The Broncos' defense didn't get much help from the Broncos' offense last season

[topscribe]

That was the headline to Jeff Legwold's Q&A in the Denver Post this morning. Couldn't agree more.

Part of the column here:


From Nov. 13 to the end of the regular season, the Broncos scored 17 or fewer points in six games. They scored only 10 points in their last playoff game, in the AFC semifinals at New England. The Patriots beat them 45-10 en route to the Super Bowl.

Rest - http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_20309502/broncos-defense-didnt-get-much-help-from-broncos

[Northman]

But, to be fair the Patriots and Lions i believe were the only teams to really put a hurting (points wise) on the defense. While they need more help its not like they didnt carry the load last year with a very anemic offense.

[DenBronx]

I fully expect us to average 28-30 points a game on offense. That means our defense will look much differant. No more down by 17 in the 4th quarter.

[DenBronx]

But, to be fair the Patriots and Lions i believe were the only teams to really put a hurting (points wise) on the defense. While they need more help its not like they didnt carry the load last year with a very anemic offense.

You are forggeting the Packers....who torched us too. And the Bills who killed us 40-14....that my friend is a blowout.

[Northman]

You are forggeting the Packers....who torched us too. And the Bills who killed us 40-14....that my friend is a blowout.

True, but thats still just 4 games out of 16. For the most part the defense did a good job and in the games that we really got smashed turnovers helped that out in a big way.

[vandammage13]

Ehh...part of that was just the style of play Fox wanted...ball control offense to compliment strong defensive play to give you a chance in the end.

Basically it was the only recipe for winning given the personnel we had...We probably could have scored more points if Fox wanted to play a different style, but would have probably turned the ball over more as well...pretty much resulting in a wash. You can win games not scoring a lot of points when you lead the league in rushing.

There were games where the offense took an early lead and it was the defense who couldn't hold up (1st Pats game)..There were also games such as Minny where the offense had more to do with winning than the defense did.

The offense scored when they had to for the most part, once the ball control had served its purpose by keeping the game close and it was time to make a play at the end.

I'm not surprised that you agreed with the article though.

[underrated29]

It should read "the broncos defense didnt get much help from mike mccoy."


North:
49
29
45
32
41
40


not good my man..

The times we did keep teams under 19 points, were teams with a rookie or backup qb( bears, jets, cheifs, titans)- or new qb-(raiders) and teams with no star players- no rundmc, jamal charles, ladanian tomlinson and shonne greene)



The bottom 3rd in the league NFL defense, was actually that. Bottom third in the league. The D gets a lot of credit for things, but really they are not as good as being credited for.

[vandammage13]

It should read "the broncos defense didnt get much help from mike mccoy."


North:
49
29
45
32
41
40


not good my man..

The times we did keep teams under 19 points, were teams with a rookie or backup qb( bears, jets, cheifs, titans)- or new qb-(raiders) and teams with no star players- no rundmc, jamal charles, ladanian tomlinson and shonne greene)



The bottom 3rd in the league NFL defense, was actually that. Bottom third in the league. The D gets a lot of credit for things, but really they are not as good as being credited for.

As good as Tom Brady is, a "Good" Defense does not give up 5 touchdown passes in 1 half...Just wouldn't happen...

[cmc0605]

It's never good to brag about a defense that could only stand up to teams that didn't have good QBs/RBs, but crash and burn whenever they played someone good. Like it or not, we did end up playing a lot of crappy units with banged up players or rookies (e.g., no Peterson in the Vikings game). I'm not saying we need to hold Aaron Rodgers or Brady to 7 points, but the defense was far from durable last season.

The other side of that coin though is that there are plenty of upsides, including our pass rushers (Dumervil and Miller), we still have Bailey, we have a good core of LBs (though it could be better and Williams will be facing suspension), our rookie safeties will have some experience behind them, and we have a new defensive coordinator that I think will be successful. Hopefully Tracy Porter will be an upgrade. Robert Ayers never developed to first-round quality but at least he was a starter last season. If the depth at safety/CB holds up, and we can get a good DT, they can get much better quick...I suspect this will depend on scheme/chemistry more than personnel because we do have talent. I also think it will help to have an offense that doesn't look like a bunch of pee-wee scrubs trying to figure out which direction the line of scrimmage is and is actually capable of establishing a lead.

[underrated29]

i didnt even include the playoff game.......at least im pretty sure. i forgot what i did now, but i think thats just reg season

[Cugel]

Personally, I HATE the "ball control, strong running game" type of offense that Fox seems to love. Not only is it intensely boring, but you just can't expect to win in the playoffs with that type of offense. Not when you're going up against Tom Brady and the Patriots offense most of the time!

I can understand going with that conservative style with Tebow, because he can't do anything else. With Manning opening things up the Broncos should do better than this:


Denver's defense had to play a lot because Denver's offense had trouble sustaining drives. The Broncos ranked only 30th in the league in third-down conversions at 30.8 percent.

[Northman]

It should read "the broncos defense didnt get much help from mike mccoy."


North:
49
29
45
32
41
40


not good my man..

.


How many turnovers were there in those games? Im guessing it was pretty high in some of those games. Van mentioned the first Pats game but it wasnt until the offense turned it over that they started to lose control of that game. In Buffalo? I know Teebs had at least 4 in the second half. Like i said, in most of the games the defense did a good job and in most of the blowouts it was a direct result of turnovers, especially against Detroit and GB where there were at least a pick 6 in each game.

[HammeredOut]

As good as Tom Brady is, a "Good" Defense does not give up 5 touchdown passes in 1 half...Just wouldn't happen...

Oh... this is the game we went 1-12 on third down conversions..... Meaning we couldnt get a 1st down the entire half.... I blame that one of the offense for not converting..... When we don't convert, we give the ball back, and the defense gets a short rest on the bench....

Real good example of how bad the offense was last season..

[Cugel]

The other side of that coin though is that there are plenty of upsides, including our pass rushers (Dumervil and Miller), we still have Bailey, we have a good core of LBs (though it could be better and Williams will be facing suspension),

Clearly Joe Mays is not great at coverage. They need an upgrade at MLB but giving him $4 million means they are committing to him, which is not good.


our rookie safeties will have some experience behind them,

Rahim Moore has been benched. They brought in Mike Adams and gave him a $4 million contract to start at FS. He's a really good coverage safety which will help. Moore is clearly a busted pick or they wouldn't have spent $4 million on Adams.


and we have a new defensive coordinator that I think will be successful. Hopefully Tracy Porter will be an upgrade. Robert Ayers never developed to first-round quality but at least he was a starter last season. If the depth at safety/CB holds up, and we can get a good DT, they can get much better quick...

Even if they draft a DT, they will need to add at least 2 DTs between now and the start of the season unless they intend to depend on Mich Unrein and Vickerson to play substantial roles. If that's the case it's going to be a LOOOONG season.


I suspect this will depend on scheme/chemistry more than personnel because we do have talent. I also think it will help to have an offense that doesn't look like a bunch of pee-wee scrubs trying to figure out which direction the line of scrimmage is and is actually capable of establishing a lead.

