PDA

View Full Version : Broncos impressed after interviewing QBs Brandon Weeden, Brock Osweiler



Denver Native (Carol)
02-26-2012, 03:23 PM
INDIANAPOLIS — There are three draftable quarterbacks who are ready to play in the NFL on Day 1.

One is Andrew Luck. The second is Robert Griffin III (although because he played in a college spread at Baylor, he could use half a season to develop behind, say, Cleveland’s Colt McCoy). And the other is Brandon Weeden.

Luck and Griffin will be long gone by the time the Broncos select with their No. 25 overall draft pick. But they did meet with Weeden, the Oklahoma State product and former New York Yankees’ top prospect.

rest - http://blogs.denverpost.com/broncos/2012/02/26/broncos-interview-weeden-osweiler/12260/

Northman
02-26-2012, 03:30 PM
That puts a smile on my face. While Weeden is older he is probably more NFL ready than most of the QB's coming out. But i would definitely like to have Osweiler the most. Either way, if Teebs cant improve i would like to have one of these guys.

iLands
02-26-2012, 03:42 PM
I'm looking for Brock in the 3rd.

Lancane
02-26-2012, 03:52 PM
If Denver drafts Weeden, then chances are high that Tebow is done in Denver, he'd likely be named starter at the beginning of the season considering that he's pro-ready and a pure passer and will probably show-up Tebow at camp.

Osweiler on the other hand is very athletic quarterback with a big arm and has ties to Tebow (through Coach Mazzone), and close ties to the Broncos, not to mention would need time to develop which would allow the Broncos to sink or swim for the season as Osweiler learns.

I would prefer Osweiler myself, he has the tangibles to be a franchise quarterback. And Weeden has that as well, I am concerned about his age, he's probably going to be limited to a career that falls a couple years short of a decade.

TheReverend
02-26-2012, 04:26 PM
I'd prefer they spent these resources addressing holes in the rest of the team and brought in QB competition via FA, but really, as long as they don't bust a nut over Tannehill...

Lancane
02-26-2012, 05:01 PM
I'd prefer they spent these resources addressing holes in the rest of the team and brought in QB competition via FA, but really, as long as they don't bust a nut over Tannehill...

Not me...IMHO quarterback is one of our weakest areas, and a major concern.

Simple Jaded
02-26-2012, 05:05 PM
I'd prefer they spent these resources addressing holes in the rest of the team and brought in QB competition via FA, but really, as long as they don't bust a nut over Tannehill...

And there isn't a hole at QB?.......

DenBronx
02-26-2012, 05:10 PM
Just keep fixin the damn defense and draft Moore from Boise, aka Drew Brees II, in the 6th round.

Lancane
02-26-2012, 05:45 PM
Just keep fixin the damn defense and draft Moore from Boise, aka Drew Brees II, in the 6th round.

Takes more then defense to win DB...but no sense in arguing people's misconceptions.

CoachChaz
02-26-2012, 05:58 PM
Much more talent available in 2013 draft

TheReverend
02-26-2012, 06:14 PM
Not me...IMHO quarterback is one of our weakest areas, and a major concern.

I guess you missed the news that Orton got cut bro.

hamrob
02-26-2012, 06:39 PM
Denver better not waste one of their first 3 picks on a QB. Tebow is the man!

They can draft a scrub in the 4th - 6th to come in and handle the 3rd string or practice squad duties.

If Tim flops this year...then, they can consider drafting a stud in 2013. Outside of Luck and RGIII, why the hell would they waste a top pick on a QB.

DT, CB, RB...

topscribe
02-26-2012, 07:41 PM
Isn't that amazing how we know so much more about it than the FO that they
had better not draft a given player at a given spot because we say so?

-----

topscribe
02-26-2012, 07:45 PM
I guess you missed the news that Orton got cut bro.

Yes, that's right. But that's only one reason that the position has been weakened . . .

-----

chazoe60
02-26-2012, 07:47 PM
Isn't that amazing how we know so much more about it than the FO that they
had better not draft a given player at a given spot because we say so?

-----

People are just expressing their opinions top. That's kinda what this place is for. If we never disagreed with the organization this place would be very boring.

topscribe
02-26-2012, 07:48 PM
People are just expressing their opinions top. That's kinda what this place is for. If we never disagreed with the organization this place would be very boring.

And I just expressed mine. Should I be precluded from doing so?

-----

chazoe60
02-26-2012, 07:52 PM
And I just expressed mine. Am I precluded from doing so?

-----
Didn't say anything remotely close to that. Don't be so sensitive.

Simple Jaded
02-26-2012, 07:54 PM
Denver better not waste one of their first 3 picks on a QB. Tebow is the man!

They can draft a scrub in the 4th - 6th to come in and handle the 3rd string or practice squad duties.

If Tim flops this year...then, they can consider drafting a stud in 2013. Outside of Luck and RGIII, why the hell would they waste a top pick on a QB.

DT, CB, RB...

Because they don't actually have a QB?.......

topscribe
02-26-2012, 07:55 PM
Didn't say anything remotely close to that. Don't be so sensitive.

You apparently misinterpreted my comment. I wasn't being sensitive . . .

-----

RebelRocker
02-26-2012, 08:00 PM
rest - http://blogs.denverpost.com/broncos/2012/02/26/broncos-interview-weeden-osweiler/12260/

WOOHOO!! OSWEILER FTW!:beer:

chazoe60
02-26-2012, 08:03 PM
Touchy in here today.

chazoe60
02-26-2012, 08:06 PM
WOOHOO!! OSWEILER FTW!:beer:

I'd be stoked if we drafted Osweiler in the second but I'd be even moore(<---- see what I did there?:laugh: ) if we drafted Kellen in the 5th.

I like the tallest QB in the draft and one of the shortest.

Simple Jaded
02-26-2012, 08:07 PM
I'm wondering what people think about Osweiler. From what l've read about him draftniks and scouts kinda like his talent. I don't see it in Osweiler at all, Foles either.

A 6-7 QB with a little mobility gets my attention, l just don't see the arm strength and arm talent some do.......

topscribe
02-26-2012, 08:09 PM
I'm wondering what people think about Osweiler. From what l've read about him draftniks and scouts kinda like his talent. I don't see it in Osweiler at all, Foles either.

A 6-7 QB with a little mobility gets my attention, l just don't see the arm strength and arm talent some do.......

Foles definitely has arm strength.

I don't know a lot about Osweiler, except that he couldn't do a thing
against Arizona (Univ.), but that was just one game . . .

-----

Simple Jaded
02-26-2012, 08:28 PM
Foles definitely has arm strength.

I don't know a lot about Osweiler, except that he couldn't do a thing
against Arizona (Univ.), but that was just one game . . .

-----


I've seen a handful of Osweiler games. l assume Mallett is a natural comparison given their height, but l think the comparisons pretty much end there.

I'll take Mallett at this point.......

RebelRocker
02-26-2012, 08:52 PM
I'd be stoked if we drafted Osweiler in the second but I'd be even moore(<---- see what I did there?:laugh: ) if we drafted Kellen in the 5th.

I like the tallest QB in the draft and one of the shortest.

You never cease to amaze me, Chazoe LOL. I'd be fine with Moore later on, but I don't know if he's a good fit in Fox's offense.

BroncoStud
02-26-2012, 10:37 PM
I guess you missed the news that Orton got cut bro.

Yes, that's right. But that's only one reason that the position has been weakened . . .

-----

Yes, Orton got benched and fired because he is such an amazing talent..,

topscribe
02-26-2012, 10:55 PM
Yes, Orton got benched and fired because he is such an amazing talent..,

I hope for your sake, Stud, that someday you'll get to the point where you value truth . . .

-----

Jsteve01
02-26-2012, 11:30 PM
Foles definitely has arm strength.

I don't know a lot about Osweiler, except that he couldn't do a thing
against Arizona (Univ.), but that was just one game . . .

-----

I for one will throw up in my mouth if we draft foles in the first 4 rounds. He has a bad motion throws off his back foot a ton, and his arm is highly overrated.

silkamilkamonico
02-26-2012, 11:53 PM
isnt weeden like 28 years old? no thanks.

Jsteve01
02-26-2012, 11:59 PM
isnt weeden like 28 years old? no thanks.

He'll be 29 by the time the season starts. He's also got injury concerns. I just can't see using a hig pick on him. But he's more NFL ready than anyone but Luck so he'll go relatively early

cardoso
02-27-2012, 12:05 AM
weeden better be ready to play on day 1. His old azz doesn't have time to learn and if he goes in there and fails in year one teams aren't going to "wait" for him to develop. By he time he did he'd be 49 years old

WARHORSE
02-27-2012, 12:27 AM
Wouldnt be surprised if Weeden is drafted in the second by Denver.

Elway cant help but love that cannon on Weedens shoulder.


But Russell Wilson is the QB for us imo.

RebelRocker
02-27-2012, 12:32 AM
Wouldnt be surprised if Weeden is drafted in the second by Denver.

Elway cant help but love that cannon on Weedens shoulder.


But Russell Wilson is the QB for us imo.

How so?:confused:

Lancane
02-27-2012, 02:18 AM
How so?:confused:

Because he's a Boise Bronco, I've noticed a love fest with that team over the years. How many want us to draft Doug Martin? Which makes a hell of a lot more sense then Kellen Moore, who was far from impressive at the combine. But you'll see people pimping Boise State produced athletes.

RebelRocker
02-27-2012, 02:34 AM
Because he's a Boise Bronco, I've noticed a love fest with that team over the years. How many want us to draft Doug Martin? Which makes a hell of a lot more sense then Kellen Moore, who was far from impressive at the combine. But you'll see people pimping Boise State produced athletes.

He was talking about Russel Wilson, Lancane, not Kellen Moore.


Wouldn't mind either Moore or Martin, though.

Lancane
02-27-2012, 02:36 AM
I'm wondering what people think about Osweiler. From what l've read about him draftniks and scouts kinda like his talent. I don't see it in Osweiler at all, Foles either.

A 6-7 QB with a little mobility gets my attention, l just don't see the arm strength and arm talent some do.......


Osweiler has a very deliberate, quick-twitched setup which he employs on a consistent basis. His athletic ability allows him to play the position naturally and with ease. He slings the ball naturally, as well, and even though he pats the ball before throwing, his release is so compact and effective he isn't hindered by this habit in the slightest. - Per the NFL Experts at the Combine.

And from the same experts -
Osweiler's shining asset is his arm strength; he can hit nearly any NFL-caliber throw at this point in his career. He is a good leader and looks in control in the huddle and on the field. He is above average from an accuracy standpoint, and he really has a good grasp on when to add touch to the ball or to zip it. He has the pocket presence of a first-day pick and doesn't go down easily. He is good to extend plays with his feet.

http://www.nfl.com/combine/profiles/brock-osweiler?id=2533436

Lancane
02-27-2012, 02:39 AM
He was talking about Russel Wilson, Lancane, not Kellen Moore.


Wouldn't mind either Moore or Martin, though.

Oh, my bad.

Martin is the only Boise State product I wouldn't mind seeing come to Denver.

Northman
02-27-2012, 08:20 AM
I like Kellen's accuracy but i would be worried that he would get his hymen broke.

BroncoStud
02-27-2012, 10:43 AM
Don't understand the obsession with Brock AT ALL. Played in a very weak conference, didn't perform against the better teams, not a great athlete...

Weeden is at least ready to start from day 1 and has a cannon. Lindley would be another guy with upside. Keenum would come late in the draft and would be somewhat ready to start and is athletic. Even a guy like Russell Wilson would be an ideal backup for Tebow.

There are options out there - no need for Denver to spend a vital early draft pick on a QB. Especially a QB who is going to suck and offer virtually no help to this team.

Northman
02-27-2012, 10:54 AM
Don't understand the obsession with Brock AT ALL. Played in a very weak conference, didn't perform against the better teams, not a great athlete...

Weeden is at least ready to start from day 1 and has a cannon. Lindley would be another guy with upside. Keenum would come late in the draft and would be somewhat ready to start and is athletic. Even a guy like Russell Wilson would be an ideal backup for Tebow.

There are options out there - no need for Denver to spend a vital early draft pick on a QB. Especially a QB who is going to suck and offer virtually no help to this team.

Funny you would hammer Brock because of a weak conference, etc but then glorify Keenum who played in a softer conference and the one quality opponent he played he got his ass handed to him. :lol:

SOCALORADO.
02-27-2012, 11:14 AM
Funny you would hammer Brock because of a weak conference, etc but then glorify Keenum who played in a softer conference and the one quality opponent he played he got his ass handed to him. :lol:

Not only that, but Osweiller is a monster athlete. He had a full ride to Gonzaga to play basketball, and turned it down to play football.
All i have ever read and saw is hes an exceptional athlete.
Osweiller has close ties to the Elway family through Elways son, and the Ericksson/Elway connection.
I have no doubt as i have said for months now along with Lancane that Osweiller is on DENs board.

SOCALORADO.
02-27-2012, 11:17 AM
Brock Osweiler, QB, Arizona State
Height: 6-8. Weight: 240.
Projected 40 Time: 4.70.
Projected Round (2012): 4-5.
1/9/12: Osweiler is big-armed pocket passer who has surprising mobility. The former basketball player has good athletic ability for being so tall. Looking at him, one would think he would be a statue in the pocket, but that is definitely not the case. As a junior this year, Osweiler completed 63 percent of his passes for 4,036 yards with 26 touchdowns and 13 interceptions. He also ran for 298 yards and three touchdowns. Osweiler set the school record for yards, completions and attempts. In 2010, he had only two starts, but played well throwing for 797 yards and five touchdowns with zero interceptions. He also ran for 168 yards and a score.

Osweiler has real arm strength and the gun to be a starting quarterback in the NFL. He is very raw and needs some work. If Osweiler goes to a good coaching staff that can develop him for a few years, he could turn into something. It wouldn't be surprising if Osweiler's stock rises during the lead up to the draft. He should have stayed in school and improved before going pro.

http://walterfootball.com/draft2008P.php

This is EXACTLY the kind of QB i want DEN to draft.
NOT ready for any kind of playing time, but will be developed behind TT, giving Tim every opportunity to shine.
And if TT does not work out, so be it, DEN has a QB that they have drafted, developed and knows the system.
Along with a vet like Brunell or Delhomme DEN will be set at QB going forward.

Nomad
02-27-2012, 11:23 AM
Osweiler sounds a little like Dan McGuire...perhaps he'll be better.

underrated29
02-27-2012, 12:41 PM
we are not taking a QB before round 3...My guess says we take a flier on a round 4-6 type.




I dont understand why people dont like weeden because he is old.


Would you guys take peyton manning, drew brees right now? They are old. Yes, they are proven and he is not, but he is not going to command a high pick. He is going to fall because of his age and if you can get a drew brees for 5 years for a 5th round pick- would you take it?

I would.

BroncoStud
02-27-2012, 01:33 PM
Funny you would hammer Brock because of a weak conference, etc but then glorify Keenum who played in a softer conference and the one quality opponent he played he got his ass handed to him. :lol:

Keenum has started for YEARS, beat OSU at Stillwater last year, has beaten a lot of solid mid-conference teams. He isn't elite, but at the same time he will be around later in the draft, Denver wouldn't need to waste a high pick on him. That is the attraction.

Brock or Weeden are going to require at least a 3rd rounder one would think...

topscribe
02-27-2012, 02:26 PM
we are not taking a QB before round 3...My guess says we take a flier on a round 4-6 type.




I dont understand why people dont like weeden because he is old.


Would you guys take peyton manning, drew brees right now? They are old. Yes, they are proven and he is not, but he is not going to command a high pick. He is going to fall because of his age and if you can get a drew brees for 5 years for a 5th round pick- would you take it?

I would.

On the surface, this makes some sense. But this is a quarterback-starved
league, and several teams are desperate for one. So, faced with the
prospect of a QB who could essentially step in and play right now, some
teams might be tempted to do some reaching in the draft . . .

-----

Northman
02-27-2012, 02:38 PM
Keenum has started for YEARS, beat OSU at Stillwater last year, has beaten a lot of solid mid-conference teams. He isn't elite, but at the same time he will be around later in the draft, Denver wouldn't need to waste a high pick on him. That is the attraction.

Brock or Weeden are going to require at least a 3rd rounder one would think...

It would make no sense to take a QB that late in the draft. We currently have a question mark as our starter so taking one in the 3rd would not be a bad decision, especially if they are projected to go there. There are plenty of picks to address the rest of the team and if the FO think that Weeden and Osweiler are a good fit i cant disagree with them.

claymore
02-27-2012, 02:53 PM
It would make no sense to take a QB that late in the draft. We currently have a question mark as our starter so taking one in the 3rd would not be a bad decision, especially if they are projected to go there. There are plenty of picks to address the rest of the team and if the FO think that Weeden and Osweiler are a good fit i cant disagree with them.

I dont see the sense in taking a QB at all this year. We have 3 question marks at QB as it is. Tebow?, Webber?, Insert FA Vet here?

Unless it involves some blockbuster trade sending tebow elseware, and luck here... Im whole heartedly against it.

I love this front office though. I can be sold if they fall in love/are in love with a guy.

Northman
02-27-2012, 03:01 PM
I dont see the sense in taking a QB at all this year. We have 3 question marks at QB as it is. Tebow?, Webber?, Insert FA Vet here?

Unless it involves some blockbuster trade sending tebow elseware, and luck here... Im whole heartedly against it.

I love this front office though. I can be sold if they fall in love/are in love with a guy.

Webber wont amount to anything, im confident of that. Tebow is still questionable but taking a QB this year or the next isnt much of a difference. Either way, your using a draft pick to pick one up and (as you said) if the FO likes a particular guy than their going to use it. It obviously doesnt make sense to take a QB in the first or 2nd but any later than that i have zero problems with considering our situation.

Simple Jaded
02-27-2012, 03:09 PM
I think if teams think they can get 2 contracts outta Brandon Weeden his age is pretty much a moot point. What l mean by that is if he can start in Denver immediately (Adam Weber probably could if the decision were based on ability) and is good enough to be longterm it's not unheard of in todays NFL for QB's to play into their late 30's. A four year rookie contract with an extension and maybe you're talking about Matt Hasselbeck.

Where Denver is concerned I see Weeden only as a bridge to an eventual franchise QB. Which is worth a 2nd round pick, imo.

As for any rookie QB, l don't see any reason why Osweiler, Tannehill, Lindley, Cousins and the like should be drafted with the expectation of sitting while Tebow is "given every opportunity to shine". The Broncos do not owe Tebow a damn thing and if the Broncos draft any QB why doesn't the same ridiculous "We gotta see what we have in Osweiler before the 2013 draft" apply to Tebow? Tebow is nowhere near as good as Ortonary was when people were renting billboards to buy Tebow a starting job he hasn't earned, and Ortonary was having a career year in '10 when fans started calling for his head, so why should Tebow be given a longer leash? This is an obvious double-standard.

The Broncos need to keep looking for an answer at QB until they find one, if you get pissed because they use a draft pick on a QB too soon there is a good chance you're just uncomfortable with the reality of the situation. Take "names", character and team accomplishments out of it and objectively assess the situation; if Denver had only one QB and he was so inept in an NFL passing game that they had to install his highschool offense, what would you say? If by the end of the season he was still only able to consistently hit the 3, the 6 and bucket throws to the left side of the field, what would you say? If he flatout could not throw anything to his right, what would you say?

Denver has the worst QB situation in the entire NFL and simply looking for backups would be irresponsible of EFX. They can't allow a small segment of the fanbase to dictate the Broncos actual decisions the way they allow the fanbase to dictate their rhetoric.......

