Quarterback

[echobravo]

I have heard it over and over again for the past few years. Everybody agrees it is true, everybody preaches from the same gospel. This is a quarterback driven league. Most analysts say the same thing. (How many analysts are former quarterbacks?????)

I am not trying to say that they are wrong, just that this mantra hurts under talented teams.

Remember all of the draft busts at quarterback in the late 80s and late 90s??
Come on guys. Surely you could list some of them off with me, Kelly Souffer, Art Schlichter, Jeff George, Andre Ware, Dan McGwire, Todd Marinovich, Rick Mirer, Ryan Leaf, Cade McNown, and Joey Harrington.

How did we accumulate all these highly touted, highly drafted busts?

The fans want that sexy pick to label "the future of the franchise." (tebowmania anyone?)
The owners and GMs want fans in the stands.

Ask yourself, what do the teams that drafted these guys all have in common? That is right they all sucked. Quarterbacks may drive this league, but if they have nothing around them for coaching, blocking, receiving, or rushing they are doomed.
Teams sell off half of their future for the shot at some of the "studs" coming out of college. The fans get excited and most hang around long enough to see yet another QB self destruct in the kleig lights of the modern NFL.
Thus the lower teams are constantly on the bottom trying desperately to climb out of the cellar.

And to the fans the mantra becomes, "he's a bum, next. he sucks, next. i don't like his hair, next."

A quarterback may make the difference between a playoff appearance and a Super Bowl victory, I give you that. However, ignoring the holes in a roster to trade up for a "Franchise Quarterback" has often made the difference between a playoff appearance and a losing record.

I am just saying. . .

[MOtorboat]

It's not the 80s and 90s anymore.

[Dapper Dan]

I have heard it over and over again for the past few years. Everybody agrees it is true, everybody preaches from the same gospel. This is a quarterback driven league. Most analysts say the same thing. (How many analysts are former quarterbacks?????)

I am not trying to say that they are wrong, just that this mantra hurts under talented teams.

Remember all of the draft busts at quarterback in the late 80s and late 90s??
Come on guys. Surely you could list some of them off with me, Kelly Souffer, Art Schlichter, Jeff George, Andre Ware, Dan McGwire, Todd Marinovich, Rick Mirer, Ryan Leaf, Cade McNown, and Joey Harrington.

How did we accumulate all these highly touted, highly drafted busts?

The fans want that sexy pick to label "the future of the franchise." (tebowmania anyone?)
The owners and GMs want fans in the stands.

Ask yourself, what do the teams that drafted these guys all have in common? That is right they all sucked. Quarterbacks may drive this league, but if they have nothing around them for coaching, blocking, receiving, or rushing they are doomed.
Teams sell off half of their future for the shot at some of the "studs" coming out of college. The fans get excited and most hang around long enough to see yet another QB self destruct in the kleig lights of the modern NFL.
Thus the lower teams are constantly on the bottom trying desperately to climb out of the cellar.

And to the fans the mantra becomes, "he's a bum, next. he sucks, next. i don't like his hair, next."

A quarterback may make the difference between a playoff appearance and a Super Bowl victory, I give you that. However, ignoring the holes in a roster to trade up for a "Franchise Quarterback" has often made the difference between a playoff appearance and a losing record.

I am just saying. . .

I've always agreed with this. There are a lot of QBs with less talent that have had good careers as well as more talented QBs having their careers ruined. I always wonder how a lot of QBs would have ended up on better teams. Rodgers is a very good QB. But he sat and learned for a few years and jumped when it was time to start, they had/accumulated talent around him. If you take Matt Cassell out of college and throw him on a bad team then he will struggle. Let him learn from a good QB and good coaching staff and then set him out there with talent around him, he does better. Guys like Tim Couch and David Carr had no chance with the offensive lines that they started behind.
You have a guy like Alex Smith who gets replaced by Troy Smith, then all of a sudden he's helping his team get to 13-3.

[TheReverend]

It's not the 80s and 90s anymore.

Jamarcus Russell says, "You tell him man! We evaluate QBs WAY better now!"

[MOtorboat]

Jamarcus Russell says, "You tell him man! We evaluate QBs WAY better now!"

The amount of pure busts is dropping dramatically.

[TheReverend]

The amount of pure busts is dropping dramatically.

David Carr, Joey Harrington, Pat Ramsey, Byron Leftwich, Kyle Boller, Rex Grossman, JP Losman, Jason Campbell, Vince Young, Matt Leinart, Jamarcus Russell, Brady Quinn (and climbing) are all currently clicking the Mile High Salute button on your post.

[Lancane]

David Carr, Joey Harrington, Pat Ramsey, Byron Leftwich, Kyle Boller, Rex Grossman, JP Losman, Jason Campbell, Vince Young, Matt Leinart, Jamarcus Russell, Brady Quinn (and climbing) are all currently clicking the Mile High Salute button on your post.

At no time in NFL history has there been more teams which had franchise capable quarterbacks, that's a fact that can not be argued.

Even Mayock said the other day at the Senior Bowl, "The level of talent entering the NFL right now is three-quarters better then at any time I can remember". Responding to a question regarding the improvement in talent over the last decade compared to the 70's, 80's and 90's. - But what the hell does Mayock know!

:coffee:

[MOtorboat]

At no time in NFL history has there been more teams which had franchise capable quarterbacks, that's a fact that can not be argued.

Even Mayock said the other day at the Senior Bowl, "The level of talent entering the NFL right now is three-quarters better then at any time I can remember". Responding to a question regarding the improvement in talent over the last decade compared to the 70's, 80's and 90's. - But what the hell does Mayock know!

:coffee:

Maybe it's the quarterback classes themselves and not the overall idea that predicting a quarterbacks ability to get better, but the last three draft classes (sans Tebow and maybe Gabbert) have provided what looks like possibly 9 or 10 long-term franchise quarterbacks of the future in the first round.

Either that's a trend, or my mind is playing tricks on me.

Teams have tape of these kids going back to middle school and high school coaches are implementing more passing systems, so kids are coming into the league more and more experienced.

Even the quarterbacks who don't look like solid NFL passers (Specifically Tebow and Gabbart) were groomed from middle school to Elite 11 camps to college in passing the football.

The extent of the scouting and the amount of passing these kids have upon entering the league is immensely more than even five years ago, let alone, 10 or 20.

[cmc0605]

Keep in mind that whether a QB becomes a 'bust' or not is also determined by the team built around him. In the modern era, I think you're seeing more offensive coordinators willing to adopt more to the QBs strengths (rather than forcing the QB to do what they want to do), and you're also seeing the college game evolve to a higher level, such that rookies are better prepared for the pro game.

But the proof that this is a QB-driven league is not in the former busts but in which teams have been successful- Green Bay, New Orleans, Indianapolis (with Manning), NE, and now teams like Detroit. Eli Manning is on that threshold of elite status and has now proved that he can win a game with his arm. Philip Rivers does great with San Diego. But you can also win with the next step down: Big Ben, Joe Flacco, Alex Smith, Jay Cutler, Matt Schuab, etc although these teams need much more out of their running game and defense. You can still win with a Baltimore/San Francisco like running attack and shutdown defense, but you still need conversions on 3rd and 8 and usually at least a couple game changing pass plays (though these running/defense combos are also tough to build, probably even harder than finding a franchise QB). People like Cam Newton and Andy Dalton are the next generation and they can win with their arm as well.

Much like Demaryius Thomas, a lot of these guys also have a guy to lean on. Stafford has Calvin Johnson, Dalton has A.J. Green, Newton has Steve Smith, etc. Good blocking and a guy to grow with seem like necessary ingredients for good QB.

I think Tim Tebow can be right up there with those second-tier guys like Dalton, Flacco, or even Big Ben, maybe Eli Manning. If he can read defenses better and execute plays to his safety valve receivers and develop better mechanics to supplement his running attack, he'll be just as dangerous as any of those offenses, or moreso. The team needs some more creative play calling and I think with some secondary help, they have the talent to be a top 10 defense. This can be a very effective, balanced team, and those are the ones that win the SB.

[Lancane]

Keep in mind that whether a QB becomes a 'bust' or not is also determined by the team built around him. In the modern era, I think you're seeing more offensive coordinators willing to adopt more to the QBs strengths (rather than forcing the QB to do what they want to do), and you're also seeing the college game evolve to a higher level, such that rookies are better prepared for the pro game.

But the proof that this is a QB-driven league is not in the former busts but in which teams have been successful- Green Bay, New Orleans, Indianapolis (with Manning), NE, and now teams like Detroit. Eli Manning is on that threshold of elite status and has now proved that he can win a game with his arm. Philip Rivers does great with San Diego. But you can also win with the next step down: Big Ben, Joe Flacco, Alex Smith, Jay Cutler, Matt Schuab, etc although these teams need much more out of their running game and defense. You can still win with a Baltimore/San Francisco like running attack and shutdown defense, but you still need conversions on 3rd and 8 and usually at least a couple game changing pass plays (though these running/defense combos are also tough to build, probably even harder than finding a franchise QB). People like Cam Newton and Andy Dalton are the next generation and they can win with their arm as well.

Much like Demaryius Thomas, a lot of these guys also have a guy to lean on. Stafford has Calvin Johnson, Dalton has A.J. Green, Newton has Steve Smith, etc. Good blocking and a guy to grow with seem like necessary ingredients for good QB.

I think Tim Tebow can be right up there with those second-tier guys like Dalton, Flacco, or even Big Ben, maybe Eli Manning. If he can read defenses better and execute plays to his safety valve receivers and develop better mechanics to supplement his running attack, he'll be just as dangerous as any of those offenses, or moreso. The team needs some more creative play calling and I think with some secondary help, they have the talent to be a top 10 defense. This can be a very effective, balanced team, and those are the ones that win the SB.

I would say that Tebow is as far from being a second-tier franchise quarterback as you can get right now, that is the biggest concern. Kids with just as much experience and coaching look vastly better then he does and more pro-ready despite the fact that some are just as big as projects as he was said to be.

[MOtorboat]

Keep in mind that whether a QB becomes a 'bust' or not is also determined by the team built around him. In the modern era, I think you're seeing more offensive coordinators willing to adopt more to the QBs strengths (rather than forcing the QB to do what they want to do), and you're also seeing the college game evolve to a higher level, such that rookies are better prepared for the pro game.

I would argue the complete opposite. The parity in the league, driven by free agency rules, revenue sharing, etc., coupled with on the field league rules have made having an elite passer at quarterback a must and the aspect of a team that takes it over the top.

That 2009 Broncos team that started 6-0 and 8-2 is a contender with Tom Brady, Drew Brees, etc.

It wasn't with Kyle Orton (who is a good passer).


But the proof that this is a QB-driven league is not in the former busts but in which teams have been successful- Green Bay, New Orleans, Indianapolis (with Manning), NE, and now teams like Detroit. Eli Manning is on that threshold of elite status and has now proved that he can win a game with his arm. Philip Rivers does great with San Diego. But you can also win with the next step down: Big Ben, Joe Flacco, Alex Smith, Jay Cutler, Matt Schuab, etc although these teams need much more out of their running game and defense. You can still win with a Baltimore/San Francisco like running attack and shutdown defense, but you still need conversions on 3rd and 8 and usually at least a couple game changing pass plays (though these running/defense combos are also tough to build, probably even harder than finding a franchise QB). People like Cam Newton and Andy Dalton are the next generation and they can win with their arm as well.

You are right, proof that it's a quarterbacks league is in who wins. Elite quarterbacks win. Rushing at the quarterback is a novelty act, at best. Virtually useless in the long run, especially if said quarterback can't even approach average as a passer.


Much like Demaryius Thomas, a lot of these guys also have a guy to lean on. Stafford has Calvin Johnson, Dalton has A.J. Green, Newton has Steve Smith, etc. Good blocking and a guy to grow with seem like necessary ingredients for good QB.

I will never profess to the idea that wide receivers make the quarterback. Never will.

You have to have a quarterback that can get it to windows. Elite receivers only narrowly widen those windows. Narrowly.


I think Tim Tebow can be right up there with those second-tier guys like Dalton, Flacco, or even Big Ben, maybe Eli Manning. If he can read defenses better and execute plays to his safety valve receivers and develop better mechanics to supplement his running attack, he'll be just as dangerous as any of those offenses, or moreso. The team needs some more creative play calling and I think with some secondary help, they have the talent to be a top 10 defense. This can be a very effective, balanced team, and those are the ones that win the SB.

Maybe. I think he needs to watch and study Roethlisberger more than anyone else. Same body build, a little faster, both have some mechanical issues...

[TheReverend]

At no time in NFL history has there been more teams which had franchise capable quarterbacks, that's a fact that can not be argued.

Even Mayock said the other day at the Senior Bowl, "The level of talent entering the NFL right now is three-quarters better then at any time I can remember". Responding to a question regarding the improvement in talent over the last decade compared to the 70's, 80's and 90's. - But what the hell does Mayock know!

:coffee:

I would agree with that. I don't think this is a talent issue whatsoever. That being said, it's VERY much the case that in this day and age teams aren't willing to invest the time to develop QBs as they have in the past. A few years and done. The Alex Smith's that get seven years to show enough competency to be a game manager are a rarity and not the norm.

So while I agree, I'd be willing to bet that there are more 1st round QB busts in the aughts than any other decade.

[catfish]

I would agree with that. I don't think this is a talent issue whatsoever. That being said, it's VERY much the case that in this day and age teams aren't willing to invest the time to develop QBs as they have in the past. A few years and done. The Alex Smith's that get seven years to show enough competency to be a game manager are a rarity and not the norm.

So while I agree, I'd be willing to bet that there are more 1st round QB busts in the aughts than any other decade.

post is out of date, but does contain a list of 1st round QB picks for the last 20ish years....

http://www.docsportsblog.com/?p=1800

[TheReverend]

post is out of date, but does contain a list of 1st round QB picks for the last 20ish years....

http://www.docsportsblog.com/?p=1800

Here's a more comprehensive list dating back to 1936 :)

http://www.nfl.com/draft/history/fulldraft?type=position

[catfish]

Here's a more comprehensive list dating back to 1936 :)

http://www.nfl.com/draft/history/fulldraft?type=position

just had to one-up me;)

[CoachChaz]

I think the current rate of "busts" can also be attributed to the way the league leans on a QB so much anymore. Current rules dont allow for a very intimidating defense as much as they use to and running backs can barely carry the ball 20 times a game. So the flow of the game runs through passing more than ever and an elite QB is on every teams wishlist.