The OL is still piss-weak, but with Manning defenses won't be crowding the line with 7 or 8 defenders and trying to crush the QB like they did with Tebow & Orton. Neither had a quick release and neither had the ability to handle the blitz well.

Tebow always wanted to take off and run, and if you shut down his running lanes he couldn't do anything. Orton just wanted to eat dirt whenever things got rough.

That won't be true this season.

[Northman]

It's never good to brag about a defense that could only stand up to teams that didn't have good QBs/RBs, but crash and burn whenever they played someone good.

I beg to differ. As young as they were they played outstanding in a year that they werent expected to do much. What did you personally expect? The 2000 Ravens? lol

[HammeredOut]

You are forggeting the Packers....who torched us too. And the Bills who killed us 40-14....that my friend is a blowout.

Hey... in 5 of 7 of Tebow's wins... 14 points would have been enough to seal the win for us.... talk about defense.... along with Tebow who could convert 3rd downs at 24%...

[Ravage!!!]

Considering our offense punted as many times as it did, I think they did a pretty damn good job. No one expected HUGE results going into the season, last year. They exceeded expectations, and then we want to look back and blame them. The offense last season was putrid. They were NO help to our defense whatsoever. The bright spot of this team last season, was the defense.

[Cugel]

How many turnovers were there in those games? Im guessing it was pretty high in some of those games. Van mentioned the first Pats game but it wasnt until the offense turned it over that they started to lose control of that game. In Buffalo? I know Teebs had at least 4 in the second half. Like i said, in most of the games the defense did a good job and in most of the blowouts it was a direct result of turnovers, especially against Detroit and GB where there were at least a pick 6 in each game.

Nobody would EVER accuse me of being a Teboniac, but clearly those turnovers weren't all Tebow's fault. He got crushed alot last season when defenders blew past his OL like they were card-board cut-outs.

They need upgrades at both C and G this year. Unfortunately they didn't sign Jeff Saturday. And Franklin is going to have to learn to move his feet and pass-block at some point. He's strong as an Ox but can't handle the speed-rush and gets beaten badly. Of course he was a rookie so you have to hope he can learn.

But, it wasn't a great start to his career.

Meanwhile Beadles and Walton just plain sucked. Bad. I don't see much upside potential to either player and hope they replace both in the starting lineup this season. However, their failure to sign a FA veteran to replace those guys is not encouraging.

[Northman]

Nobody would EVER accuse me of being a Teboniac, but clearly those turnovers weren't all Tebow's fault.

But this isnt about Tebow vs the defense. Its the offense vs the defense in terms of production. I would bet my life that in the games in which teams scored over 40 points a good portion of that is due to turnovers. Even with the games that Under mentioned that leaves 10 games where the defense did its job far more than the offense did.

[BroncoStud]

TOP dislikes Tebow on a personal level for the treatment of Orton... So of course he will post anything to make a point of that.

Forgotten in all of this is the fact that the offense, once Tebow took over, was #1 in the NFL in rushing. Time of Possession went to Denver's favor. Denver won games. Being #1 in rushing in the NFL certainly helped the Denver defense. Just like when Denver was #1 in the NFL in passing under Orton for a while in 2010, yet Denver couldn't run to save it's life, the Defense still struggled mightily, yet TOP was nowhere close to blaming Orton for that. It's a double-standard, and a poor one at that.

[Cugel]

I beg to differ. As young as they were they played outstanding in a year that they werent expected to do much. What did you personally expect? The 2000 Ravens? lol

Now THAT's funny! :laugh:

No, they don't remind anybody of the 2000 Ravens. . . . or the 2012 Ravens for that matter. You see, the Ravens actually make it a point to draft GOOD DTs in the first round. . . . :coffee:

[HammeredOut]

Nobody would EVER accuse me of being a Teboniac, but clearly those turnovers weren't all Tebow's fault. He got crushed alot last season when defenders blew past his OL like they were card-board cut-outs.



.

You can't blame the O'line for having the responsibility of blocking the 9 in the box at all times... you have to remember thats about how many, and no less was ready to stop the run game at all times... When the Broncos didn't run the ball, the defense blew in with 9 in the box, and Tebow couldn't do better then a less then 47 completion percentage with single coverage... At that, If Tebow had as many attempts as say Aaron Rodgers, he would have been sacked or been on pace to be sacked around 92 times......

So i say the O'line couldn't block the 9 in the box, they faced on a regular basis.... I would love to see how Manning does with 9 in the box, and single coverage.... Im guessing TD passes all day long....

[topscribe]

It should read "the broncos defense didnt get much help from mike mccoy."


North:
49
29
45
32
41
40


not good my man..

The times we did keep teams under 19 points, were teams with a rookie or backup qb( bears, jets, cheifs, titans)- or new qb-(raiders) and teams with no star players- no rundmc, jamal charles, ladanian tomlinson and shonne greene)



The bottom 3rd in the league NFL defense, was actually that. Bottom third in the league. The D gets a lot of credit for things, but really they are not as good as being credited for.
Which means the offense must have been even worse . . .



Nobody would EVER accuse me of being a Teboniac, but clearly those turnovers weren't all Tebow's fault. He got crushed alot last season when defenders blew past his OL like they were card-board cut-outs.

They need upgrades at both C and G this year. Unfortunately they didn't sign Jeff Saturday. And Franklin is going to have to learn to move his feet and pass-block at some point. He's strong as an Ox but can't handle the speed-rush and gets beaten badly. Of course he was a rookie so you have to hope he can learn.

But, it wasn't a great start to his career.

Meanwhile Beadles and Walton just plain sucked. Bad. I don't see much upside potential to either player and hope they replace both in the starting lineup this season. However, their failure to sign a FA veteran to replace those guys is not encouraging.
Fumbles are fumbles. Strong as an ox or not, he had 14 of them. No one stops to take apart a QB's interceptions to see which one are his and which are the receivers'. His interceptions are his own. Why should fumbles be any different? The fact is, Tebow had 14 fumbles, which means he was directly responsible for 14 turnovers through his fumbles.

[catfish]

Which means the offense must have been even worse . . .



Fumbles are fumbles. Strong as an ox or not, he had 14 of them. No one stops to take apart a QB's interceptions to see which one are his and which are the receivers'. His interceptions are his own. Why should fumbles be any different? The fact is, Tebow had 14 fumbles, which means he was directly responsible for 14 turnovers through his fumbles.


The stats I read are 6 int 6 fumbles....that would be 12 turnovers total good for 8th best in the league(only Aaron Rodgers and Alex Smith have the same # of games started with less T/O. Everyone else in front of him had 10 games or less). the broncos had 30 total turnovers (13 int, 17 fumbles lost)same as oakland and buffalo.

denver ended up -12 on turnovers
oakland was -4
buffalo +1

denvers defense tied for 5th to last in the league in forced turnovers.

you I guess could legitimately say that Turnovers were a factor, but Tebow was not the major cause, and the defense didn't help the offense by creating turnovers and thus a short field. Regardless there were several teams that had comparable turnover numbers to Denver and none of them gave up 4 40 point games in the regular season

[Denver Native (Carol)]

From article:


Today's question about the Broncos comes from Gerry Di Carlo in San Diego.