Chef Zambini
02-27-2012, 03:10 PM
http://walterfootball.com/draft2008P.php

This is EXACTLY the kind of QB i want DEN to draft.
NOT ready for any kind of playing time, but will be developed behind TT, giving Tim every opportunity to shine.
And if TT does not work out, so be it, DEN has a QB that they have drafted, developed and knows the system.
Along with a vet like Brunell or Delhomme DEN will be set at QB going forward.denver will definatly draft a QB! but when and where they select that QB depends on the veteran QB they are able to sign BEFORE the draft!
if they sign a FA QB who can start and lead this team to wins, then they aRE less likely to select a 28 year old like weeden.
...and drafting a QB before the 4th round would seem to make little sense under thaT SCENARIO TOO !
Now if come the draft, we have NOT signed a veteran QB, then i would expect our broncos to use at least a 3rd round pick to select a QB they covet !
I still hope we can trade tebow for the jags pick and make a move for RG III.

RebelRocker
02-27-2012, 03:18 PM
Chef Zambini;1559644]denver will definatly draft a QB! but when and where they select that QB depends on the veteran QB they are able to sign BEFORE the draft![/B]
if they sign a FA QB who can start and lead this team to wins, then they aRE less likely to select a 28 year old like weeden.
...and drafting a QB before the 4th round would seem to make little sense under thaT SCENARIO TOO !
Now if come the draft, we have NOT signed a veteran QB, then i would expect our broncos to use at least a 3rd round pick to select a QB they covet !
I still hope we can trade tebow for the jags pick and make a move for RG III.

Exactly. Who we draft and where we draft them is the question, in my mind. The "will we draft a QB?" debate is over. I'm pretty certain that we will. One of the biggest reason we will is not just because we need competition, but how many veteran FA's do you think REALLY want to come to Denver right now? They saw what happened with Orton and it's a lose/lose situation for them. If we're looking for legit competition, it will most likely come through the draft.

topscribe
02-27-2012, 03:23 PM
Webber wont amount to anything, im confident of that. Tebow is still questionable but taking a QB this year or the next isnt much of a difference. Either way, your using a draft pick to pick one up and (as you said) if the FO likes a particular guy than their going to use it. It obviously doesnt make sense to take a QB in the first or 2nd but any later than that i have zero problems with considering our situation.


I think if the Broncos think they can get 2 contracts outta Brandon Weeden his age is pretty much a moot point. What l mean by that is if he can start in Denver immediately (Adam Weber probably could if the decision were based on ability) and is good enough to be longterm it's not unheard of in todays NFL for QB's to play into their late 30's. A four year rookie contract with an extension and maybe you're talking about Matt Hasselbeck.

Where Denver is concerned I see Weeden only as a bridge to an eventual franchise QB. Which is worth a 2nd round pick, imo.

As for any rookie QB, l don't see any reason why Osweiler, Tannehill, Lindley, Cousins and the like should be drafted with the expectation of sitting while Tebow is "given every opportunity to shine". The Broncos do not owe Tebow a damn thing and if the Broncos draft any QB why doesn't the same ridiculous "We gotta see what we have in Osweiler before the 2013 draft" apply to Tebow? Tebow is nowhere near as good as Ortonary was when people were renting billboards to buy Tebow a starting job he hasn't earned, and Ortonary was having a career year in '10 when fans started calling for his head, so why should Tebow be given a longer leash? This is an obvious double-standard.

The Broncos need to keep looking for an answer at QB until they find one, if you get pissed because they use a draft pick on a QB too soon there is a good chance you're just uncomfortable with the reality of the situation. Take "names", character and team accomplishments out of it and objectively assess the situation; if Denver had only one QB and he was so inept in an NFL passing game that they had to install his highschool offense, what would you say? If by the end of the season he was still only able to consistently hit the 3, the 6 and bucket throws to the left side of the field, what would you say? If he flatout could not throw anything to his right, what would you say?

Denver has the worst QB situation in the entire NFL and simply looking for backups would be irresponsible of EFX. They can't allow a small segment of the fanbase to dictate the Broncos actual decisions the way they allow the fanbase to dictate their rhetoric.......

It wouldn't hurt my feelings to see a Weeden come to the Broncos as
their 2nd rounder. The Broncos won the Division last year with what they
had. What could they do with a QB who can pass the ball?

-----

underrated29
02-27-2012, 03:33 PM
I think if teams think they can get 2 contracts outta Brandon Weeden his age is pretty much a moot point. What l mean by that is if he can start in Denver immediately (Adam Weber probably could if the decision were based on ability) and is good enough to be longterm it's not unheard of in todays NFL for QB's to play into their late 30's. A four year rookie contract with an extension and maybe you're talking about Matt Hasselbeck.

Where Denver is concerned I see Weeden only as a bridge to an eventual franchise QB. Which is worth a 2nd round pick, imo.

As for any rookie QB, l don't see any reason why Osweiler, Tannehill, Lindley, Cousins and the like should be drafted with the expectation of sitting while Tebow is "given every opportunity to shine". The Broncos do not owe Tebow a damn thing and if the Broncos draft any QB why doesn't the same ridiculous "We gotta see what we have in Osweiler before the 2013 draft" apply to Tebow? Tebow is nowhere near as good as Ortonary was when people were renting billboards to buy Tebow a starting job he hasn't earned, and Ortonary was having a career year in '10 when fans started calling for his head, so why should Tebow be given a longer leash? This is an obvious double-standard.

The Broncos need to keep looking for an answer at QB until they find one, if you get pissed because they use a draft pick on a QB too soon there is a good chance you're just uncomfortable with the reality of the situation. Take "names", character and team accomplishments out of it and objectively assess the situation; if Denver had only one QB and he was so inept in an NFL passing game that they had to install his highschool offense, what would you say? If by the end of the season he was still only able to consistently hit the 3, the 6 and bucket throws to the left side of the field, what would you say? If he flatout could not throw anything to his right, what would you say?

Denver has the worst QB situation in the entire NFL and simply looking for backups would be irresponsible of EFX. They can't allow a small segment of the fanbase to dictate the Broncos actual decisions the way they allow the fanbase to dictate their rhetoric.......



I normally like your posts, but this happens to be one of the most jaded opinions I have read.

Simple Jaded
02-27-2012, 04:30 PM
I normally like your posts, but this happens to be one of the most jaded opinions I have read.

I get that a lot lately, perhaps it has something to do with our polar opposite opinions of Brandon Weeden?


Btw, l've been seriously wondering how to change my screen name so l can change it to Jaded. That's freaky, they used to burn people like you alive.......

underrated29
02-27-2012, 04:41 PM
I get that a lot lately, perhaps it has something to do with our polar opposite opinions of Brandon Weeden?


Btw, l've been seriously wondering how to change my screen name so l can change it to Jaded. That's freaky, they used to burn people like you alive.......


Whoa, look at link. Coming in with the big boy voice.


Such a sad thing considering its Jaded.


North
DNC
Gem
they can help you with the name change process. Good luck.

BroncoStud
02-27-2012, 05:36 PM
Webber wont amount to anything, im confident of that. Tebow is still questionable but taking a QB this year or the next isnt much of a difference. Either way, your using a draft pick to pick one up and (as you said) if the FO likes a particular guy than their going to use it. It obviously doesnt make sense to take a QB in the first or 2nd but any later than that i have zero problems with considering our situation.

Weber sucks but Osweiler is worth a 2nd or 3rd round pick...? Come on...

It's the typical "I love this player for my team because he is X big and runs an X 40..." I agree with Clay, if you're going to make a move at QB MAKE YOUR MOVE, but don't waste a pick on a guy who isn't going to give the Broncos any better chance to win than the guy currently on the roster.

Brock didn't show me that he was capable of being an elite QB. I kept waiting for him to do so and it just never happened. In a very weak defensive league he was a pretty good player. Weeden was elite at OSU but he is going to be 29 years old when his career in the NFL begins plus we don't have Justin Blackmon.

We do have glaring holes at MLB, Safety, CB, DT, and overall team depth, including RB, WR speed, and OL. Tebow has proven the Broncos CAN win with him at QB, but the defense was still ranked 20th and our starting RB in in his 30s and fumbles when he isn't sitting games out hurt. There are BIGGER needs.

Did I imagine winning a playoff game with Tebow last year? Seems like it happened but some just overlook it...

catfish
02-27-2012, 05:56 PM
I dont see the sense in taking a QB at all this year. We have 3 question marks at QB as it is. Tebow?, Webber?, Insert FA Vet here?

Unless it involves some blockbuster trade sending tebow elseware, and luck here... Im whole heartedly against it.

I love this front office though. I can be sold if they fall in love/are in love with a guy.

I actually agree with you on this. Taking a QB this year feel a whole lot like settling. You are going to take what was projected to be the 5th or 6th best QB available before a few guys decided to stay in school?

Use the pick to get one of the top guys at his position in another position of need. Pick one of the top 2 guys next year if Tebow flames out. I agree with you about the FO if they trust a guy I will buy in too

Simple Jaded
02-27-2012, 06:03 PM
Weber sucks but Osweiler is worth a 2nd or 3rd round pick...? Come on...

It's the typical "I love this player for my team because he is X big and runs an X 40..." I agree with Clay, if you're going to make a move at QB MAKE YOUR MOVE, but don't waste a pick on a guy who isn't going to give the Broncos any better chance to win than the guy currently on the roster.

Brock didn't show me that he was capable of being an elite QB. I kept waiting for him to do so and it just never happened. In a very weak defensive league he was a pretty good player. Weeden was elite at OSU but he is going to be 29 years old when his career in the NFL begins plus we don't have Justin Blackmon.

We do have glaring holes at MLB, Safety, CB, DT, and overall team depth, including RB, WR speed, and OL. Tebow has proven the Broncos CAN win with him at QB, but the defense was still ranked 20th and our starting RB in in his 30s and fumbles when he isn't sitting games out hurt. There are BIGGER needs.

Did I imagine winning a playoff game with Tebow last year? Seems like it happened but some just overlook it...

No there isn't, no starter played worse than the QB. Tebow hasn't proved anything other than a QB who can provide a spark from a backup role. He is nowhere near proved longterm starter potential, the fact that the team won is more of a testiment to the team/coaches around him than anything else.......

topscribe
02-27-2012, 06:04 PM
Weber sucks but Osweiler is worth a 2nd or 3rd round pick...? Come on...

It's the typical "I love this player for my team because he is X big and runs an X 40..." I agree with Clay, if you're going to make a move at QB MAKE YOUR MOVE, but don't waste a pick on a guy who isn't going to give the Broncos any better chance to win than the guy currently on the roster.

Brock didn't show me that he was capable of being an elite QB. I kept waiting for him to do so and it just never happened. In a very weak defensive league he was a pretty good player. Weeden was elite at OSU but he is going to be 29 years old when his career in the NFL begins plus we don't have Justin Blackmon.

We do have glaring holes at MLB, Safety, CB, DT, and overall team depth, including RB, WR speed, and OL. Tebow has proven the Broncos CAN win with him at QB, but the defense was still ranked 20th and our starting RB in in his 30s and fumbles when he isn't sitting games out hurt. There are BIGGER needs.

Did I imagine winning a playoff game with Tebow last year? Seems like it happened but some just overlook it...

No, what you seem to have overlooked are the other four games out of
those last five, all of which the team lost with Tebow. You overlooked the
two or three games Prater won it with his leg on long field goals. You also
overlooked other factors, such as when the Bears' RB so graciously ran
out of bounds so Tebow could take credit for another win.

BTW, isn't it kind of ironic to allude to McGahee's four fumbles while
overlooking Tebow's 14?

I also take exception with the comment about all those "glaring holes."
Speed? Why, then, all this talk about letting Royal go? And we saw in the
Pittsburgh game that Thomas has not lost much, if any, of his sub 4.4
speed. And we saw how even Decker had a knack for getting behind the
defense.

Or is it defensive speed? Given the lack (and a hole) at MLB. But few, if
any, linebackers around the league are faster than D.J., Woodyard, and
Miller. Cornerback? Champ and Goodman have still got it.

Yes, a team can always use more speed, and I would qualify it as a need,
but not necessarily a "glaring hole."

If Dawkins retires, that will leave a hole at safety, granted -- and even if
he doesn't, the hole will be there in 2013 because he almost surely will
retire next year.

But where else? OL? Don't agree. Need, yes, "glaring hole," no. After all,
they blocked for the #1 running game in the league last year. A little high
on sacks, yes, but that shouldn't be a surprise with all the youth on the
line. It also will not be a surprise to me to see them begin to gel this year.

RB? Yes, the Broncos can use a complement to McGahee, but one could
hardly call a 1,200 yard rusher a "glaring hole."

Sorry, I see needs, but I just don't see all those "glaring holes," except for
MLB. And quarterback. I am really hoping to see a 2nd going for QB.

Those are my opinions, anyway . . .

-----

Lancane
02-27-2012, 06:10 PM
I actually agree with you on this. Taking a QB this year feel a whole lot like settling. You are going to take what was projected to be the 5th or 6th best QB available before a few guys decided to stay in school?

Use the pick to get one of the top guys at his position in another position of need. Pick one of the top 2 guys next year if Tebow flames out. I agree with you about the FO if they trust a guy I will buy in too

Wonder where New England would be if they looked at it that way? Could you imagine had Tom Brady not been selected because they already had Drew Bledsoe? And Tebow is no Bledsoe to begin with, it's a different situation altogether, because the Broncos are unsure what they do have. It might be far too much to bank the future of this team on. Even if the kid doesn't become a starter, at least we have a backup with knowledge of the system when we do add a rookie that's likely to be forced in the lineup. Either way it's a smart move, because literally too many people are putting too much faith into Tebow as it is right now.

Simple Jaded
02-27-2012, 06:23 PM
Wonder where New England would be if they looked at it that way? Could you imagine had Tom Brady not been selected because they already had Drew Bledsoe? And Tebow is no Bledsoe to begin with, it's a different situation altogether, because the Broncos are unsure what they do have. It might be far too much to bank the future of this team on. Even if the kid doesn't become a starter, at least we have a backup with knowledge of the system when we do add a rookie that's likely to be forced in the lineup. Either way it's a smart move, because literally too many people are putting too much faith into Tebow as it is right now.

I agree but imo that's a pipe dream. Since he led the league in jersey sales it's been my opinion that if Tebow can't start for your team then Tebow can't even be on your team. I'm dead serious and l have seen nothing but reinforcement of that opinion.

At this point l believe that Tebow would be one hell of a dynamic backup QB, just in the sense that he doesn't need starters reps in practice to go in and provide a spark.

l don't see that ever happening with his ridiculous fanbase who were renting billboards because they just couldn't accept that he clearly wasn't ready.......

catfish
02-27-2012, 06:29 PM
Wonder where New England would be if they looked at it that way? Could you imagine had Tom Brady not been selected because they already had Drew Bledsoe? And Tebow is no Bledsoe to begin with, it's a different situation altogether, because the Broncos are unsure what they do have. It might be far too much to bank the future of this team on. Even if the kid doesn't become a starter, at least we have a backup with knowledge of the system when we do add a rookie that's likely to be forced in the lineup. Either way it's a smart move, because literally too many people are putting too much faith into Tebow as it is right now.

I could get behind taking a guy in the 6th round of the draft, but people are advocating using a 1st-3rd rounder this year on an also ran. I would prefer using those picks on other needs and if Tebow sucks next year use a first rounder on a guy who is "NFL ready"

topscribe
02-27-2012, 06:38 PM
I could get behind taking a guy in the 6th round of the draft, but people are advocating using a 1st-3rd rounder this year on an also ran. I would prefer using those picks on other needs and if Tebow sucks next year use a first rounder on a guy who is "NFL ready"

Well, if the Broncos invest a 2nd, I am sure they will not consider that guy
an "also-ran." At that point, I will choose to trust them . . . not that I
will have a choice . . . :laugh:

-----

Lancane
02-27-2012, 06:45 PM
I could get behind taking a guy in the 6th round of the draft, but people are advocating using a 1st-3rd rounder this year on an also ran. I would prefer using those picks on other needs and if Tebow sucks next year use a first rounder on a guy who is "NFL ready"

There is no guarantee that a kid is NFL ready though Cat. That is indeed one of the greatest misconceptions of the draft. And depending on our record, we might be looking more at the quarterbacks that still have a learning curve, which could screw the season or force Denver to look at other options, like going after next off-season's Flynn or Kolb, as Shanahan had to go with Plummer.

I understand people's sentiments and desire to fix the needs or areas of concern, but there is no guarantee that those picks will be better used elsewhere. There is just as much a risk taking a cornerback, tailback or safety, even a defensive tackle at those spots.

catfish
02-27-2012, 06:47 PM
There is no guarantee that a kid is NFL ready though Cat. That is indeed one of the greatest misconceptions of the draft. And depending on our record, we might be looking more at the quarterbacks that still have a learning curve, which could screw the season or force Denver to look at other options, like going after next off-season's Flynn or Kolb, as Shanahan had to go with Plummer.

I understand people's sentiments and desire to fix the needs or areas of concern, but there is no guarantee that those picks will be better used elsewhere. There is just as much a risk taking a cornerback, tailback or safety, even a defensive tackle at those spots.

I agree there is risk involved in all selections at any position, but I would think that there is less risk in taking the #1 or #2 CB over the #5 or #6 QB

catfish
02-27-2012, 06:51 PM
Well, if the Broncos invest a 2nd, I am sure they will not consider that guy
an "also-ran." At that point, I will choose to trust them . . . not that I
will have a choice . . . :laugh:

-----

Ohh I agree and if they do I would assume it would be worth it, just don't want to see a bunch of people getting their hope up for an early round QB pick. If the FO is going BPA I can't see it being a QB in the first few rounds as the draft isn't as deep as it was supposed to be at that position. I am thinking the qb they bring in to "compete" will be a FA guy. The draft pick, if they pick a QB at all, will most likely be a late rounder not really expected to contribute this year or next.

Again like I said I trust this FO so if they think a guy is worth an early rounder I would take their word for it...I just don't see it happeneing, but I am no expert

topscribe
02-27-2012, 06:58 PM
Ohh I agree and if they do I would assume it would be worth it, just don't want to see a bunch of people getting their hope up for an early round QB pick. If the FO is going BPA I can't see it being a QB in the first few rounds as the draft isn't as deep as it was supposed to be at that position. I am thinking the qb they bring in to "compete" will be a FA guy. The draft pick, if they pick a QB at all, will most likely be a late rounder not really expected to contribute this year or next.

Again like I said I trust this FO so if they think a guy is worth an early rounder I would take their word for it...I just don't see it happeneing, but I am no expert

And I agree that the right veteran would be a better choice to truly
compete for the job, depending on the particular veteran, of course. For
instance, a Henne or Flynn could probably compete, whereas a Delhomme
likely could not (age), so he would be a backup.

But, I, too, speak as a non-expert . . .

-----

Lancane
02-27-2012, 07:06 PM
I agree there is risk involved in all selections at any position, but I would think that there is less risk in taking the #1 or #2 CB over the #5 or #6 QB

I sincerely doubt that Denver will use their first round pick on a quarterback, though it would please me (in a way) to shut up the Tebow zealotry going on within the Bronco Nation. But, let's remember that Denver is on the back end of almost every round in this draft, so we're not going to be looking at the number one or two cornerbacks, we'll still be looking at the fourth, fifth and in some cases sixth or seventh player at that position...unless we're looking at the best fullbacks or tight ends. They'll literally be picking kids who have the possibility to slip in the following round. No matter which way they decide to go, there will be risk-reward picks, it's not like we should expect much from those we do draft either, most will have learning curbs and will struggle to break into the starting lineup.

