PDA

View Full Version : Before Tomorrow's Game a Quick Question



BroncoStud
10-22-2011, 05:06 PM
If given the 3 options, which would you choose, TODAY.

chazoe60
10-22-2011, 05:09 PM
If given the 3 options, which would you choose, TODAY.

I'd win the lotto.

SoCalImport
10-22-2011, 05:34 PM
Loaded question

Northman
10-22-2011, 05:38 PM
Based off that poll, Option A: Tebow or Bust.

dogfish
10-22-2011, 05:45 PM
i clicked luck before i saw how many picks you had attached to him . . . . :eek:


after re-reading, you clearly need an option for "none of the above". . .


:laugh:


which ultimately translates to tebow now, with a high probability of drafting someone like jones, foles or barkley next year. . .

i'd take cutler back in a heartbeat if you didn't attach slowick to him-- can i get cutty, shanahan and jim haslett?

MasterShake
10-22-2011, 05:47 PM
Given the options, I'd have to go with Tebow. Jay Cutler pissed me off and that just seems like an alternate reality right now. Andrew Luck means my next 11 sundays are going to be boring and filled with Broncos losses. I'll take Tebow and hope he pans out so we can focus on our other needs in the next draft.

HORSEPOWER 56
10-22-2011, 06:28 PM
I'd much rather have the option of seeing Tebow in live games before making the decision on Luck or whatever. For all we know, Tebow could be great. Wouldn't it be nice to already have our QB of the future, who's also a model citizen and human being, already on the roster so we can fill the holes at other positions?

I wouldn't mind drafting Luck, but giving up our next 2 drafts to get him is just not something you can do on a team that needs more talent elsewhere. If Tebow doesn't play well and we end up with the #3 or 4 pick and the team at the top is willing to deal, go for it. If we end up somewhere between 10-15, and Tebow has shown improvement, it's probably not worth it.

Just like any other QB, Luck will need players around him and a decent defense to help him be successful. I'd rather have 2 first and 2 second round picks than Luck. You can't get too googly-eyed about just the QB position. Put Aaron Rodgers, Drew Brees, Tom Brady, or Phyllis Rivers on this Broncos team, and they are 8-8 TOPS. Luck would be nice to have, but not at the expense of not being able to rebuild at all. I'd rather take the 2nd best QB in the draft and have all my picks than mortgage the whole draft for one guy. Has that ever worked?

That's why I picked Tebow right now. We still have a lot of games to play before the decision on Luck needs to be made.

BroncoAV06
10-22-2011, 06:49 PM
Just like any other QB, Luck will need players around him and a decent defense to help him be successful. I'd rather have 2 first and 2 second round picks than Luck. You can't get too googly-eyed about just the QB position. Put Aaron Rodgers, Drew Brees, Tom Brady, or Phyllis Rivers on this Broncos team, and they are 8-8 TOPS. Luck would be nice to have, but not at the expense of not being able to rebuild at all. I'd rather take the 2nd best QB in the draft and have all my picks than mortgage the whole draft for one guy. Has that ever worked?

Brady 2003 Super Bowl WR
83 Deion Branch
80 Troy Brown PR
87 David Givens
16 Scott McCready
86 David Patten

2004

83 Deion Branch
80 Troy Brown PR
18 Chas Gessner
87 David Givens
10 Michael Jennings
81 Bethel Johnson KR
86 David Patten
14 P. K. Sam R

Brady would have a field day with Decker and healthy wide outs.

Look at what those QBs do. They get everyone involved and make the right passes.

I'll take my chances with an elite QB and this roster any day.

AlWilsonizKING
10-22-2011, 07:09 PM
Brady 2003 Super Bowl WR
83 Deion Branch
80 Troy Brown PR
87 David Givens
16 Scott McCready
86 David Patten

2004

83 Deion Branch
80 Troy Brown PR
18 Chas Gessner
87 David Givens
10 Michael Jennings
81 Bethel Johnson KR
86 David Patten
14 P. K. Sam R

Brady would have a field day with Decker and healthy wide outs.

Look at what those QBs do. They get everyone involved and make the right passes.

I'll take my chances with an elite QB and this roster any day.

It would seem though, that during those years you've posted, you were not allowed to touch Brady or a penalty would be called. If he was playing for the Broncos, you could take his head off and nothing would be called.

Just my .02 there though....:salute:


PEACE!!!