Q: What was the Denver defense's average minutes per game last season?

A: The defense was on the field a lot last season.

Denver led the NFL in rushing with a franchise-record 2,632 yards and tied for the NFL lead in carries (546), yet ranked only 25th in the 32-team league in average time of possession at 28 minutes, 51 seconds per game. Houston was the NFL leader in average time of possession at 32:41.

Denver's defense had to play a lot because Denver's offense had trouble sustaining drives. The Broncos ranked only 30th in the league in third-down conversions at 30.8 percent.

Denver's defense was on the field for 1,063 plays. The only defenses with more plays belonged to Arizona (1,095), Tennessee (1,080), the New York Giants (1,072), Oakland (1,070) and New England (1,064).


http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_20309502/broncos-defense-didnt-get-much-help-from-broncos

[broncobryce]

I guess the number one rushing offense doesn't help the defense anymore. Hmm last I checked, every defensive coach in the NFL loves a good running game.

That said, the D stepped up when it had to a lot of games. They deserve credit.

[MOtorboat]

Biggest concern isn't the lack of what the team gained (Porter), as it is more what the team lost (Bunkley).

Denver quite possibly has the best outside pass rush in the game, and that can make up for some deficiencies at other positions, notoriously MLB, but only if you at least have a hold the point type of DT. Denver lost that and didn't make a move to compensate.

[MOtorboat]

I guess the number one rushing offense doesn't help the defense anymore. Hmm last I checked, every defensive coach in the NFL loves a good running game.

That said, the D stepped up when it had to a lot of games. They deserve credit.

It does, if they score. Team didn't score consistently enough to make it much of a factor when it mattered. When they did, it came through the air (the one game where the quarterback performed at an average NFL level).

[topscribe]

The stats I read are 6 int 6 fumbles....that would be 12 turnovers total good for 8th best in the league(only Aaron Rodgers and Alex Smith have the same # of games started with less T/O. Everyone else in front of him had 10 games or less). the broncos had 30 total turnovers (13 int, 17 fumbles lost)same as oakland and buffalo.

denver ended up -12 on turnovers
oakland was -4
buffalo +1

denvers defense tied for 5th to last in the league in forced turnovers.

you I guess could legitimately say that Turnovers were a factor, but Tebow was not the major cause, and the defense didn't help the offense by creating turnovers and thus a short field. Regardless there were several teams that had comparable turnover numbers to Denver and none of them gave up 4 40 point games in the regular season
Actually, Tebow had 13 fumbles in 2011. I inadvertently included the one he had in 2010. He lost 6 of them, which I admit I also overlooked.

http://www.nfl.com/player/timtebow/497135/profile

[catfish]

Actually, Tebow had 13 fumbles in 2011. I inadvertently included the one he had in 2010. He lost 6 of them, which I admit I also overlooked.

http://www.nfl.com/player/timtebow/497135/profile


6 fumbles lost isn't great, but isn't rare for a QB either. Like I said, he was top 10 for protecting the ball overall. The problem seemed to be when the turnovers came they came in spurts, it seemed like it was either 0 turnovers or 3.

[catfish]

Hey... in 5 of 7 of Tebow's wins... 14 points would have been enough to seal the win for us.... talk about defense.... along with Tebow who could convert 3rd downs at 24%...

hey in 3 of 5 of Tebows losses 40 points wouldn't have won the game, guess how many teams won a game last year while giving up 40 points. (1 team won 1 game, Packers over Lions,both teams that hung 40 on the D)

[Northman]

Denver's defense had to play a lot because Denver's offense had trouble sustaining drives. The Broncos ranked only 30th in the league in third-down conversions at 30.8 percent.

Not good. Not good at all.

[vandammage13]

How many turnovers were there in those games? Im guessing it was pretty high in some of those games. Van mentioned the first Pats game but it wasnt until the offense turned it over that they started to lose control of that game. In Buffalo? I know Teebs had at least 4 in the second half. Like i said, in most of the games the defense did a good job and in most of the blowouts it was a direct result of turnovers, especially against Detroit and GB where there were at least a pick 6 in each game.

And contrastingly, the only games the defense played well was when the offense didn't turn it over...

A good defense can withstand offensive mistakes, at least holding teams to FG's ( I understand some of the TO's were returned for TD's but this wasn't always the case).

Bottom line is neither side of the ball was what you could classify as "good"....NEITHER side was capable of carrying the load on their own...

Both sides had to be completely complimentary of eachother in order for us to have a chance to win. It was really the ultimate display of TEAM football, as no one player or no one side of the football can take sole credit for the wins...Teams like the Pats or Packers can soley attribute their success to their offenses, while a team like the Ravens or 49ers can attribute their success to their defenses. The Broncos (and most teams for that matter) cannot say that.

Hopefully with Manning, our offense will be able to carry the load and the defense will be able to play off of that, but this defense still won't be good enough to win games by themselves next year IMO.

[BroncoStud]

6 fumbles lost isn't great, but isn't rare for a QB either. Like I said, he was top 10 for protecting the ball overall. The problem seemed to be when the turnovers came they came in spurts, it seemed like it was either 0 turnovers or 3.

Agree that turnovers aren't ideal for anyone, but Tebow did rush the ball like 122 times for 660 yards, and threw the ball 271 times, facing some serious 8-9 man fronts. I wouldn't say that Tebow was a turnover machine, he wasn't. By and large he protected the football pretty well. He didn't come close to losing 14 fumbles as the OP said.

[catfish]

Agree that turnovers aren't ideal for anyone, but Tebow did rush the ball like 122 times for 660 yards, and threw the ball 271 times, facing some serious 8-9 man fronts. I wouldn't say that Tebow was a turnover machine, he wasn't. By and large he protected the football pretty well. He didn't come close to losing 14 fumbles as the OP said.

agreed, even with all the rushing I think there were 3 QB's with more lost fumbles. There were 11 QB's with 5 or more lost fumbles last year. Overall turnovers actually were vey low. However when they came they came in bunches. Consistency was the issue. Much like the D consistency was the issue, when the D played well they were great and very little offense was needed to win, when they were bad they were horrific and no amount of offense would overcome it. There was only 1 game where the D stunk that Denver won and only 1 game where the d played great that they lost. not too bad overall

[skins_fan82]

I think the addition of Peyton Manning INSTANTLY adds 10 points to the Broncos PPG.

Even if he's not scoring every drive, I think Peyton can at least keep some drives going and get a few first downs, allowing the defense to actually rest and catch their breath.

[SOCALORADO.]