As a result, teams draft QB's higher with expectations they will come in and succeed. When they dont, they are dropped and rarely ever given a second chance with a different scheme or system.

[wayninja]

I don't believe it's any coincidence that recent rules changes protecting QB's and their receivers more has preceded this renaissance in franchise QB's in the league. It's simply easier now than ever to put up impressive looking numbers.

[TXBRONC]

The amount of pure busts is dropping dramatically.

I doubt it.

[echobravo]

As long as people have the simplistic view that finding the mythical "franchise quarterback" is a cure all for a sucky team the ratio of pure busts will remain constant at the very least.
At no point did I say the position was not important. At no point did I say a thing about running vs passing (talking to you here Mo). Just said that the hype surrounding the position hurts teams. Ask a Cardinal fan (if you can find one), that team sunk millions into Kevin Kolb. What did they get for their money and loss of Cromartie?

"Life is pain highness, anyone who says differently is selling something."

[weazel]

I have heard it over and over again for the past few years. Everybody agrees it is true, everybody preaches from the same gospel. This is a quarterback driven league. Most analysts say the same thing. (How many analysts are former quarterbacks?????)

I am not trying to say that they are wrong, just that this mantra hurts under talented teams.

Remember all of the draft busts at quarterback in the late 80s and late 90s??
Come on guys. Surely you could list some of them off with me, Kelly Souffer, Art Schlichter, Jeff George, Andre Ware, Dan McGwire, Todd Marinovich, Rick Mirer, Ryan Leaf, Cade McNown, and Joey Harrington.

How did we accumulate all these highly touted, highly drafted busts?

The fans want that sexy pick to label "the future of the franchise." (tebowmania anyone?)
The owners and GMs want fans in the stands.

Ask yourself, what do the teams that drafted these guys all have in common? That is right they all sucked. Quarterbacks may drive this league, but if they have nothing around them for coaching, blocking, receiving, or rushing they are doomed.
Teams sell off half of their future for the shot at some of the "studs" coming out of college. The fans get excited and most hang around long enough to see yet another QB self destruct in the kleig lights of the modern NFL.
Thus the lower teams are constantly on the bottom trying desperately to climb out of the cellar.

And to the fans the mantra becomes, "he's a bum, next. he sucks, next. i don't like his hair, next."

A quarterback may make the difference between a playoff appearance and a Super Bowl victory, I give you that. However, ignoring the holes in a roster to trade up for a "Franchise Quarterback" has often made the difference between a playoff appearance and a losing record.

I am just saying. . .

I just pooped my pants!

[MOtorboat]

I doubt it.

There hasn't been a pure first round quarterback bust in four drafts.

[Lancane]

As long as people have the simplistic view that finding the mythical "franchise quarterback" is a cure all for a sucky team the ratio of pure busts will remain constant at the very least.

"Life is pain highness, anyone who says differently is selling something."

That I think is another problem in itself, people have a tendency to accept the best on the table at times, even if that's not what they hunger for. We're a complacent people because sometimes, not always but more then enough...going that extra mile and falling short of the goal is too disheartening - hence the mysticism of the 'franchise quarterback'. Elway himself has said that you don't trade and give up quarterbacks like Cutler, and Mike Shanahan said much the same, it adds to the mythical essence to the position.

Would an elite quarterback make us an immediate contender? Maybe, maybe not...but we'd be closer then we are now and that's the closest you'll get to an answer for that question, because we've seen what in can do in Indianapolis and we've seen what a franchise quarterback surrounded by lesser talent can do in San Diego. The bigger question is name a perennial playoff team or Super Bowl winning team without a franchise capable quarterback and the number of times they've repeated.

[MOtorboat]

As long as people have the simplistic view that finding the mythical "franchise quarterback" is a cure all for a sucky team the ratio of pure busts will remain constant at the very least.
At no point did I say the position was not important. At no point did I say a thing about running vs passing (talking to you here Mo). Just said that the hype surrounding the position hurts teams. Ask a Cardinal fan (if you can find one), that team sunk millions into Kevin Kolb. What did they get for their money and loss of Cromartie?

"Life is pain highness, anyone who says differently is selling something."

It's not simplistic.

Name the last 10 winning Super Bowl quarterbacks. All Elite. Most HOF.

And someone else brought up running, so I responded to their post about that.

Arizona sunk money into a quarterback and then sucked because he sucked. That's kind of how I see that. That team has a lot of talent on both sides of the ball, so that example kind of works against your theory.

[weazel]

There hasn't been a pure first round quarterback bust in four drafts.

give Timmy time

[echobravo]

The bigger question is name a perennial playoff team or Super Bowl winning team without a franchise capable quarterback and the number of times they've repeated.

That is a much bigger question. One I do not dispute.

[MOtorboat]

Arizona and Denver are instant contenders with Peyton Manning.

Instant.

[weazel]

Arizona and Denver are instant contenders with Peyton Manning.

Instant.

yep... Indy almost is as well lol

[echobravo]

We take much for granted in hindsight. Look at these elite QBs. To hear some tell the tale they were elite from the instant they were drafted.

[echobravo]

Would be awesome to see Payton in a Broncos uniform!!

[Lancane]

We take much for granted in hindsight. Look at these elite QBs. To hear some tell the tale they were elite from the instant they were drafted.

What about Brees, Schaub, Brady, Stafford and Rivers, they're franchise quarterbacks, but were not elite right out of the chute. The difference between them and Tebow is from the beginning you could see signs that they could throw the ball at many different ranges, with accuracy and at a decent enough level to remain in the league. Even Steve Young, Michael Vick, Steve McNair and Alex Smith showed promise in that aspect.

How sad is it that our quarterback had worst numbers then people like Ryan Leaf, JaMarcus Russell and Tim Couch at this point in their careers. Curtis Painter is a better passing quarterback then Tebow, so while we're talking elite, franchise quarterbacks, we've got the league worst passing quarterback as our starter.

[wayninja]

There hasn't been a pure first round quarterback bust in four drafts.

How long does that take to determine?

[wayninja]

Arizona and Denver are instant contenders with Peyton Manning.

Instant.

How so?

Seriously. We had a historically bad last season last year, and forgive me if I'm speaking for you, most of our wins this season were pure luck, which means our team is pretty bad and/or our schedule was completely opportunistic.

With a tougher schedule and no luck, that leaves us only with talent. We are talented enough to be a 'legit' contender?

I know I do it a lot, so it's easy to assume, but let me assure you that this is a serious question and I'm not mocking your statement. I personally don't see it. Even with Peyton (who is undoubtedly superior to Tebow, of course), we still have some BIG problems. And don't get me wrong, I'd love to get Peyton. I don't see it happening, but I'd love it.

[TheReverend]

How long does that take to determine?

^ That

Here's lookin at you:

Gabbert, Cam, Sanchez, Freeman, and Flacco

[slim]

Even Steve Young, Michael Vick, Steve McNair and Alex Smith showed promise in that aspect.


Revisionist history.

Or is it historical revisionism?

[turftoad]

Arizona and Denver are instant contenders with Peyton Manning.

Instant.


How so?

.

How so?

Manning played the 2010 season the Colts went 10-6, the defensless Colts secured a playoff spot.

Then.... 2011, without him, the defensless Colts went 2-14 and secured the first overall pick in the draft.

Both (the Broncos and the Cards) have a better surrounding cast and better defense than the Colts.

Assuming he's healthy, he'd be a huge upgrade. He's one of the best to ever play the game.

[WARHORSE]

Im in agreement. Look at what the rest of the offense did with Peyton under center........vs........what they did without him. Whats their receivers names again? Oh yeah. Reggie Wayne. Never heard of him this year.

[turftoad]

Im in agreement. Look at what the rest of the offense did with Peyton under center........vs........what they did without him. Whats their receivers names again? Oh yeah. Reggie Wayne. Never heard of him this year.

Goes to show, the QB makes the reciever in most cases, not the other way around.

[Denver Native (Carol)]

I am not trying to rain on Manning's parade, but since he is getting discussed here, I found the following to be interesting. Also, my son listens to KOA radio, and a few days before the SB, Alan Roach, who is also a part of the Broncos' broadcasting team on KOA, stated that he watched Manning throw, and Manning is throwing the football terrible. For those who do not know, Roach was the PA announcer at the SB.


Indy Star columnist Bob Kravitz opened up about the whole Peyton Manning saga on Tony Kornheiser's radio showon Wednesday, picking apart the "medically cleared" news and where Manning stands in his recovery. Kravitz took exception to the Super Bowl hubbub surrounding Manning, and seems to have turned on the Indianapolis quarterback.

A few important quotes, transcribed by Ryan Wilson of CBS' Eye on Football are as follows. The full interview can be found here. On Manning's arm strength, as it stands right now:

"I mean, the guy's arm is a noodle, he can't throw like an NFL quarterback, and by March 8, there's no way of knowing whether he's going to be ready or not."

http://www.sbnation.com/2012/2/8/2785700/peyton-manning-noodle-arm-quote-bob-kravitz

[Dapper Dan]

What? The quarterback makes the team? No way. Luck, a good running game, and a good defense. Right?

If the quarterback made the team then we would have a divisional champion quarterback capable of beating the Steelers in the playoffs. But it's been proven, maybe on mythbusters, that we have the worst passing quarterback in NFL history. AmIright?

[MOtorboat]

^ That

Here's lookin at you:

Gabbert, Cam, Sanchez, Freeman, and Flacco

The only one that could be a bust is Gabbert.

The rest have already proved they aren't busts. They may not be elite, but they certainly aren't busts.

Jamarcus Russell is a bust. Those players are not busts. They just might be OK.

It's the same bullshit with Moreno. People are so infatuated with "first round" they can't see the forest through the trees.

[Lancane]

Revisionist history.

Or is it historical revisionism?

Not revisionism Slim, the problem for some of those same said quarterbacks was not lacking the ability to throw the ball, but on other base fundamentals. Vick, McNair, Young, Smith...if you look at the stats, they had their moments where they struggled, but all showed competent ability to throw the ball, two are noted for have cannons, while the other two...not so much. Vick, the one that compares the most to Tebow by people has steadily put up better and better numbers.

Sanchez has issues, and you may not even like the man...but would you argue that he's not a better quarterback then Tebow?

[HORSEPOWER 56]

How so?

Seriously. We had a historically bad last season last year, and forgive me if I'm speaking for you, most of our wins this season were pure luck, which means our team is pretty bad and/or our schedule was completely opportunistic.

With a tougher schedule and no luck, that leaves us only with talent. We are talented enough to be a 'legit' contender?

I know I do it a lot, so it's easy to assume, but let me assure you that this is a serious question and I'm not mocking your statement. I personally don't see it. Even with Peyton (who is undoubtedly superior to Tebow, of course), we still have some BIG problems. And don't get me wrong, I'd love to get Peyton. I don't see it happening, but I'd love it.

Teams make their own "luck". Just because you won a close game or won in overtime doesn't make it "luck". Maybe a win or two could be considered "luck". Finishing 8-8 after starting 1-4 is anything but "luck".

Tougher schedule? That's yet to be determined. Every season is a new chance for a perceived strong team to fall flat on their ass or for a perceived weak one to catch fire. At the beginning of last year, nobody wanted to play Philly and nobody was sweating San Fran... by the end of the season, that had done a complete 180.

[Lancane]

What? The quarterback makes the team? No way. Luck, a good running game, and a good defense. Right?

If the quarterback made the team then we would have a divisional champion quarterback capable of beating the Steelers in the playoffs. But it's been proven, maybe on mythbusters, that we have the worst passing quarterback in NFL history. AmIright?

You mean the same said quarterback that struggled his last three season games and couldn't lead the Broncos to one measly victory when it would have won the division, the same said division we won due to San Diego showing up and beating Oakland, or the Raiders take the division? The same quarterback that threw for a league low completion percentage rate of all starting quarterbacks? Not to mention the quarterback that threw a league low for passing yards per game? As well 26th on average yards per pass, 27th in passing touchdowns throwing for less then a touchdown per game? Who was tied for third in fumbles alongside Sanchez and Vick with six? The same said quarterback that had fluke game against a defense so marred by injuries they were trying to run a different defense then they were use to which allowed the safeties to be misused and allowed him to put up fantasy like stats? The same quarterback that the following week got manhandled by New England's defense which was not even close to the Steelers in ranking?

I didn't know Mythbusters had a special on that, wouldn't surprise me since people are riding his jock so hard that they'll get chaffed in the process.

And no one said he was the worst passing quarterback in the history of the NFL, just the worst starting quarterback in regards to the passing game this past season...so there is a difference...just saying.

[Medford Bronco]

Jamarcus Russell says, "You tell him man! We evaluate QBs WAY better now!"

:lol:

Dont forget Ryan Leaf as well. :laugh:

[Medford Bronco]

Not revisionism Slim, the problem for some of those same said quarterbacks was not lacking the ability to throw the ball, but on other base fundamentals. Vick, McNair, Young, Smith...if you look at the stats, they had their moments where they struggled, but all showed competent ability to throw the ball, two are noted for have cannons, while the other two...not so much. Vick, the one that compares the most to Tebow by people has steadily put up better and better numbers.

Sanchez has issues, and you may not even like the man...but would you argue that he's not a better quarterback then Tebow?

As much as I hate Sanchez, he is better than Tebow right now.

[wayninja]

Teams make their own "luck". Just because you won a close game or won in overtime doesn't make it "luck". Maybe a win or two could be considered "luck". Finishing 8-8 after starting 1-4 is anything but "luck".

Tougher schedule? That's yet to be determined. Every season is a new chance for a perceived strong team to fall flat on their ass or for a perceived weak one to catch fire. At the beginning of last year, nobody wanted to play Philly and nobody was sweating San Fran... by the end of the season, that had done a complete 180.

Well, again, in case I didn't make it clear, I don't think it was luck, I was speaking for MO, who I believe, does think it was luck... so... there's that.

[TheReverend]

The rest have already proved they aren't busts.

I'm sorry, what?!?!

[wayninja]

How so?