HORSEPOWER 56
10-22-2011, 07:11 PM
Brady 2003 Super Bowl WR
83 Deion Branch
80 Troy Brown PR
87 David Givens
16 Scott McCready
86 David Patten

2004

83 Deion Branch
80 Troy Brown PR
18 Chas Gessner
87 David Givens
10 Michael Jennings
81 Bethel Johnson KR
86 David Patten
14 P. K. Sam R

Brady would have a field day with Decker and healthy wide outs.

Look at what those QBs do. They get everyone involved and make the right passes.

I'll take my chances with an elite QB and this roster any day.

Go on ahead and throw up the defensive rankings for those Superbowl teams and while you're at it, give me Green Bay's from last year, too. The more important names than the guys catching the balls are the guys doing the blocking for Brady. On any given play, he can eat a sandwich and write his wife a letter while he's in the pocket. Any QB can look great with an offensive line that can pass block. Just ask Trent Green when he was in KC. Green couldn't win in the playoffs with Tony Gonzales, Priest Holmes and a dominant offensive line because his defense was atrocious.

Northman
10-22-2011, 07:15 PM
Go on ahead and throw up the defensive rankings for those Superbowl teams and while you're at it, give me Green Bay's from last year, too. The more important names than the guys catching the balls are the guys doing the blocking for Brady. On any given play, he can eat a sandwich and write his wife a letter while he's in the pocket. Any QB can look great with an offensive line that can pass block. Just ask Trent Green when he was in KC. Green couldn't win in the playoffs with Tony Gonzales, Priest Holmes and a dominant offensive line because his defense was atrocious.


Hell, just ask Manning. How many times did the Pats oust the Colts in the playoffs?

BroncoAV06
10-22-2011, 07:23 PM
Go on ahead and throw up the defensive rankings for those Superbowl teams and while you're at it, give me Green Bay's from last year, too. The more important names than the guys catching the balls are the guys doing the blocking for Brady. On any given play, he can eat a sandwich and write his wife a letter while he's in the pocket. Any QB can look great with an offensive line that can pass block. Just ask Trent Green when he was in KC. Green couldn't win in the playoffs with Tony Gonzales, Priest Holmes and a dominant offensive line because his defense was atrocious.

I just put up those rosters to show what he was working with in those years.

You said put them on this team today, I would like my chances of winning more then 8 games with those guys and I think this team is bad but it is a QB league.

I'm not saying we would be Super Bowl champs but elite Qbs give me one and lets roll.

HORSEPOWER 56
10-22-2011, 08:05 PM
I just put up those rosters to show what he was working with in those years.

You said put them on this team today, I would like my chances of winning more then 8 games with those guys and I think this team is bad but it is a QB league.

I'm not saying we would be Super Bowl champs but elite Qbs give me one and lets roll.

We had an elite QB for nearly two decades and nearly went Superbowl-winless until we finally got a coach that realized that a good offensive line, a good RB, and a good defense are a "franchise" QB's best friends.

I don't want to sound like I'm disrespecting Elway because it's not meant to be, but how many QBs couldn't have won a Superbowl with the '97-'98 teams? Dan Marino would've given his left nut to play with those teams for one season. Any top 15 QB could've won with those teams.

BroncoAV06
10-22-2011, 08:48 PM
We had an elite QB for nearly two decades and nearly went Superbowl-winless until we finally got a coach that realized that a good offensive line, a good RB, and a good defense are a "franchise" QB's best friends.

I don't want to sound like I'm disrespecting Elway because it's not meant to be, but how many QBs couldn't have won a Superbowl with the '97-'98 teams? Dan Marino would've given his left nut to play with those teams for one season. Any top 15 QB could've won with those teams.

Yes but you never had to worry about the QB position and he did get you to the Super Bowl 5 times.

BroncoStud
10-22-2011, 08:56 PM
This is pretty simple.

Green Bay with Aaron Rodgers = Super Bowl
Green Bay with Kyle Orton = losing season

An elite QB makes ALL the difference. Only a Super team like the 2000 Ravens or the Bucs a few years later could win with average QB play. Other than that, go back and look, you see a lot of Tom Brady, Big Ben, Aaron Rodgers, Kurt Warner, John Elway, Brett Favre, Steve Young, Troy Aikman, Joe Montana, etc, etc.

In the modern era of passing in the NFL having an elite QB is a necessity, not an option, but a necessity.

sneakers
10-22-2011, 09:07 PM
No option for Orton, but in a practice situation?

MOtorboat
10-22-2011, 09:36 PM
Today, without the benefit of seeing the next 11 games...Luck, even with the picks.

camdisco24
10-22-2011, 09:51 PM
I couldn't make myself pick Luck because I'd be so mad if he ended up being a bust. Knowing the Broncos luck (no pun), we'd have to watch Tebow go win a Superbowl with the Jags or something. I'd rather take a risk on Tebow than take a risk on Luck based on what the poll is asking for as far as picks.