I have a feeling that when the draft comes, its gonna look something like this.
1ST ROUND
Stephen Hill WR GT
2ND ROUND
Doug Martin, RB, Boise State
3RD ROUND
Mike Martin, DT, Michigan
4th ROUND
Jared Crick, DE/DT, Nebraska
4th ROUND
David Molk, C/OG Michigan
5th ROUND
Nick Jean-Baptiste, DT/NT, Baylor
5th ROUND
Tydreke Powell, DT, North Carolina

Just an example.
And many are gonna be really pissed off, and wondering what the hell just happened!
I just dont see them going after defensive players early anymore.
I think they are all bought into scoring a boat load of points with Manning fast, and
then addressing the defense in the middle-late rounds with bulk players, and letting
Del Rio get the most out of them.
If you think the last few weeks have been crazy, just wait cause i think that come
draft day there are gonna be alot of very confused Bronco fans out there as the draft
plays out!

[catfish]

I think the addition of Peyton Manning INSTANTLY adds 10 points to the Broncos PPG.

Even if he's not scoring every drive, I think Peyton can at least keep some drives going and get a few first downs, allowing the defense to actually rest and catch their breath.

I don't know about 10...I would bet 5 or 6 though, from bottom third to top third. I don't see Denver as a top 5 scoring team.

I think the rest/catch breath thing is a little overblown. If exaustion was the problem I would expect Denver to give up more point in the 2nd half. That wasnt the case, the majority of points were scored in the first half.

[skins_fan82]

I agree with you, Socal. I could see the Broncos going all out in the early rounds of the draft to surround Peyton with talent, in hopes of beating teams in shootout games, like 35-27.

I still hope they go DT in the 1st round though...

[Northman]

I just dont see them going after defensive players early anymore.


They went with a defensive player last year.

[Jsteve01]

They went with a defensive player last year.

lol and there is something a little bit different about the roster this year North

[Northman]

lol and there is something a little bit different about the roster this year North


Yes, a QB who can actually make players better around him. I agree. There would be ZERO reason to draft a WR in the first round.

[claymore]

I dont care who we draft as long as its the BPA. The whole reason we've been in this mess for the last 10 years is drafting for need.

[TXBRONC]

The questioner is forgetting that Fox was playing field position and run heavy to shorten the games. Generally you're not going to score a lot of points that way.

[Northman]

The questioner is forgetting that Fox was playing field position and run heavy to shorten the games. Generally you're not going to score a lot of points that way.

Well, but there is a reason why he went that route.

[vandammage13]

Well, but there is a reason why he went that route.

Probably because our previous scheme resulted in us going 1-4.

[Northman]

Probably because our previous scheme resulted in us going 1-4.


LMAO, um ok.

[SOCALORADO.]

I agree with you, Socal. I could see the Broncos going all out in the early rounds of the draft to surround Peyton with talent, in hopes of beating teams in shootout games, like 35-27.

I still hope they go DT in the 1st round though...

Many believe that if WR Stephen Hill is there at #25, he IS the BPA, and would be a steal.
I am not advocating this, however i could easily see the mentality that Hill would bring
the deep threat, burner that Peyton needs even as a rookie and would make teams play
deep, allowing Peyton to scorch teams in the intermediate passing game, and the run game
would thrive, allowing Peyton to score quick and often.
I also think that Del Rio can get the most from middle-tier defensive players, and coach them up.
And i think that this is what they are palnning. Just my 2 cents.

And last year DEN went BPA in the draft.....with the 2nd pick. Not sayin much.

[CoachChaz]

Many believe that if WR Stephen Hill is there at #25, he IS the BPA, and would be a steal.
I am not advocating this, however i could easily see the mentality that Hill would bring
the deep threat, burner that Peyton needs even as a rookie and would make teams play
deep, allowing Peyton to scorch teams in the intermediate passing game, and the run game
would thrive, allowing Peyton to score quick and often.
I also think that Del Rio can get the most from middle-tier defensive players, and coach them up.
And i think that this is what they are palnning. Just my 2 cents.

And last year DEN went BPA in the draft.....with the 2nd pick. Not sayin much.

One problem to this theory. We have a 36 year old QB that never had a very good deep ball and is still working on his arm strength. Manning has never needed a burner in the past, so why now? He has always been a surgeon just slicing up a defense with a variety of short to intermediate passes. I dont think having someone that can catch 60 yard bombs is something we need right now. Probably evidenced by the fact we just signed 2 TE's. If a burner is of interest...I think Caldwell is the guy they have in mind for that

[Cugel]

I dont care who we draft as long as its the BPA. The whole reason we've been in this mess for the last 10 years is drafting for need.

That's a pretty hilarious statement considering that the #1 need for most of the last 12 years has been DT and they've never drafted one in the first round. :coffee:

[Cugel]

One problem to this theory. We have a 36 year old QB that never had a very good deep ball and is still working on his arm strength. Manning has never needed a burner in the past, so why now? He has always been a surgeon just slicing up a defense with a variety of short to intermediate passes. I dont think having someone that can catch 60 yard bombs is something we need right now. Probably evidenced by the fact we just signed 2 TE's. If a burner is of interest...I think Caldwell is the guy they have in mind for that

Peyton can throw a perfectly good deep pass. He's not a mad bomber, and doesn't have an arm like Jay Cutler, but he can go deep if he wants to. And there's no indication his arm strength won't be back where it was a few years ago. That's the word from the workouts Stokely had with him, and the ones that he had with other teams.

Defenses can't relax and let WRs get behind them because Manning can hit them downfield.

[SOCALORADO.]

Peyton can throw a perfectly good deep pass. He's not a mad bomber, and doesn't have an arm like Jay Cutler, but he can go deep if he wants to. And there's no indication his arm strength won't be back where it was a few years ago. That's the word from the workouts Stokely had with him, and the ones that he had with other teams.

Defenses can't relax and let WRs get behind them because Manning can hit them downfield.

Its just a suspicion i have. I think DEN is gonna get Manning as many, high calibur weapons as they can,
and let Del Rio/Fox continue to work on the defense.
Caldwell simply replaced Royal, no more no less.
I am not gonna be suprised in the least when Hill comes off the board at #25.
I think EFX is trying to build a juggernaut on offense. A total monster for Manning to run.

[Northman]

If they try to load up on offense just because of Manning they will make the same mistakes that Indy made. At this stage of his career Manning will need a complete team to get another title. Simply winning it with his arm isnt going to get it done. He's going to need a running game and better than average defense to get there at this stage.

[topscribe]

I have a feeling that when the draft comes, its gonna look something like this.
1ST ROUND
Stephen Hill WR GT
2ND ROUND
Doug Martin, RB, Boise State
3RD ROUND
Mike Martin, DT, Michigan
4th ROUND
Jared Crick, DE/DT, Nebraska
4th ROUND
David Molk, C/OG Michigan
5th ROUND
Nick Jean-Baptiste, DT/NT, Baylor
5th ROUND
Tydreke Powell, DT, North Carolina

Just an example.
And many are gonna be really pissed off, and wondering what the hell just happened!
I just dont see them going after defensive players early anymore.
I think they are all bought into scoring a boat load of points with Manning fast, and
then addressing the defense in the middle-late rounds with bulk players, and letting
Del Rio get the most out of them.
If you think the last few weeks have been crazy, just wait cause i think that come
draft day there are gonna be alot of very confused Bronco fans out there as the draft
plays out!