Manning played the 2010 season the Colts went 10-6, the defensless Colts secured a playoff spot.

Then.... 2011, without him, the defensless Colts went 2-14 and secured the first overall pick in the draft.

Both (the Broncos and the Cards) have a better surrounding cast and better defense than the Colts.

Assuming he's healthy, he'd be a huge upgrade. He's one of the best to ever play the game.

To be fair, most of the big names on the Colts are pretty old. I don't know if that has a ton to do with it, but Reggie Wayne is 33. Curtis Painter 'aint exactly the strongest candidate to come in and take the reigns either. Lastly, half the colts games in the regular season were against opponents that went to the playoffs. Not the easiest of schedules.


The Patriots went 11-5 without Brady and Cassel hasn't exactly shined in KC.

[wayninja]

You mean the same said quarterback that struggled his last three season games and couldn't lead the Broncos to one measly victory when it would have won the division, the same said division we won due to San Diego showing up and beating Oakland, or the Raiders take the division? The same quarterback that threw for a league low completion percentage rate of all starting quarterbacks? Not to mention the quarterback that threw a league low for passing yards per game? As well 26th on average yards per pass, 27th in passing touchdowns throwing for less then a touchdown per game? Who was tied for third in fumbles alongside Sanchez and Vick with six? The same said quarterback that had fluke game against a defense so marred by injuries they were trying to run a different defense then they were use to which allowed the safeties to be misused and allowed him to put up fantasy like stats? The same quarterback that the following week got manhandled by New England's defense which was not even close to the Steelers in ranking?

I didn't know Mythbusters had a special on that, wouldn't surprise me since people are riding his jock so hard that they'll get chaffed in the process.

And no one said he was the worst passing quarterback in the history of the NFL, just the worst starting quarterback in regards to the passing game this past season...so there is a difference...just saying.

Yeah! Let's ignore all of the stuff Tebow does on the ground, because it's his fault they called all those running plays anyway and besides, it doesn't make his stats look nearly that bad when you include those!

Also, Oakland choking in 4 of the last 5 games too doesn't count! Because, other teams get passes! And, being handed a team at 1-4 is totally normal and a guy who hadn't played a full season in the NFL should be completely uniform and not have any bad games like Cam Newton!

[Medford Bronco]

Would be awesome to see Payton in a Broncos uniform!!

It would be clearly the best QB since Elway if healthy. I would love it.

Its not going to happen or about 1%

Nice to see those in cuts and out routes completed like they should be and not grounded.

Sorry I miss the days of 1996-1998. The only year we were even close was 2005 and the defense was excellent that season and Plummer did not turn the ball over and the Broncos ran the ball.

ahhh the good old days of Championship or Championship type football.

[wayninja]

I'm sorry, what?!?!

It's true, Rev. It's pretty obvious that Tebow is a bust and they are currently building Andrew Luck's bust for the HOF. It's that quick.

[MOtorboat]

I'm sorry, what?!?!

How are Sanchez and Flacco busts?

The only argument you have, as an avid Tebow supporter because I know you are, is that Tebow won games. That's it. It's absolutely the only argument anyone in support of him has. He was the worst starting quarterback in the league last year, outside of maybe Gabbert (which is why I give you Gabbert when talking about busts).

But he wins.

And then you are going to actually tell us that Flacco and Sanchez are busts?

Really?

[MOtorboat]

It's true, Rev. It's pretty obvious that Tebow is a bust and they are currently building Andrew Luck's bust for the HOF. It's that quick.

Please quote the post where I said Tebow is a bust.

[wayninja]

How are Sanchez and Flacco busts?

The only argument you have, as an avid Tebow supporter because I know you are, is that Tebow won games. That's it. It's absolutely the only argument anyone in support of him has. He was the worst starting quarterback in the league last year, outside of maybe Gabbert (which is why I give you Gabbert when talking about busts).

But he wins.

And then you are going to actually tell us that Flacco and Sanchez are busts?

Really?

He's got you there. I mean, winning games SOUNDS important, but at the end of the day, how important is it really?

[wayninja]

Please quote the post where I said Tebow is a bust.

I don't think you did say that. At least if you did, I didn't read it. In fact, I think you made a blanket statement that no first rounder in the last 4 draft classes is a bust. To be thorough, I don't think you said anything about Luck (andrew) either. Any further requests?

[MOtorboat]

He's got you there. I mean, winning games SOUNDS important, but at the end of the day, how important is it really?

Well, If you're going to claim Flacco and Sanchez are busts, it's kind of stupid to use the "but he wins" argument for Tebow.

Winning games is important. But Rev was arguing that that those two quarterbacks are busts, and I know for a fact that he thinks Tebow is the quarterback of the future, if not a future HOFer, so when you're only argument for a quarterback is wins, you probably shouldn't call quarterbacks who just win busts.

I believe Flacco and Sanchez have played in a combined four AFC Championship games...


I don't think you did say that. At least if you did, I didn't read it. In fact, I think you made a blanket statement that no first rounder in the last 4 draft classes is a bust. To be thorough, I don't think you said anything about Luck (andrew) either. Any further requests?

Your point?

Or just spouting nonsensical stuff tonight?

[Timmy!]

In breaking news, mo hates tebow. :heh:

[MOtorboat]

You're wrong.

Love the kid. He's a great human being and a leader. Just don't think he's a long term solution at quarterback where he has proven he cannot compete on an NFL level.

[MOtorboat]

Sometimes, I wonder how fans can live in the bubble that they do.

[Dapper Dan]

In his career as a whole, so far, I haven't seen anywhere that Tim Tebow can never compete at an NFL level.

I will support him as a member of the Denver Broncos until he fails. If you want to call that living in a bubble , then so be it.

[wayninja]

Your point?

Or just spouting nonsensical stuff tonight?

My point was simply that it might be too early to call any of these guys busts or not. Having said that, I certainly don't think Flacco is a bust, I'm on the fence about Sanchez.

[wayninja]

You're wrong.

Love the kid. He's a great human being and a leader. Just don't think he's a long term solution at quarterback where he has proven he cannot compete on an NFL level.

He's 'proven' that he cannot compete on an NFL level? Really? And then you go on to wonder how people can live in a bubble? :lol:

[weazel]

How so?

Seriously. We had a historically bad last season last year, and forgive me if I'm speaking for you, most of our wins this season were pure luck, which means our team is pretty bad and/or our schedule was completely opportunistic.

With a tougher schedule and no luck, that leaves us only with talent. We are talented enough to be a 'legit' contender?

I know I do it a lot, so it's easy to assume, but let me assure you that this is a serious question and I'm not mocking your statement. I personally don't see it. Even with Peyton (who is undoubtedly superior to Tebow, of course), we still have some BIG problems. And don't get me wrong, I'd love to get Peyton. I don't see it happening, but I'd love it.

my thinking is if a guy who cant read defenses and looks like a spass slapping at a bee when he throws a football mostly 20 yards short or over a receiver, could get us in the playoffs; then a guy who is basically an on-field offensive coordinator and is legitimately one of the best QB's that ever played should probably get us just as far or better

[weazel]

after reading this entire post, In convinced that Tebow is a hundred times better than Peyton could ever hope to be...

[sneakers]

David Carr, Joey Harrington, Pat Ramsey, Byron Leftwich, Kyle Boller, Rex Grossman, JP Losman, Jason Campbell, Vince Young, Matt Leinart, Jamarcus Russell, Brady Quinn (and climbing) are all currently clicking the Mile High Salute button on your post.

Byron Leftwich was not a bust he had a good run

[wayninja]

after reading this entire post, In convinced that Tebow is a hundred times better than Peyton could ever hope to be...

Funny, after reading it all, I'm convinced that after our 1-4 start this season, a turkey club could have beaten the steelers in the first round of the playoffs.

[Canmore]

I haven't weighed in on Tim Tebow in quite a while. Everyone seems so polarized in their views, I wonder if anyone stops to think about what is really written versus there next response to either "glorify" Tim or "bash" him.

I was one of those posters that wanted to see what we had in Tebow after our inauspicious start. There was nothing to lose, we were 1-4 and the only positive was the Andrew Luck sweepstakes we were in.

Well, we got Tim Tebow and he went 8-5 in a very non traditional offense. That there is the perceived problem. Our running game was the best in the league and our passing game the worst, at least by NFL standards. Certainly not standard.

Can you continue to be competitive in this league with those type of numbers? Probably not. The rules have been changed for good or bad to favor passing attacks. You need a team that can take advantage of those rules. More prominently you need a quarterback that can take advantage of those rules.

Tebow as an NFL passer has not been consistently very good. We were last in the league in passing for a myriad of reasons but the main ones are Tebow's accuracy and decision making skills. They are not up to NFL standards. Can they be? That is the $64 million question. I honestly don't have a very good opinion.

Tebow's intangibles are off the chart. His tangibles a work in progress. What do you do? Draft another quarterback, probably in rounds 2-4 bring in a veteran and start Tebow. He will get a real off-season and a training camp as the incumbent. He would seem to have earned that.

Install a pro passing attack, It's time to sink or swim. Still, I'm not in favor of junking the read option but it must be used more judiciously. Tim's gifts running the ball should be taken advantage of.

[capt. Jack]

Flacco can throw the ball,looked good in playoffs. I think Flacco will put up big #'s in the NFL ! Do not think he is a bust.

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

[hotcarl]

who cares

[wayninja]

who cares

Fix your sig, hotcarl. It's just lazy at this point.

[TheReverend]

Byron Leftwich was not a bust he had a good run

He never started a full season and was benched in the first half of his fourth for good.

By your logic David Carr is an all-star.

[SOCALORADO.]

He never started a full season and was benched in the first half of his fourth for good.

By your logic David Carr is an all-star.

Yeah, Leftwich is a bust. Flacco is not a bust, and is currently having a solid pro career.

Whats scary about discussing Leftwich is his throwing motion, which TT has copied to perfection.

[TheReverend]

Yeah, Leftwich is a bust. Flacco is not a bust, and is currently having a solid pro career.

Joe just needs some more time to show off how meh he truly is.


Whats scary about discussing Leftwich is his throwing motion, which TT has copied to perfection.

Throwing motion means little to nothing. There's a laundry list of HoF'ers with extremely wonky throwing motions.

His "happy feet" are what have to go.

[SOCALORADO.]

Joe just needs some more time to show off how meh he truly is.



Throwing motion means little to nothing. There's a laundry list of HoF'ers with extremely wonky throwing motions.

His "happy feet" are what have to go.

We'll see. I just wish he would tighten it up a bit.
And yes, his foot work is pathetic. He was excited though. Dude was a rookie by all real accounts, so i cant really blame the kid for that.

[TheReverend]

We'll see. I just wish he would tighten it up a bit.
And yes, his foot work is pathetic. He was excited though. Dude was a rookie by all real accounts, so i cant really blame the kid for that.

...yet SO MANY do.

[turftoad]

Funny, after reading it all, I'm convinced that after our 1-4 start this season, a turkey club could have beaten the steelers in the first round of the playoffs.

And...... Tebow beat them all by himself. :tsk:

[Jsteve01]

it's all in the feet not matter what position you're talking about

[MOtorboat]

it's all in the feet not matter what position you're talking about

So maybe Dancing With the Stars would be a good thing for Tebow?

[wayninja]

And...... Tebow beat them all by himself. :tsk:

No, it was the defense that threw for the most yards against the steelers this season. Yawn.

[weazel]

No, it was the defense that threw for the most yards against the steelers this season. Yawn.

he did too, you've turned me, Im all in on Tebow now!!!

to be fair though, that steelers team was a shell of itself. too many plugs out there to say it was the same steelers team. oh and their quarterback couldnt move so that kinda helped us too.

I dont care though, Tebow for president! Im not blaming the O-Line anymore, he doesnt need an O-Line!!!!!

[wayninja]

he did too, you've turned me, Im all in on Tebow now!!!

to be fair though, that steelers team was a shell of itself. too many plugs out there to say it was the same steelers team. oh and their quarterback couldnt move so that kinda helped us too.

I dont care though, Tebow for president! Im not blaming the O-Line anymore, he doesnt need an O-Line!!!!!

This is me being shocked that an excuse is made when he has a good day and rejected when he has a bad one. :shocked:

Just think how of many times Big Ben would have picked off Tebow had he been mobile.

[TheReverend]

No, it was the defense that threw for the most yards against the steelers this season. Yawn.

And the defense that was ranked statistically even WORSE than last years before Tim took over and the offense switched to ToP, ball control "small-ball"

[weazel]

This is me being shocked that an excuse is made when he has a good day and rejected when he has a bad one. :shocked:

Just think how of many times Big Ben would have picked off Tebow had he been mobile.

lol, ya I guess Pittsburgh going 3 and out instead of a mobile Ben driving them down the field doesnt keep Timmy off the field. lol I dunno why you're arguing with me, I am agreeing with you, I think he did a good job. We wouldnt have made the playoffs with Orton. I also agree with you that he is far superior to one Peyton Manning

[TXBRONC]

There hasn't been a pure first round quarterback bust in four drafts.

What the hell is that suppose to mean?

[slim]

You're wrong.

Love the kid. He's a great human being and a leader. Just don't think he's a long term solution at quarterback where he has proven he cannot compete on an NFL level.

Geebus, MO.

Please extract yourself from your bubble.

[wayninja]

lol, ya I guess Pittsburgh going 3 and out instead of a mobile Ben driving them down the field doesnt keep Timmy off the field. lol I dunno why you're arguing with me, I am agreeing with you, I think he did a good job. We wouldnt have made the playoffs with Orton. I also agree with you that he is far superior to one Peyton Manning

I'm not arguing with you, just pointing out the fact that excuses are used all the time, but for some reason, when they are used for Tebow, that really raises some hackles.

I watched Ben RUN in that game. Watch how he chases down an official complaining about a non-PI call. He may not have been 100%, but he was easily mobile enough. That's not why they lost. They lost because we outplayed them. It's really not that complicated. We did stuff they didn't expect and didn't defend well. We executed and they were inconsistent.

I never said that he was better than Peyton. In fact, I said the exact opposite. Is your computer broken?

[turftoad]

No, it was the defense that threw for the most yards against the steelers this season. Yawn.