FlyByU
10-22-2011, 10:06 PM
If given the 3 options, which would you choose, TODAY.

I have to go with #1 Tim Tebow, as we are right now

Don't want to get a QB unless we really have to and Tebow has a chance of cementing a starting position here if he wins games so right now answer #1 is right IMO.

gregbroncs
10-22-2011, 10:24 PM
None of the above. Too much to give up for luck rather just get the next best option. This team has too many holes to fill to gamble 4 picks (most likely high picks) for 1 player. We are more than a QB away from being a good team.

BroncoStud
10-23-2011, 12:58 AM
Today, without the benefit of seeing the next 11 games...Luck, even with the picks.

That was my vote as well.

Lancane
10-23-2011, 01:24 AM
Had to vote for Luck, of course I would have voted for Jones had he been included as well.

NameUsedBefore
10-23-2011, 01:28 AM
We had an elite QB for nearly two decades and nearly went Superbowl-winless until we finally got a coach that realized that a good offensive line, a good RB, and a good defense are a "franchise" QB's best friends.

I don't want to sound like I'm disrespecting Elway because it's not meant to be, but how many QBs couldn't have won a Superbowl with the '97-'98 teams? Dan Marino would've given his left nut to play with those teams for one season. Any top 15 QB could've won with those teams.

I think this is a fairly large exaggeration. I'm kinda stilted right now, but I think I can get an argument against this idea.

First, the 1990s were Elway's best years as a QB. Denver didn't just get a solid run-game, Elway himself had matured from a good passer to an excellent one which made up for his declining athleticism.

Second, there's a big difference in the 1997 and '98 squads. The former was by no means an all-world, NFL beater. Denver squeaked past a dominant Chiefs team; then did it again against the Steelers. I think Denver loses the game to the Packers nine times out of ten. The victory was a huge upset and the whole playoff run in general had Elway making serious plays. I don't think "any top 15 QB" could have won with that squad. I think Elway, Favre, Young and maybe Kelly had a shot at it. I am certain Marino would have blown it. Other top QBs of the era were people like Moon, Cunningham and Bledsoe. I don't see any of these QBs making that playoff run.

The 1998 team was pretty stacked, by comparison, and basically steamrolled through everything. I'm think the number of QBs who could win with that team opens up a bit. "Any top 15"? No, not even close. But the Moon's and Cunningham's would certainly make the squad.

Lancane
10-23-2011, 02:54 AM
I think this is a fairly large exaggeration. I'm kinda stilted right now, but I think I can get an argument against this idea.

First, the 1990s were Elway's best years as a QB. Denver didn't just get a solid run-game, Elway himself had matured from a good passer to an excellent one which made up for his declining athleticism.

Second, there's a big difference in the 1997 and '98 squads. The former was by no means an all-world, NFL beater. Denver squeaked past a dominant Chiefs team; then did it again against the Steelers. I think Denver loses the game to the Packers nine times out of ten. The victory was a huge upset and the whole playoff run in general had Elway making serious plays. I don't think "any top 15 QB" could have won with that squad. I think Elway, Favre, Young and maybe Kelly had a shot at it. I am certain Marino would have blown it. Other top QBs of the era were people like Moon, Cunningham and Bledsoe. I don't see any of these QBs making that playoff run.

The 1998 team was pretty stacked, by comparison, and basically steamrolled through everything. I'm think the number of QBs who could win with that team opens up a bit. "Any top 15"? No, not even close. But the Moon's and Cunningham's would certainly make the squad.

It's quite arguable that 1997 squad was more talented then the 98' squad, Denver lost Brian Habib, Gary Zimmerman and Allen Aldridge, the one upgrade was probably Trevor Pryce over Michael Dean Perry as a full time starter. That's the loss of one of the games best left tackles, a pro-bowl guard and a starting mike linebacker, though Cadrez did well enough. Other then those changes, the team was identical. In fact, the 97' Broncos had the 1st overall offense and 6th overall defense that season; in 98' the Broncos fell to 2nd overall offensively and 8th defensively. So I would say that the argument you presented is not factual and there is no substantial proof. Granted they had more wins, but would you say the undefeated Patriots of 07' were better then the Patriots of 04', even the 07' squad lost the Super Bowl?

FlyByU
10-23-2011, 08:47 AM
Had to vote for Luck, of course I would have voted for Jones had he been included as well.

