilfork instead of DJ
I wanted Ray Lewis instead of Mobley

and it goes on and on.

The only guy we ever got that I was actually pulling for was Clady.

[SOCALORADO.]

So if DEN is woefully underprepared to coach a rookie QB that needs work, all the more reason to simply get Luck!
The guy is as pro ready as they come.

[Northman]

Kyle Orton couldn't complete third downs in Chicago either. We had a top 5 passing attack with Orton. Yes, some of that was attributed to we couldn't run the ball, but none of the less Denver had absolutely no problems moving the ball down the field, something Orton could not do in Chicago. We were a below average offense efficiently with Orton, but that didn't all of a sudden happen when he got to Denver. The proof is there that if there was one thing McDaniels could actually get right, it was getting Orton to be productive in at least some areas of passing.


Well, im not sure we agree on what productive is. Did Orton have a lot of padded stats under McD? Definitely. With the lack of running game and the scheme that McD wanted to run his numbers went up dramatically. But our redzone issues were still there at the same time. Its no surprise to me that i saw the Rams offense struggle last night in the redzone and having to settle for FG's. Between the 20's Orton is fine, its getting him to get it into the endzone and able to convert 3rd downs on a regular basis in crunch time that hinder him as a QB.

[BigDaddyBronco]

Lindley will put up big yardage numbers, but if he completes more than 55% of his attempts...mark it on the calendar. His accuracy is horrible

That would scare me away from him for the NFL.

[Jsteve01]

Foles is very much a Ryan Mallet type of QB.

As for Lindley, in his defense, all of his recievers left him this year.
Hes kinda starting over, so i give him a little pass there, but hes always had accuracy issue....
Lindley really is the 4 year, back-up project.
If he goes to the right team, he could end up really, really good down the road.

Mallet was the best "thrower" in the draft last year. Hands down it wasn't even close. I watched tape again on Foles and Im even less impressed than before. He's got a weird almost side arm delivery and plays in an offense that relies heavily on the short passing game.

[CoachChaz]

Mallet was the best "thrower" in the draft last year. Hands down it wasn't even close. I watched tape again on Foles and Im even less impressed than before. He's got a weird almost side arm delivery and plays in an offense that relies heavily on the short passing game.

He's not the top prospect, but I think he has the highest ceiling. I think he can be worked with and developed easily. Plus...he's from Texas. That makes me feel better...

Drew Brees, Matt Stafford, Kevin Kolb, Andy Dalton, Vince Young, Ryan Mallett, Christian Ponder, Colt McCoy, Vince Young, Luke McCown, Caleb Hanie...and a few others.

Then next years class...Andrew Luck, Casey Keenum, Ryan Tannehill and Foles

[SOCALORADO.]

Mallet was the best "thrower" in the draft last year. Hands down it wasn't even close. I watched tape again on Foles and Im even less impressed than before. He's got a weird almost side arm delivery and plays in an offense that relies heavily on the short passing game.

I think thats because hes limited to the plays that are called. Hes always throwing short passes, and hes always moving when he throws.
I've seen him load up, and he has a big arm, he just doesnt get to use it much in that offense.

[SOCALORADO.]

He's not the top prospect, but I think he has the highest ceiling. I think he can be worked with and developed easily. Plus...he's from Texas. That makes me feel better...

Drew Brees, Matt Stafford, Kevin Kolb, Andy Dalton, Vince Young, Ryan Mallett, Christian Ponder, Colt McCoy, Vince Young, Luke McCown, Caleb Hanie...and a few others.

Then next years class...Andrew Luck, Casey Keenum, Ryan Tannehill and Foles

You got VY in there twice, and thats criminal considering your a TA&M guy, but more importantly, your not saying that the QB must be from TEX are you!?!?!?
I mean Tom Brady is from CA, he turned out sorta good.

[slim]

Other than Stafford and Brees, that's really not a very impressive list.

[CoachChaz]

You got VY in there twice, and thats criminal considering your a TA&M guy, but more importantly, your not saying that the QB must be from TEX are you!?!?!?
I mean Tom Brady is from CA, he turned out sorta good.

I'll do 20 push-ups for the VY gaffe. But since most UT fans are Cowboy fans...it's fun seeing VY in an Eagles uniform. It'll also be nice when McGee is eventually the starter for Dallas.

Anyway, no...I'm not saying the QB has to be from TX...but based on players available in the draft and current starters in the NFL...the track record is pretty good.

[CoachChaz]

Other than Stafford and Brees, that's really not a very impressive list.

No, but there are probably 7 guys on there that could start for Denver or quite a few other teams. Kolb and Dalton havent exactly looked bad so far.

[NightTerror218]

Campbell better QB then Orton

http://espn.go.com/blog/afcwest/post/_/id/32501/campbell-takes-over-division-qbr-lead

higher rating. Orton has a 39 out of 100.

[SOCALORADO.]

I'll do 20 push-ups for the VY gaffe. But since most UT fans are Cowboy fans...it's fun seeing VY in an Eagles uniform. It'll also be nice when McGee is eventually the starter for Dallas.

Anyway, no...I'm not saying the QB has to be from TX...but based on players available in the draft and current starters in the NFL...the track record is pretty good.

Gimme me some Luck!

[Jsteve01]

He's not the top prospect, but I think he has the highest ceiling. I think he can be worked with and developed easily. Plus...he's from Texas. That makes me feel better...