Oh..... so it was Tebow all by himself. Gottcha. :listen:

[wayninja]

Oh..... so it was Tebow all by himself. Gottcha. :listen:

Maybe I'm losing track of what you are making ridiculous exaggerations about. If you mean 'it was all Tebow' in terms of how many yards he put up on the Steelers, I'm going to go ahead say, yes, Tebow actually did what happened in reality.

If you mean 'it was all Tebow' in terms of beating the Steelers, then no, certainly not. Wins are team wins. I've never denied that nor would I. I wouldn't call our defense in that game world-beaters, but Champ made a game saving play near the end and there were other crucial stops. Not sure what the point you are making is, though.

[Dapper Dan]

No. It wasn't Tebow by himself. I would just like for some to pull their heads out of their asses for one second. No one is saying Tebow did everything by himself. Some are just trying to point out that he is capable of being a competitive NFL QB because of what he has accomplished and others are trying to dispute any success he's ever had by saying it's the run game and defense winning by THEIRSELVES.

[weazel]

TEBOW!!!!! ftw

[echobravo]

Should have known this would descend into a Tebow discussion. I was making a point about sports media and the whole league.

The problem with any attempt to discuss the quarterback position at all is that Tebow is such a lightning rod for fans. Some love the excitement his play brings. Some cringe at the lack of polish on his passing game. I believe the Broncos need a more polished passer, BUT I also believe that enough polish could be put on Tebow to get the job done for at least the near future as the team is built up. I have always said that a great QB is the cherry on top of a championship sundae, not the bowl that holds the ice cream.

[catfish]

Should have known this would descend into a Tebow discussion. I was making a point about sports media and the whole league.

The problem with any attempt to discuss the quarterback position at all is that Tebow is such a lightning rod for fans. Some love the excitement his play brings. Some cringe at the lack of polish on his passing game. I believe the Broncos need a more polished passer, BUT I also believe that enough polish could be put on Tebow to get the job done for at least the near future as the team is built up. I have always said that a great QB is the cherry on top of a championship sundae, not the bowl that holds the ice cream.

IMO championships start in the trenches

[TXBRONC]

IMO championships start in the trenches

It is more times than not but having a championship caliber quarterback is even more important imho.

[TheReverend]

How are Sanchez and Flacco busts?

The only argument you have, as an avid Tebow supporter because I know you are, is that Tebow won games. That's it. It's absolutely the only argument anyone in support of him has. He was the worst starting quarterback in the league last year, outside of maybe Gabbert (which is why I give you Gabbert when talking about busts).

But he wins.

And then you are going to actually tell us that Flacco and Sanchez are busts?

Really?

http://i43.tinypic.com/jrwsp2.gif

Literacy is fundamental. You claimed the past several drafts will have NO QB busts. I listed the guys with serious bust potential.

[MOtorboat]

I'm starting to wonder what you think a bust is, Rev.

Does a non-Bronco have to be HOF worthy to be considered not a bust by you?

[TheReverend]

I'm starting to wonder what you think a bust is, Rev.

Does a non-Bronco have to be HOF worthy to be considered not a bust by you?

No, someone has to fail to bust. IE: Leftwich, Carr, Jamarcus... ya know, guys that are clearly smashing successes in your eyes.

[MOtorboat]

No, someone has to fail to bust. IE: Leftwich, Carr, Jamarcus... ya know, guys that are clearly smashing successes in your eyes.

Quote?

If that is the criteria, how can Flacco and Sanchez even be considered busts?

[TheReverend]

Quote?

If that is the criteria, how can Flacco and Sanchez even be considered busts?

Sanchez has only hit his third year and was almost benched several times throughout the season...

If you have such loose and low standards for success, how are you not offering Tebow oral...?

[Chef Zambini]

No, someone has to fail to bust. IE: Leftwich, Carr, Jamarcus... ya know, guys that are clearly smashing successes in your eyes.
a FRDC that plays like a fourth round, third stringer, a guy who has been paid millions in SIGNING BONUS, that guy, a guy who does NOT contribute on special teams, is definately a "bust"
didnt say worthless, like a ryan leaf, but definately a financial and talent bust.

[MOtorboat]

Sanchez has only hit his third year and was almost benched several times throughout the season...

If you have such loose and low standards for success, how are you not offering Tebow oral...?

We're talking about the term "bust" here. How is a three year starter who has played in two AFC Championship games a bust?

Russell, yeah, he's a bust. Leaf, yeah he's a bust. Carr, maybe.

There are players that end up in the middle. Average football players. I wold put Sanchez and Flacco in this category at this point. Not so bad that they can't play, IMHO, that's a bust.

[Chef Zambini]

Should have known this would descend into a Tebow discussion. I was making a point about sports media and the whole league.

The problem with any attempt to discuss the quarterback position at all is that Tebow is such a lightning rod for fans. Some love the excitement his play brings. Some cringe at the lack of polish on his passing game. I believe the Broncos need a more polished passer, BUT I also believe that enough polish could be put on Tebow to get the job done for at least the near future as the team is built up. I have always said that a great QB is the cherry on top of a championship sundae, not the bowl that holds the ice cream.
love the ice cream sundae analogy, just not sure you best represented the cherry on top and tebow clearly.
THAT CHERRY, is easily the most attractive to the eye, however.
it is a toxic worthless piece of processed, poisonous, food chemical crap !
sitting on top of a high quality wholesome ice cream with real whipped cream and genuine fudge or fresh fruit toppings, that 'cherry' diminishes the actual quality of the presentation.

Are you comparing tebow / QB to the cherry?
the QB is really more like the SPOON !
a great one can help you best appreciate your sundae by getting it all to its intended destiny, your mouth or the superbowl.

[wayninja]

You guys are gross for talking about tebow's cherry. Bunch of Kardashians in here.

[Chef Zambini]

moreno, injured, average player.
moreno, first round draft bust.
Part of the JMCD DISASTER.
a personification , if you will.

[Chef Zambini]

You guys are gross for talking about tebow's cherry. Bunch of Kardashians in here.
hillareous.
ironic, that TEBOW still has a cherry, worthy of discussion.

[TheReverend]

We're talking about the term "bust" here. How is a three year starter who has played in two AFC Championship games a bust?

Russell, yeah, he's a bust. Leaf, yeah he's a bust. Carr, maybe.

There are players that end up in the middle. Average football players. I wold put Sanchez and Flacco in this category at this point. Not so bad that they can't play, IMHO, that's a bust.

In less than one season, Tebow turned around a 1-4 pile of shit, won the AFCW, won a playoff game against the defending AFC Champs and only losing to the current AFC Champs.

By your logic, he's even more amazing of a player than I think he is.

[topscribe]

In less than one season, Tebow turned around a 1-4 pile of shit, won the AFCW, won a playoff game against the defending AFC Champs and only losing to the current AFC Champs.

By your logic, he's even more amazing of a player than I think he is.

Right. The Broncos started 1-4, and, once the opposing defenses figured
Denver out, they finished 1-4. In one season (three of which were blowout
losses and another in which they couldn't score more than three points).
Amazing, isn't it?

-----

[wayninja]

Right. The Broncos started 1-4, and, once the opposing defenses figured
Denver out, they finished 1-4. In one season (three of which were blowout
losses and another in which they couldn't score more than three points).
Amazing, isn't it?

-----

I feel bad for the steelers who didn't get the obvious how-to-beat-Denver memo.

[TheReverend]

Right. The Broncos started 1-4, and, once the opposing defenses figured
Denver out, they finished 1-4. In one season (three of which were blowout
losses and another in which they couldn't score more than three points).
Amazing, isn't it?

-----

Justify: opposing defenses "figured" Denver out

And if that's the case, explain hanging 29 points on the #1 defense in the league (and MORE if the game had been called properly)? Or was their HoF DC too much of an idiot to "figure out" and copy what dramatically inferior teams had done?

Spoiler: You're wrong and can't justify that.

[TheReverend]

I feel bad for the steelers who didn't get the obvious how-to-beat-Denver memo.

Why, Dick Lebeau must be an incompetent buffoon!

[MOtorboat]

In less than one season, Tebow turned around a 1-4 pile of shit, won the AFCW, won a playoff game against the defending AFC Champs and only losing to the current AFC Champs.

By your logic, he's even more amazing of a player than I think he is.

You've now shifted the argument three times.

How are Sanchez and Flacco busts? And if they are, is Tebow not a bust?

If the standard for Tebow is that he just wins, why does that same standard not apply to other quarterbacks?

[TheReverend]

You've now shifted the argument three times.

How are Sanchez and Flacco busts? And if they are, is Tebow not a bust?

If the standard for Tebow is that he just wins, why does that same standard not apply to other quarterbacks?

No... No, I haven't. I said Sanchez and Flacco have bust potential.

Again, literacy is fundamental.

And I didn't apply the "just wins" standard to Tebow. I was pointing out the sheer hypocrisy in your support of Sanchez and Flacco as players to your disregard for your own home-team QB with the same even more effective philosophy.

[MOtorboat]

No... No, I haven't. I said Sanchez and Flacco have bust potential.

Again, literacy is fundamental.

And I didn't apply the "just wins" standard to Tebow. I was pointing out the sheer hypocrisy in your support of Sanchez and Flacco as players to your disregard for your own home-team QB with the same even more effective philosophy.

How do they have bust potential? Supporting your argument is fundamental. I've asked like four times now...

How is Sanchez a bust, or how cold he have potential to be a bust when he's already made it past bust range? What is a bust?

[topscribe]

Justify: opposing defenses "figured" Denver out

And if that's the case, explain hanging 29 points on the #1 defense in the league (and MORE if the game had been called properly)? Or was their HoF DC too much of an idiot to "figure out" and copy what dramatically inferior teams had done?

Spoiler: You're wrong and can't justify that.

Fine. But the week before the Pittsburgh game, the Broncos scored three
points, and the week after they scored 10 points. And two weeks before
they scored 14. You can hang your argument on one single game if you
want, but you honestly have to admit the Broncos were very inconsistent
on scoring offense.

In fact, in the first five games, the Broncos scored 20 or more points in
four of them. In the remaining 13 games, they did that in only four (4) of
them. Now, don't get me wrong: I'm not saying that as a tribute to the
first starting QB. I'm just saying that I'm not convinced Denver has found
its QB yet. And, from what he has said, it would seem Elway has the same
reservation.

-----

[TheReverend]

How do they have bust potential? Supporting your argument is fundamental. I've asked like four times now...

How is Sanchez a bust, or how cold he have potential to be a bust when he's already made it past bust range? What is a bust?

Holy crap, are you serious:


Sanchez has only hit his third year and was almost benched several times throughout the season...


No, someone has to fail to bust. IE: Leftwich, Carr, Jamarcus... ya know, guys that are clearly smashing successes in your eyes.

I don't even know what to say if you're actually refusing to read...

[wayninja]

What is a bust?

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/417mPHmMv6L.jpg

[MOtorboat]

Holy crap, are you serious:





I don't even know what to say if you're actually refusing to read...

So your really only argument for Sanchez being a bust or having bust potential was that he was almost benched?

I guess I thought there was actual serious reasoning behind your opinion, that's why I continued to ask...my mistake.

[TheReverend]

Fine. But the week before the Pittsburgh game, the Broncos scored three
points, and the week after they scored 10 points. And two weeks before
they scored 14. You can hang your argument on one single game if you
want, but you honestly have to admit the Broncos were very inconsistent
on scoring offense.

In fact, in the first five games, the Broncos scored 20 or more points in
four of them. In the remaining 13 games, they did that in only four (4) of
them. Now, don't get me wrong: I'm not saying that as a tribute to the
first starting QB. I'm just saying that I'm not convinced Denver has found
its QB yet. And, from what he has said, it would seem Elway has the same
reservation.

-----

They were absolutely very inconsistent on scoring offense... I don't see what that has to do with your "point" (or lack thereof, imo).

We ran on over 90% of our first downs under Tebow and put him in a LOT of positions to fail in 3rd and 9+ (contributing to his comp %). I'm not blaming the OC for this, after all, he was "protecting" our project QB.

Regardless, if you didn't see the STARK contract in our play calling against Pitt as opposed to that last quarter of the season (as well as superior execution), then you're just fooling yourself.

Either way, that change in playcalling and execution =/= being figured out

[TheReverend]

So your really only argument for Sanchez being a bust or having bust potential was that he was almost benched?

I guess I thought there was actual serious reasoning behind your opinion, that's why I continued to ask...my mistake.

Yes... because being benched is only for the greats.

Be totally serious: Are you trolling or seriously believe what you're posting?

[wayninja]

Rev, the problem in you argument is that you are too extreme. MO is not saying that Sanchez and Flacco are 'greats' or HOF guys. He's simply saying they are not in the same category (or even close) as Jamarshmellow or Leaf.

Also, he did say that there were NO busts at all in the last 4 draft classes. That INCLUDES Tebow. It sounds like you are arguing against an opinion that MO didn't express.

[TheReverend]

Rev, the problem in you argument is that you are too extreme. MO is not saying that Sanchez and Flacco are 'greats' or HOF guys. He's simply saying they are not in the same category (or even close) as Jamarshmellow or Leaf.

Also, he did say that there were NO busts at all in the last 4 draft classes. That INCLUDES Tebow. It sounds like you are arguing against an opinion that MO didn't express.

This is where you're wrong: he's the one arguing against an opinion that I didn't express.

I said these guys, along with several others, have bust potential. Didn't call them busts. However, considering there's a good possibility Sanchez is on the pine behind a new starter in NYJ next season, we're getting close to being able to stamp him with that label and sit him next to Rex Grossman.

[MOtorboat]

Yes... because being benched is only for the greats.

Be totally serious: Are you trolling or seriously believe what you're posting?

Yes, I believe Sanchez and Flacco are not busts.

Here are the two criteria you have given me for whether a player is a bust or not: failing and being benched.

Neither of those two players have experienced either of those two criteria.

So, again, I ask, how are Sanchez and Flacco busts, or considered to be bust material?

[wayninja]

This is where you're wrong: he's the one arguing against an opinion that I didn't express.

I said these guys, along with several others, have bust potential. Didn't call them busts. However, considering there's a good possibility Sanchez is on the pine behind a new starter in NYJ next season, we're getting close to being able to stamp him with that label and sit him next to Rex Grossman.

Ok... But using that logic, I can call Drew Brees a bust.

edit: Nevermind, I thought Brees did go in the first round, but just barely missed it.