FlyByU
02-27-2012, 07:18 PM
You all know Brandon Weeden is 28+ years old right? That gives him at max 6 years in the pros and he has to learn how to play in the pros as well.

Ziggy
02-27-2012, 07:27 PM
Tannehill in the 1st, Weeden in the 2nd, and Osweiler in the 3rd are all real possibilities for the Broncos. They all fit the mold of what Elway is looking for in a QB. Tebow will get his chance, but I think he'll have some legit competition in camp this year.

slim
02-27-2012, 07:33 PM
You all know Brandon Weeden is 28+ years old right? That gives him at max 6 years in the pros and he has to learn how to play in the pros as well.

You know 28 + 6 = 34, right?

Jsteve01
02-27-2012, 07:35 PM
Wonder where New England would be if they looked at it that way? Could you imagine had Tom Brady not been selected because they already had Drew Bledsoe? And Tebow is no Bledsoe to begin with, it's a different situation altogether, because the Broncos are unsure what they do have. It might be far too much to bank the future of this team on. Even if the kid doesn't become a starter, at least we have a backup with knowledge of the system when we do add a rookie that's likely to be forced in the lineup. Either way it's a smart move, because literally too many people are putting too much faith into Tebow as it is right now.

eh They drafted him in the 6th round. Don't think anyone here would throw a fit if they pulled the trigger on a winner in the 6th ala keenum or clemons. What most of us are talking about is using value picks on a position that would seem to still be up in the air.

FlyByU
02-27-2012, 07:39 PM
You know 28 + 6 = 34, right?

yelp thats right 3 years to develop makes him 31 and 3 years to start improving and he is done and ready to retire. Waste of a pick imo.

Jsteve01
02-27-2012, 07:40 PM
You know 28 + 6 = 34, right?

well you just resolved some major issues that I've been harboring toward my 5th grade math teacher...damn she was right

Simple Jaded
02-27-2012, 08:00 PM
Even if he never improves a lick Tebow could be 34 years old and 11 years into "giving him every opportunity to shine" and his fans will still be saying that a 1st round QB would be a waste.......

topscribe
02-27-2012, 08:01 PM
yelp thats right 3 years to develop makes him 31 and 3 years to start improving and he is done and ready to retire. Waste of a pick imo.

Except that is the QB positon we're talking about. Players at that position
have been effective crowding 40. Just ask Kurt Warner, Jake Delhomme,
and Matt Hasselbeck, among others . . .

-----

topscribe
02-27-2012, 08:03 PM
well you just resolved some major issues that I've been harboring toward my 5th grade math teacher...damn she was right

Now, you're ready for Middle School! :D

-----

catfish
02-27-2012, 08:03 PM
Except that is the QB positon we're talking about. Players at that position
have been effective crowding 40. Just ask Kurt Warner, Jake Delhomme,
and Matt Hasselbeck, among others . . .

-----

I'm not sure, but didn't those three have years of experience by the time they made it big at an older age? The argument is if a QB start out olsder, you don't have the option to let him develop as much...he is hit or miss out the box or you don't get enough time to use him to make it worth it

topscribe
02-27-2012, 08:05 PM
I'm not sure, but didn't those three have years of experience by the time they made it big at an older age? The argument is if a QB start out olsder, you don't have the option to let him develop as much...he is hit or miss out the box or you don't get enough time to use him to make it worth it

That's true, yet maybe the maturity factor could offset some?

I don't know . . . :noidea:

-----

catfish
02-27-2012, 08:07 PM
That's true, yet maybe the maturity factor could offset some?

I don't know . . . :noidea:

-----

I guess it is possible....as a 29 year old I would trade my maturity now for my athletecism at 23 straight up right now :) of course I haven't exactly been staying in college football shape.

topscribe
02-27-2012, 08:13 PM
I guess it is possible....as a 29 year old I would trade my maturity now for my athletecism at 23 straight up right now :) of course I haven't exactly been staying in college football shape.

I feel exactly the same way about it.

But then, I never had much athleticism. :laugh:

-----

catfish
02-27-2012, 08:14 PM
I feel exactly the same way about it.

But then, I never had much athleticism. :laugh:

-----

I didn't say I had much...damn sight more than I do now though:)

Lancane
02-27-2012, 08:26 PM
eh They drafted him in the 6th round. Don't think anyone here would throw a fit if they pulled the trigger on a winner in the 6th ala keenum or clemons. What most of us are talking about is using value picks on a position that would seem to still be up in the air.

True...then again, are we really so temperamental as a fan base that if Denver did use a certain draft pick (especially in a draft where we are drafting on the back end) on a player they felt could be a solid backup quarterback, or maybe even a possible franchise quarterback 'just in case' that we'd really need to bitch about it? Cause it's sort of pointless, especially when you consider that Tebow is still a questionable quarterback...there is no difference between drafting a quarterback and any other position, especially when it's a position of need, there will be a risk no matter who they take.

IMHO, I truly believe the zealots (not saying you J or even Cat) are afraid that a quarterback with enough intangibles and solid enough mechanics might truly show the Broncos' as an organization how much Tebow lacks, even surpass him in their minds. While those who are not high on Tim who are moaning about picking a quarterback in the draft are likely doing so or so I believe, because they feel that 'when' Tebow fails that it will in all likeliness demolish the season and Denver will then have a high draft pick to use for his successor.

The way I look at it, is so freaking what, say we draft Osweiler or Foles, maybe even Lindley or Keenum, if they turn out to be a solid long-term back the pick was worth it, if they turn into a franchise capable quarterback such as Flacco or Ryan, then the pick was more then worth it and in that case it leaves us with another pick to use next year elsewhere rather then having to focus on that position. So what that we didn't get the next Manning, Rodgers or Stafford...that doesn't mean it will pan out, but it's worth the risk, that's how you build a solid team, at least I believe so.

Superchop 7
02-27-2012, 08:39 PM
Nick Foles - 6’5 - 243 - 10 5/8 hands - Foles was the most criticized on TV today and of course the media drones that blindly hold everything said on TV as truth, have gobbled this all up. Once again, like the Cousins situation but only backwards, here’s another case of people making the same mistakes year after year and never learning from it. Every year a quarterback comes out that didn’t take snaps from under center. They struggle to learn the footwork of dropping back. By the time they’ve gone through OTAs, mini camp, training camp, and preseason, they looked a thousand times better. I guess people forget because the last time this happen was waaayyy back in 2011 with a guy who didn’t get drafted until the first pick overall. He struggled to learn the footwork and he still has flaws. That could be what cost him to only pass for a little over 4,000 yards as a rookie and 21 touchdowns. I’m not saying that Floes is Nick is Cam Newton, they are two completely different players but the problem with the footwork is the same. They also like to call Foles inconsistent. Well, let’s look at his stats as a starter for the last three seasons. He must have only had a 50% completion percentage and a roller coaster ride of a career, right?

2011 YARDS 4334 COMP % 69.1 TD 28 INT 14 QB RATING 145.6
2010 YARDS 3191 COMP % 67.1 TD 20 INT 10 QB RATING 140.9
2009 YARDS 2486 COMP % 63.6 TD 19 INT 9 QB RATING 125.6



Hmmm, so his yards increased every year, his completion percentage increased every year, his touchdowns increased every year, his quarterback rating increased every year, and he always maintained a 2 to 1 touchdown to interception ratio. Geez, what was this guy, bi-polar or something. He’s all over the place. Seriously, Foles has to improve his footwork but he can make every throw and he’s smart. He’s the third best prospect right now. Ryan Tannehill has bigger upside but he’s also a bigger risk.


SOURCE: NFL COMBINE 2012

claymore
02-27-2012, 09:36 PM
Webber wont amount to anything, im confident of that. Tebow is still questionable but taking a QB this year or the next isnt much of a difference. Either way, your using a draft pick to pick one up and (as you said) if the FO likes a particular guy than their going to use it. It obviously doesnt make sense to take a QB in the first or 2nd but any later than that i have zero problems with considering our situation.

Yeah, I have no hope for Webber, and less hope for Tebow.

I just dont want to waste a 2nd, 3rd or even a fourth on another loser project.

Id rather stockpile picks for next year, let tebow bring us down lower in the draft, and then get a real QB.

BroncoStud
02-27-2012, 10:24 PM
Weber sucks but Osweiler is worth a 2nd or 3rd round pick...? Come on...

It's the typical "I love this player for my team because he is X big and runs an X 40..." I agree with Clay, if you're going to make a move at QB MAKE YOUR MOVE, but don't waste a pick on a guy who isn't going to give the Broncos any better chance to win than the guy currently on the roster.

Brock didn't show me that he was capable of being an elite QB. I kept waiting for him to do so and it just never happened. In a very weak defensive league he was a pretty good player. Weeden was elite at OSU but he is going to be 29 years old when his career in the NFL begins plus we don't have Justin Blackmon.

We do have glaring holes at MLB, Safety, CB, DT, and overall team depth, including RB, WR speed, and OL. Tebow has proven the Broncos CAN win with him at QB, but the defense was still ranked 20th and our starting RB in in his 30s and fumbles when he isn't sitting games out hurt. There are BIGGER needs.

Did I imagine winning a playoff game with Tebow last year? Seems like it happened but some just overlook it...

No, what you seem to have overlooked are the other four games out of
those last five, all of which the team lost with Tebow. You overlooked the
two or three games Prater won it with his leg on long field goals. You also
overlooked other factors, such as when the Bears' RB so graciously ran
out of bounds so Tebow could take credit for another win.

BTW, isn't it kind of ironic to allude to McGahee's four fumbles while
overlooking Tebow's 14?

I also take exception with the comment about all those "glaring holes."
Speed? Why, then, all this talk about letting Royal go? And we saw in the
Pittsburgh game that Thomas has not lost much, if any, of his sub 4.4
speed. And we saw how even Decker had a knack for getting behind the
defense.

Or is it defensive speed? Given the lack (and a hole) at MLB. But few, if
any, linebackers around the league are faster than D.J., Woodyard, and
Miller. Cornerback? Champ and Goodman have still got it.

Yes, a team can always use more speed, and I would qualify it as a need,
but not necessarily a "glaring hole."

If Dawkins retires, that will leave a hole at safety, granted -- and even if
he doesn't, the hole will be there in 2013 because he almost surely will
retire next year.

But where else? OL? Don't agree. Need, yes, "glaring hole," no. After all,
they blocked for the #1 running game in the league last year. A little high
on sacks, yes, but that shouldn't be a surprise with all the youth on the
line. It also will not be a surprise to me to see them begin to gel this year.

RB? Yes, the Broncos can use a complement to McGahee, but one could
hardly call a 1,200 yard rusher a "glaring hole."

Sorry, I see needs, but I just don't see all those "glaring holes," except for
MLB. And quarterback. I am really hoping to see a 2nd going for QB.

Those are my opinions, anyway . . .

-----

Of course you disagree, you are personally invested in your dislike of our current QB. Ironically, if Denver had finished the year with Orton and gone maybe 5-11 (if we were lucky) you would still be telling the board Denver didn't need a QB, Orton wasn't to blame, bigger needs, etc, etc.

Tebow, despite his flaws, made enough plays to help Denver win games and bea the Steelers. The defense sucked down the stretch and finished 20th.

Weeden is probably the only realistic player that could come to Denver through the draft and be ready to play but would the offensive line hold up without a mobile QB? All I heard when Orton played was how bad the line had gotten, etc.

If you were unbiased you would give Tebow a year to improve much like you were willing to do with Orton.

But on to Decker - drops, drops, drops. Eddie Royal is a GREAT returner but not a great WR. McGahee had a good season but was injured and fumbled at critical points too often. The OL needs to pass protect better, there were games that Tebow was under constant pressure. DT - we simply do not get pressure from the middle. Safety - Dawkins will help but behind him it doesn't look promising. CB - Goodman is horrible, absolutely horrible...

There are BIG needs. I'd be ok with a QB but not in the top 3 rounds. Build the defense and add speed to the offense first.

arapaho2
02-27-2012, 11:22 PM
Takes more then defense to win DB...but no sense in arguing people's misconceptions.



but we been dipshitting around for years other than miller


and we are still one of the worst defenses in the game


we need to focus on defense early..quality players

topscribe
02-28-2012, 12:25 AM
Of course you disagree, you are personally invested in your dislike of our current QB. Ironically, if Denver had finished the year with Orton and gone maybe 5-11 (if we were lucky) you would still be telling the board Denver didn't need a QB, Orton wasn't to blame, bigger needs, etc, etc.

Tebow, despite his flaws, made enough plays to help Denver win games and bea the Steelers. The defense sucked down the stretch and finished 20th.

Weeden is probably the only realistic player that could come to Denver through the draft and be ready to play but would the offensive line hold up without a mobile QB? All I heard when Orton played was how bad the line had gotten, etc.

If you were unbiased you would give Tebow a year to improve much like you were willing to do with Orton.

But on to Decker - drops, drops, drops. Eddie Royal is a GREAT returner but not a great WR. McGahee had a good season but was injured and fumbled at critical points too often. The OL needs to pass protect better, there were games that Tebow was under constant pressure. DT - we simply do not get pressure from the middle. Safety - Dawkins will help but behind him it doesn't look promising. CB - Goodman is horrible, absolutely horrible...

There are BIG needs. I'd be ok with a QB but not in the top 3 rounds. Build the defense and add speed to the offense first.

What.Is.It.With.You.And.Orton? Wow. :lol:

It is your own bias and unbridled worship of Tebow that makes you issue those
accusations. I am not the only one on this board with this opinion. But I'm the
one you come and throw Orton at. Well, keep throwing. I would reckon that
everone but Chaz (since he saluted you) knows how dumb that is . . . :coffee:

-----

Simple Jaded
02-28-2012, 12:39 AM
Denver's defense sucked down the stretch?

I guess to keep your job you have to suck most of the time and then complete enough passes underneath prevent defenses to position the offense for 60 yard FG's.......

topscribe
02-28-2012, 01:07 AM
Denver's defense sucked down the stretch?

I guess to keep your job you have to suck most of the time and then complete enough passes underneath prevent defenses to position the offense for 60 yard FG's.......

Well, you saw what happens when Denver's defense sucks. They lose four
out of five. When it excels, they win once in a while, especially with those
60 yard FGs and the opponent's RB stepping out of bounds to stop the
clock when otherwise his team has the game won.

You want to know why Denver won the AFCW? It had nothing to do with
Tebow. Denver won the AFCW because Oakland blocked a KC field goal.
But that's all right. Tebow is now a playoff QB.

Let's get some real competition in here . . .

-----

slim
02-28-2012, 01:14 AM
yelp thats right 3 years to develop makes him 31 and 3 years to start improving and he is done and ready to retire. Waste of a pick imo.

To cap it at 34 is a little silly....there are a ton of QBs that play into their late 30's.

If he played until he was 36 (to be conservative), you are likely looking at a 6 year starter (minimum)....assuming of course that he can play at an NFL level. So, you are getting a 6 year starter in the second round. That is a solid pick, regardless of position.

Since we are talking about a premium position, it would be a fantastic pick…..again, assuming he can play at a high level.

Whether or not he can actually play is another issue. But to write him off simply because of his age is silly.

RebelRocker
02-28-2012, 02:13 AM
To cap it at 34 is a little silly....there are a ton of QBs that play into their late 30's.

If he played until he was 36 (to be conservative), you are likely looking at a 6 year starter (minimum)....assuming of course that he can play at an NFL level. So, you are getting a 6 year starter in the second round. That is a solid pick, regardless of position.

Since we are talking about a premium position, it would be a fantastic pick…..again, assuming he can play at a high level.

Whether or not he can actually play is another issue. But to write him off simply because of his age is silly.

I have said that if Weeden could give us 10 good years as our starter and win us atleast one more superbowl, then he is ABSOLUTELY worth the pick.

He has the size, arm strength, maturity, pro experience and the leadership abilities to handle our current situation.

Usually, I don't put a whole lot into pre-draft talk, but I have noticed two hints the Broncos have given over the last few years as to who they're drafting(or atleast targeting to draft).

It seems like the majority of the guys we've drafted recently apparently "won over" the FO during the combine interview process. It was said that McD first had the idea of drafting Tebow after meeting with him at the combine, where they "hit it off". The same goes for EFX and Miller last year.


Also, I don't think Elway's words should be taken lightly. He said last year that they wanted to get a player with the #2 overall pick that was such a good player "you didn't even need to know what his number was to know it was him". Von dominated the senior bowl process and from watching his college film, he was definitely the guy making the majority of the plays for that team.

Now this year, Elway said he's looking for a QB that's "a big athlete that can throw from the pocket."

I know he gave the BS, "we don't know what kind of QB we want." line at the combine, but I believe he tipped his hat with the first quote.

If I had to bet which QB we're getting this year, I would say it's between Weeden and Osweiler and it will be determined by which one of them is left by our pick in the 2nd round. If both are still available, then I think we take the youth and upside in Osweiler over Weeden.


That's just me.:eek:

Northman
02-28-2012, 06:27 AM
Weber sucks but Osweiler is worth a 2nd or 3rd round pick...? Come on...

Whether or not Brock is worth a 2nd or 3rd i have no idea. I think ive seen that he is projected a third, but that has nothing to do with me but with the draftnicks and draft "experts".


It's the typical "I love this player for my team because he is X big and runs an X 40..."Isnt that how everyone is though Stud? Im not saying Brock WILL be a HOF. I have no idea, i just like the kid. Its the same reason why people like other certain players though but NO ONE really knows who is going to pan out and who isnt. Its all just opinion but believe me im not a ASU fan. Im just going by what is saw when watching him play to base my opinions. If the Johns like him than clearly there is something they like as well. Doesnt mean they will draft him but if they do it wont break my heart any.


I agree with Clay, if you're going to make a move at QB MAKE YOUR MOVE, but don't waste a pick on a guy who isn't going to give the Broncos any better chance to win than the guy currently on the roster.We dont know if a guy like Brock could give the Broncos a better chance to win. We wouldnt know if Luck would be that guy. As i said, no one knows how a guy will pan out. All im saying is the position needs to be addressed and waiting until next year is no different than this year. If people say wait until next year they say that like we will have the #1 pick in the draft. For all we know we could still finish .500 and still have to draft at the bottom of the first. If your comfortable with taking a QB this year than do it. Brock could easily turn out to be the next Big Ben (my opinion) so would you really hate that if it came true? Hell, doesnt even have to be Ben, it could be any elite QB but you get my point.


Brock didn't show me that he was capable of being an elite QB. I kept waiting for him to do so and it just never happened. In a very weak defensive league he was a pretty good player.

Ok, your opinion but dont try to portray that as fact. We simply dont know how he will translate to the pros. Brady wasnt a barn burner at Michigan either.


Weeden was elite at OSU but he is going to be 29 years old when his career in the NFL begins plus we don't have Justin Blackmon.If i recall Kurt Warner was no spring chicken when he arrived at St. Louis. Just saying...


We do have glaring holes at MLB, Safety, CB, DT, and overall team depth, including RB, WR speed, and OL.Sure, at those can also be addressed in the draft. Ive never claimed otherwise.