I respectfully don't agree at all. I suspect that the FO is happier with the offensive cast at WR and TE than many of we out here in message board land. Last year, the only reason they didn't take Dareus was because of Von Miller, and it's becoming apparent to me that character issues might have been a factor in their not taking a DT later, as well as their perceived needs and the BPA issue.

But it will surprise me if they don't take a DT this year in the first round and a later round, with as deep as this DT class is, except that they surely recognize the need at RB, so I also can see their taking Doug Martin in the 2nd. I had Osweiler there in my mock, but the Broncos badly need a RB, and not just any RB -- they already have a couple "just any's."

[Denver Native (Carol)]

If they try to load up on offense just because of Manning they will make the same mistakes that Indy made. At this stage of his career Manning will need a complete team to get another title. Simply winning it with his arm isnt going to get it done. He's going to need a running game and better than average defense to get there at this stage.

I agree, and IMO, we do not yet know what kind of receivers DT and Decker, etc., can be. In fact, IMO, we did not know what kind of an offense we have with Manning, until they all together. get the real picture of what kind of an offense we have.

[BroncoStud]

If Denver loses Decker or Thomas this season to injury, there will be major issues at WR. I like the idea of grabbing Hill or another good WR early. We have no depth - at all. And an offense predicated on the pass needs depth at WR, especially when our starters can't seem to stay healthy.

[Northman]

I agree, and IMO, we do not yet know what kind of receivers DT and Decker, etc., can be. In fact, IMO, we did not know what kind of an offense we have with Manning, until they all together. get the real picture of what kind of an offense we have.

Exactly.

I find it hard to believe that when guys like DT and Decker can be successful under QB's like Orton and Tebow that all of a sudden they wouldnt contribute because of Manning. That logic makes no sense especially when Manning has a history of making subpar receivers look like HOF's.

[Cugel]

I respectfully don't agree at all. I suspect that the FO is happier with the offensive cast at WR and TE than many of we out here in message board land. Last year, the only reason they didn't take Dareus was because of Von Miller, and it's becoming apparent to me that character issues might have been a factor in their not taking a DT later, as well as their perceived needs and the BPA issue.

But it will surprise me if they don't take a DT this year in the first round and a later round, with as deep as this DT class is, except that they surely recognize the need at RB, so I also can see their taking Doug Martin in the 2nd. I had Osweiler there in my mock, but the Broncos badly need a RB, and not just any RB -- they already have a couple "just any's."

Well, character concerns couldn't have weighed too heavily in the Broncos draft decisions last year since they were interested in drafting Nick Fairley. It's just that the Lions grabbed him at #14, but if he'd been available in the 20's they might have considered trading up for him. That would have been ideal because instead of Rahim Moore (who they just demoted and gave a $4 million contract to Mike Adams to replace at FS) they would have had Miller & Fairley.

I'm confident they will consider a DT at #25, but it's far from a foregone conclusion they will draft one. Not if they like some other player better -- a LB or G say.

[SOCALORADO.]

Just dont get pissed off when EFX takes Hill in the 1st.
I highly doubt that they will take a DT that early.
Just my 2 cents. I am not advocating that they should take Hill.
I am simply saying that i think they might due to BPA, and team
needs. There is no burner on his team, and HIll is lightning. He also
was excellent in all of his drills and looks like the real deal. Just sayin.

[Cugel]

Exactly.

I find it hard to believe that when guys like DT and Decker can be successful under QB's like Orton and Tebow that all of a sudden they wouldnt contribute because of Manning. That logic makes no sense especially when Manning has a history of making subpar receivers look like HOF's.

They've added Caldwell who has blazing speed, they have Decker and Thomas. They might add a WR if one falls in the draft they like but I would be stunned and angry if they take one in the first 3 rounds.

The need is for DT, G, C, MLB, RB, S, CB in that order.

[Northman]

I wont get angry if they take a WR in the first. What good would it do? This team has a history of making head scratching picks. Either way, i would hope at some point common sense starts to seep in their skulls.

[cmc0605]

I'd be very surprised if Denver took a WR in round 1, unless a top 10-15 guy somehow fell to our spot. We have pretty solid receivers in Thomas, Decker, two legitimate TEs, and we brought in Caldwell. I realize that there are question marks with all those guys (can Thomas stay healthy? Will he run good routes since he won't have a QB running around for 15 seconds? Will Decker emerge as a real threat like he did earlier in the last season?). However, there is evidence that they are one of the best duos of young and emerging receivers. Moreover, Peyton loves to spread the ball around, and he makes people named Garcon or Collie actual threats, so I think our guys will be fine. If they need another WR (even for just depth) they can easily get someone solid for that role in the second or later rounds.

In contrast, everyone and their grandma knows that the DT spot is an emergency position, and other spots (LB, S) aren't 100% solid either.

[claymore]

That's a pretty hilarious statement considering that the #1 need for most of the last 12 years has been DT and they've never drafted one in the first round. :coffee:
I only see 4 players that were not reaches. Moreno is debateable. Just because we didnt reach on DT's doesnt mean we didnt reach. Von Miller is the only pick I can say was the BPA. I love Cutler, and it worked out well, but he was a luxury, and was not the BPA at the time.

2000 O'Neal Cornerback
2001 Middlebrooks Cornerback
2002 Ashley Lelie Wide receiver
2003 George Foster Offensive tackle
2004 D. J. Williams Linebacker [n]
2005 — — No pick — —
2006 Jay Cutler Quarterback
2007 Jarvis Moss Defensive
2008 Ryan Clady Offensive tackle
2009 Knowshon Moreno Running
2009 Robert Ayers Defensive end
2010 Demaryius Thomas Wide receiver
2010 Tim Tebow Quarterback
2011 Von Miller Linebacker

[turftoad]

I only see 4 players that were not reaches. Moreno is debateable. Just because we didnt reach on DT's doesnt mean we didnt reach. Von Miller is the only pick I can say was the BPA. I love Cutler, and it worked out well, but he was a luxury, and was not the BPA at the time.

2000 O'Neal Cornerback
2001 Middlebrooks Cornerback
2002 Ashley Lelie Wide receiver
2003 George Foster Offensive tackle
2004 D. J. Williams Linebacker [n]
2005 — — No pick — —
2006 Jay Cutler Quarterback
2007 Jarvis Moss Defensive
2008 Ryan Clady Offensive tackle
2009 Knowshon Moreno Running
2009 Robert Ayers Defensive end
2010 Demaryius Thomas Wide receiver
2010 Tim Tebow Quarterback
2011 Von Miller Linebacker

Clay, Cutler was NOT a reach you bone head. :shocked:

[Ravage!!!]

Cutler wasn't a reach at all. Neither was Deltha, or Ayers considering their grade at the time of the draft.