My point is that Sanchez has already accomplished way more than 'true' busts ever should. Same with Flacco. Those guys have already proven that at the very worst, they are middle-of-the-pack guys.

[TheReverend]

Yes, I believe Sanchez and Flacco are not busts.

Here are the two criteria you have given me for whether a player is a bust or not: failing and being benched.

Neither of those two players have experienced either of those two criteria.

So, again, I ask, how are Sanchez and Flacco busts, or considered to be bust material?

These are two of the most criticized starting QBs in the game.

Flacco was getting called out by team leaders (Ed Reed) just a couple weeks ago.

"It just didn’t look like he had a hold on the offense.” Then Reed added, “He can’t play like that."

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/Baltimore-Ravens-Ed-Reed-calls-out-shaky-quarterback-Joe-Flacco-011712

Sanchez is getting called out by his coach, entire team, etc.

Both have LOADS of bust potential.

Now by all means, argue against ANY of that. I've supported my opinion. Now you do yours.

[TheReverend]

Ok... But using that logic, I can call Drew Brees a bust.

No, by that logic you could have said Drew Brees had bust potential in 2004 when San Diego themselves felt even stronger and drafted Rivers to replace him.

[Dapper Dan]

Aaron Rodgers couldn't score enough to beat KC either.

[wayninja]

No, by that logic you could have said Drew Brees had bust potential in 2004 when San Diego themselves felt even stronger and drafted Rivers to replace him.

But this is vacuous. Any team's QB has bust potential if they draft another QB? Peyton has bust potential?

The hangup here is that you are using a gutcheck to call out 'bust potential' and are not really clearly defining it.

[MOtorboat]

At least we now have a criteria for a bust that Sanchez and Flacco now fit under, heavily criticized.

Move the argument until it fits, right Rev?

Me and Rev obviously operate under different criteria for a bust. A bust is a player who can't play, period. Sanchez and Flacco have obviously shown they can play, being that they've both played in two AFC Championship games and have started for more than three seasons. Once you get past two starting seasons, I don't possibly see how you could be considered a bust, but that's me.

Just winning is a good argument for Tebow, but when you won't allow that argument to be used for other quarterbacks it's a shallow argument to make.

[TheReverend]

But this is vacuous. Any team's QB has bust potential if they draft another QB? Peyton has bust potential?

The hangup here is that you are using a gutcheck to call out 'bust potential' and are not really clearly defining it.

Are you using the Luck/Peyton situation? If so, absolutely. Peyton's current boom or bust health situation is literally exactly why they might draft Luck... would you like to find a better example...


At least we now have a criteria for a bust that Sanchez and Flacco now fit under, heavily criticized.

Move the argument until it fits, right Rev?

Me and Rev obviously operate under different criteria for a bust. A bust is a player who can't play, period. Sanchez and Flacco have obviously shown they can play, being that they've both played in two AFC Championship games and have started for more than three seasons. Once you get past two starting seasons, I don't possibly see how you could be considered a bust, but that's me.

Just winning is a good argument for Tebow, but when you won't allow that argument to be used for other quarterbacks it's a shallow argument to make.

"Move the argument until it fits"... is that why you keep changing my words to actually calling them busts? Quote ONE occasion where I've done that instead of repeatedly explaining to you what I've said.

But keep "moving the argument until it fits", I guess...

[Dapper Dan]

Sanchez is one of the highest paid QBs in the NFL.

55 TDs 51 INTs

His last game was 2 TDs and 3 INTs against that outrageous Miami defense.

[wayninja]

Are you using the Luck/Peyton situation? If so, absolutely. Peyton's current boom or bust health situation is literally exactly why they might draft Luck... would you like to find a better example...


Yes, I'm using the Luck/Peyton situation. Absolutely? Peyton is a bust????

[MOtorboat]

Are you using the Luck/Peyton situation? If so, absolutely. Peyton's current boom or bust health situation is literally exactly why they might draft Luck... would you like to find a better example...



"Move the argument until it fits"... is that why you keep changing my words to actually calling them busts? Quote ONE occasion where I've done that instead of repeatedly explaining to you what I've said.

But keep "moving the argument until it fits", I guess...

Define "bust."

Define "bust potential."

I don't possibly see how someone who starts for more than two years and has multiple playoff wins could ever be considered a bust, and therefore I can't comprehend what your trying to say because you haven't supported it with any real concrete definition of those terms.

[TheReverend]

Yes, I'm using the Luck/Peyton situation. Absolutely? Peyton is a bust????

Jesus christ dude, YOU are the one drawing the parallel between a guy getting his replacement drafted after 3/4 years due to lack of performance execution and a guy getting his replacement drafted after 16 HoF years due to health reasons.

NOT me.

[TheReverend]

Define "bust."

Define "bust potential."

I don't possibly see how someone who starts for more than two years and has multiple playoff wins could ever be considered a bust, and therefore I can't comprehend what your trying to say because you haven't supported it with any real concrete definition of those terms.

Well... I already defined bust for you, so if you can't figure out what "potential" means, then this conversation is even more pointless than it seems to be with you making up "my side" of the argument.

[wayninja]

Jesus christ dude, YOU are the one drawing the parallel between a guy getting his replacement drafted after 3/4 years due to lack of performance execution and a guy getting his replacement drafted after 16 HoF years due to health reasons.

NOT me.

No... you are the one that said that you could call Drew Brees a bust because they drafted Rivers. You didn't qualify that with any length of experience or accomplishment in the NFL. Therefore, since the Colts are drafting a QB to replace Manning, he is a bust.

This is what I'm talking about. You are just throwing words around without defining what they mean.

[topscribe]

They were absolutely very inconsistent on scoring offense... I don't see what that has to do with your "point" (or lack thereof, imo).

We ran on over 90% of our first downs under Tebow and put him in a LOT of positions to fail in 3rd and 9+ (contributing to his comp %). I'm not blaming the OC for this, after all, he was "protecting" our project QB.

Regardless, if you didn't see the STARK contract in our play calling against Pitt as opposed to that last quarter of the season (as well as superior execution), then you're just fooling yourself.

Either way, that change in playcalling and execution =/= being figured out

Okay, let me put it another way: In the last five games, the Broncos
passed for 141, 152, 50, 316, & 108 yards, respectively. If the opposing
teams had not figured something out, then the performances were even
more pathetic than I thought . . .

-----

[TheReverend]

No... you are the one that said that you could call Drew Brees a bust because they drafted Rivers. You didn't qualify that with any length of experience or accomplishment in the NFL. Therefore, since the Colts are drafting a QB to replace Manning, he is a bust.

This is what I'm talking about. You are just throwing words around without defining what they mean.

No... no I didn't. I said after 3 years Brees absolutely had bust potential and that SD felt even more strongly about that and even drafted his replacement at the top of the draft. Name ONE thing that is even remotely debatable about that?

Your unwillingness to read and comprehend what I'm saying, coupled with your eagerness to try and crowbar ridiculous examples with Peyton Manning's health concerns is nothing shy of absurd and you know it.

[MOtorboat]

Well... I already defined bust for you, so if you can't figure out what "potential" means, then this conversation is even more pointless than it seems to be with you making up "my side" of the argument.

Your definition of bust is currently, failing, being benched and being criticized.

Am I right?

So, now define "bust potential." And then tell me at what point a player goes past being able to have bust potential.

Four years? Five? Six?

Are Duante Culpepper and Donovan McNabb busts because they played poorly at the end of their careers?

[TheReverend]

Your definition of bust is currently, failing, being benched and being criticized.

...and stopped reading.

If you're ever willing to have a serious discussion where you actually pay attention to what the other person is saying, let me know.

Clearly that day isn't today.

[MOtorboat]

...and stopped reading.

If you're ever willing to have a serious discussion where you actually pay attention to what the other person is saying, let me know.

Clearly that day isn't today.

These are simple requests, and in order to understand your argument, and in order to further the discussion, you kind of have to have concrete criteria for terms. You aren't explaining it, at all.

What is a bust? What is bust potential?

[wayninja]

No... no I didn't. I said after 3 years Brees absolutely had bust potential and that SD felt even more strongly about that and even drafted his replacement at the top of the draft. Name ONE thing that is even remotely debatable about that?

1. You didn't say 3 years. At all.

2. We still don't know what 'bust potential' is, other than it's something you reserve the right to declare. What does a QB have to do to prove that he is not a bust?

3. You said that SD 'felt strongly' and drafted a replacement. Exactly what Indy is doing.


Your unwillingness to read and comprehend what I'm saying, coupled with your eagerness to try and crowbar ridiculous examples with Peyton Manning's health concerns is nothing shy of absurd and you know it.

I admit it's absurd and I used it as an example of why not clearly defining what you are talking about is causing this argument. You can't just say 'has bust potential, you know?' and expect people to actually know what you are talking about in any concrete sense. If want to give a more structured outline of what you mean by 'bust potential', I'm sure this argument will clear up rather quickly.

[TheReverend]

I admit it's absurd and I used it as an example of why not clearly defining what you are talking about is causing this argument. You can't just say 'has bust potential, you know?' and expect people to actually know what you are talking about in any concrete sense. If want to give a more structured outline of what you mean by 'bust potential', I'm sure this argument will clear up rather quickly.

Firstly, let me say that this is hands down one of the more absurd discussions I've ever had the displeasure of "participating in".

I've defined bust, and requoted it, several times.

Once again:


No, someone has to fail to bust. IE: Leftwich, Carr, Jamarcus... ya know, guys that are clearly smashing successes in your eyes.

The determination of "failure" is very cut and dry. The circumstances that lead to their failure (supporting cast, coaching, opportunity for development, etc) are often subjective, but the end result is not.

So now that we have "bust" defined, imo, here's what "potential" means:


po·ten·tial (p-tnshl)
adj.
1. Capable of being but not yet in existence; latent: a potential problem.

Now, I know this next leap takes at least a double digit IQ, but let's combine them together!

"Capable of being a failure."

[wayninja]

Firstly, let me say that this is hands down one of the more absurd discussions I've ever had the displeasure of "participating in".

I've defined bust, and requoted it, several times.

Once again:



The determination of "failure" is very cut and dry. The circumstances that lead to their failure (supporting cast, coaching, opportunity for development, etc) are often subjective, but the end result is not.

So now that we have "bust" defined, imo, here's what "potential" means:



Now, I know this next leap takes at least a double digit IQ, but let's combine them together!

"Capable of being a failure."

Ok, Rev. I understand your argument now. Everyone is a potential bust. Gotcha.

[MOtorboat]

Ok. Now that we know "bust" = failure...

At what point does someone accomplish failure?

Dan Marino failed to win a Super Bowl. Is that a "bust?"

[TheReverend]

Ok, Rev. I understand your argument now. Everyone is a potential bust. Gotcha.

Absolutely.

Now combine that with what I actually said (that Gabbert, Cam, Sanchez, Freeman, and Flacco have a pretty solid chance at becoming busts) and you finally are at what I said 7-8 pages ago!

Congratulations!

[wayninja]

Absolutely.

Now combine that with what I actually said (that Gabbert, Cam, Sanchez, Freeman, and Flacco have a pretty solid chance at becoming busts) and you finally are at what I said 7-8 pages ago!

Congratulations!

Thanks. Your point was so obvious all along. Everyone is a potential bust. Including Tebow, Luck, Newton, the unborn, aliens, Women and algae.

[TheReverend]

Your point was so obvious all along

At least part of your post was accurate. A substantial improvement over your work the past couple pages.

[topscribe]

At least part of your post was accurate. A substantial improvement over your work the past couple pages.

Achieving excellence in "snide," perhaps? :coffee:

-----

[wayninja]

At least part of your post was accurate. A substantial improvement over your work the past couple pages.

I wish I could return the compliment.

[TheReverend]

I wish I could return the compliment.

http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/031/783/obamam-lol-y-u-mad-tho.jpg

Don't be so hard on yourself. I'm extremely confident that one day you'll learn more about the sport and be able to follow a "discussion" better :)

[wayninja]

Don't be so hard on yourself. I'm extremely confident that one day you'll learn more about the sport and be able to follow a "discussion" better :)

Sure, Rev. All of us but you get it. Probably because we are all potential busts.

[Dapper Dan]

I dont know what you guys are talking about. But my potential busts usually occur within the first 2 minutes.

[catfish]

It is more times than not but having a championship caliber quarterback is even more important imho.

I thinnk it is important, but having a line that pass blocks well makes it easier to tell if a QB is the championship guy. The grade for the pass blocking for our line are low, but not super low so that is good. The run blocking grades were awful. Don't know if you have a membership at profootballfocus.com, but it is worth the $30 if for no other reason than a sanity check

[TheReverend]

I thinnk it is important, but having a line that pass blocks well makes it easier to tell if a QB is the championship guy. The grade for the pass blocking for our line are low, but not super low so that is good. The run blocking grades were awful. Don't know if you have a membership at profootballfocus.com, but it is worth the $30 if for no other reason than a sanity check

^ DESPERATELY need either an upgrade at LG or HUGE development out of Beadles :/

[Canmore]

^ DESPERATELY need either an upgrade at LG or HUGE development out of Beadles :/

Walton pretty much falls in the same boat.

[TheReverend]

Walton pretty much falls in the same boat.

I thought Walton was dramatically better last year as opposed to 2010. HE, at least, gave me a reason to believe he can progress and play in the NFL.

[catfish]

I thought Walton was dramatically better last year as opposed to 2010. HE, at least, gave me a reason to believe he can progress and play in the NFL.

Walton was graded the worst center in the NFL, by a lot

[TheReverend]

Walton was graded the worst center in the NFL, by a lot

By who?

Link?

[catfish]

By who?

Link?

profootballfocus.com, you have to pay fo the service or i eould link it

[TheReverend]

profootballfocus.com, you have to pay fo the service or i eould link it

For 2011...?

If so, this is definitely news to me. I know I've heard they graded Beadles as the worst OL in the NFL for 2011, but I haven't heard anything about them and Walton for this past year.

[Canmore]

I thought Walton was dramatically better last year as opposed to 2010. HE, at least, gave me a reason to believe he can progress and play in the NFL.

I think he was improved from 2010 but not by enough. Both Walton and Beadles could go and it wouldn't bother me. Problem is there are so many holes to fill on this team and only so many draft picks. I don't see us being any bigger players this season in free agency.