Tebow has proven the Broncos CAN win with him at QB, but the defense was still ranked 20th and our starting RB in in his 30s and fumbles when he isn't sitting games out hurt. There are BIGGER needs.There will bigger needs going into next years draft too. Nothing or no one taken this year is automatically going to be a deciding factor of what needs need to be addressed next year. Miller was really the only player this year who was a bonafide starter. Every other player we took last year still needs work. As for Tim, he's show to some degree he can win with the Broncos, but he isnt consistent and thats why there is a question mark there. Its not about surrounding talent, its about him as a player. When you evaluate a player you go by what he does, not what he has on the team.


Did I imagine winning a playoff game with Tebow last year? Seems like it happened but some just overlook it...:lol:

Come on Stud, your smarter than that. Yes, we won a playoff game. But i can go all night and day and break down various reasons on why Pitt lost that game. Any given Sunday holds true but lets not pretend that we played Pitt at full strength. Its easy to say "we won a playoff game" but then people forget how we got our asses kicked the following week. You have to look at the total picture and not just the wins.

Northman
02-28-2012, 06:29 AM
I could get behind taking a guy in the 6th round of the draft, but people are advocating using a 1st-3rd rounder this year on an also ran. I would prefer using those picks on other needs and if Tebow sucks next year use a first rounder on a guy who is "NFL ready"

Even if Denver took a QB with a first next year doesnt mean the guy wont be Akili Smith. Its all a crapshoot from 1st round to 7th.

silkamilkamonico
02-28-2012, 08:09 AM
people just need to let the weber argument go. the guy wont amouny to anything in the nfl. the guy couldnt even get a winning tecorr out of fcs teams i. his college career, and he had eric decker to throw too.

lmao at weber even getting a mention. but then again, people actually thought bvp would do sonething in the nfl, and he was a better qb than weber.

chazoe60
02-28-2012, 08:26 AM
So when Denver sucked with Orton it had nothing to do with Orton and when Denver won with Tebow it had nothing to do with Tebow. Why the **** do we even have a QB then?

Lancane
02-28-2012, 09:31 AM
So when Denver sucked with Orton it had nothing to do with Orton and when Denver won with Tebow it had nothing to do with Tebow. Why the **** do we even have a QB then?

No one said that Chazoe, there were times when Orton played as best he could and the team still lost, and there were times that he played poorly and played part in a number of loses. Too many of the Tebow fanatics want to say that Denver won despite Orton or that Orton was the only liability. Don't claim such nonsense unless you want to receive it on the other end, because the same could be said for Tebow. Of course they'll deny it, just like they deny he's a mediocre quarterback...I say that both were the staple of mediocrity. Had Orton had Tebow's leadership ability and drive, he'd have been a great quarterback, likewise if Tebow had Orton's mechanics and knowledge of the position, he'd be a great quarterback. The leadership and drive to succeed is an almost inherent intangible that is honed early on, while mechanics are not, but they are not easily learned either (I don't give a crap what any dip**** has to say).

I will not state that Tebow had no part to play in our wins...that would be a flat out lie, and unlike the Tebow zealots I will also state he had as much a part to play in our losses. He's not the sole reason for wins or losses either, and those that claim such are hypocritical morons the same for the other side of the extreme as well. Others played a part in those wins and losses, it's as simple as that. In the end, he's a great athlete, with tremendous intangibles but horrid mechanics, who struggles to grasp the in's and out's of the position, therein making him a terrible passing quarterback...and is as he is now, mediocre. Could that change? Yes... But it will not be easy and there is no guarantee and Denver should not risk the future of the team due to a players mass fan fare.

chazoe60
02-28-2012, 09:41 AM
I just think it's comical the way some people who excused Orton at every turn are the same people saying Tebow had nothing to do with us winning the West.

1-4 with Orton. 7-4 with Tebow and a playoff win. Those are the facts. I'm not a Tebow fanatic, in fact I've been advocating drafting Osweiler in the second as a way for us to hedge our bet on Tebow, but to say our wins had nothing to do with Tebow is ridiculous especially coming from someone who excused Orton's every move (not referring to you Lan).

Jsteve01
02-28-2012, 10:15 AM
Nick Foles - 6’5 - 243 - 10 5/8 hands - Foles was the most criticized on TV today and of course the media drones that blindly hold everything said on TV as truth, have gobbled this all up. Once again, like the Cousins situation but only backwards, here’s another case of people making the same mistakes year after year and never learning from it. Every year a quarterback comes out that didn’t take snaps from under center. They struggle to learn the footwork of dropping back. By the time they’ve gone through OTAs, mini camp, training camp, and preseason, they looked a thousand times better. I guess people forget because the last time this happen was waaayyy back in 2011 with a guy who didn’t get drafted until the first pick overall. He struggled to learn the footwork and he still has flaws. That could be what cost him to only pass for a little over 4,000 yards as a rookie and 21 touchdowns. I’m not saying that Floes is Nick is Cam Newton, they are two completely different players but the problem with the footwork is the same. They also like to call Foles inconsistent. Well, let’s look at his stats as a starter for the last three seasons. He must have only had a 50% completion percentage and a roller coaster ride of a career, right?

2011 YARDS 4334 COMP % 69.1 TD 28 INT 14 QB RATING 145.6
2010 YARDS 3191 COMP % 67.1 TD 20 INT 10 QB RATING 140.9
2009 YARDS 2486 COMP % 63.6 TD 19 INT 9 QB RATING 125.6



Hmmm, so his yards increased every year, his completion percentage increased every year, his touchdowns increased every year, his quarterback rating increased every year, and he always maintained a 2 to 1 touchdown to interception ratio. Geez, what was this guy, bi-polar or something. He’s all over the place. Seriously, Foles has to improve his footwork but he can make every throw and he’s smart. He’s the third best prospect right now. Ryan Tannehill has bigger upside but he’s also a bigger risk.


SOURCE: NFL COMBINE 2012


Kyle Orton endorses this post


Why dont you dig up his win totals for me? Then go back and look at Orton's totals from college. Same guy only Orton won in college and Foles has never shown the propensity to win. And don't give the the "oh his teams sucked" crap. Jay Cutler kept his teams in games in a much tougher SEC and beat some good teams.

I was off the Nick Foles bandwagon long before the media realized he was way overhyped.

Jsteve01
02-28-2012, 10:21 AM
Whether or not Brock is worth a 2nd or 3rd i have no idea. I think ive seen that he is projected a third, but that has nothing to do with me but with the draftnicks and draft "experts".

Isnt that how everyone is though Stud? Im not saying Brock WILL be a HOF. I have no idea, i just like the kid. Its the same reason why people like other certain players though but NO ONE really knows who is going to pan out and who isnt. Its all just opinion but believe me im not a ASU fan. Im just going by what is saw when watching him play to base my opinions. If the Johns like him than clearly there is something they like as well. Doesnt mean they will draft him but if they do it wont break my heart any.

We dont know if a guy like Brock could give the Broncos a better chance to win. We wouldnt know if Luck would be that guy. As i said, no one knows how a guy will pan out. All im saying is the position needs to be addressed and waiting until next year is no different than this year. If people say wait until next year they say that like we will have the #1 pick in the draft. For all we know we could still finish .500 and still have to draft at the bottom of the first. If your comfortable with taking a QB this year than do it. Brock could easily turn out to be the next Big Ben (my opinion) so would you really hate that if it came true? Hell, doesnt even have to be Ben, it could be any elite QB but you get my point.



Ok, your opinion but dont try to portray that as fact. We simply dont know how he will translate to the pros. Brady wasnt a barn burner at Michigan either.

If i recall Kurt Warner was no spring chicken when he arrived at St. Louis. Just saying...

Sure, at those can also be addressed in the draft. Ive never claimed otherwise.

There will bigger needs going into next years draft too. Nothing or no one taken this year is automatically going to be a deciding factor of what needs need to be addressed next year. Miller was really the only player this year who was a bonafide starter. Every other player we took last year still needs work. As for Tim, he's show to some degree he can win with the Broncos, but he isnt consistent and thats why there is a question mark there. Its not about surrounding talent, its about him as a player. When you evaluate a player you go by what he does, not what he has on the team.

:lol:

Come on Stud, your smarter than that. Yes, we won a playoff game. But i can go all night and day and break down various reasons on why Pitt lost that game. Any given Sunday holds true but lets not pretend that we played Pitt at full strength. Its easy to say "we won a playoff game" but then people forget how we got our asses kicked the following week. You have to look at the total picture and not just the wins.

North please don't start that crap. The Pitt win was a quality win. let me ask you this. Who matters more? Clark, when you've got a ton of other quality defensive players or Dawkins who is the heart and soul of the broncos defensive backfield.

Im firmly planted on the fence on this issue. I hated the way the Broncos closed out the season, but there's no way in hell Im taking anything but positive from the Pitt win.

Jsteve01
02-28-2012, 10:23 AM
I agree with cat 100% I don't want to use a premium pick on a qb that will be a backup. Why? because your backup DT or DE can be a rotational player. Good depth. Your backup qb may never see the field. For that reason I'd rather groom a backup with a late round pick or even better sign a vet free agent in the mold of John Kitna

Chef Zambini
02-28-2012, 10:29 AM
I agree with cat 100% I don't want to use a premium pick on a qb that will be a backup. Why? because your backup DT or DE can be a rotational player. Good depth. Your backup qb may never see the field. For that reason I'd rather groom a backup with a late round pick or even better sign a vet free agent in the mold of John Kitna... but what if they do use a premium pick at QB to REPLACE TEBOW?

Chef Zambini
02-28-2012, 10:35 AM
Whether or not Brock is worth a 2nd or 3rd i have no idea. I think ive seen that he is projected a third, but that has nothing to do with me but with the draftnicks and draft "experts".

Isnt that how everyone is though Stud? Im not saying Brock WILL be a HOF. I have no idea, i just like the kid. Its the same reason why people like other certain players though but NO ONE really knows who is going to pan out and who isnt. Its all just opinion but believe me im not a ASU fan. Im just going by what is saw when watching him play to base my opinions. If the Johns like him than clearly there is something they like as well. Doesnt mean they will draft him but if they do it wont break my heart any.

We dont know if a guy like Brock could give the Broncos a better chance to win. We wouldnt know if Luck would be that guy. As i said, no one knows how a guy will pan out. All im saying is the position needs to be addressed and waiting until next year is no different than this year. If people say wait until next year they say that like we will have the #1 pick in the draft. For all we know we could still finish .500 and still have to draft at the bottom of the first. If your comfortable with taking a QB this year than do it. Brock could easily turn out to be the next Big Ben (my opinion) so would you really hate that if it came true? Hell, doesnt even have to be Ben, it could be any elite QB but you get my point.



Ok, your opinion but dont try to portray that as fact. We simply dont know how he will translate to the pros. Brady wasnt a barn burner at Michigan either.

If i recall Kurt Warner was no spring chicken when he arrived at St. Louis. Just saying...

Sure, at those can also be addressed in the draft. Ive never claimed otherwise.

There will bigger needs going into next years draft too. Nothing or no one taken this year is automatically going to be a deciding factor of what needs need to be addressed next year. Miller was really the only player this year who was a bonafide starter. Every other player we took last year still needs work. As for Tim, he's show to some degree he can win with the Broncos, but he isnt consistent and thats why there is a question mark there. Its not about surrounding talent, its about him as a player. When you evaluate a player you go by what he does, not what he has on the team.

:lol:

Come on Stud, your smarter than that. Yes, we won a playoff game. But i can go all night and day and break down various reasons on why Pitt lost that game. Any given Sunday holds true but lets not pretend that we played Pitt at full strength. Its easy to say "we won a playoff game" but then people forget how we got our asses kicked the following week. You have to look at the total picture and not just the wins.
great post !

Chef Zambini
02-28-2012, 10:39 AM
I think john elway will do the right thing, but its fun to listen to all this crap before he does it!

Jsteve01
02-28-2012, 10:43 AM
people just need to let the weber argument go. the guy wont amouny to anything in the nfl. the guy couldnt even get a winning tecorr out of fcs teams i. his college career, and he had eric decker to throw too.

lmao at weber even getting a mention. but then again, people actually thought bvp would do sonething in the nfl, and he was a better qb than weber.

BVP career yardage :6165

Weber: 10917

Weber is also second in Big 10 history in TD completions

go fish sir

BroncoStud
02-28-2012, 10:48 AM
I thought Weber looked ok in Preseason...

HammeredOut
02-28-2012, 10:49 AM
Brock Osweiler, is my choice.. I said that a while back that we needed Brock Osweiler, after Tannehill moved up on the board... This is a bad year to draft QBs. At the start of the draft we thought a few more guys were coming out. Landry Jones, and Matt Barkley, so by natural selection, Tannehill was our guy after that.. Things have changed.

My take on Brock is he is a Joe Flacco clone, which is not a bad QB type to have. Brock has underated and deceptive speed in the pocket. He may be all thats left after we get our table scraps Selection at the end of the first and second round..

Northman
02-28-2012, 11:07 AM
North please don't start that crap. The Pitt win was a quality win. let me ask you this. Who matters more? Clark, when you've got a ton of other quality defensive players or Dawkins who is the heart and soul of the broncos defensive backfield.

Im firmly planted on the fence on this issue. I hated the way the Broncos closed out the season, but there's no way in hell Im taking anything but positive from the Pitt win.

Im talking more from the perspective of Ben's health. No way he was at 100% and the injuries clearly affected his play. As i said, ANY GIVEN SUNDAY can see a team win so its not to downplay what Denver did. They did plenty right in the win but ill still contend had Ben been healthy we dont win, especially late in the game. For a Bronco fan it was fun but i think at the same time too many people put WAY too much stock in it just like they did the season.

topscribe
02-28-2012, 11:11 AM
... but what if they do use a premium pick at QB to REPLACE TEBOW?

Or at least one who believes he can and is willing to try. That's what
Elway was getting at: the best player they can find at that (or any other)
position. In his last presser, Elway pointed at his chest and said, in
essence, that he wanted a QB who had it "in here." No doubt Tebow has
that: It's just that they are hoping he also acquires it in the head (reading
defenses, checking down), the eyes (field vision), and the arm and legs
(throwing passes to receivers instead of cheerleaders and into the dirt).

-----

topscribe
02-28-2012, 11:14 AM
Im talking more from the perspective of Ben's health. No way he was at 100% and the injuries clearly affected his play. As i said, ANY GIVEN SUNDAY can see a team win so its not to downplay what Denver did. They did plenty right in the win but ill still contend had Ben been healthy we dont win, especially late in the game. For a Bronco fan it was fun but i think at the same time too many people put WAY too much stock in it just like they did the season.

Pitt's defense was pretty battered, too.

They're coming back this year, and they'll be healthy. Then we'll see . . .

-----

silkamilkamonico
02-28-2012, 12:45 PM
BVP career yardage :6165

Weber: 10917

Weber is also second in Big 10 history in TD completions

go fish sir

That would be like creating an argument for why Graham Harrell needs a chance in the NFL because he's one of the NCAA career leaders in stats.

silkamilkamonico
02-28-2012, 12:51 PM
Brock Osweiler, is my choice.. I said that a while back that we needed Brock Osweiler, after Tannehill moved up on the board... This is a bad year to draft QBs. At the start of the draft we thought a few more guys were coming out. Landry Jones, and Matt Barkley, so by natural selection,


The only QB that interests me this year is Osweiler. Dude can really spin the ball.

Otherwise I wuld rather wait, give Tebow a year, and if we have a high pick last year go after barkley or Jones if next season is a bad one.

underrated29
02-28-2012, 12:54 PM
The only QB that interests me this year is Osweiler. Dude can really spin the ball.




I hope he can throw it too.

Jsteve01
02-28-2012, 12:58 PM
Awesome. Next you are going to create an argument for why Graham Harrell needs a chance in the NFL because he's one of the NCAA career leaders in stats.

Terrible argument.

your argument was that BVP was a better qb than Weber. That's the argument i went after. The facts bear out that your argument is patently false. If you want to use hyperbole feel free but don't get pissy when someone else calls you out on it.

I by no means am saying Weber is the qb of the future. I am saying his has a very solid resume and may be the backup we're looking for.

silkamilkamonico
02-28-2012, 01:06 PM
your argument was that BVP was a better qb than Weber. That's the argument i went after. The facts bear out that your argument is patently false. If you want to use hyperbole feel free but don't get pissy when someone else calls you out on it.


It's not though, because everyone knows collegiate stats don't have any correlation to NFL terms of success, especially in comparison with each other.

The Weber Big 10 stats is very deceptive, because the fact is there aren't many QB's in the Big 10 that start all 4 years.

I just don't understand using collegiate stats in comparing QB's at the NFl level. It holds no weight whatsoever.

silkamilkamonico
02-28-2012, 01:07 PM
I hope he can throw it too.

We want a QB, not a javelin thrower!

Chef Zambini
02-28-2012, 01:40 PM
We want a QB, not a javelin thrower!

troy aikmen always reminded me of a javalin thrower.

G_Money
02-28-2012, 01:56 PM
I guess I'm confused about the number of people arguing HARD for a second- or more likely third-tier QB to be drafted because Tebow might be a fourth-tier throwing QB.

If you don't like Tebow, why would you want somebody who's just a little bit better?

I don't mind drafting a backup QB in this draft (and I agree with others, the Lil Boise QB That Could is fine for my Kubiak-style backup) but I don't really want to draft a giant question mark in the 2nd or 3rd round and then draft ANOTHER QB next year in the first if we bail on Tebow.

I'd rather aim directly at the backup QB position this draft with a later pick, wait for the talent to come out next year and grab a more talented guy earlier when our first-round slot should be higher than 25 anyway if Tebow's still humping a rusty fire hydrant while in the pocket.

If you don't want to settle for Tim, why are you settling when trying to select his replacement?

Just seems weird to me.

~G

catfish
02-28-2012, 01:59 PM
... but what if they do use a premium pick at QB to REPLACE TEBOW?

I would actually get behind this if I thought there was a guy that would be available at 25 that could be a franchise guy. I just feel like the top 3-4 QB's will already be gone, 2 top tier guys decided to stay in school and will be available next year so in reality ou would be looking at spending a 1st rounder on the 5th or 6th best guy.

I would get a back up, and if needed becasue the team lost a bunch use a higher 1st round pick next year to get one of the premiere guys. I understand it is all basically a crapshoot, but there are definately less chancy pick you can make with the value picks

Jsteve01
02-28-2012, 02:00 PM
It's not though, because everyone knows collegiate stats don't have any correlation to NFL terms of success, especially in comparison with each other.

The Weber Big 10 stats is very deceptive, because the fact is there aren't many QB's in the Big 10 that start all 4 years.

I just don't understand using collegiate stats in comparing QB's at the NFl level. It holds no weight whatsoever.

so you stand by your assertion that BVP is a better thrower than Weber? Tell the truth. Have you ever even seen Weber throw?

and boo freaking hoo, we should deduct credit from this guy because he was good enough to start at a big 10 school for 4 years.

dogfish
02-28-2012, 02:02 PM
If you don't want to settle for Tim, why are you settling when trying to select his replacement?

Just seems weird to me.

~G

because anyone's better than tebow. . . duh!

Jsteve01
02-28-2012, 02:17 PM
I guess I'm confused about the number of people arguing HARD for a second- or more likely third-tier QB to be drafted because Tebow might be a fourth-tier throwing QB.

If you don't like Tebow, why would you want somebody who's just a little bit better?

I don't mind drafting a backup QB in this draft (and I agree with others, the Lil Boise QB That Could is fine for my Kubiak-style backup) but I don't really want to draft a giant question mark in the 2nd or 3rd round and then draft ANOTHER QB next year in the first if we bail on Tebow.