But you can't go PURELY on BPA. The only time you can do that is when you are a VERY good team, that has the LUXURY of taking ANY position that comes to you. That is very very rarely the case. The Saints aren't going to pick a QB in the first round, EVEN if the BPA is the QB. We aren't going to take a LT or a DE, EVEN if its the BPA.

The Bears won't take a RB in the first round, neither will the Vikings, Baltimore, or Houston.... EVEN if the RBs are the BPAs. The Patriots will not take a QB, even if he is the BPA.

BPA sounds so good, but it doesn't do anyone any good to take the BPA if its not a position of NEED. Don't take a player purely to take a player.

[claymore]

Clay, Cutler was NOT a reach you bone head. :shocked:I was trying to stay objective. I think he was a damn fine pick but my plummer hate blinds me. So I was trying to overcome that.


Cutler wasn't a reach at all. Neither was Deltha, or Ayers considering their grade at the time of the draft.

But you can't go PURELY on BPA. The only time you can do that is when you are a VERY good team, that has the LUXURY of taking ANY position that comes to you. That is very very rarely the case. The Saints aren't going to pick a QB in the first round, EVEN if the BPA is the QB. We aren't going to take a LT or a DE, EVEN if its the BPA.

The Bears won't take a RB in the first round, neither will the Vikings, Baltimore, or Houston.... EVEN if the RBs are the BPAs. The Patriots will not take a QB, even if he is the BPA.

BPA sounds so good, but it doesn't do anyone any good to take the BPA if its not a position of NEED. Don't take a player purely to take a player.
There are certain exclusions to the BPA. If you are set at one position, then it doesnt make sense to draft high at that position. I think that goes without saying.
Our team is pretty devoid of talent outside of a few star players though.

Ayers and Oneal were drafted for their potential more than consitent play imo. THat is a reach to me. I dont know how you define it. Moreno is a wildcard, cause he was a consistent producer. I thought he would be alot better.

[Ravage!!!]

I was trying to stay objective. I think he was a damn fine pick but my plummer hate blinds me. So I was trying to overcome that.


There are certain exclusions to the BPA. If you are set at one position, then it doesnt make sense to draft high at that position. I think that goes without saying.
Our team is pretty devoid of talent outside of a few star players though.

Ayers and Oneal were drafted for their potential more than consitent play imo. THat is a reach to me. I dont know how you define it. Moreno is a wildcard, cause he was a consistent producer. I thought he would be alot better.

Deltha was the best pick for the TIME for the Broncos. But thats a different discussion.

I'm just saying that the "BPA" doesn't really apply. You can't just take the BPA. You have to take the BPA for a position of need. Now a team may have several positions, but that doesn't mean its purely a BPA, instead, it's still drafting to fill holes. That's questioning "does he fit a need" rather than "is he the best player on the board." When we picked at #2 overall, we had to pick the absolute BEST player on the board to justify the cost of the #2 spot. When at 25, it has to be the BPA that is a position of which we absolutely need. But I feel you are right, we NEED a ton of stud players from nearly every position on defense. Give me a stud MLB, ST, or Safety and I'm a VERY happy man.

no DEs, no TEs, no LT, no QB, no Guards (because I just don't believe in taking guards in 1st)... and no RBs (same reason) in first round.

[MOtorboat]

Clay, Cutler was NOT a reach you bone head. :shocked:

The pick itself, no. He was picked right where he probably should have been, but what Denver gave up to get him, which essentially tanked a contender, might be considered a "reach" in some regards.

:coffee:

[SpringsBroncoFan]

Deltha was the best pick for the TIME for the Broncos. But thats a different discussion.

I'm just saying that the "BPA" doesn't really apply. You can't just take the BPA. You have to take the BPA for a position of need. Now a team may have several positions, but that doesn't mean its purely a BPA, instead, it's still drafting to fill holes. That's questioning "does he fit a need" rather than "is he the best player on the board." When we picked at #2 overall, we had to pick the absolute BEST player on the board to justify the cost of the #2 spot. When at 25, it has to be the BPA that is a position of which we absolutely need. But I feel you are right, we NEED a ton of stud players from nearly every position on defense. Give me a stud MLB, ST, or Safety and I'm a VERY happy man.

no DEs, no TEs, no LT, no QB, no Guards (because I just don't believe in taking guards in 1st)... and no RBs (same reason) in first round.

DeCastro, Glenn, & Trent are the only ones with true 1st round grades, anyone else is a pretender. I wouldn't scream if we took Glenn because it would mean EFX acknowledging that Beadles can't protect Peyton.

[TimHippo]

That was the headline to Jeff Legwold's Q&A in the Denver Post this morning. Couldn't agree more.

Part of the column here:



Rest - http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_20309502/broncos-defense-didnt-get-much-help-from-broncos

Not sure there will be much of an upkick with Manning. He scores quickly which keeps the defense on the field compared to a ball control ground game and also give the other team more scoring opportunities.

You look at Manning's career and his defenses have rated mediocre to bad (in yardage) even with Dungy. Scoring Defense was horrid without Dungy, good to mediocre with Dungy.

The strategy with Manning is to outscore the other team which he usually does.



Colts Defensive Rankings:
Year Pts/Yds/PassYds/RunYds
1998 29/29/16/29
1999 17/15/19/18
2000 15/21/18/25
2001 31/29/27/25
2002 7/8/2/20
2003 20/11/5/20
2004 19/29/28/24
2005 2/11/15/16
2006 23/21/2/32
2007 1/3/2/15
2008 7/11/6/24
2009 8/18/14/24
2010 23/20/13/25

[Simple Jaded]

Drafting Cutler should have been a GB/Aaron Rodgers situation. I remember knowing nothing about Cutler when he was drafted but what I read said he needed time to develope footwork and sitting behind Plummer for a couple years gave the Broncos an ideal QB situation at the time, imo.

The only problem was that Cutler was already outplaying Plummer and, imo, Shanatan replaced Plummer before the players were ready.

WhatEver, the Broncos have an even better QB now.......

[claymore]

Deltha was the best pick for the TIME for the Broncos. But thats a different discussion.

I'm just saying that the "BPA" doesn't really apply. You can't just take the BPA. You have to take the BPA for a position of need. Now a team may have several positions, but that doesn't mean its purely a BPA, instead, it's still drafting to fill holes. That's questioning "does he fit a need" rather than "is he the best player on the board." When we picked at #2 overall, we had to pick the absolute BEST player on the board to justify the cost of the #2 spot. When at 25, it has to be the BPA that is a position of which we absolutely need. But I feel you are right, we NEED a ton of stud players from nearly every position on defense. Give me a stud MLB, ST, or Safety and I'm a VERY happy man.

no DEs, no TEs, no LT, no QB, no Guards (because I just don't believe in taking guards in 1st)... and no RBs (same reason) in first round.

I think we are arguing around the same point. My main point is dont take Jarvis Moss because you need a DE. If the talent isnt there at a need position, dont reach for it.