[TheReverend]

I think he was improved from 2010 but not by enough. Both Walton and Beadles could go and it wouldn't bother me. Problem is there are so many holes to fill on this team and only so many draft picks. I don't see us being any bigger players this season in free agency.

Adding Carl Nicks is my dream. Realistic considering their FAs (Brees, Colston, etc) and that their other guard, Jahri Evans, is one of, if not the, highest paid G in the league.

[Canmore]

Adding Carl Nicks is my dream. Realistic considering their FAs (Brees, Colston, etc) and that their other guard, Jahri Evans, is one of, if not the, highest paid G in the league.

I don't know what Nicks will command. Still we can dream.

[TXBRONC]

I thinnk it is important, but having a line that pass blocks well makes it easier to tell if a QB is the championship guy. The grade for the pass blocking for our line are low, but not super low so that is good. The run blocking grades were awful. Don't know if you have a membership at profootballfocus.com, but it is worth the $30 if for no other reason than a sanity check

Maybe, but given what I've seen over the years I doubt the quality of the line will make it any easier. Also if you're suggesting Denver's offensive line did a poor job of protecting both Orton and Tebow to that I would say bull. I watched the games I saw with own twp eyes time and again two quarterbacks who held onto the ball 3.5 - 4.0 seconds with a clean pocket.

[Canmore]

Maybe given what I've seen over the years I doubt the quality of the line will make it any easier. Also if you suggesting Denver's offensive line did poor job of protecting both Orton and Tebow to that I would say bull. I watched the games I saw with own time and again two quarterbacks who held onto the ball 3.5 - 4.0 seconds with a clean pocket.

What does that say about our receivers?

[MOtorboat]

What does that say about our receivers?

Nothing.

[TXBRONC]

Nothing.

Yes it could.

[TXBRONC]

What does that say about our receivers?

It could but I think it's hard to say what says about our receivers.

[MOtorboat]

Yes it could.

The clear answer I'm going to receive is "they don't get open."

That's bull.

It's the NFL. No one is open. It's time for Tebow to start throwing into windows to complete passes.

[Canmore]

Nothing.

Disagree, separation was an issue most of the season. I certainly didn't see receivers time and again running free.

[MOtorboat]

Disagree, separation was an issue most of the season. I certainly didn't see receivers time and again running free.

That's because Tim isn't playing at Florida anymore. Receivers simply don't run wide open in the NFL. It doesn't happen very often.

When they DID, Tebow did get them the ball. See: Minnesota game.

The question isn't whether Tebow can complete it to WIDE open receivers (well, there is a little question as to that) it's whether he can make NFL throws into windows.

I have a hard time blaming the receivers for not getting separation when you have a quarterback who won't even attempt to throw in rhythm.

[wayninja]

The clear answer I'm going to receive is "they don't get open."

That's bull.

It's the NFL. No one is open. It's time for Tebow to start throwing into windows to complete passes.

Guys sure looked open against the steelers. Maybe that was bad playcalling on the steelers' part, but we definitely had some very open receivers.

[Canmore]

The clear answer I'm going to receive is "they don't get open."

That's bull.

It's the NFL. No one is open. It's time for Tebow to start throwing into windows to complete passes.

This I agree with. Tebow has to do a much better job of throwing to what is open in the NFL. The windows are definitely smaller. Still, separation has to occur and I didn't see a lot of that. Their is plenty of blame to go around in our passing game.

[MOtorboat]

Guys sure looked open against the steelers. Maybe that was bad playcalling on the steelers' part, but we definitely had some very open receivers.

Yes, we know he can get it to wide open receivers, but be honest, how often does this happen in the NFL?

Not often.

[TXBRONC]

The clear answer I'm going to receive is "they don't get open."

That's bull.

It's the NFL. No one is open. It's time for Tebow to start throwing into windows to complete passes.

Cecil Lammey several several months ago he thought some pass plays were strange (that not an exact quote). He said several of our pass plays would to many receivers in the same area which could easily enough congestion that receivers weren't getting open.

That said, it's still not all on Tebow.

I agree that he needs learn to throw to a spot a receiver. That is something that can be learned.

[MOtorboat]

Cecil Lammey several several months ago he thought some pass plays were strange (that not an exact quote). He said several of our pass plays would to many receivers in the same area which could easily enough congestion that receivers weren't getting open.

That said, it's still not all on Tebow.

I agree that he needs learn to throw to a spot a receiver. That is something that can be learned.

If receivers are running the wrong routes that's a problem. I just don't buy into the "separation" argument.

[wayninja]

Yes, we know he can get it to wide open receivers, but be honest, how often does this happen in the NFL?

Not often.

It happens more often than you are giving credit for. I'm not saying it happens every play, but it does happen that a guy gets open.

But so what? If he can get it to wide open guys, he can with covered guys too and has. He just needs to do it more often and we need to be more balanced with throwing vs the run to allow for that.

[MOtorboat]

It happens more often than you are giving credit for. I'm not saying it happens every play, but it does happen that a guy gets open.

But so what? If he can get it to wide open guys, he can with covered guys too and has. He just needs to do it more often and we need to be more balanced with throwing vs the run to allow for that.

He needs to be more consistent before the passes are called.

For some reason, people just do not want to believe that pass plays weren't called because Tebow doesn't throw good enough.

That's the reason. There are no other reasons. That IS the reason.

[wayninja]

He needs to be more consistent before the passes are called.

For some reason, people just do not want to believe that pass plays weren't called because Tebow doesn't throw good enough.

That's the reason. There are no other reasons. That IS the reason.

It sounds good, but it just doesn't make sense. Why put him in at all then?

If you already know he can't throw, no reason to start him, put Quinn in (who was supposedly ahead of him on the depth chart anyway). If you want to see what he can do/develop him, then you let him throw.

What else am I missing?

[MOtorboat]

It sounds good, but it just doesn't make sense. Why put him in at all then?

If you already know he can't throw, no reason to start him, put Quinn in (who was supposedly ahead of him on the depth chart anyway). If you want to see what he can do/develop him, then you let him throw.

What else am I missing?

The pitch forks.

[wayninja]

The pitch forks.

So, EFX are pandering idiots?

[TXBRONC]

If receivers are running the wrong routes that's a problem. I just don't buy into the "separation" argument.

Well you ain't gonna "separation" if the area has to many players in it. That could be a flaw in the design of the play. It can also be caused by a receiver not running a crisp route.

Anyway I agree that separation wasn't the problem. Passes with a lot wobble in them and drops of catchable passes imo were the two main culprits.

[MOtorboat]

So, EFX are pandering idiots?

That wasn't exactly what I meant, but I think it would be extremely naive to think that didn't play in some part of the decision.

The team was 1-3 and down by two touchdowns. They didn't have much to lose. So play the guy people are screaming for. They got lucky with some wins.

Ultimately, that guy has to improve immensely in the pass game for the offense to open it up. It's not on receivers, it's not on the offensive line, it's on Tebow.

[Canmore]

That wasn't exactly what I meant, but I think it would be extremely naive to think that didn't play in some part of the decision.

The team was 1-3 and down by two touchdowns. They didn't have much to lose. So play the guy people are screaming for. They got lucky with some wins.

Ultimately, that guy has to improve immensely in the pass game for the offense to open it up. It's not on receivers, it's not on the offensive line, it's on Tebow.

All three need improvement. Tebow the most but to say that our offensive line blocking and receiving corp are fine is also naive.

[wayninja]

That wasn't exactly what I meant, but I think it would be extremely naive to think that didn't play in some part of the decision.

The team was 1-3 and down by two touchdowns. They didn't have much to lose. So play the guy people are screaming for. They got lucky with some wins.

Ultimately, that guy has to improve immensely in the pass game for the offense to open it up. It's not on receivers, it's not on the offensive line, it's on Tebow.

But why cave to fan pressure only to have him attempt the fewest passes per game in the league? What sense does that make?

I agree Tebow has to improve immensely, but definitely so does our o-line AND receivers. It's on all of them. Tebow has the most important job so it's his responsibility more than the others, but that doesn't excuse them from needing to get better. Our o-line was inconsistent. Passable, but not good. Our receiving corp was bad. As bad as Tebow was. There were inconsistent and made bad plays, just like Tebow.

[MOtorboat]

You'd be surprised how good both the offensive line and receivers would look with a competent quarterback.

Tebow was awful. Downright awful. Until he even remotely improves, I can't really judge much else.

So we can scream and make excuses about the offensive line and the receivers, but ultimately most of the pass game falls on the quarterback.

[TXBRONC]

But why cave to fan pressure only to have him attempt the fewest passes per game in the league? What sense does that make?

I agree Tebow has to improve immensely, but definitely so does our o-line AND receivers. It's on all of them. Tebow has the most important job so it's his responsibility more than the others, but that doesn't excuse them from needing to get better. Our o-line was inconsistent. Passable, but not good. Our receiving corp was bad. As bad as Tebow was. There were inconsistent and made bad plays, just like Tebow.

Bull the offensive line and running back were the most consistent parts of the offense. The protection was solid all year long and obviously the run blocking was superb. You don't the best rushing offense in the League with an inconsistent line.

[MOtorboat]

http://stats.washingtonpost.com/fb/tmleaders.asp?type=Receiving&range=NFL&rank=232

I keep hearing Denver was near the bottom. This has them in the middle of the pack.

Help me out here...

[TXBRONC]

All three need improvement. Tebow the most but to say that our offensive line blocking and receiving corp are fine is also naive.

The offensive line is one of main reasons we won game.

[TXBRONC]

http://stats.washingtonpost.com/fb/tmleaders.asp?type=Receiving&range=NFL&rank=232

I keep hearing Denver was near the bottom. This has them in the middle of the pack.

Help me out here...

It depends on whose doing the ranking and which one going you're going to take as gospel. IIRC Thnink had an analysis from somewhere that ranked the linemen individually and I think all of them ranked average or better.

[wayninja]

Bull the offensive line and running back were the most consistent parts of the offense. The protection was solid all year long and obviously the run blocking was superb. You don't the best rushing offense in the League with an inconsistent line.

And rushing has exactly what to do with passing?

Also, we also ran the ball way more than anyone else, so that helps getting to that number 1 rushing rank.

The protection was definitely not solid all year long. The last game we played comes to mind. They were downright awful.

[wayninja]

http://stats.washingtonpost.com/fb/tmleaders.asp?type=Receiving&range=NFL&rank=232

I keep hearing Denver was near the bottom. This has them in the middle of the pack.

Help me out here...

Easy. Those stats are total passes dropped. When you consider that we threw the ball less than all of those teams... well... it shouldn't be all that hard to figure out.

Catfish posted a link a few days (or maybe a week or so) ago showing that Denver has two receivers in the bottom 15 for average dropped passes.

[Lancane]

But why cave to fan pressure only to have him attempt the fewest passes per game in the league? What sense does that make?

I agree Tebow has to improve immensely, but definitely so does our o-line AND receivers. It's on all of them. Tebow has the most important job so it's his responsibility more than the others, but that doesn't excuse them from needing to get better. Our o-line was inconsistent. Passable, but not good. Our receiving corp was bad. As bad as Tebow was. There were inconsistent and made bad plays, just like Tebow.

No one is saying that they don't need to improve Nin, but Tebow is as you said the leader, and if we're being honest, he's one of the worst passers in the league. Other then that one major, glaring fact...he's the type of quarterback any coach would kill to have on their roster, but that one issue is a major one unfortunately, especially if those of us who believe he won't improve are proven right. Is he solely to blame? No, not even close. The problem is that he holds so much of it because he is the quarterback and the leader. We talked about leadership the other day, when I was on my pain meds and rambling incoherently...so let me ask you, if you're the starting middle linebacker and the leader of the defense, how good of a leader are you if you continually miss tackles and overshoot the ball carriers? As I was trying to point out, good leadership sometimes isn't good enough because this league is talent driven. Maybe it makes more sense now that I'm not loopy!

:lol:

Even some of us naysayers understand the unwavering support he's garnered over the years, he really is a great athlete and a good human being...sometimes it's just not enough. Let's hope he improves, all of us - even those who dislike his religious rhetoric, because if he can become an efficient passer, the kid will one day be in the Hall of Fame, of that I would bet anything...if not, then Denver is stuck in a precarious position to have to use a high draft pick to replace him, another year in developing that kid and by the time it's said and done, we could be looking at a whole new regime. And that's why I believe it's of such import to draft a quarterback this year, not only for competitions sake making Tebow strive and improve, but also in case he fails, then we don't have to draft a high pick or waste a season preparing the kid. Either way it's a win-win for Denver, not to mention that with what I believe will be Denver drafting a more pocket ready passer that the deficiencies of the line and receivers would be more evident.

[MOtorboat]

Easy. Those stats are total passes dropped. When you consider that we threw the ball less than all of those teams... well... it shouldn't be all that hard to figure out.

Catfish posted a link a few days (or maybe a week or so) ago showing that Denver has two receivers in the bottom 15 for average dropped passes.

So the drop problem wasn't all that bad...until you find the right stat to apply it so it looks bad...

Gotcha.

[Lancane]

Easy. Those stats are total passes dropped. When you consider that we threw the ball less than all of those teams... well... it shouldn't be all that hard to figure out.

Catfish posted a link a few days (or maybe a week or so) ago showing that Denver has two receivers in the bottom 15 for average dropped passes.

Does it calculate bad passes or just passes that were in the vicinity of the receiver and as such therein determined catchable? Just asking because I never thought to ask that before.

[wayninja]

No one is saying that they don't need to improve Nin, but Tebow is as you said the leader, and if we're being honest, he's one of the worst passers in the league. Other then that one major, glaring fact...he's the type of quarterback any coach would kill to have on their roster, but that one issue is a major one unfortunately, especially if those of us who believe he won't improve are proven right. Is he solely to blame? No, not even close. The problem is that he holds so much of it because he is the quarterback and the leader. We talked about leadership the other day, when I was on my pain meds and rambling incoherently...so let me ask you, if you're the starting middle linebacker and the leader of the defense, how good of a leader are you if you continually miss tackles and overshoot the ball carriers? As I was trying to point out, good leadership sometimes isn't good enough because this league is talent driven. Maybe it makes more sense now that I'm not loopy!