I'd rather aim directly at the backup QB position this draft with a later pick, wait for the talent to come out next year and grab a more talented guy earlier when our first-round slot should be higher than 25 anyway if Tebow's still humping a rusty fire hydrant while in the pocket.

If you don't want to settle for Tim, why are you settling when trying to select his replacement?

Just seems weird to me.

~G

Well said. Apparently. People have forgotten how much the depth of this class drops off after tannehill. If I can't get one of the top two or three guys I don't spend a second to 4th rounder on a backup. It makes zero sense

Northman
02-28-2012, 02:18 PM
I guess I'm confused about the number of people arguing HARD for a second- or more likely third-tier QB to be drafted because Tebow might be a fourth-tier throwing QB.

If you don't like Tebow, why would you want somebody who's just a little bit better?

We dont know if they are "just a little bit" better. For all we know one of those guys could be a future HOF.


I don't mind drafting a backup QB in this draft (and I agree with others, the Lil Boise QB That Could is fine for my Kubiak-style backup).

We already have one backup in Weber. Most likely we either draft a young guy to learn (who will be a backup to some degree) or sign a vet via FA.


I'd rather aim directly at the backup QB position this draft with a later pick, wait for the talent to come out next year and grab a more talented guy earlier when our first-round slot should be higher than 25 anyway if Tebow's still humping a rusty fire hydrant while in the pocket.

If a backup is all your looking for i wouldnt bother drafting a QB. There are plenty in FA that can fill that role easily both young and old.


If you don't want to settle for Tim, why are you settling when trying to select his replacement?

Just seems weird to me.

~G

I dont consider it settling, to me there's no difference from drafting Osweiler this year to possibly drafting Barkley (aside from hype) next year. Denver could very easily take a guy in the 3rd round this year who could be a FQB or take a guy in the first round next year who could be Akili Smith.

topscribe
02-28-2012, 02:27 PM
I guess I'm confused about the number of people arguing HARD for a second- or more likely third-tier QB to be drafted because Tebow might be a fourth-tier throwing QB.

If you don't like Tebow, why would you want somebody who's just a little bit better?

I don't mind drafting a backup QB in this draft (and I agree with others, the Lil Boise QB That Could is fine for my Kubiak-style backup) but I don't really want to draft a giant question mark in the 2nd or 3rd round and then draft ANOTHER QB next year in the first if we bail on Tebow.

I'd rather aim directly at the backup QB position this draft with a later pick, wait for the talent to come out next year and grab a more talented guy earlier when our first-round slot should be higher than 25 anyway if Tebow's still humping a rusty fire hydrant while in the pocket.

If you don't want to settle for Tim, why are you settling when trying to select his replacement?

Just seems weird to me.

~G

It seems to me that drafting a backup QB would be "settling." I just don't
get the concept that tanking next year for a high draft choice the following
year would be a good thing. Winning means winning now. The prospect
of the Broncos becoming SB champions while they're cutting the grass
over my final resting place does not much appeal to me . . .

-----

claymore
02-28-2012, 02:32 PM
It seems to me that drafting a backup QB would be "settling." I just don't
get the concept that tanking next year for a high draft choice the following
year would be a good thing. Winning means winning now. The prospect
of the Broncos becoming SB champions while they're cutting the grass
over my final resting place does not much appeal to me . . .

-----

I just dont see Dan Marino, or Ben Rothlisberger falling to us at 25. Drafting a QB this year when we still have question marks on Tebow, and no ammunition to do anything about it... Is retarded to me.

Now, If we trade the farm for Luck Im down... Or if there is another guy who they like more than luck im down too.. But I doubt that will happen.

topscribe
02-28-2012, 02:34 PM
I just dont see Dan Marino, or Ben Rothlisberger falling to us at 25. Drafting a QB this year when we still have question marks on Tebow, and no ammunition to do anything about it... Is retarded to me.

Now, If we trade the farm for Luck Im down... Or if there is another guy who they like more than luck im down too.. But I doubt that will happen.

Actually, I wouldn't be against bringing in a Chad Henne or a Matt Flynn.
Question marks, yes, but they would be cheaper than the draft choice,
and what is it the Broncos have now? Besides, those guys are veterans . . .

-----

Northman
02-28-2012, 02:35 PM
I just dont see Dan Marino, or Ben Rothlisberger falling to us at 25. Drafting a QB this year when we still have question marks on Tebow, and no ammunition to do anything about it... Is retarded to me.

Now, If we trade the farm for Luck Im down... Or if there is another guy who they like more than luck im down too.. But I doubt that will happen.

Hate to say it but Luck could very well be a bust. There is no guarantee come draft time. But word is John and company like Weeden and Osweiler and apparently they really liked Griffin but considering that he and Luck are most likely to get drafted in the top 5 or 6 im not sure they are going to waste their time trying to get up there nor should they. Going all Ricky Williams in the draft wouldnt make much sense for this team.

GEM
02-28-2012, 02:37 PM
There is no guarantee that a kid is NFL ready though Cat. That is indeed one of the greatest misconceptions of the draft. And depending on our record, we might be looking more at the quarterbacks that still have a learning curve, which could screw the season or force Denver to look at other options, like going after next off-season's Flynn or Kolb, as Shanahan had to go with Plummer.

I understand people's sentiments and desire to fix the needs or areas of concern, but there is no guarantee that those picks will be better used elsewhere. There is just as much a risk taking a cornerback, tailback or safety, even a defensive tackle at those spots.

:lol: Same conditions exist with QB's. We could pick one at 25 and he could suck....look at the last one we got at 25. :shocked: Kidding of course! :D

catfish
02-28-2012, 02:49 PM
:lol: Same conditions exist with QB's. We could pick one at 25 and he could suck....look at the last one we got at 25. :shocked: Kidding of course! :D

I know you are joking, in all seriousness I hope they go BPA...if it happens to be a QB so be it. I just doubt once the top 3 are off the board that a QB will be BPA until late in the draft

G_Money
02-28-2012, 03:11 PM
We dont know if they are "just a little bit" better. For all we know one of those guys could be a future HOF.
...

I dont consider it settling, to me there's no difference from drafting Osweiler this year to possibly drafting Barkley (aside from hype) next year. Denver could very easily take a guy in the 3rd round this year who could be a FQB or take a guy in the first round next year who could be Akili Smith.

Dude, ANY quarterback COULD be the next FQB. If we're going with "Any of the QBs in any draft could be great" then we might as well go with "Tebow can be the FQB so why are we even looking?" or "Adam Weber is a year from greatness."

I don't see the odds on Osweiler being inordinately high, but I get that you like him a lot. If you are drafting him to be a top-10 QB, then fine, draft away. That's huge value for a 3rd round pick.

If he's a JAG - Just a Guy as Parcells would put it - then I have no need for that in the 2nd or 3rd at that position. QBs need developing and marginal guys muddy the waters. We've already got a guy doing that - don't need another.

I'm on the lower end of that spectrum with guys like Osweiler and you're on the higher. My post was more directed toward the "ANYbody is better than Tebow" folks, which I guess might be true...but isn't good value at certain draft slots.

If you're advocating a QB who will fight with Rivers to be the best QB in the AFCW, I get that argument. I'm not sold in any way that Osweiler's that kind of QB, but that's a good argument to have.

If it's just to "get a guy in here as a backup to compete with Tebow, because Tebow couldn't outhrow a wooden pony" then I don't want to use a 2nd round pick on that sort of player.

"Better thrower than Tebow" is not a primary selling point, IMO. That's not a good enough reason to chuck a starting RB or CB off the team by passing on em in the draft to grab that sort of marginally qualified QB.

~G

G_Money
02-28-2012, 03:15 PM
It seems to me that drafting a backup QB would be "settling." I just don't
get the concept that tanking next year for a high draft choice the following
year would be a good thing. Winning means winning now. The prospect
of the Broncos becoming SB champions while they're cutting the grass
over my final resting place does not much appeal to me . . .

-----

I'm not advocating tanking the season, top - but if Tebow is a trainwreck and we have the 2nd hardest schedule in the league, then I would think we'd have a high draftpick by default.

It'll be pretty hard for Tim to suck abominably and for us to still be drafting 25th. Again.

So IF we're drafting high AND it's because Tebow regressed further, then yeah it's time to draft a top QB.

If we go 10-6, then why would I need a new QB? We can do something else with our top pick(s), just as we should this year.

~G

Northman
02-28-2012, 03:25 PM
Dude, ANY quarterback COULD be the next FQB. If we're going with "Any of the QBs in any draft could be great" then we might as well go with "Tebow can be the FQB so why are we even looking?" or "Adam Weber is a year from greatness."

While i would agree with you on Teebs i think the one difference with him is that he was a project to begin with and a guy who needed more work than your average QB coming out of college. While the final story has yet to be written on him i also understand why the FO would be a bit hesitant to go all in.


I don't see the odds on Osweiler being inordinately high, but I get that you like him a lot. If you are drafting him to be a top-10 QB, then fine, draft away. That's huge value for a 3rd round pick.

If he's a JAG - Just a Guy as Parcells would put it - then I have no need for that in the 2nd or 3rd at that position. QBs need developing and marginal guys muddy the waters. We've already got a guy doing that - don't need another.

Its not even that im that high on him. Personally, im not high on ANY QB coming into the NFL this year including Luck. I kind of look at all draft picks on the same level in terms of make or break at the pro level. Obviously like you i can only make observations on what ive personally seen from any given player we all know that really means squat in the grand scheme of things.


I'm on the lower end of that spectrum with guys like Osweiler and you're on the higher. My post was more directed toward the "ANYbody is better than Tebow" folks, which I guess might be true...but isn't good value at certain draft slots.

Well this i would certainly agree with you. I dont think ANYBODY can be better than Tim because there are a lot of QB's who actually suck ass. Tim may not be that pretty right now but it has only been about 14 games so anybody completely writing him off would be a moron.


If you're advocating a QB who will fight with Rivers to be the best QB in the AFCW, I get that argument. I'm not sold in any way that Osweiler's that kind of QB, but that's a good argument to have.

I guess for me (and not just with Osweiler) is i just want to make sure that if Tim regresses or doesnt show improvement that we have another young QB waiting in the wings to try his hand at it. If it happens to be Osweiler than great, if it happens to be Weber thats fine too. Whatever the FO does in the draft i have no control over and can only state what i wouldnt mind seeing or would like to see. There's a lot of things i like about Tebow and a lot of things i dont like. Im still on the fence but understand that he is the starter for now and if he can improve than great.


If it's just to "get a guy in here as a backup to compete with Tebow, because Tebow couldn't outhrow a wooden pony" then I don't want to use a 2nd round pick on that sort of player.

Agree and disagree. I definitely would prefer not to address QB at all til at least the 3rd round or later. I have no idea if Denver is going to even attempt a QB in the first two rounds. It wouldnt be my first choice in that matter but if they take someone than not much i can do there. I wont like it but i wont go mental on here either if they do. Personally, even if they draft a guy and Tebow struggles in camp i highly doubt he will get replaced based on that. We saw how it worked out last year with Orton shining in camp and Tebow struggling. So that pretty much squashes the whole idea that camp really means that much like some had talked about last year.


"Better thrower than Tebow" is not a primary selling point, IMO. That's not a good enough reason to chuck a starting RB or CB off the team by passing on em in the draft to grab that sort of marginally qualified QB.

~G


I agree and thats not what im talking about. But i do think that getting a guy who doesnt need as much work to sit behind Tebow isnt a bad idea. But like you i wouldnt want to go into the 1st or 2nd round to do that.

G_Money
02-28-2012, 03:39 PM
I guess I'm confused North.

If you don't think that much of Osweiler, and don't think much of any QB in this draft top to bottom, and only want a young guy on hand in case of Tebow emergency bailout, then what do you care where we draft a QB or who it is?

Hop on board the Kellen Moore train, then. :D

~G

CoachChaz
02-28-2012, 03:48 PM
Osweiler and pretty much any QB not named Luck are all projects that have to learn the pro game and make a lot of adjustments.

Tebow himself is still a project. Not sure how much sense it makes to say Tebow was a 3 year project as he goes into year 3...and have the desire to replace him with another 3 year project in their first year.

I suppose the argument can be made on either level, but for the time being...we need to focus on other areas this off-season. Tebow still has the ability to get better. Our DT's and CB's and MLB are maxed out. Replace what needs to be replaced immediately.

GEM
02-28-2012, 03:51 PM
I know you are joking, in all seriousness I hope they go BPA...if it happens to be a QB so be it. I just doubt once the top 3 are off the board that a QB will be BPA until late in the draft

I sure as hell don't want a QB at 25. 25 is that ugly spot where all the beautiful girls are already going to the dance. I mean you can pick up some fantastic talent but it isn't going to be in the sexy positions. That's why usually between about 17 and on, you start seeing all the good OL/DL's go. I hope we stick with that mode and grab a bad ass in the middle.

topscribe
02-28-2012, 03:53 PM
I'm not advocating tanking the season, top - but if Tebow is a trainwreck and we have the 2nd hardest schedule in the league, then I would think we'd have a high draftpick by default.

It'll be pretty hard for Tim to suck abominably and for us to still be drafting 25th. Again.

So IF we're drafting high AND it's because Tebow regressed further, then yeah it's time to draft a top QB.

If we go 10-6, then why would I need a new QB? We can do something else with our top pick(s), just as we should this year.

~G

Problem is, the Broncos haven't gone 10-6 yet.

But I'll tell you who could possibly be brought in: Chad Henne. Yes, he
has been inconsistent, but, as they have been saying about Tebow, he is
young. Yet he is experienced -- more than a draft choice, and he would
come a whole lot cheaper than a 2nd rounder, who would be a tier below
the top three according to the opinions of several here. And I believe he
might give Tebow some stiff competition for the job, which both he and
Tebow would need.

At any rate, the outcome would be a better QB, regardless of who started
the season, IMO.

I'm not categorically saying the Broncos should to that route. It is just
one of the possible scenarios . . .

-----

Jsteve01
02-28-2012, 04:08 PM
Its change for the sake of change g. No move is worse than a lateral, backwards or poorly thought out move

BroncoStud
02-28-2012, 04:12 PM
Problem is, the Broncos haven't gone 10-6 yet.

But I'll tell you who could possibly be brought in: Chad Henne. Yes, he
has been inconsistent, but, as they have been saying about Tebow, he is
young. Yet he is experienced -- more than a draft choice, and he would
come a whole lot cheaper than a 2nd rounder, who would be a tier below
the top three according to the opinions of several here. And I believe he
might give Tebow some stiff competition for the job, which both he and
Tebow would need.

At any rate, the outcome would be a better QB, regardless of who started
the season, IMO.

I'm not categorically saying the Broncos should to that route. It is just
one of the possible scenarios . . .

-----

What is your thing with mediocre QBs who choke under pressure? Chad Henne? Are you freaking serious? We finally get rid of an average QB and now you want to pay to bring another one in to start?

Logic says let Tebow develop and see if there is value there. Of course, since you dislike Tebow on a personal level you want to bring in Chad Freaking Henne, who the Dolphins can't wait to get rid of...

Yes, I am very glad Elway makes these decisions and certain members of this board... Chad Henne... :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh: It would be funny were it not so absurd.

Northman
02-28-2012, 04:16 PM
I guess I'm confused North.

If you don't think that much of Osweiler, and don't think much of any QB in this draft top to bottom, and only want a young guy on hand in case of Tebow emergency bailout, then what do you care where we draft a QB or who it is?Overall i dont. Im only commenting based on the projections of said players. Now, from what ive seen of Brock there are some things i like but my life wont fizzle out if we dont draft him. If Brock was projected as a 5th or 6th i would say take him then. If he falls take him later.


Hop on board the Kellen Moore train, then. :D



I like Moore's accuracy, same with Wilson. With Moore though he just seems very frail to me and for whatever reason i just can imagine him falling to the way side like Chris Simms. May not happen and he may do very well (Brees comes to mind) but either way if we take him i wont complain. Like you with Brock i just dont see Moore lasting or succeeding at the pro level.

Northman
02-28-2012, 04:18 PM
What is your thing with mediocre QBs who choke under pressure? Chad Henne? Are you freaking serious? We finally get rid of an average QB and now you want to pay to bring another one in to start?



I think he was talking about as a backup Stud.

dogfish
02-28-2012, 04:45 PM
I think he was talking about as a backup Stud.

nah. . . at this point, top's desperate-- he'll take anyone he can get, as long as he doesn't have to suffer through tim winning ugly for us again. . . ;)

topscribe
02-28-2012, 04:54 PM
I think he was talking about as a backup Stud.

No, I was talking about bonafide competition. As I said, I'm not interested
in getting a designated backup.

But, as I said, that was just one scenario among several. What it really
was, was an opportunity for Broncostud to try to humiliate me. No
problem . . . what would really get me concerned would be if someone
such as that actually liked me . . .



nah. . . at this point, top's desperate-- he'll take anyone he can get, as long as he doesn't have to suffer through tim winning ugly for us again. . . ;)

Winning ugly doesn't bother me. Winning is winning. It was when Tebow
lost ugly that really bothered me . . .

-----

catfish
02-28-2012, 05:04 PM
No, I was talking about bonafide competition. As I said, I'm not interested
in getting a designated backup.

But, as I said, that was just one scenario among several. What it really
was, was an opportunity for Broncostud to try to humiliate me. No
problem . . . what would really get me concerned would be if someone
such as that actually liked me . . .




Winning ugly doesn't bother me. Winning is winning. It was when Tebow
lost ugly that really bothered me . . .

-----


we can't like you and humiliate you?;)

topscribe
02-28-2012, 05:09 PM
we can't like you and humiliate you?;)

You can dislike me, but you cannot humiliate me. http://i258.photobucket.com/albums/hh256/AZDynamics/Smilies/thsmug.gif

But I know you like me, Cat. You just can't help it . . . http://i258.photobucket.com/albums/hh256/AZDynamics/Smilies/thdrink.gif

-----

catfish
02-28-2012, 05:21 PM
You can dislike me, but you cannot humiliate me. http://i258.photobucket.com/albums/hh256/AZDynamics/Smilies/thsmug.gif

But I know you like me, Cat. You just can't help it . . . http://i258.photobucket.com/albums/hh256/AZDynamics/Smilies/thdrink.gif

-----

lol, i'm not emotionally invested enough to dislike someone just because of their view on football. I am here for the discussion, I may dissagree, but I don't take it personally. :) I enjoy everyones input on subjects regardles of whether or not I happen to agree

BroncoStud
02-28-2012, 05:47 PM
I'm not trying to "humiliate" you TOP, what would be the point of that? I like talking football with you but you honestly cannot tell everyone that you aren't biased towards Tebow in a negative way... Because just about every post you've made since he was drafted is in direct opposition to that stance.

You want the Broncos to "win" yet you were willing to stick with Kyle Orton through thick and thin while winning 3 games in 2010 with him, even sign him long-term afterward. However, Tebow takes over a losing team and the Broncos finish the season with a playoff win losing to the eventual Super Bowl losers, and you want legit competition at the QB position and to draft a guy in the 2nd round...

If that isn't hypocrisy then I don't know what is...

Even if Tebow played very poorly at times last season he played very well at times last season, and he wasn't supposed to be ready, and the Broncos were a 4-12 team the season before and the defense finished ranked 20th, so for the Broncos to win a playoff game was a major over-achievement, and one that would not have been made without Tebow.