If you have 4 Pro Bowl Corners, dont take a CB in the first round because he slipped, or is the best player.

There is some flexibility, and you have to stay true to your draft board. At least thats how Id do it.

[TXBRONC]

That's very true. I'm just saying that's the formula that Fox used. There probably aren't that many quarterbacks that are going get you 25 or more points per game with that kind of game plan.

[TXBRONC]

Well, character concerns couldn't have weighed too heavily in the Broncos draft decisions last year since they were interested in drafting Nick Fairley. It's just that the Lions grabbed him at #14, but if he'd been available in the 20's they might have considered trading up for him. That would have been ideal because instead of Rahim Moore (who they just demoted and gave a $4 million contract to Mike Adams to replace at FS) they would have had Miller & Fairley.

I'm confident they will consider a DT at #25, but it's far from a foregone conclusion they will draft one. Not if they like some other player better -- a LB or G say.

According to what Fox said at the end of draft press conference they did seriously consider trading back into the first round to get Fairley because they wanted to keep what picks they had.

[SmilinAssasSin27]

You are forggeting the Packers....who torched us too. And the Bills who killed us 40-14....that my friend is a blowout.

but they didn't destroy our defense. THere was a kick return for a TD, at least 1 defensive TD and a handful of turnovers inside the redzone/our side of the field. The D wasn't to blame so much as TT's blunders and shoddy special teams....at least for the BUffalo game.

That aside...given that the 2010 defense was HISTORICALLY BAD, I was very pleased w/ the 2011 version.

[SmilinAssasSin27]

Cutler wasn't a reach at all. Neither was Deltha, or Ayers considering their grade at the time of the draft.

But you can't go PURELY on BPA. The only time you can do that is when you are a VERY good team, that has the LUXURY of taking ANY position that comes to you. That is very very rarely the case. The Saints aren't going to pick a QB in the first round, EVEN if the BPA is the QB. We aren't going to take a LT or a DE, EVEN if its the BPA.

The Bears won't take a RB in the first round, neither will the Vikings, Baltimore, or Houston.... EVEN if the RBs are the BPAs. The Patriots will not take a QB, even if he is the BPA.

BPA sounds so good, but it doesn't do anyone any good to take the BPA if its not a position of NEED. Don't take a player purely to take a player.

DT wasn't a reach either. He had gotten lots of love from the scouts and that was where he was expected to go. Now the fact that Dez was there, was surprising, but he apparenly had his own issues that McD didn't wanna deal with.

[claymore]

DT wasn't a reach either. He had gotten lots of love from the scouts and that was where he was expected to go. Now the fact that Dez was there, was surprising, but he apparenly had his own issues that McD didn't wanna deal with.

A WR with a broken foot is a reach.

[Npba900]

TOP dislikes Tebow on a personal level for the treatment of Orton... So of course he will post anything to make a point of that.

Forgotten in all of this is the fact that the offense, once Tebow took over, was #1 in the NFL in rushing. Time of Possession went to Denver's favor. Denver won games. Being #1 in rushing in the NFL certainly helped the Denver defense. Just like when Denver was #1 in the NFL in passing under Orton for a while in 2010, yet Denver couldn't run to save it's life, the Defense still struggled mightily, yet TOP was nowhere close to blaming Orton for that. It's a double-standard, and a poor one at that.

All that happened in 2011. In 2012 with a much tougher schedule and with teams having a full off season to figure out Tebow-Read-Option, Tebow would not have been able to duplicate his 2011 season. Teams would have forced Tebow to throw the ball and beat them with his arm.

Another point, the 2011 Defense would not have taken kindly to Tebow not being able to move the ball and convert 3rd downs in 2012. Secretly, the Defensive players the OL and the offensive players are exuberant of the fact the Tebow-Ball is GONE; and welcome the edition of Manning to get back to playing within a regular offensive scheme.

Elway was a genius for finding away to rid Denver of the Tebow Circus.

IN ELWAY WE TRUST!!!

[vandammage13]

Which means the offense must have been even worse . . .



Fumbles are fumbles. Strong as an ox or not, he had 14 of them. No one stops to take apart a QB's interceptions to see which one are his and which are the receivers'. His interceptions are his own. Why should fumbles be any different? The fact is, Tebow had 14 fumbles, which means he was directly responsible for 14 turnovers through his fumbles.


Negative....14 Fumbles were not all lost. 7 Fumbles were lost.

In all, tebow had 16 total turnovers with INT's and FUM combined. Not really all that bad considering he was a first year starter and as much as he ran the ball.

[Npba900]

I'd be very surprised if Denver took a WR in round 1, unless a top 10-15 guy somehow fell to our spot. We have pretty solid receivers in Thomas, Decker, two legitimate TEs, and we brought in Caldwell. I realize that there are question marks with all those guys (can Thomas stay healthy? Will he run good routes since he won't have a QB running around for 15 seconds? Will Decker emerge as a real threat like he did earlier in the last season?). However, there is evidence that they are one of the best duos of young and emerging receivers. Moreover, Peyton loves to spread the ball around, and he makes people named Garcon or Collie actual threats, so I think our guys will be fine. If they need another WR (even for just depth) they can easily get someone solid for that role in the second or later rounds.

In contrast, everyone and their grandma knows that the DT spot is an emergency position, and other spots (LB, S) aren't 100% solid either.

I think Manning will have an impact with ensuring Thomas becomes a much better rout runner. DT should be motivated to improve all aspects of his game at the WR position because now he has QB that will get him the ball at the right time to be the most successful. If DT wants to aspire to greatness and become a Pro Bowler, he has the right QB to help him achieve it.

If DT adopted the same workout regiment, film study, goals, drive, and perseverance as let's say Jerry Rice or Walter Peyton had, DT would guarantee himself he wouldn't be a BUST. Its up to DT at this point.

[SOCALORADO.]

I hear what all of you are saying, and much of it makes perfect sense.
Just dont freak when they draft Hill in the 1st, em kay.

[Npba900]

I'd be very surprised if Denver took a WR in round 1, unless a top 10-15 guy somehow fell to our spot. We have pretty solid receivers in Thomas, Decker, two legitimate TEs, and we brought in Caldwell. I realize that there are question marks with all those guys (can Thomas stay healthy? Will he run good routes since he won't have a QB running around for 15 seconds? Will Decker emerge as a real threat like he did earlier in the last season?). However, there is evidence that they are one of the best duos of young and emerging receivers. Moreover, Peyton loves to spread the ball around, and he makes people named Garcon or Collie actual threats, so I think our guys will be fine. If they need another WR (even for just depth) they can easily get someone solid for that role in the second or later rounds.

In contrast, everyone and their grandma knows that the DT spot is an emergency position, and other spots (LB, S) aren't 100% solid either.


Negative....14 Fumbles were not all lost. 7 Fumbles were lost.

In all, tebow had 16 total turnovers with INT's and FUM combined. Not really all that bad considering he was a first year starter and as much as he ran the ball.