The answer is the same. The two things you are talking about (leadership vs physical ability/talent) aren't all that related. Folks can lead even if their ability to perform the task they are leading isn't as good. It's just not something you can tie directly together like that.

I understand what you are saying, but you are overstating it. Tebow was winning games, and that's way more important, in terms of leadership, than how many bad passes he made. They team rallied behind Tebow because he delivered when he needed to. That showed his team that as long as they keep fighting, they have a good shot at stealing it.



Even some of us naysayers understand the unwavering support he's garnered over the years, he really is a great athlete and a good human being...sometimes it's just not enough. Let's hope he improves, all of us - even those who dislike his religious rhetoric, because if he can become an efficient passer, the kid will one day be in the Hall of Fame, of that I would bet anything...if not, then Denver is stuck in a precarious position to have to use a high draft pick to replace him, another year in developing that kid and by the time it's said and done, we could be looking at a whole new regime. And that's why I believe it's of such import to draft a quarterback this year, not only for competitions sake making Tebow strive and improve, but also in case he fails, then we don't have to draft a high pick or waste a season preparing the kid. Either way it's a win-win for Denver, not to mention that with what I believe will be Denver drafting a more pocket ready passer that the deficiencies of the line and receivers would be more evident.

Please don't mistake what I'm saying. Tebow needs a lot of work as a passer, I'm not trying to gloss over his deficiencies as I have no stake in doing so. I'm just calling it like I see it. There were games were he threw poorly or held on way too long or tried to do something dumb with his feet and took a loss. He also had games where he looked pretty decent and made guys miss and came up with plays when they should have been dead in the water.

We traded away our top 2 receivers this season, making our backup guys our primary guys. And their play showed it. They were inconsistent in doing the primary thing that receivers are supposed to do; catching the ball. I'm not making this argument to make Tebow look better, I'm making the argument because that's what actually happened.

I think we will get another QB, that's a foregone conclusion. I'm not convinced that there is much at our draft position to be excited about. It think the picks are better spent on other holes and that we should see what FA can offer us in terms of QB's.

I highly doubt anyone but Tebow is the starter next season. If you believe that EFX caved to fan pressure to put him, there's absolutely no reason to believe they will start someone else next season.

[wayninja]

So the drop problem wasn't all that bad...until you find the right stat to apply it so it looks bad...

Gotcha.

No. I just didn't think I needed to explain the difference between a total and an average to you. Do I need to do that, Mo?

Or do you really think that a receiver who drops 3 passes with 30 catches is the same as one who drops 3 passes with 10 catches?

[topscribe]

No. I just didn't think I needed to explain the difference between a total and an average to you. Do I need to do that, Mo?

Or do you really think that a receiver who drops 3 passes with 30 catches is the same as one who drops 3 passes with 10 catches?

Hmmm . . . I admittedly haven't read the previous posts, but that's a
pretty small sample. For instance, if the 10 reception guy catches the
next 20 passes without a drop, then all the sudden he has 30 catches
with 3 drops. :whoknows:

-----

[wayninja]

Hmmm . . . I admittedly haven't read the previous posts, but that's a
pretty small sample. For instance, if the 10 reception guy catches the
next 20 passes without a drop, then all the sudden he has 30 catches
with 3 drops. :whoknows:

-----

Crazy stretching there. What if he gets hit by a car before he can attempt another reception?

The numbers I gave were not true numbers, they were examples in order to illustrate the distinction between a total and a rate.

[TXBRONC]

And rushing has exactly what to do with passing?

Also, we also ran the ball way more than anyone else, so that helps getting to that number 1 rushing rank.

The protection was definitely not solid all year long. The last game we played comes to mind. They were downright awful.


Yeah they ran ball more because they were good at it. If they terrible at it stands to reason that they wouldn't have had the number one rushing attack in the league.

Bull they were not awful. That's just an excuse for bad quarterback play. A good portion of the sacks had do with Tebow's failure to find where the blitz was coming from. Also with both Orton and Tebow there quite a few times that they would have 3.5 seconds or more and not have pressure in their grill. I like Tebow and I want him to succeed but I wont blame them for his deficiencies. Hopefully expericence and training will take care of the problem but I wont put it on the offensive line what I think clearly on the quarterback.

[topscribe]

What if he gets hit by a car before he can attempt another reception?

Exactly. As I said, small sample . . .

-----

[wayninja]

Yeah they ran ball more because they were good at it. If they terrible at it stands to reason that they wouldn't have had the number one rushing attack in the league.


Well, that's kinda the argument. Did they run alot because it was successful or because Tebow couldn't throw?


Bull they were not awful. That's just an excuse for bad quarterback play. A good portion of the sacks had do with Tebow's failure to find where the blitz was coming from.


And what was McGahee's excuse for all those negative yardage play? Bad QB play again? No, sorry, the O-line in the last game vs NE was really, really bad. He gave Tebow protection a few times, but it was the exception, not the rule.



Also with both Orton and Tebow there quite a few times that they would have 3.5 seconds or more and not have pressure in their grill. I like Tebow and I want him to succeed but I wont blame them for his deficiencies. Hopefully expericence and training will take care of the problem but I wont put it on the offensive line what I think clearly on the quarterback.


I'm not putting it all on the O-line, I simply said they need to improve. I was referring to one game in particular where overall, the line was bad.

[wayninja]

Exactly. As I said, small sample . . .

-----

sample size and car accidents are related?

I'll say it again, since you seem to ignore... THOSE WERE NOT REAL NUMBERS, SIMPLY AN ILLUSTRATION.

[catfish]

For 2011...?

If so, this is definitely news to me. I know I've heard they graded Beadles as the worst OL in the NFL for 2011, but I haven't heard anything about them and Walton for this past year.

yup, he ended up with a -28.9 overall, next lowest was -19.7

[topscribe]

sample size and car accidents are related?

I'll say it again, since you seem to ignore... THOSE WERE NOT REAL NUMBERS, SIMPLY AN ILLUSTRATION.

A mighty poor one, IMO. But that's just my opinion . . .

-----

[catfish]

Yeah they ran ball more because they were good at it. If they terrible at it stands to reason that they wouldn't have had the number one rushing attack in the league.

Bull they were not awful. That's just an excuse for bad quarterback play. A good portion of the sacks had do with Tebow's failure to find where the blitz was coming from. Also with both Orton and Tebow there quite a few times that they would have 3.5 seconds or more and not have pressure in their grill. I like Tebow and I want him to succeed but I wont blame them for his deficiencies. Hopefully expericence and training will take care of the problem but I wont put it on the offensive line what I think clearly on the quarterback.

they actually were bad at pass blocking and awful at run blocking, by far the worst in the league. It was compensated for by running the option. there is a reason they were so bad at running on 3rd and short pff is going to do a write up on it in the near future

http://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2012/02/08/trending-in-the-afc-west/

reference comments

[catfish]

Exactly. As I said, small sample . . .

-----

it doesn't work that way, tebow had 2-300 less passes than the rest of the NFL QB.s so assuming all 300 of those were completions he is doing fine. Once you establish a rate, whether it be drop rate completion rate whatever all you can do is assume that the rate will stay steady. The next 30 passes could all be caught, they could all be dropped, but it doesn't matter as far as teh current rate goes.

Everyone gets a clean slate next year and the problem will either get better or not

[topscribe]

it doesn't work that way, tebow had 2-300 less passes than the rest of the NFL QB.s so assuming all 300 of those were completions he is doing fine. Once you establish a rate, whether it be drop rate completion rate whatever all you can do is assume that the rate will stay steady. The next 30 passes could all be caught, they could all be dropped, but it doesn't matter as far as teh current rate goes.

Everyone gets a clean slate next year and the problem will either get better or not

I'm not trying to be any kind of smart alec . . . this is an honest question . . .
but what did you just say? (Maybe it's just me. I'm kinda tired tonight.)

-----

[catfish]

I'm not trying to be any kind of smart alec . . . this is an honest question . . .
but what did you just say? (Maybe it's just me. I'm kinda tired tonight.)

-----

there was a post in response to Way inferring small sample sizes invalidated the rate, the example was if a receiver drops 3 of 30 he could well catch the next 30 in a row. I was simply saying that that isn't a valid analysis. The drop rate that has been provided is for all the passes this year, saying the rates are invalid for the receivers due to small sample size is no more valid than me saying Tebow's completion % sample size is too small because he could complete the next 300 passes in a row.


did that make it any more clear? you may not have even been the poster I was referring to. I have been reading too many different threads and have got myself thouroughly confused now

[topscribe]

there was a post in response to Way inferring small sample sizes invalidated the rate, the example was if a receiver drops 3 of 30 he could well catch the next 30 in a row. I was simply saying that that isn't a valid analysis. The drop rate that has been provided is for all the passes this year, saying the rates are invalid for the receivers due to small sample size is no more valid than me saying Tebow's completion % sample size is too small because he could complete the next 300 passes in a row.


did that make it any more clear? you may not have even been the poster I was referring to. I have been reading too many different threads and have got myself thouroughly confused now

Well, it's Statistics 101 (if I can use that analogy): small sample sizes do
not lend themselves to valid analyses. I learned that in my first high school
science class, I believe . . .

-----

[wayninja]

Well, it's Statistics 101 (if I can use that analogy): small sample sizes do
not lend themselves to valid analyses. I learned that in my first high school
science class, I believe . . .

-----

I know you are arguing for the sake of it, so I'll play along. How are you determining that the sample size is small? Wouldn't you need to compare it against the a average number of completions? Or are you just using a baseless opinion to determine that?

[topscribe]

I know you are arguing for the sake of it, so I'll play along. How are you determining that the sample size is small? Wouldn't you need to compare it against the a average number of completions? Or are you just using a baseless opinion to determine that?

Oh, about 10 semester hours of postgraduate statistics.

But it doesn't take that to recognize a small sample size. But when you're
frustrated, I imagine that is as good a comeback as any ("you're arguing
for the sake of arguing"). I just saw 10 completions and 30 completions.
Either is a small sample size and not necessarily indicative of a receiver's
ability to catch a ball. But, as you said, it was just an illustration on your
part. We'll leave it at that . . .

-----

[TheReverend]

I don't know what Nicks will command. Still we can dream.

A lot. Still worth it.

[catfish]

Oh, about 10 semester hours of postgraduate statistics.

But it doesn't take that to recognize a small sample size. But when you're
frustrated, I imagine that is as good a comeback as any ("you're arguing
for the sake of arguing"). I just saw 10 completions and 30 completions.
Either is a small sample size and not necessarily indicative of a receiver's
ability to catch a ball. But, as you said, it was just an illustration on your
part. We'll leave it at that . . .

-----

As far as statistics go it is not a small sample size, it is 100% of the snaps for 2011 or the full sample, career wise it is a small sample group, but for 2011, which is what we are discussing it is the full sample. Same with Tebows throws, 200 something throws career wise is a small sample, but for 2011 it is the complete sample.

Past statistics aren't predictave, simply says what happened in 2011, the receivers dropped an above average # of passes, Tebow had a horrible completion%. Doesn't necessarily mean the trend will continue in either case.

[topscribe]

As far as statistics go it is not a small sample size, it is 100% of the snaps for 2011 or the full sample, career wise it is a small sample group, but for 2011, which is what we are discussing it is the full sample. Same with Tebows throws, 200 something throws career wise is a small sample, but for 2011 it is the complete sample.

Past statistics aren't predictave, simply says what happened in 2011, the receivers dropped an above average # of passes, Tebow had a horrible completion%. Doesn't necessarily mean the trend will continue in either case.

I guess all that means is that we'll have to wait for some more seasons.

And we all certainly hope the trend doesn't continue, I'm sure . . .

-----

[catfish]

I guess all that means is that we'll have to wait for some more seasons.

And we all certainly hope the trend doesn't continue, I'm sure . . .

-----

absolutely agree on that in both instances, I think both the QB and the receivers will benefit greatly from a full offseason

[wayninja]

I guess all that means is that we'll have to wait for some more seasons.

And we all certainly hope the trend doesn't continue, I'm sure . . .

-----

Future seasons don't affect current rates, unless you want to say that tebows completion % isn't accurate because of the relatively small sample size

[Joel]

I have heard it over and over again for the past few years. Everybody agrees it is true, everybody preaches from the same gospel. This is a quarterback driven league. Most analysts say the same thing. (How many analysts are former quarterbacks?????)

I am not trying to say that they are wrong, just that this mantra hurts under talented teams.

Remember all of the draft busts at quarterback in the late 80s and late 90s??
Come on guys. Surely you could list some of them off with me, Kelly Souffer, Art Schlichter, Jeff George, Andre Ware, Dan McGwire, Todd Marinovich, Rick Mirer, Ryan Leaf, Cade McNown, and Joey Harrington.

How did we accumulate all these highly touted, highly drafted busts?

The fans want that sexy pick to label "the future of the franchise." (tebowmania anyone?)
The owners and GMs want fans in the stands.

Ask yourself, what do the teams that drafted these guys all have in common? That is right they all sucked. Quarterbacks may drive this league, but if they have nothing around them for coaching, blocking, receiving, or rushing they are doomed.
Teams sell off half of their future for the shot at some of the "studs" coming out of college. The fans get excited and most hang around long enough to see yet another QB self destruct in the kleig lights of the modern NFL.
Thus the lower teams are constantly on the bottom trying desperately to climb out of the cellar.

And to the fans the mantra becomes, "he's a bum, next. he sucks, next. i don't like his hair, next."

A quarterback may make the difference between a playoff appearance and a Super Bowl victory, I give you that. However, ignoring the holes in a roster to trade up for a "Franchise Quarterback" has often made the difference between a playoff appearance and a losing record.

I am just saying. . .
Completely agree and always have. Most significantly, YOUNG QBs need good blocking to develop pocket presence, good receivers to anticipate openings that are small in both size and duration and good runners that don't leave them in 3rd and 9 all the time. The more development a QB needs, the more he needs those things TO develop. A team with no good blockers, receivers or runners cannot develop a young QB.

Now, if you're lucky enough to draft an Elway or Manning who needs little or no work the moment he steps onto an NFL field those things are no big deal. The fact he is the only talented player on the roster just means you'll be lucky to finish at .500, let alone in the post season.