The Dolphins were a much better football team with Matt Moore, that's right, Matt Moore, than they were with Chad Henne. Henne may provide "competition" but if he is signed it had sure better be cheap, because he is not a good player.

topscribe
02-28-2012, 06:34 PM
I'm not trying to "humiliate" you TOP, what would be the point of that? I like talking football with you but you honestly cannot tell everyone that you aren't biased towards Tebow in a negative way... Because just about every post you've made since he was drafted is in direct opposition to that stance.

You want the Broncos to "win" yet you were willing to stick with Kyle Orton through thick and thin while winning 3 games in 2010 with him, even sign him long-term afterward. However, Tebow takes over a losing team and the Broncos finish the season with a playoff win losing to the eventual Super Bowl losers, and you want legit competition at the QB position and to draft a guy in the 2nd round...

If that isn't hypocrisy then I don't know what is...

Even if Tebow played very poorly at times last season he played very well at times last season, and he wasn't supposed to be ready, and the Broncos were a 4-12 team the season before and the defense finished ranked 20th, so for the Broncos to win a playoff game was a major over-achievement, and one that would not have been made without Tebow.

The Dolphins were a much better football team with Matt Moore, that's right, Matt Moore, than they were with Chad Henne. Henne may provide "competition" but if he is signed it had sure better be cheap, because he is not a good player.
That is so shallow, Stud. So very shallow. All you can see is the W-L record.

What I saw last year was the last place defense in the league, one that
surrendered 29.44 points a game, and the near last place running game.
What I saw from Orton during the 11 games he was healthy, on the other
hand, was 306 yds/game average, a 106.0 QBR, 20 TDs against 6 INTs,
and, as his 62% comp showed, his passes went where he intended them
to. That was while his offense scored 22.72 points per game -- despite
that pathetic lack of a running game. That is why I stuck with him.

Why am I critical of Tebow? Well, perhaps because the scoring fell to 18.55
points a game, while he passed for an average of 129 yards/game, and a
72.9 QBR and 46.5% comp, along with 12 TDs/6 INTs, and 14 fumbles, and
that was despite having the number one running game in the league.

So why was Tebow 7-4 in the regular season this year, as opposed to
Orton's 3-10 last year? Well, I don't suppose that #1 running game and a
defense that had gone from #32 last year to #20 this year had anything
to do with it.

Now, that is the last I am going to discuss Orton with you. I'm not
interested in reviving the old ongoing Orton debate. Meanwhile, however,
I would like to see you try to read "bias" into those figures. They are simply
the mathematics -- cold, hard, numerical facts.

But, as has been said, Tebow is young. Perhaps he will improve on that. I
hope he does. But he is going to have to cure many years of learned
muscle memory to do it. If he does, however, all of us Broncos fans will
win through it. I'm pulling for him.

-----

dogfish
02-28-2012, 06:49 PM
top, i like how you constantly reference that number one rushing attack while never acknowledging that we were only number one because of tim's 660 rushing yards. . . you make it seem as though he was the beneficiary of a great running attack, when in truth he was in great part responsible for that success. . . kinda skews the argument. . . :lol:

go on, compare our average rushing yards per game before and after tim became the starter if you don't believe me. . .

topscribe
02-28-2012, 06:58 PM
top, i like how you constantly reference that number one rushing attack while never acknowledging that we were only number one because of tim's 660 rushing yards. . . you make it seem as though he was the beneficiary of a great running attack, when in truth he was in great part responsible for that success. . . kinda skews the argument. . . :lol:

go on, compare our average rushing yards per game before and after tim became the starter if you don't believe me. . .

Oh, I believe you. Tebow was greatly responsible for that rushing attack.
And McGahee. And the offensive line. And the TEs and blocking WRs.

Too bad it didn't seem to help his passing game much . . . :coffee:

-----

chazoe60
02-28-2012, 07:05 PM
Oh, I believe you. Tebow was greatly responsible for that rushing attack.
And McGahee. And the offensive line. And the TEs and blocking WRs.

Too bad it didn't seem to help his passing game much . . . :coffee:

-----

But it did help us win. :coffee:

topscribe
02-28-2012, 07:08 PM
But it did help us win. :coffee:

Oh, absolutely . . . along with the defense, Prater's leg, and blunders by opposing teams . . .

-----

chazoe60
02-28-2012, 07:21 PM
Too bad Orton didn't play with Prater, these same defensive players, and against mistake prone oponents. Poor guy had to try and do it all by himself.

topscribe
02-28-2012, 07:27 PM
Too bad Orton didn't play with Prater, these same defensive players, and against mistake prone oponents. Poor guy had to try and do it all by himself.

Just about, it seemed. But regardless of personnel, the defense was #32
in 2010 and #20 last year. Those are the facts . . .

-----

Npba900
02-28-2012, 07:37 PM
Denver better not waste one of their first 3 picks on a QB. Tebow is the man!

They can draft a scrub in the 4th - 6th to come in and handle the 3rd string or practice squad duties.

If Tim flops this year...then, they can consider drafting a stud in 2013. Outside of Luck and RGIII, why the hell would they waste a top pick on a QB.

DT, CB, RB...

What are you talking about? Hell Tebow could have/should have been drafted in the 3rd or 4th round in 2010. There will be great talent a QB in the 2nd round in this years draft and with the new collective bargaining agreement 2nd round picks won't cost much.

BroncoStud
02-28-2012, 07:54 PM
But it did help us win. :coffee:

Oh, absolutely . . . along with the defense, Prater's leg, and blunders by opposing teams . . .

-----

Yeah, that 20th ranked defense was simply unmovable,... :coffee:

BroncoStud
02-28-2012, 07:57 PM
And Dog nailed it. Tim's 660 yards were the reason Denver was able to run so effectively and it helped the defense a lot..

But yes, Tebow deserved no credit lol... Amazing stuff...

catfish
02-28-2012, 08:01 PM
Yeah, that 20th ranked defense was simply unmovable,... :coffee:

to be fair when they played well they played really well. I think as they age they will get even more consistent. 2 things to look for next year, more forced turnovers, less points allowed.

I don't care if they give up more yards, don't let them score. The saints, the pats and the packers all gave up more yards than Denver did per game but allowed less points, yards don't win games.

chazoe60
02-28-2012, 08:13 PM
Must be magic that the rest of the team sucked so bad for Orton but was so awesome in making up for how shitty Tebow is. What an amazing turn around they made.

Npba900
02-28-2012, 08:17 PM
And Dog nailed it. Tim's 660 yards were the reason Denver was able to run so effectively and it helped the defense a lot..

But yes, Tebow deserved no credit lol... Amazing stuff...

How many games did the defense keep Tebow in the game by keeping the score low enough to allow Tebow to make a last minute comeback!

The defense had to keep opposing teams down to 9 points or less in order to allow the Tebow-Read Option magic to take affect.

catfish
02-28-2012, 08:36 PM
How many games did the defense keep Tebow in the game by keeping the score low enough to allow Tebow to make a last minute comeback!

The defense had to keep opposing teams down to 9 points or less in order to allow the Tebow-Read Option magic to take affect.

switch that to 14 point or less and you would be telling the truth

Npba900
02-28-2012, 09:03 PM
Much more talent available in 2013 draft

Continue to fix holes in 2013 as well. By 2014 Elway should be ready to field a legitimate NFL Offense to compete on every Sunday.

catfish
02-28-2012, 09:11 PM
Continue to fix holes in 2013 as well. By 2014 Elway should be ready to field a legitimate NFL Offense to compete on every Sunday.

He did say it would be a 3 year rebuilding process at a minimum

Npba900
02-28-2012, 09:43 PM
weeden better be ready to play on day 1. His old azz doesn't have time to learn and if he goes in there and fails in year one teams aren't going to "wait" for him to develop. By he time he did he'd be 49 years old

Meh that wasn't the case with Kurt Warner.:D

topscribe
02-28-2012, 09:48 PM
to be fair when they played well they played really well. I think as they age they will get even more consistent. 2 things to look for next year, more forced turnovers, less points allowed.

I don't care if they give up more yards, don't let them score. The saints, the pats and the packers all gave up more yards than Denver did per game but allowed less points, yards don't win games.

Green Bay and NO are really not good comparisons. Yes, they did allow
359 and 339 points, respectively, as opposed to Denver's 390.

But then, they scored 560 and 547 points, respectively, as opposed to
Denver's 309.

Now, when the defense allows way less points and the offense scores way
more, that is what wins games. Denver was in neither one's class, neither
offensively nor defensively.

Incidentally, compare Denver's 309 offensive points in 2011 to their 344
points in 2010, then consider Denver's 390 points allowed in 2011 to 471
points in 2010. The defense in 2011 was significantly better, and the
scoring offense was significantly worse. So which unit was more responsible
for the better W-L record? You all go ahead and argue the point. But the
numbers are the numbers . . .

-----

WARHORSE
02-28-2012, 10:07 PM
Now, when the defense allows way less points and the offense scores way
more, that is what wins games. Profound! :DDenver was in neither one's class, either
offensively or defensively.

Incidentally, compare Denver's 309 offensive points in 2011 to their 344
points in 2010, then consider Denver's 390 points allowed in 2011 to 471
points in 2010. The defense in 2011 was significantly better, and the
scoring offense was significantly worse. So which unit was more responsible
for the better W-L record? You all go ahead and argue the point. But the
numbers are the numbers . . .

-----

There are other variables to consider as well, like schedule, injuries......firing your head coach..........

Not to mention we are talking about basically a rookie QB who had no offseason nor practice reps and was put into a fluid situation with an interim headcoach vs a veteran QB who supposedly gave us the best chance to win. When you play from behind, you throw a ton more, and teams go into prevent defenses which are easier to score against especially come garbage time.


We made it to the playoffs regardless, and better us than say the Ratturds, the Dolts or the Chefs.

I like the fact that we gritted out some really tough wins, cause it means we have some really tough minded players.

The on the run change in offensive philosophy when Tebow became the starter...........who has to weather that scenario in mid season?

I think we helped the team.....we got more money for going into the playoffs, and the talk about town is a TON more upbeat than it was a year ago.

Stats schmatz.

We are going to be at zero-zero at the beginning of the year no matter what happened last year so who cares about credit for wins, losses or etc.

In the end, its a team sport. :beer:

catfish
02-28-2012, 10:19 PM
Green Bay and NO are really not good comparisons. Yes, they did allow
359 and 339 points, respectively, as opposed to Denver's 390.

But then, they scored 560 and 547 points, respectively, as opposed to
Denver's 309.

Now, when the defense allows way less points and the offense scores way
more, that is what wins games. Denver was in neither one's class, neither
offensively nor defensively.

Incidentally, compare Denver's 309 offensive points in 2011 to their 344
points in 2010, then consider Denver's 390 points allowed in 2011 to 471
points in 2010. The defense in 2011 was significantly better, and the
scoring offense was significantly worse. So which unit was more responsible
for the better W-L record? You all go ahead and argue the point. But the
numbers are the numbers . . .

-----

the argument from my side wasn't that thO was responsible for the W-L record, I think you win as a team, lose as a team. I think John Fox has a better philosophy on how to win with the talent on this team than the last guy did for sure. My statement was that youth on the D has caused some inconsistency, same as youth on the O has caused some inconsistency, when the O meshes they can do great, oakland, Minnesota, Pitt. then there are the mediocre games, Jets, Bears, Dolphins, 1st pats game and the awful 2nd pats, bills, lions, 2nd kc game.

Same for the D when they meshed they did great, the KC games were outstanding, the bears, the jets, the 2nd san diego game, they had mediocre games vs the steelers the vikings, oakland and cinci, and some horrible games. as they grow and get experience I expect more consistency form both groups.

last year there were enough games where one unit played great and the other just well enough to win to make it a successful year, I don't think the team can count on that to happen again so if there isn't more consistency on both sides it is going to be a long season. The D definately improved, but moving from last to 20th does not explain making the playoffs in its entirety. It is surely a large part of the improvement, I think having a run based attack assisted to some degree, as did limiting turnovers down the stretch

topscribe
02-28-2012, 10:21 PM
There are other variables to consider as well, like schedule, injuries......firing your head coach..........

Not to mention we are talking about basically a rookie QB who had no offseason nor practice reps and was put into a fluid situation with an interim headcoach vs a veteran QB who supposedly gave us the best chance to win. When you play from behind, you throw a ton more, and teams go into prevent defenses which are easier to score against especially come garbage time.


We made it to the playoffs regardless, and better us than say the Ratturds, the Dolts or the Chefs.

Well actually, no. Once again, the Broncos made the playoffs the moment
the Raiders blocked what would have been the game-winning field goal by
the Chiefs, who had just beaten the Broncos. IMO, the better team did
NOT win the Division, just the luckier one. Ask Chicago, for instance - and
also Green Bay, who whomped Denver and lost to KC.




Stats schmatz.

Yes, they're easy to dismiss, aren't they? Do too much of that, however,
and you lose much of the ability as to why games are won and lost. The
stats I provided were those of offensive and defensive scoring. I can't
think of more important stats than that. Can you, honestly?



In the end, its a team sport. Profound! :D :beer:

topscribe
02-28-2012, 10:27 PM
the argument from my side wasn't that thO was responsible for the W-L record, I think you win as a team, lose as a team. I think John Fox has a better philosophy on how to win with the talent on this team than the last guy did for sure. My statement was that youth on the D has caused some inconsistency, same as youth on the O has caused some inconsistency, when the O meshes they can do great, oakland, Minnesota, Pitt. then there are the mediocre games, Jets, Bears, Dolphins, 1st pats game and the awful 2nd pats, bills, lions, 2nd kc game.

Same for the D when they meshed they did great, the KC games were outstanding, the bears, the jets, the 2nd san diego game, they had mediocre games vs the steelers the vikings, oakland and cinci, and some horrible games. as they grow and get experience I expect more consistency form both groups.

last year there were enough games where one unit played great and the other just well enough to win to make it a successful year, I don't think the team can count on that to happen again so if there isn't more consistency on both sides it is going to be a long season. The D definately improved, but moving from last to 20th does not explain making the playoffs in its entirety. It is surely a large part of the improvement, I think having a run based attack assisted to some degree, as did limiting turnovers down the stretch

Well, following the numbers I provided, if you still think the offense was
responsible for the improvement in the W-L record, I suggest you review
those numbers veeerrrry carefully.

And, as I mentioned, I believe what happened between Oakland and KC
was more responsible than anything for Denver's appearance in the
playoffs.

-----

TheReverend
02-29-2012, 10:13 AM
Thread's still going eh?

BroncoStud
02-29-2012, 10:27 AM
How many games did the defense keep Tebow in the game by keeping the score low enough to allow Tebow to make a last minute comeback!

The defense had to keep opposing teams down to 9 points or less in order to allow the Tebow-Read Option magic to take affect.

9 points? The only time Denver scored under 9 was in week 17. Much of the season after Orton got benched Denver finished the game with more points than their opponents did. That is the point, right?? To WIN your games?

The Broncos were 1-4 and absolutely rudderless when Tebow entered the SD game and Orton was benched. Bet you didn't see us beating the Steelers THEN, did you?

Seriously, bring it better than this because it's just too easy right now.

BroncoStud
02-29-2012, 10:40 AM
Well, following the numbers I provided, if you still think the offense was
responsible for the improvement in the W-L record, I suggest you review
those numbers veeerrrry carefully.

And, as I mentioned, I believe what happened between Oakland and KC
was more responsible than anything for Denver's appearance in the
playoffs.

-----

That can be said for most divisions most years. A win here or there, a loss here or there.

Last year the Giants won their division in the week 17, the Cowboys lost their division when Romo overthrew a wide open Miles Austin weeks before. The Giants went on to win the Super Bowl. It happens EVERY year. SD has gotten into the playoffs several times because we allowed them to back in - but all that matters is they got in.

I find your stance on this comical. You claim you "just want Denver to win" but when they finally win some games (after benching and firing your beloved Kyle Orton) you only nitpick how the games were won.

You totally ignore the current QBs contributions. You think Tebow didn't help Denver win AT Oakland? No turnover, 2 Tds, countless 3rd down rushing conversions, constant threat of the zone-read which opened up massive holes for a 31 year old McGahee... Please. The Raiders scored 24, Denver still dominated, on the road. The Raiders had beaten the Orton-led Broncos 59-14 AT Denver the year before...

You don't think Tebow contributed against the Vikings, Jets, Dolphins, Chargers, Chiefs, so on and so forth? That's just absurd. He rushed for 660 yards in 11 starts. Denver started pounding the football and suddenly the defense was fresh, opposing teams were worn down, time of possession reversed in our favor...

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that the physical form of play that Tebow and McCoy brought to the game filtered to the rest of the team. The defense didn't suddenly get talented. They still got gashed by a bunch of no-name RBs and guys like Christian Ponder. You REALLY think McGahee rush for those yards without the threat of Tebow taking off around the edges? Please...

You may THINK you just "want the Broncos to win" but it is certain you would have been happy keeping Orton as the starter even if Denver went 4-12 again in 2011. I am just happy to see wins. I am happy to have a QB who actually puts effort in on Sundays. Some of us realize that he will likely improve, which means that the QB that Denver already invested a 1st rounder in may actually give us a chance at a longterm solution. It isn't a reach to think Tebow could complete 55% of his passes this season, which would be as good as Vick and many others most of their careers. As long as Tebow improves we will be fine, if he doesn't, then move on.

But either way to punch holes in all the wins is just assinine. I'm pretty sure guys like Dawkins, Bailey, Prater, etc, etc, don't really care how or who was most responsible for the wins, they were just happy to get them, like many of us.

You were happy with the QB situation sitting at 3-10 in 2010, most of us were nauseous about it. I think that pretty much sums it up. :laugh:

BORDERLINE
02-29-2012, 11:15 AM
You may THINK you just "want the Broncos to win" but it is certain you would have been happy keeping Orton as the starter even if Denver went 4-12 again in 2011. I am just happy to see wins. I am happy to have a QB who actually puts effort in on Sundays. Some of us realize that he will likely improve, which means that the QB that Denver already invested a 1st rounder in may actually give us a chance at a longterm solution. It isn't a reach to think Tebow could complete 55% of his passes this season, which would be as good as Vick and many others most of their careers. As long as Tebow improves we will be fine, if he doesn't, then move on.


That's where the disconnect in the fan base is at Stud. Tebow is so different of a QB and since A QB is suppose to be a consistent passer (Which Tebow isn't yet) It makes some fans FLIP. Drives them NUTS.

I'm all about WINS and basically just showing that you give a F' about the game and will do anything to make a play or WIN. I didn't see that in Plummer, I didn't see that in Cutler and I sure didn't see that in Orton. But Teebs at least got's that going for him. You see his heart everytime he is on the field. When we are down with minutes to play. Do we not feel confident that Tebow can drive for the go ahead TD or se up Prater for a FG? I sure as hell DO. We have a chance with him under center and well HIS future will be in place after this year. He NEEDS to improve. Even after a playoff win under his belt the WOLVES are still out to get him.

TXBRONC
02-29-2012, 11:37 AM
I guess I'm confused about the number of people arguing HARD for a second- or more likely third-tier QB to be drafted because Tebow might be a fourth-tier throwing QB.

If you don't like Tebow, why would you want somebody who's just a little bit better?

I don't mind drafting a backup QB in this draft (and I agree with others, the Lil Boise QB That Could is fine for my Kubiak-style backup) but I don't really want to draft a giant question mark in the 2nd or 3rd round and then draft ANOTHER QB next year in the first if we bail on Tebow.