If we have a chance of getting any of the QB's it would be L Jones. Luck if he decides to play next year will be #1 overall if he isn't the team that had the chance to get him well the FO and coaches need shot for being to stupid to live.

L Jones is probably the QB we would take if we get a QB. The price for a #! pick will be to high for one man when we need a D line and our Good DB's are getting old and the others I don't see much coming from them except Moore before Roger Goodell neutered him and all DB's with his stupid wimpy NFL rules for protecting the player as if we didn't have enough already.

MasterShake
10-23-2011, 09:05 AM
It's quite arguable that 1997 squad was more talented then the 98' squad, Denver lost Brian Habib, Gary Zimmerman and Allen Aldridge, the one upgrade was probably Trevor Pryce over Michael Dean Perry as a full time starter. That's the loss of one of the games best left tackles, a pro-bowl guard and a starting mike linebacker, though Cadrez did well enough. Other then those changes, the team was identical. In fact, the 97' Broncos had the 1st overall offense and 6th overall defense that season; in 98' the Broncos fell to 2nd overall offensively and 8th defensively. So I would say that the argument you presented is not factual and there is no substantial proof. Granted they had more wins, but would you say the undefeated Patriots of 07' were better then the Patriots of 04', even the 07' squad lost the Super Bowl?

Both Alfred Williams and Mark Schlereth have said on their local radio show that the 97' team was the superior one, even if just by a little bit.

Ravage!!!
10-23-2011, 09:06 AM
Great poll question... :salute:

BroncoStud
10-23-2011, 11:52 AM
If we have a chance of getting any of the QB's it would be L Jones. Luck if he decides to play next year will be #1 overall if he isn't the team that had the chance to get him well the FO and coaches need shot for being to stupid to live.

L Jones is probably the QB we would take if we get a QB. The price for a #! pick will be to high for one man when we need a D line and our Good DB's are getting old and the others I don't see much coming from them except Moore before Roger Goodell neutered him and all DB's with his stupid wimpy NFL rules for protecting the player as if we didn't have enough already.

I disagree about L. Jones. He looks like Kyle Orton with a stronger arm to me. NO leadership skills and plays with no fire. Yesterday when OU needed a leader he didn't become one. He can make all the throws but he doesn't have those intangibles that the great ones do. If you're going to spend a top 10 draft pick on a QB I would really hate to see us do it for Landry Jones.

NameUsedBefore
10-23-2011, 07:39 PM
It's quite arguable that 1997 squad was more talented then the 98' squad, Denver lost Brian Habib, Gary Zimmerman and Allen Aldridge, the one upgrade was probably Trevor Pryce over Michael Dean Perry as a full time starter. That's the loss of one of the games best left tackles, a pro-bowl guard and a starting mike linebacker, though Cadrez did well enough. Other then those changes, the team was identical. In fact, the 97' Broncos had the 1st overall offense and 6th overall defense that season; in 98' the Broncos fell to 2nd overall offensively and 8th defensively. So I would say that the argument you presented is not factual and there is no substantial proof. Granted they had more wins, but would you say the undefeated Patriots of 07' were better then the Patriots of 04', even the 07' squad lost the Super Bowl?

Statistically, sure. But you make a fallacy in believing "more talent" automatically means a superior team. Football is not a track meet and arguments of "more talent" are easily taken apart through any number of eras. It is a game of mechanics and consistency where slight changes in approaches can produce wildly different results with the exact same squads. This is why the claim does not pass the eye-test. The 1998 team was simply better than all its competition that year. I mean just bulldozing over teams to the point that Terrell Davis missed a few game's worth of playtime because Denver would sit out its starters on enormous leads. Denver also cruised into the playoffs toward the end of the season instead of fighting for the AFC West like it did in 1997. Denver's wins in 1997 were upsets; Denver's wins in 1998 were completely expected because the offense was a well-oiled machine, easily seen by how it played when everything was on the line (playoffs). By the end of 1998 Denver had invaded Hawaii with Pro Bowlers and for good reason.

Would I say the 2007 Patriots were better than the 2004 squad? I think the comparison you are making has no relevance, but I will answer anyway: Easily. It's the greatest team that never was. A squad that was one fluke catch away from being labeled the best team of all-time. Sometimes things just don't work out like they "obviously should", but it takes nothing away from strong teams (or strong players, like the case of Dan Marino). As I've said, the 1997 Packers were better than the 1997 Broncos. The word "upset" exists for a reason and further proves my point. If the Packers beat Denver in '97 it isn't an upset; if Atlanta wins in '98 it's a huge upset.

atwater27
10-23-2011, 07:42 PM
The winning results of this poll are the ghey.