It's too bad Tebowmania must inevitably reduce this thread to "QBs require no help because I hate Tebow" vs. "QBs are useless without a HoF team because I love Tebow." Your point is much larger, valid and well stated.

[topscribe]

Future seasons don't affect current rates, unless you want to say that tebows completion % isn't accurate because of the relatively small sample size

Um . . . okay . . . :confused:

-----

[topscribe]

Completely agree and always have. Most significantly, YOUNG QBs need good blocking to develop pocket presence, good receivers to anticipate openings that are small in both size and duration and good runners that don't leave them in 3rd and 9 all the time. The more development a QB needs, the more he needs those things TO develop. A team with no good blockers, receivers or runners cannot develop a young QB.

Now, if you're lucky enough to draft an Elway or Manning who needs little or no work the moment he steps onto an NFL field those things are no big deal. The fact he is the only talented player on the roster just means you'll be lucky to finish at .500, let alone in the post season.

It's too bad Tebowmania must inevitably reduce this thread to "QBs require no help because I hate Tebow" vs. "QBs are useless without a HoF team because I love Tebow." Your point is much larger, valid and well stated.

Ah yes . . . Manning . . . hmmmm . . . http://i258.photobucket.com/albums/hh256/AZDynamics/Smilies/Hmmm.gif

-----

[wayninja]

Oh, about 10 semester hours of postgraduate statistics.

But it doesn't take that to recognize a small sample size. But when you're
frustrated, I imagine that is as good a comeback as any ("you're arguing
for the sake of arguing"). I just saw 10 completions and 30 completions.
Either is a small sample size and not necessarily indicative of a receiver's
ability to catch a ball. But, as you said, it was just an illustration on your
part. We'll leave it at that . . .

-----

I say you are arguing for the sake of arguing because after acknowledging the fact that the sample is completely fictional you continue to argue against it's validity. If that's not arguing for the sake of arguing, I'm not sure what is.

[wayninja]

Um . . . okay . . . :confused:

-----

Why so confused top? 10 postgrad semester hours not holding up under the weight of time?

[topscribe]

I say you are arguing for the sake of arguing because after acknowledging the fact that the sample is completely fictional you continue to argue against it's validity. If that's not arguing for the sake of arguing, I'm not sure what is.


Why so confused top? 10 postgrad semester hours not holding up under the weight of time?

No, I'm just not sure you know what you're saying.

But, oh well, have a good night . . .

-----

[wayninja]

No, I'm just not sure you know what you're saying.

But, oh well, have a good night . . .

-----

You sure are unsure about a lot of stuff, top.

[topscribe]

You sure are unsure about a lot of stuff, top.

That's true. But I'm humble enough to recognize it.

I hear the bell now. You're dismissed . . . :coffee:

-----

[wayninja]

That's true. But I'm humble enough to recognize it.

I hear the bell now. You're dismissed . . . :coffee:

-----

You should get that checked out. Delusions of statistic skills, insomnia, and hearing ringing are signs of early onset alzheimers.

[topscribe]

You should get that checked out. Delusions of statistic skills, insomnia, and hearing ringing are signs of early onset alzheimers.

"Alzheimer's" is capitalized and spelled with an apostrophe. And "onset" is not an adjective.

-----

[wayninja]

"Alzheimer's" is capitalized and spelled with an apostrophe. And "onset" is not an adjective.

-----

So, then, another example of your humility? And what you do after you go to bed?

Grammar and spelling attacks. The last bastion of the defeated.

And by the way;

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/early-onset



early-onset,
adj describes a condition that has occurred before the normally prescribed time. E.g., early-onset Alzheimer's refers to the presence of Alzheimer's disease in persons younger than the age of 65, the average age of onset.

You should probably be sure before you start making silly claims in utter arrogance.

[topscribe]

So, then, another example of your humility? And what you do after you go to bed?

Grammar and spelling attacks. The last bastion of the defeated.

No attack. Just a point of information. :noidea:

It's just that one who diagnoses the disease ought to know how to spell it. Sorry if I hurt your feelings . . .

Anyway, it's getting late for this old man. Good night.


BTW, notice "early-onset" used as an adjective includes a hyphen . . . http://i258.photobucket.com/albums/hh256/AZDynamics/Smilies/Wink.gif

-----

[wayninja]

No attack. Just a point of information. :noidea:

It's just that one who diagnoses the disease ought to know how to spell it. Sorry if I hurt your feelings . . .

Anyway, it's getting late for this old man. Good night . . .

-----

I hope that strawman you go to bed with is snuggly warm.

It's sad that the lack of a hyphen, capital letter or apostrophe leaves you completely bewildered and unable to focus on anything but grammar. Another sign, I think.

[topscribe]

Now there's a case of :Idon'tknowwhattosay: :lol:

I'm outta here . . .

------

[wayninja]

Now there's a case of :Idon'tknowwhattosay: :lol:

I'm outta here . . .

------

Outta here? For the 3rd or 4th time? Do you remember?

[Joel]

Ah yes . . . Manning . . . hmmmm . . . http://i258.photobucket.com/albums/hh256/AZDynamics/Smilies/Hmmm.gif

-----
I was thinking of Peyton, who was pretty much pro ready from the start, but now that I think about it, without him for a brother Eli probably wouldn't have lasted long enough to win two Super Bowls. Note: No comparison with ANY OTHER SINGLE QB is intended there, because I'm not thinking in terms of a particular QB, but the general pattern. Whatever one thinks of ones current starting QB, getting a full decade of leadership out of a green QB requires giving him the tools not only to succeed, but develop the pro experience to succeed. Any team unwilling/unable to do that should seek a FA stud who already has that experience. And a GM with some sense.

[TXBRONC]

they actually were bad at pass blocking and awful at run blocking, by far the worst in the league. It was compensated for by running the option. there is a reason they were so bad at running on 3rd and short pff is going to do a write up on it in the near future

http://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2012/02/08/trending-in-the-afc-west/

reference comments

Saying we were awful at both run and pass blocking to me setting up argument that all the success is because of Tebow and all the failure is because of everyone else. The shit the offensive line is taking over the game against the Patriots. It's funny how it doesn't get mentioned that Belicheck went out and hired Denver's former head coach. The same guy who brought in most of the offensive staff that is currently on the team and who also drafted the current starting quarterback of the Broncos and two of it's starting offensive linemen. If we were so awful at both run and pass blocking why in hell would he even bother to hire McDaniels two weeks before the game? Especially since he knew had home field advantage, had already beaten Denver a month earlier without him. It couldn't possibly be that he was trying to give his defense a pass rushing edge over our offensive line could it?


If this is the kind of logic you want to go with that we were bad blocking period then you make Clay's argument that we won with pixie dust. I've argued with him that's not true. I given him credit flaws and all for helping Denver to win games no matter how close score was and what ever break we got. I believe we shouldn't just write him off and say there is no way he can improve. But there is no way I'm going throw shit at the offensive because stupid ass analysis from PFF. You can't not be poor at both run and pass blocking with quarterback and receiver corps that struggled to make plays. In the NFL you cannot compensate for poor run blocking with stupid ass option play. If you're going run ball as often as we did with as much success as we did with just the option. Anyone that says that didn't watch any of Denver's games.


That being said I've never put all the teams failings on his shoulders. In fact I've given him latitude because of inexperience and the need for development that didn't give to Orton because he's a veteran and should be more polished at this point in his career.

[TXBRONC]

Well, that's kinda the argument. Did they run alot because it was successful or because Tebow couldn't throw?


A blind man could see it in a minute that it's both.

And what was McGahee's excuse for all those negative yardage play? Bad QB play again? No, sorry, the O-line in the last game vs NE was really, really bad. He gave Tebow protection a few times, but it was the exception, not the rule.


What? Did you watch games? Did you forget that Belicheck hired McDaniels two weeks before the game? He didn't do it because of his love for McDaniels he didn't to gain an advantage over our offensive line. It sure as hell wasn't because he feared our passing attack. If you can't see that I don't know what to tell you.


I'm not putting it all on the O-line, I simply said they need to improve. I was referring to one game in particular where overall, the line was bad.

I wasn't getting that from your posts.



If you think I'm not being fair Tebow then you have seen anything I've posted with regards to two of my best friends on this board.

[BroncoNut]

You should get that checked out. Delusions of statistic skills, insomnia, and hearing ringing are signs of early onset alzheimers.

ok. that is kinda funny. And top can be a bit cantankerous, but it's time to let up now or we won't see Top for months

[BroncoNut]

Now there's a case of :Idon'tknowwhattosay: :lol:

I'm outta here . . .

------

ah, well too late. See you in the latter part of April /early May Top

[catfish]

Saying we were awful at both run and pass blocking to me setting up argument that all the success is because of Tebow and all the failure is because of everyone else. The shit the offensive line is taking over the game against the Patriots. It's funny how it doesn't get mentioned that Belicheck went out and hired Denver's former head coach. The same guy who brought in most of the offensive staff that is currently on the team and who also drafted the current starting quarterback of the Broncos and two of it's starting offensive linemen. If we were so awful at both run and pass blocking why in hell would he even bother to hire McDaniels two weeks before the game? Especially since he knew had home field advantage, had already beaten Denver a month earlier without him. It couldn't possibly be that he was trying to give his defense a pass rushing edge over our offensive line could it?


If this is the kind of logic you want to go with that we were bad blocking period then you make Clay's argument that we won with pixie dust. I've argued with him that's not true. I given him credit flaws and all for helping Denver to win games no matter how close score was and what ever break we got. I believe we shouldn't just write him off and say there is no way he can improve. But there is no way I'm going throw shit at the offensive because stupid ass analysis from PFF. You can't not be poor at both run and pass blocking with quarterback and receiver corps that struggled to make plays. In the NFL you cannot compensate for poor run blocking with stupid ass option play. If you're going run ball as often as we did with as much success as we did with just the option. Anyone that says that didn't watch any of Denver's games.


That being said I've never put all the teams failings on his shoulders. In fact I've given him latitude because of inexperience and the need for development that didn't give to Orton because he's a veteran and should be more polished at this point in his career.

I'm not setting up any argument of that kind, I am simply relaying the information on the grades from PFF. Run blocking they graded out 32nd with a grade of -128.6, next lowest was -83.5, pass blocking they graded 24th with a -27.2.

Tebow surely didn't help as he graded out 30th of 38 qb's with a -11.7.(it would be worse but is dragged up by his running)

My argument would be more along the lines of poor line play was compensated for by great running by Tebow and McGahee, and the ability of the option to compensate for poor blocking in many cases. Coupled with a strign of good defensive games. The D scored a +18.3 good for 17th overall, mostly drageed down by a hanfull of blowouts. WHen they played well they played real well, when they played bad it was real bad.

[wayninja]

A blind man could see it in a minute that it's both.

Both? That doesn't quite make sense. I can see KEEPING it on the ground if it's successful, but that doesn't explain why they shifted to the run in the first place.

Again, if the point of starting Tebow was that we were basically sunk and wanted to evaluate him, it doesn't make sense to go ultra-conservative running. That doesn't allow you to really evaluate him much.


What? Did you watch games? Did you forget that Belicheck hired McDaniels two weeks before the game? He didn't do it because of his love for McDaniels he didn't to gain an advantage over our offensive line. It sure as hell wasn't because he feared our passing attack. If you can't see that I don't know what to tell you.

Yes, I'll say it again. I've watched every game for the last 25+ years.

So, now it's because of McD that the O line was so bad in that game? Even if I were to buy that, it's still irrelevant. The O line played horribly. You can justify it however you want, but it still happened.


I wasn't getting that from your posts.

Then be assured, that I'm not categorically blaming the O-line. I'm simply saying they need to get better too. If I were to rank it in order of importance, I would say QB, Receiving, O-line, Rushing.

If you were to ask me the number 1 reason we lost the playoff game against NE, I would say O-line. The number 2 reason, Defense (specifically secondary).

I'm not trying to make anyone look better or gloss anything over, but those were the biggest problems in the game, IMHO.

[topscribe]

ok. that is kinda funny. And top can be a bit cantankerous, but it's time to let up now or we won't see Top for months

Nah, I was having fun with the guy. He obviously was the frustrated one.
I checked only out of that particular conversation. Got bored, I guess.
Needed someone who could challenge me, I guess. :D

-----

[wayninja]

Nah, I was having fun with the guy. He obviously was the frustrated one.
I checked only out of that particular conversation. Got bored, I guess.
Needed someone who could challenge me, I guess. :D

-----

It's cute that you think you can frustrate me. There's that self-proclaimed humility again.

[topscribe]

It's cute that you think you can frustrate me. There's that self-proclaimed humility again.

I'm flattered you follow me around like you do.

But it's not necessary. I don't need groupies. :)

-----

[wayninja]

I'm flattered you follow me around like you do.

But it's not necessary. I don't need groupies. :)

-----

Ooo, I like where today's delusion is going.

[BroncoNut]

Wayninja, back off right now. I mean it. I could have have a handful of cowboys in here in one pm or mhs.

[CoachChaz]

Wayninja, back off right now. I mean it. I could have have a handful of cowboys in here in one pm or mhs.

Yippee Ki Ay

[Superchop 7]

Look.....we will not have a franchise QB for awhile......in the meantime.......the best thing you can do is upgrade the o line. We have run out of smoke and mirrors.

[BroncoNut]

Yippee Ki Ay

Please dont' get smart Coach. We have a potentially volatile situation here.

[wayninja]

Wayninja, back off right now. I mean it. I could have have a handful of cowboys in here in one pm or mhs.

The re-ignition is actually your fault, nut. If you think about it.

[topscribe]

Wayninja, back off right now. I mean it. I could have have a handful of cowboys in here in one pm or mhs.

Nah, I could probably tear off his head and poop down his neck. But he is
secure behind the internet and his computer monitor.

Besides, what would the fun be in that? This is far more fun. http://i258.photobucket.com/albums/hh256/AZDynamics/Smilies/thdrink.gif

-----

[BroncoNut]

Look.....we will not have a franchise QB for awhile......in the meantime.......the best thing you can do is upgrade the o line. We have run out of smoke and mirrors.

I think that's the sound strategy. i'd draft for best safety available and Oline.

[BroncoNut]

The re-ignition is actually your fault, nut. If you think about it.
maybe you should look at your own faults instead of mine