I'd rather aim directly at the backup QB position this draft with a later pick, wait for the talent to come out next year and grab a more talented guy earlier when our first-round slot should be higher than 25 anyway if Tebow's still humping a rusty fire hydrant while in the pocket.

If you don't want to settle for Tim, why are you settling when trying to select his replacement?

Just seems weird to me.

~G

All I've said is if its the bpa you take him. Maybe I misunderstood but I thought the majority of people here believe that in the draft you take the best player available regardless of position. (General question) Why wouldn't it be the case at quarterback given that Tebow has not solidified his position as a franchise quarterback?

I also always been under the impression that taking quarterback beyond the second round is a project that isn't expect to compete right away if at all.

If we truly believe in taking the the best player available regardless of position I can see this being problem.

catfish
02-29-2012, 11:46 AM
All I've said is if its the bpa you take him. Maybe I misunderstood but I thought the majority of people here believe that in the draft you take the best player available regardless of position. (General question) Why wouldn't it be the case at quarterback given that Tebow has not solidified his position as a franchise quarterback?

I also always been under the impression that taking quarterback beyond the second round is a project that isn't expect to compete right away if at all.

If we truly believe in taking the the best player available regardless of position I can see this being problem.

I think most people would agree...I know I do, I thihkn the discussion focuses more around at what point a QB is most likely to be BPA. I am sure they will pick a QB, but think it is likely that QB wont be BPA till late in teh draft with the draft positions we have

catfish
02-29-2012, 11:48 AM
Well, following the numbers I provided, if you still think the offense was
responsible for the improvement in the W-L record, I suggest you review
those numbers veeerrrry carefully.

And, as I mentioned, I believe what happened between Oakland and KC
was more responsible than anything for Denver's appearance in the
playoffs.

-----

my point was that while the defense did have some great games, they were assisted by a pretty signifigant TOP swing, off the top of my head I think it was like a 3 minute change from this year to last. 3:00 is a scoring drive a game(or 3 if the team is NE :) )

topscribe
02-29-2012, 12:06 PM
my point was that while the defense did have some great games, they were assisted by a pretty signifigant TOP swing, off the top of my head I think it was like a 3 minute change from this year to last. 3:00 is a scoring drive a game(or 3 if the team is NE :) )

Good point. But you must not overlook the fact that TOP also is contingent
on the defense's ability to get off the field. A better defense leads to a
better TOP.

-----

topscribe
02-29-2012, 12:22 PM
I find your stance on this comical. You claim you "just want Denver to win" but when they finally win some games (after benching and firing your beloved Kyle Orton) you only nitpick how the games were won.

I think the gist of this thread is lost on you. It is about the QB. The
discussion has been about how responsible the QB is for thos wins (and
losses). Try to keep up.



You totally ignore the current QBs contributions.

Up to your usual dishonesty. I suggest you review my posts, insomuch as
you are capable.


That's as far as I go on this. The rest of your puke is not worth responding
to. Your obsession with Kyle Orton takes away from any intelligence your
posts might show. I'm not going to take your problem away from you and
make it mine . . . :coffee:

-----

catfish
02-29-2012, 12:23 PM
Good point. But you must not overlook the fact that TOP also is contingent
on the defense's ability to get off the field. A better defense leads to a
better TOP.

-----

can't disagree with that, my thought is it is a combination af improvement in Defense, matched with a run heavy offense. Not saying all O, not saying all D

topscribe
02-29-2012, 12:36 PM
can't disagree with that, my thought is it is a combination af improvement in Defense, matched with a run heavy offense. Not saying all O, not saying all D

Cat, I'm not saying that the offense didn't do some good things. They did.
I only showed that the numbers were better for the defense and worse for
the offense this year over last year. There are other intangible factors to
consider, of course, but the numbers are what they are.

-----

topscribe
02-29-2012, 01:03 PM
How many games did the defense keep Tebow in the game by keeping the score low enough to allow Tebow to make a last minute comeback!

The defense had to keep opposing teams down to 9 points or less in order to allow the Tebow-Read Option magic to take affect.

A little bit of hyperbole regarding "9 points," but right on regarding the defense . . .

-----

BroncoStud
02-29-2012, 01:04 PM
It's interesting you would quote his post that is directly about me and
then talk aobut WOLVES that are "still out to get him," as if I am one of
them. I understand his inability to believe me when I say I am rooting for
Tebow, since he apparently thinks I am at the same level of character as
he is (not that I even care in his case). But I thought better of you.

-----

"level of character"...?

That's hilarious... Aren't you the one who sat on this board and told us for the better part of 3 years why Kyle Orton was a very good QB and why he needed more talent around him? Then after the Broncos go 3-10 with him as starter in 2010 and it looks like Tebow will become the starter in the offseason, you disappear, only to return once the Orton trade falls through and he is named starter?

Then he goes 1-4 and you can post almost nothing positive about our current QB, despite the fact that Denver is in fact, WINNING? That about sum it up?

Orton lacked talent around him and lost. Tebow holds the team back now but Denver wins... I'm confused, which is it? Did every other player on the Denver roster suddenly become GOOD once Orton was benched? If so, that's an incredible coincidence.

I'm not obsessed with Orton, but your constant defense of Orton and digs at Tebow show that you cannot discuss this without emotion and a false sense of logic. I, for one, haven't forgotten all of your absurdly emotional posts since Tebow was drafted concerning this issue.

Why is Orton given the benefit of the doubt and not Tebow? You could argue that both had similar success their first year as starter for Chicago and Denver couldn't you? Orton completed about 50% of his passes, Tebow just under, but Tebow ran for a lot of yards and won a playoff game. There ARE similarities. Yet one is given the benefit of the doubt and not the other.

That is why you fail to address this properly, and it has NOTHING to do with my "character"... :laugh::laugh::laugh:

:coffee:

topscribe
02-29-2012, 01:08 PM
"level of character"...?

That's hilarious... Aren't you the one who sat on this board and told us for the better part of 3 years why Kyle Orton was a very good QB and why he needed more talent around him? Then after the Broncos go 3-10 with him as starter in 2010 and it looks like Tebow will become the starter in the offseason, you disappear, only to return once the Orton trade falls through and he is named starter?

Are you ever going to get to the point where honesty is a value? :tsk:

-----

vandammage13
02-29-2012, 01:22 PM
Well, following the numbers I provided, if you still think the offense was
responsible for the improvement in the W-L record, I suggest you review
those numbers veeerrrry carefully.

And, as I mentioned, I believe what happened between Oakland and KC
was more responsible than anything for Denver's appearance in the
playoffs.
-----

So, one play in Oakland vs KC game had more to do with us making the playoffs than anything our team did in our 8 victories....:confused:

As far as your stats (which you often used in the past to prove how good Orton was, if that tells us anything), it was easier for the 2010 team to put up points in garbage prevent time when teams already had the game won. I believe Warhorse alluded to this earlier....

On the flip side, it makes it much harder for the opposing team to score points on our D when our offense isn't turning the ball over at an alarming rate.

I enjoy stats and absolutely love dissecting box scores...but ultimately, the only stat that matters is the Win/Loss column.

BroncoStud
02-29-2012, 01:48 PM
Are you ever going to get to the point where honesty is a value? :tsk:

-----

How is that incorrect or false?

topscribe
02-29-2012, 01:56 PM
How is that incorrect or false?

I don't know why we have to clutter this thread with this crap. But there
are times a certain project in which I'm involved has given me little
precious time for a message board. There have been another time or two
when I felt I was getting too emotionally involved, so I took a little hiatus
off the board (although I have sometimes lurked during those spells.)

Now, don't flatter yourself by thinking I am posting this for your benefit. I
wouldn't do that. There are others on the board, however, whose opinions
I do value, so they might like to know why I "disappear" once in a while.
I'm not the only Founder of this board who makes himself scarce once in a
while. Tned's job takes him away, too.

So now that we have this out of the way, back off.

:focus:

-----

BroncoStud
02-29-2012, 02:23 PM
So your "project" required you to leave the board just as Orton was being traded and it looked like Tebow was going to be the starter, only to end when the Orton trade fell through...

Timing rocks. Gotcha man. But yes, back to topic.

TXBRONC
03-01-2012, 09:25 AM
Actually, I wouldn't be against bringing in a Chad Henne or a Matt Flynn.
Question marks, yes, but they would be cheaper than the draft choice,
and what is it the Broncos have now? Besides, those guys are veterans . . .

-----

I don't think Flynn is going to be cheap nor do I want him or Henne.

TXBRONC
03-01-2012, 09:35 AM
Just about, it seemed. But regardless of personnel, the defense was #32
in 2010 and #20 last year. Those are the facts . . .

-----

It's also a fact the defense was showing it's was improved from very beginning of season. Orton had everything in his favor and he blew it.

Simple Jaded
03-01-2012, 01:00 PM
It's also a fact the defense was showing it's was improved from very beginning of season. Orton had everything in his favor and he blew it.

I don't think that's not entirely true, the defense was just getting used to a switch from a 3-4 to a 4-3 at the very beginning. They didn't start consistently playing well til the SD in which Ortonary was scapegoated. The defense had one game where they held the opponents to less than 20 in the first 5 games.

After that the defense got considerably better and the offense got considerably worse.......

Simple Jaded
03-01-2012, 01:05 PM
A little bit of hyperbole regarding "9 points," but right on regarding the defense . . .

-----

Hyperbole? They held KC to seven in Denver and F'n lost!.......

vandammage13
03-01-2012, 01:20 PM
I don't think that's not entirely true, the defense was just getting used to a switch from a 3-4 to a 4-3 at the very beginning. They didn't start consistently playing well til the SD in which Ortonary was scapegoated. The defense had one game where they held the opponents to less than 20 in the first 5 games.

After that the defense got considerably better and the offense got considerably worse.......

When the TO's that came with Orton ceased with Tebow, the defense started giving up less points....The defensive side certainly grew as a unit, but the fact we were protecting the ball had just as much to do with their improvement.

Just look at the few games that Tebow did turn the ball over at an Orton rate...The defense looked just like the one that gave up 40+ points or whatever it was vs. GB when Orton was still the starter.

If they had really improved that much, they would have been able to overcome Tebow's turnovers late in the year...But they were not able to, and that to me shows that they weren't really all that much better...They only looked good when the offense didn't turn the ball over.

The defense improved some, but they still aren't good enough to carry a team in spite of offensive mistakes....Our 8 wins were attributed to the entire team playing well...Neither side of the ball was good enough to carry the team on its own.

TXBRONC
03-01-2012, 01:20 PM
I don't think that's not entirely true, the defense was just getting used to a switch from a 3-4 to a 4-3 at the very beginning. They didn't start consistently playing well til the SD in which Ortonary was scapegoated. The defense had one game where they held the opponents to less than 20 in the first 5 games.

After that the defense got considerably better and the offense got considerably worse.......

Yes and no. They got year went on but even from the beginning of season they showed improvement.


Except for the game against Green Bay the defense kept us in every game. In fact three of the four loses were decided by five points or less.

DenBronx
03-01-2012, 01:25 PM
I'm amazed at how many people think allllll the QBs are going to be gone in the 1st. Well, their not. Look how far Colt fell a couple of years ago. IF the Broncos draft a QB then I think it will be in the 4th or later rounds.

vandammage13
03-01-2012, 01:28 PM
I'm amazed at how many people think allllll the QBs are going to be gone in the 1st. Well, their not. Look how far Colt fell a couple of years ago. IF the Broncos draft a QB then I think it will be in the 4th or later rounds.

Colt McCoy was never projected to go in the first round anyway, so I wouldn't say he fell in the draft....

Looking at the way he's played I'd say he wasn't even worth a 3rd round pick, although I guess he would probably be better if the Browns had more weapons (but that can be said for most QB's that aren't cutting it).

DenBronx
03-01-2012, 01:35 PM
Colt McCoy was never projected to go in the first round anyway, so I wouldn't say he fell in the draft....

Looking at the way he's played I'd say he wasn't even worth a 3rd round pick, although I guess he would probably be better if the Browns had more weapons (but that can be said for most QB's that aren't cutting it).

Jimmy Claussen was projected as the 2nd best QB and he fell tremendously!


My point is, there are the sure fire Matt Ryans, Andrew Lucks, Cam Newtons but if teams dont have an urgent need they most likely will wait to get value.


I like Weeden the most out of the two guys mentioned by the TS but I wouldnt want us to draft him in rounds 1 or 2.

TXBRONC
03-01-2012, 01:35 PM
I'm amazed at how many people think allllll the QBs are going to be gone in the 1st. Well, their not. Look how far Colt fell a couple of years ago. IF the Broncos draft a QB then I think it will be in the 4th or later rounds.

The quarterbacks most likely to start as rookies will be taken at the very top of the draft. Second rounder many times have good start but necessarily. Right now I can think of one rookie quarterback taken from the 3rd round on that started without mitigating circumstances.

I continue say that if philosophy to take the best player available then that's what you do. I just don't see people can advocate for bpa accept quarterback given our situation. Tebow hasn't sealed the deal it's still up in the air whether or not he's the franchise quarterback. If quarterback completely settled then you consider moving out of that position.

DenBronx
03-01-2012, 01:39 PM
The quarterbacks most likely to start as rookies will be taken at the very top of the draft. Second rounder many times have good start but necessarily. Right now I can think of one rookie quarterback taken from the 3rd round on that started without mitigating circumstances.

Who TX???


Also, I would think Kellen Moore would be a good option very late in the draft.

Simple Jaded
03-01-2012, 01:40 PM
When the TO's that came with Orton ceased with Tebow, the defense started giving up less points....The defensive side certainly grew as a unit, but the fact we were protecting the ball had just as much to do with their improvement.

Just look at the few games that Tebow did turn the ball over at an Orton rate...The defense looked just like the one that gave up 40+ points or whatever it was vs. GB when Orton was still the starter.

If they had really improved that much, they would have been able to overcome Tebow's turnovers late in the year...But they were not able to, and that to me shows that they weren't really all that much better...They only looked good when the offense didn't turn the ball over.

The defense improved some, but they still aren't good enough to carry a team in spite of offensive mistakes....Our 8 wins were attributed to the entire team playing well...Neither side of the ball was good enough to carry the team on its own.

At what point, exactly, did you say "Wow, the offense is really playing well"?

The defense was dominant at times for Denver, they didn't just "play well". When the team lost it's because Orton turned it over, but when they won it's because Tebow didn't? Talk about Low-hanging fruit, you might just be the Obi Wan Kenobi of Over-simplication.

And btw, let's not pretend that turnovers are any worse on the defense than eight 3-and-outs out of 12 drives in every single game.......

TXBRONC
03-01-2012, 01:54 PM
Who TX???


Also, I would think Kellen Moore would be a good option very late in the draft.

Luck and Griffin at the top of draft will more likely start.

Quarterback like Brock Osweiler might have chance start. Again I can't think of any quarterback take late the draft without some sort of mitigating circumstances. Even a guy like Weedon would more likely have difficulty finding a place where he could start right away.

TXBRONC
03-01-2012, 01:57 PM
At what point, exactly, did you say "Wow, the offense is really playing well"?

The defense was dominant at times for Denver, they didn't just "play well". When the team lost it's because Orton turned it over, but when they won it's because Tebow didn't? Talk about Low-hanging fruit, you might just be the Obi Wan Kenobi of Over-simplication.

And btw, let's not pretend that eight 3-and-outs out of 12 drives is any worse on the defense than a turn over.......

Sorry turn the ball over is harder on a defense.

vandammage13
03-01-2012, 02:04 PM
At what point, exactly, did you say "Wow, the offense is really playing well"?

The defense was dominant at times for Denver, they didn't just "play well". When the team lost it's because Orton turned it over, but when they won it's because Tebow didn't? Talk about Low-hanging fruit, you might just be the Obi Wan Kenobi of Over-simplication.

And btw, let's not pretend that turnovers are any worse on the defense than eight 3-and-outs out of 12 drives in every single game.......

I never thought the offense was playing great, but when they were protecting the football and leading the league in rushing (setting a franchise record for rushing yards), I thought they were doing enough to compliment the defense and win the game.

Protecting the football wasn't the only reason for our turnaround, but I do think it was one of the biggest reasons for it...

Seeing as how we were no longer routinely losing games that could have been won was a good enough for me...Next year I will be expecting more.

vandammage13
03-01-2012, 02:13 PM
Luck and Griffin at the top of draft will more likely start.

Quarterback like Brock Osweiler might have chance start. Again I can't think of any quarterback take late the draft without some sort of mitigating circumstances. Even a guy like Weedon would more likely have difficulty finding a place where he could start right away.

The problem with a guy like Osweiler or Weedon is that people will get restless if they don't win right away like Tebow did...That's a lot of pressure.

If we were to get a top prospect like Luck or Griffin, people would certainly be more patient, but as soon as a mid-tier prospect like Weedon went on a losing streak, they would most likely crumble under the pressure and the FO would be forced to reinsert Tebow similar to last year.

The FO is going to be forced to stick with Tebow until he stops winning games...that much is certain. Nobody other than Tebow is going to start for us until Tebow either loses the job on his own merits or gets injured.

Simple Jaded
03-01-2012, 02:22 PM
The problem with a guy like Osweiler or Weedon is that people will get restless if they don't win right away like Tebow did...That's a lot of pressure.

If we were to get a top prospect like Luck or Griffin, people would certainly be more patient, but as soon as a mid-tier prospect like Weedon went on a losing streak, they would most likely crumble under the pressure and the FO would be forced to reinsert Tebow similar to last year.

The FO is going to be forced to stick with Tebow until he stops winning games...that much is certain. Nobody other than Tebow is going to start for us until Tebow either loses the job on his own merits or gets injured.

That's not true at all. As rookies, Skelton and Joe Webb played as well or better than Tebow ever has, yet the Cards went out and got Kolb and Vikings drafted Ponder. Orton actually was "playing well" in '09 before the Broncos drafted Tim Tebow, considering Tebow has never approached that level of play, why should he be held to a different standard?.......

vandammage13
03-01-2012, 02:30 PM
That's not true at all. As rookies, Skelton and Joe Webb played as well or better than Tebow ever has, yet the Cards went out and got Kolb and Vikings drafted Ponder. Orton actually was "playing well" in '09 before the Broncos drafted Tim Tebow, considering Tebow has never approached that level of play, why should he be held to a different standard?.......

You are right...Tebow never approached Orton's level of losing.

As far as Skelton and Webb, they played OK but hardly enough to bank your future on them...Of course your revisionist history makes it sound like they acquired Kolb and Ponder AFTER Skelton and Webb "played well," which is not accurate.

..And Webb and Skelton weren't rookies....If you are saying they played well in their rookie years that is puzzling because both barely saw the field as rookies.

Simple Jaded
03-01-2012, 02:47 PM
You are right...Tebow never approached Orton's level of losing.

As far as Skelton and Webb, they played OK but hardly enough to bank your future on them...Of course your revisionist history makes it sound like they acquired Kolb and Ponder AFTER Skelton and Webb "played well," which is not accurate.

..And Webb and Skelton weren't rookies....If you are saying they played well in their rookie years that is puzzling because both barely saw the field as rookies.

Typical.



As for Skelton and Webb, if they haven't played well enough to bank your future on them, how the F' has Tebow? Check your history, they both played as rookies and both played as well or better than Tebow has.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/player/gamelog/_/id/13458/year/2010/john-skelton
http://espn.go.com/nfl/player/gamelog/_/id/13484/year/2010/joe-webb

Horrible completion rates, low attempts, low yardage totals.......Sound familiar? I didn't say they played well, l said they played as well or better than Tebow. Granted, that's no saying much because l have never seen Tebow play well.

l'm not revising shit.......

vandammage13
03-01-2012, 03:08 PM
Typical.