Drew Brees, Matt Stafford, Kevin Kolb, Andy Dalton, Vince Young, Ryan Mallett, Christian Ponder, Colt McCoy, Vince Young, Luke McCown, Caleb Hanie...and a few others.

Then next years class...Andrew Luck, Casey Keenum, Ryan Tannehill and Foles

He's another guy that's not coming from a pro style offense and I have not seen any tape on him launching the lazers that people are talking about. I do think that athletically the Mallet comparison is fair. Not fleet of foot at all. Chaz I respect your opinion of the kid. I've only seen a few of his games and watched "highlight" reels on youtube and honestly his highlights didn't inspire much confidence in me that he'll ever be a good pro qb.

[arapaho2]

Campbell better QB then Orton

http://espn.go.com/blog/afcwest/post/_/id/32501/campbell-takes-over-division-qbr-lead

higher rating. Orton has a 39 out of 100.


whats truely sad is orton barely beats cassel....:lol:

but at least he's a great practise qb

[Northman]

Gimme me some Luck!

Denver will need a lot of it in order to get him. :D

[Ravage!!!]

Denver will need a lot of it in order to get him. :D

That, and a lot of Bad luck as well

[SOCALORADO.]

That, and a lot of Bad luck as well

DEN is about to embark on a brutal 9 games until MIN. Then it gets hard again, and they play KC the last game.
I see maybe 2 more wins.
DEN desperately needs INDY and KC to just win 4 games each......

Yeah, DEN needs some seriously bad freakin luck.

[NightTerror218]

DEN is about to embark on a brutal 9 games until MIN. Then it gets hard again, and they play KC the last game.
I see maybe 2 more wins.
DEN desperately needs INDY and KC to just win 4 games each......

Yeah, DEN needs some seriously bad freakin luck.

Mia, Minn, KC x 2, maybe pull off titan game depending on what team shows up. Week 1 or Week 2.

[Shazam!]

Sorry I havent been on in sooo long... been busy at work. Im at work now too but able to connect with my new notebook.

I can TOTALLY understand the logic of hoping they lose. Either A- better chance of seeing Tebow and B-better chance at a QB next Draft.

This team is lucky to be 1-1. The Broncos are not a good team. A whole bunch of other teams wouldve blew the Broncos out last week and Cinci did all they could to lose the game.

KO is just such a mediocre QB he makes Jake Plummer's ability look like a HoFer.

i am sick of the mediocrity and average/below average QB play, I will not harass a fan who thinks they should lose for the good of the franchise in thinking about the future. i personally, want to see Tebow play NOW, to see if Denver has a QB for the future of if they need one in the Draft.

[Lancane]

Sorry I havent been on in sooo long... been busy at work. Im at work now too but able to connect with my new notebook.

I can TOTALLY understand the logic of hoping they lose. Either A- better chance of seeing Tebow and B-better chance at a QB next Draft.

This team is lucky to be 1-1. The Broncos are not a good team. A whole bunch of other teams wouldve blew the Broncos out last week and Cinci did all they could to lose the game.

KO is just such a mediocre QB he makes Jake Plummer's ability look like a HoFer.

i am sick of the mediocrity and average/below average QB play, I will not harass a fan who thinks they should lose for the good of the franchise in thinking about the future. i personally, want to see Tebow play NOW, to see if Denver has a QB for the future of if they need one in the Draft.

Exactly, this team isn't built to win...not yet, and the sooner that fans realize that the sooner they'll come to realize that the fans hoping for a change want to this team to win.

[Slick]

Any bronco fan not living under a rock for the last several years realizes this team isnt built to win now, cane.

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

[Lancane]

Any bronco fan not living under a rock for the last several years realizes this team isnt built to win now, cane.

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

That's very optimistic of you Slick, because it's seems, at least to me that a fair number have crawled out from their rocks and believe otherwise...including the coaching staff and front office.

Granted, anything can happen on any given Sunday...but this is not a collegiate program which can simply beat out superior teams with superior coaching, it's rare that a coach at the pro level is so good that it negates the lack of talent, I would say that Joe Gibbs and John Madden were the two best at that feat. And we seriously have little promise in either category, talent or coaching...and I don't see Fox as a coach who learns from his mistakes, he seems too bullheaded and set in his ways and that sincerely bothers me - so we have to make up for it in talent because if you look at the teams that won championships or were any good with poor coaching their rosters were riddled with great players at different positions.

I'm neither for or against Tebow, but any coach worth his salt would realize the same thing we fans who are not professionals have come to understand and that's that were far from competing and the best way to improve is to get the players we want to develop into the lineup so they get that on the field experience, that's partly why I believe they don't see Tebow as the future quarterback of this team and partly why I believe they'll draft someone next year...I mean hell Slick, we're already hearing talk about extending Orton's contract which makes me absolutely F'n ill to even think about.

If Tebow's the future and they readily believe that then wouldn't it be best to play him in a year that's going to be a wash anyways? Or is it better for him to go through his sophomore hiccups when the team is closer to competing? The way Fox and Elway are going about this is really amateur in my opinion. Either he's the future or he's not, the psychological games with the fans and media don't help with getting the support of the either. And if he's not then make an effort to improve the position, simply don't allow Fox to mandate this team as he did in Carolina where he fielded some horrid offensive units. And should they decide to give Tebow a try and take someone in the latter rounds who may be better then his draft grade, then so be it...I'll support the decision as long as they're looking to improve, that's what I care about. Fox is so conservative offensively that it eventually cost him his job in Carolina and personally I don't want to keep going through the regime carousel.