As for Skelton and Webb, if they haven't played well enough to bank your future on them, how the F' has Tebow? Check your history, they both played as rookies and both played as well or better than Tebow has.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/player/gamelog/_/id/13458/year/2010/john-skelton
http://espn.go.com/nfl/player/gamelog/_/id/13484/year/2010/joe-webb

Horrible completion rates, low attempts, low yardage totals.......Sound familiar? I didn't say they played well, l said they played as well or better than Tebow. Granted, that's no saying much because l have never seen Tebow play well.

l'm not revising shit.......

Of course, for your comparison to hold merit, you are ignoring Tebow's rushing numbers (which sets him WAAAYY apart from those two)....Typical...

I don't think Tebow's done enough to bank your entire future on either....However, I do think he has done enough to warrant sticking with him until he fails.

Simple Jaded
03-01-2012, 03:16 PM
Of course, for your comparison to hold merit, you are ignoring Tebow's rushing numbers (which sets him WAAAYY apart from those two)....Typical...

I don't think Tebow's done enough to bank your entire future on either....However, I do think he has done enough to warrant sticking with him until he fails.

I honestly couldn't care any less about Tebow's rushing numbers, he's not playing RB. I couldn't possibly care less if l actually tried. So l'm busted! You got me there.

I don't know what is more disturbing, that you think Tebow's ability to play QB was anything more than failure or the notion that Tebow actually has to play even worse to be replaced.......

vandammage13
03-01-2012, 05:26 PM
I honestly couldn't care any less about Tebow's rushing numbers, he's not playing RB. I couldn't possibly care less if l actually tried. So l'm busted! You got me there.

I don't know what is more disturbing, that you think Tebow's ability to play QB was anything more than failure or the notion that Tebow actually has to play even worse to be replaced.......

What's disturbing to me is that you can deem 7 wins in 11 games coupled with a playoff victory a failure...

This from a young QB who by your assessment is very flawed...If we can win games in spite of all of his flaws, then imagine the possibilities if he corrects some of those flaws...

I'm not sure if Tebow is the long term guy (I certainly hope he is), but I think he's worth giving a shot considering his knack for getting it done in the clutch...

Or maybe you would prefer a 4-12 season with a QB putting up 3,800+ hollow yards, and then we can at least say "Well, at least he throws a nice 5 yard out on 3rd and 17..."

TXBRONC
03-02-2012, 10:48 AM
The problem with a guy like Osweiler or Weedon is that people will get restless if they don't win right away like Tebow did...That's a lot of pressure.

If we were to get a top prospect like Luck or Griffin, people would certainly be more patient, but as soon as a mid-tier prospect like Weedon went on a losing streak, they would most likely crumble under the pressure and the FO would be forced to reinsert Tebow similar to last year.

The FO is going to be forced to stick with Tebow until he stops winning games...that much is certain. Nobody other than Tebow is going to start for us until Tebow either loses the job on his own merits or gets injured.

What is point of saying that Osweiler or Weedon would be under pressure win. That pressure would be there even Tebow wasn't here. It's occupational hazard. I don't mean this as a dig at you or anyone else whose same argument it sounds fear that Tebow could possibly beaten out by rookie. If a person believes it's Tebow's job lose then why worry about it?

You're saying two quarterbacks that are going at the very top of the draft are be under less pressure to succeed than two quarterback's taken well below them? No not by a long shot. They might initially get a little bit of a reprieve it will short lived. Lets just take Luck's situation. He's going more than likely drafted the Colts and you're telling me Colts fans will be really patience with him even though nothing but winning except for last season Manning was hurt? I seriously doubt. Luck will be under as much pressure if not more as anyone that will start in Denver. He will be replacing a quarterback that is going to Hall of Fame after he retires.

I've said many times it's Tebow's job to lose. It will/would be an uphill climb any rookie that draft even one taken in the second round.

I've also said that if a person believes in taking the bpa in then taking a quarterback if he's the best player available shouldn't be a problem. Imo it would be inconsistent to say we need to take the bpa unless it's a quarterback then draft for need. We can't have it both ways and according to how EFX drafted last year and the comments they made after last year's draft.

For some advocates it wont be about just wins and loses. I think it's very possible that even with a bad season if Tebow shows marginal progress advocates will say what you said about pressure on a different quarterback.

Just for the sake of being clear, I think Tebow has earned the right to at the very least go into camp as the starter. That's huge a huge advantage because it means any other quarterback would have to be eye popping impressive.

Northman
03-02-2012, 11:00 AM
And i disagree that the pressure would be more for Weeden or Brock compared to Griffin or Luck. When your a 1st rounder your expected to do more than you are as a late round pick. I think if Weeden or Osweiler struggled people would understand it considering where they were taken. If you have Luck you expect him to be better than those guys.

TXBRONC
03-02-2012, 11:05 AM
And i disagree that the pressure would be more for Weeden or Brock compared to Griffin or Luck. When your a 1st rounder your expected to do more than you are as a late round pick. I think if Weeden or Osweiler struggled people would understand it considering where they were taken. If you have Luck you expect him to be better than those guys.

Also Luck is more than likely going be drafted by the Colts who have not done a lot losing over the last decade.

Npba900
03-02-2012, 11:29 PM
What's disturbing to me is that you can deem 7 wins in 11 games coupled with a playoff victory a failure...

This from a young QB who by your assessment is very flawed...If we can win games in spite of all of his flaws, then imagine the possibilities if he corrects some of those flaws...

I'm not sure if Tebow is the long term guy (I certainly hope he is), but I think he's worth giving a shot considering his knack for getting it done in the clutch...

Or maybe you would prefer a 4-12 season with a QB putting up 3,800+ hollow yards, and then we can at least say "Well, at least he throws a nice 5 yard out on 3rd and 17..."

I'm patient and will have a wait and see attitude with Tebow so long as 2012 EFX will make Tebow operate from within the pocket for the majority of the season vs screwing around the unsustainable Read Option Scheme. I want to know in 2012 whether or not we have a Pro-Style long term franchise quarterback. Or that Elway has drafted such a QB for the future in the 2012 draft.

The only way to assess whether or not Tebow is the long term deal is to put him in an offensive scheme of where he throws the ball 30-35 or 25-30 times a game in 2012. Even if it means Denver only wins 1-6 games in 2012. Then in 2013, Tebow should be ready to go and to become a legitimate NFL caliber starting quarterback with the ability to throw the ball accurately 25-35 times a game with a completion rate of 60-65 percent.

Although Fox using the Read Option scheme won 7 games last year and it gave Tebow invaluable reps and experience. The read option also, pushed back Tim's learning time table for passing strictly from behind center and from within the pocket. Opposing teams in 2012 will take away the read option and force/dare Tebow to beat them with arm.

Npba900
03-02-2012, 11:47 PM
You are right...Tebow never approached Orton's level of losing.

As far as Skelton and Webb, they played OK but hardly enough to bank your future on them...Of course your revisionist history makes it sound like they acquired Kolb and Ponder AFTER Skelton and Webb "played well," which is not accurate.

..And Webb and Skelton weren't rookies....If you are saying they played well in their rookie years that is puzzling because both barely saw the field as rookies.

Had Tebow been made to operate exclusively from the "Pocket-Behind Center" for all 11 games he started! He may have lost all 11 games or have been lucky to win 2 or 3 games in 2011. The Read Option hid/covered up Tebow's glaring weakness/Achilles heel and that was his inability to execute from within the pocket.

BORDERLINE
03-03-2012, 11:24 AM
Had Tebow been made to operate exclusively from the "Pocket-Behind Center" for all 11 games he started! He may have lost all 11 games or have been lucky to win 2 or 3 games in 2011. The Read Option hid/covered up Tebow's glaring weakness/Achilles heel and that was his inability to execute from within the pocket.

DID we or did we not Win more games with Tebow under center running the "read-option". That shows me that offense can work to an extent in the NFL.

Some teams played it well and forced Tebow to pass heavy and he didn't do squat. Some teams could not stop the running game once we got into GEAR.

I want us to Win and if we have a QB that excels and running a certain type of play, Then run it. If by him running it, It helps us get the first or the touchdown then DO IT. When Tebow get's his passing game down. WATCH OUT.

TXBRONC
03-03-2012, 12:24 PM
DID we or did we not Win more games with Tebow under center running the "read-option". That shows me that offense can work to an extent in the NFL.

Some teams played it well and forced Tebow to pass heavy and he didn't do squat. Some teams could not stop the running game once we got into GEAR.

I want us to Win and if we have a QB that excels and running a certain type of play, Then run it. If by him running it, It helps us get the first or the touchdown then DO IT. When Tebow get's his passing game down. WATCH OUT.

Border the read-option worked pretty well for about six weeks but by the end of the season wasn't every effective. Even in the playoff win the beat up Steelers were all over it like stink on poop. In other words as the season went on it looked me like the effectiveness of that one play started trending down. I don't think it can be used with regularity and remain an effective play.

I hope Tebow develops as a passer but I need to see it.

catfish
03-04-2012, 08:51 AM
Border the read-option worked pretty well for about six weeks but by the end of the season wasn't every effective. Even in the playoff win the beat up Steelers were all over it like stink on poop. In other words as the season went on it looked me like the effectiveness of that one play started trending down. I don't think it can be used with regularity and remain an effective play.

I hope Tebow develops as a passer but I need to see it.

It was my impression that they had pretty much abandoned the option by the end of the season. I think I saw they ran it like 4-5 times a game at most

TXBRONC
03-04-2012, 09:28 AM
It was my impression that they had pretty much abandoned the option by the end of the season. I think I saw they ran it like 4-5 times a game at most

How can it abandoning it when McCoy said they only used about four to five times pre game?

HORSEPOWER 56
03-04-2012, 09:28 AM
Border the read-option worked pretty well for about six weeks but by the end of the season wasn't every effective. Even in the playoff win the beat up Steelers were all over it like stink on poop. In other words as the season went on it looked me like the effectiveness of that one play started trending down. I don't think it can be used with regularity and remain an effective play.

I hope Tebow develops as a passer but I need to see it.

You can imply that the read-option got "figured out" because it wasn't as effective the last few weeks but using teams like Pittsburgh (one of the best defenses in the NFL for as long as I can remember) or KC's defense who just 2 weeks before made the Green Bay offense look pretty bad as measuring sticks to whether or not your offensive scheme works is a slippery slope.

Pittsburgh's defense makes most offenses look inept. They have always been one of the toughest defenses vs the run (our strength last year). Implying that our offense got "exposed" by Pittsburgh is like saying Pittsburgh "exposed" Peyton Manning's offense when he struggled vs them.

Like always, it's all about match-ups from week to week. Folks were all over giving Pittsburgh the injury excuse for losing to us. Nobody made a point of the fact that Kuper, Decker, Larsen, and Dawkins were all out by season's end and that Miller was playing with one hand. Those things were glossed over and to say that losing those guys didn't have a big effect, especially on a young team (Kuper and Dawk were the vet leadership for their respective sides of the ball) is selling those guys and their contributions short.

Blaming our skid at the end solely on the read-option being figured out is hardly fair or accurate, IMO. The scheme, the playcalling, injuries, player experience, and injury all played a factor.

MOtorboat
03-04-2012, 09:34 AM
You can imply that the read-option got "figured out" because it wasn't as effective the last few weeks but using teams like Pittsburgh (one of the best defenses in the NFL for as long as I can remember) or KC's defense who just 2 weeks before made the Green Bay offense look pretty bad as measuring sticks to whether or not your offensive scheme works is a slippery slope.

Pittsburgh's defense makes most offenses look inept. They have always been one of the toughest defenses vs the run (our strength last year). Implying that our offense got "exposed" by Pittsburgh is like saying Pittsburgh "exposed" Peyton Manning's offense when he struggled vs them.

Like always, it's all about match-ups from week to week. Folks were all over giving Pittsburgh the injury excuse for losing to us. Nobody made a point of the fact that Kuper, Decker, Larsen, and Dawkins were all out by season's end and that Miller was playing with one hand. Those things were glossed over and to say that losing those guys didn't have a big effect, especially on a young team (Kuper and Dawk were the vet leadership for their respective sides of the ball) is selling those guys and their contributions short.

Blaming our skid at the end solely on the read-option being figured out is hardly fair or accurate, IMO. The scheme, the playcalling, injuries, player experience, and injury all played a factor.

It proves, once again, that the read-option and a run-only college style of football doesn't work in the pros.

It sure as hell got more difficult to run it, because teams practiced for it. And, once again, it proved that Tebow has to become a good passer to be successful in the NFL.

Canmore
03-04-2012, 09:34 AM
You can imply that the read-option got "figured out" because it wasn't as effective the last few weeks but using teams like Pittsburgh (one of the best defenses in the NFL for as long as I can remember) or KC's defense who just 2 weeks before made the Green Bay offense look pretty bad as measuring sticks to whether or not your offensive scheme works is a slippery slope.

Pittsburgh's defense makes most offenses look inept. They have always been one of the toughest defenses vs the run (our strength last year). Implying that our offense got "exposed" by Pittsburgh is like saying Pittsburgh "exposed" Peyton Manning's offense when he struggled vs them.

Like always, it's all about match-ups from week to week. Folks were all over giving Pittsburgh the injury excuse for losing to us. Nobody made a point of the fact that Kuper, Decker, Larsen, and Dawkins were all out by season's end and that Miller was playing with one hand. Those things were glossed over and to say that losing those guys didn't have a big effect, especially on a young team (Kuper and Dawk were the vet leadership for their respective sides of the ball) is selling those guys and their contributions short.

Well said.

Everyone is hurt by the end of the season. Pittsburgh got beat plain and simple because they sold out defending the run because they couldn't believe Tebow could beat them through the air. After a postseason record setting performance including three fifty plus yard completions and a 31.6 yard per completion average, they found out they were wrong.

TXBRONC
03-04-2012, 09:42 AM
You can imply that the read-option got "figured out" because it wasn't as effective the last few weeks but using teams like Pittsburgh (one of the best defenses in the NFL for as long as I can remember) or KC's defense who just 2 weeks before made the Green Bay offense look pretty bad as measuring sticks to whether or not your offensive scheme works is a slippery slope.

Pittsburgh's defense makes most offenses look inept. They have always been one of the toughest defenses vs the run (our strength last year). Implying that our offense got "exposed" by Pittsburgh is like saying Pittsburgh "exposed" Peyton Manning's offense when he struggled vs them.

Like always, it's all about match-ups from week to week. Folks were all over giving Pittsburgh the injury excuse for losing to us. Nobody made a point of the fact that Kuper, Decker, Larsen, and Dawkins were all out by season's end and that Miller was playing with one hand. Those things were glossed over and to say that losing those guys didn't have a big effect, especially on a young team (Kuper and Dawk were the vet leadership for their respective sides of the ball) is selling those guys and their contributions short.

I didn't imply anything. I stated a fact. When we ran the read option against Pittsburgh it didn't work. They were all over it every time we ran it.

Yeah we had injuries so did the Steelers. They came into the game against us depleted.

I suggest and read again the things I've said HP I've been very support of this team.

BORDERLINE
03-04-2012, 11:07 AM
You can imply that the read-option got "figured out" because it wasn't as effective the last few weeks but using teams like Pittsburgh (one of the best defenses in the NFL for as long as I can remember) or KC's defense who just 2 weeks before made the Green Bay offense look pretty bad as measuring sticks to whether or not your offensive scheme works is a slippery slope.

Pittsburgh's defense makes most offenses look inept. They have always been one of the toughest defenses vs the run (our strength last year). Implying that our offense got "exposed" by Pittsburgh is like saying Pittsburgh "exposed" Peyton Manning's offense when he struggled vs them.

Like always, it's all about match-ups from week to week. Folks were all over giving Pittsburgh the injury excuse for losing to us. Nobody made a point of the fact that Kuper, Decker, Larsen, and Dawkins were all out by season's end and that Miller was playing with one hand. Those things were glossed over and to say that losing those guys didn't have a big effect, especially on a young team (Kuper and Dawk were the vet leadership for their respective sides of the ball) is selling those guys and their contributions short.

Blaming our skid at the end solely on the read-option being figured out is hardly fair or accurate, IMO. The scheme, the playcalling, injuries, player experience, and injury all played a factor.

You opened a whole can of whoop-azz with that comment!!! :salute:. Injuries happen and the better teams overcome them. The sorry teams fold.

The Steelers safety CLARK said in an interview while in the PRO BOWL that PITT went through every scenario that could happen that would result in them losing that game. Every single scenario. The one they DID NOT GO OVER was Tebow passing like a MAD MAN on their DEFENSE. Which shows me they believed it was IMPOSSIBLE for him to throw. They really thought "hey this guy can't pass". I BET they would do things a whole LOT differently next time. Injuries or no injuries that's how they approached this game and that's how they lost IT.

BORDERLINE
03-04-2012, 11:14 AM
Border the read-option worked pretty well for about six weeks but by the end of the season wasn't every effective. Even in the playoff win the beat up Steelers were all over it like stink on poop. In other words as the season went on it looked me like the effectiveness of that one play started trending down. I don't think it can be used with regularity and remain an effective play.

I hope Tebow develops as a passer but I need to see it.

This is how I look at IT.

Tebow definitely need to be a better passer. NO doubt. No questions.

The read-option is something teams need to prepare for and it specially hard for aggressive teams to defend. As far as the Pitt game I remember J.Harrison being a NON- Factor. WHY? Because He was too aggressive. Tebow was confusing the SH** out of him the whole game. HOw does a team like Pitt with one of the Best safety's in TROY P give up that much yards in the AIR? Because Troy is aggressive.

I believe you try something until it's no longer useful. The read-option sprinkled in with a more regular passing offense can be very dangerous. Even more with stronger weapons like a speed back and a solid pass catching TE.

It makes the opposing defense prepare for something else and punishes players that are overly aggressive.

catfish
03-05-2012, 10:21 AM
How can it abandoning it when McCoy said they only used about four to five times pre game?

ehh I seem to remember them using it more than that against the raiders and the 1st time they played the cheifs, and by the end of the season it was down to 4-5 times a game. Of course my memory could be playing tricks. When I say abandoned I meant abandoned as a base offense, 4-5 plays out of 50-60 is not enough to get worked up about

Lancane
03-05-2012, 11:08 AM
ehh I seem to remember them using it more than that against the raiders and the 1st time they played the cheifs, and by the end of the season it was down to 4-5 times a game. Of course my memory could be playing tricks. When I say abandoned I meant abandoned as a base offense, 4-5 plays out of 50-60 is not enough to get worked up about

That's pretty much my take from what John Fox stated, is that the Read-Option will no longer be the base offense, that they are going to instill a more Pro-Style Offense as the base, most likely the Erhardt-Perkins we were using with Orton and keeping a handful of Read-Option plays in the playbook.

TXBRONC
03-05-2012, 11:54 AM
ehh I seem to remember them using it more than that against the raiders and the 1st time they played the cheifs, and by the end of the season it was down to 4-5 times a game. Of course my memory could be playing tricks. When I say abandoned I meant abandoned as a base offense, 4-5 plays out of 50-60 is not enough to get worked up about

I don't remember that and neither does Tebow or McCoy. When I workout which is three to four times a week that's one of games I watch while workout and I would say they're weren't bull shiting when they said they ran it about four or five times.