What I saw with Tebow in 2011 was that he was woefully insufficient as a starting NFL Caliber QB when asked to perform from within the pocket/from behind center. The reality is, Tebow was a long term project that would have never been a success because he had so many deficiencies that he could have NEVER corrected! All due to the fact that he isn't an elite NFL starting QB. Tebow is either lying to himself or secretly realizes he will never be an elite QB in the NFL, but is willing to play this string out for as far as he can take it. Next stop! The Tebow circus will go to the NY Jets.

Luckily EFX realized that Tebow-Ball was unsustainable and knew that asking-demanding Tebow to perform and execute from within the pocket by throwing the ball 25-35 times a game would have been absolutely disastrous and would have severely damaged his trade value in 2012.

EFX knew that Tebow was not the long-term franchise QB and were going to find a way to trade Tebow and get as much trade value as humanly possible. So EFX came up with Tebow-Ball and although it proved to be unsustainable. Tebow Ball served two purposes, it brought the fans back into stands, created a Circus Fan Drama Atmosphere across the NFL, and it drove Tebows trade/draft pick compensation up.

The 2011 season was a mixed reward scenario. Although the Broncos made the playoffs, won a playoff game and won the AFC West. The Broncos are drafting 25th overall when the truth of the matter is, Denver should have been drafting in the top 5-10. Drafting in the top 5-10 would have allowed the Broncos to go after one of the top DT's in the draft of which they so badly need right now.

But all-n-all, at least the 2011 season allowed the Broncos to receive draft compensation for Tebow equal to the draft order Tebow should have been drafted in 3 years ago.

[Npba900]

I hear what all of you are saying, and much of it makes perfect sense.
Just dont freak when they draft Hill in the 1st, em kay.

I'd like to see Elway use the Broncos 2nd-3rd pick on one of these guys:

Brock Osweiler, QB, Arizona State
Kirk Cousins, Michigan State
Nick Foles, Arizona
Ryan Tannehill, QB, Texas A&M

Either of these four QB's could sit and learn from Manning for 3 years and be ready to take over once Manning retires.

[vandammage13]

What I saw with Tebow in 2011 was that he was woefully insufficient as a starting NFL Caliber QB when asked to perform from within the pocket/from behind center. The reality is, Tebow was a long term project that would have never been a success because he had so many deficiencies that he could have NEVER corrected! All due to the fact that he isn't an elite NFL starting QB. Tebow is either lying to himself or secretly realizes he will never be an elite QB in the NFL, but is willing to play this string out for as far as he can take it. Next stop! The Tebow circus will go to the NY Jets.

Luckily EFX realized that Tebow-Ball was unsustainable and knew that asking-demanding Tebow to perform and execute from within the pocket by throwing the ball 25-35 times a game would have been absolutely disastrous and would have severely damaged his trade value in 2012.

EFX knew that Tebow was not the long-term franchise QB and were going to find a way to trade Tebow and get as much trade value as humanly possible. So EFX came up with Tebow-Ball and although it proved to be unsustainable. Tebow Ball served two purposes, it brought the fans back into stands, created a Circus Fan Drama Atmosphere across the NFL, and it drove Tebows trade/draft pick compensation up.

The 2011 season was a mixed reward scenario. Although the Broncos made the playoffs, won a playoff game and won the AFC West. The Broncos are drafting 25th overall when the truth of the matter is, Denver should have been drafting in the top 5-10. Drafting in the top 5-10 would have allowed the Broncos to go after one of the top DT's in the draft of which they so badly need right now.

But all-n-all, at least the 2011 season allowed the Broncos to receive draft compensation for Tebow equal to the draft order Tebow should have been drafted in 3 years ago.

I disagree on all levels...This "unsustainable" talk is opinion, not fact.

We don't know if it could have kept working and we don't know how much our former QB could have grown and evolved.

[SOCALORADO.]

I'd like to see Elway use the Broncos 2nd-3rd pick on one of these guys:

Brock Osweiler, QB, Arizona State
Kirk Cousins, Michigan State
Nick Foles, Arizona
Ryan Tannehill, QB, Texas A&M

Either of these four QB's could sit and learn from Manning for 3 years and be ready to take over once Manning retires.

Tannehill wont be there, but the rest should.
I see Osweiller or Foles in DEN.
DEn will need to manuever some picks to aquire one of these guys though.
But they have 2 4ths and 2 5ths so its should get done.

[TimHippo]

I'd like to see Elway use the Broncos 2nd-3rd pick on one of these guys:

Brock Osweiler, QB, Arizona State
Kirk Cousins, Michigan State
Nick Foles, Arizona
Ryan Tannehill, QB, Texas A&M

Either of these four QB's could sit and learn from Manning for 3 years and be ready to take over once Manning retires.

I doubt it.

In 14 years in Indy Manning was unable to groom anyone under him.

It would be better to draft somebody who could help Manning now rather than waste a pick on a QB. If Manning goes down we are screwed anyway.

[Npba900]

I disagree on all levels...This "unsustainable" talk is opinion, not fact.

We don't know if it could have kept working and we don't know how much our former QB could have grown and evolved.

Tebows window of opportunity of becoming a starting NFL caliber QB is rapidly closing an just may come to a screeching halt with the NY Jets.

Don't get me wrong, Tebow has charm, charisma, and strong work ethics-perseverance......but those attributes do not equate to having the necessary skill sets and talents to play at an elite level as a QB in the NFL. The question is will Tim ever be a solid, traditional, drop-back signal-caller in the NFL. But there is a chance he could have success (however limited) as some kind of unique gadget guy who would be hard to build game plans against.

[Npba900]

I doubt it.

In 14 years in Indy Manning was unable to groom anyone under him.

It would be better to draft somebody who could help Manning now rather than waste a pick on a QB. If Manning goes down we are screwed anyway.

I disagree. Manning has evolved to a point in his career to where he wants to be a mentor. Farve was a mentor to Rodgers for 3 years. There is no reason not to believe that Manning can't do the same.

[SOCALORADO.]

I disagree. Manning has evolved to a point in his career to where he wants to be a mentor. Farve was a mentor to Rodgers for 3 years. There is no reason not to believe that Manning can't do the same.

Favre never mentored Rogers, and said as much publicly.
Favre hated that Rogers was even in the building.
Rogers is the outcome of the coaching staff in GB.
So is Hasselbeck, Flynn and Brunnell.

[Ravage!!!]

Favre never mentored Rogers, and said as much publicly.
Favre hated that Rogers was even in the building.
Rogers is the outcome of the coaching staff in GB.
So is Hasselbeck, Flynn and Brunnell.

Well, Hasselbeck and Brunnell are from different coaching staffs than Flynn and Rodgers

[SOCALORADO.]

Well, Hasselbeck and Brunnell are from different coaching staffs than Flynn and Rodgers

I am just saying they have really good coaching staffs in GB. Have since the Holmgren era.
And those QB staffs have been excellent at preparing their QBs for the future.
And this has helped the coaches move onto better coaching positions as well.
Just a well run staff from top to bottom. It should be used as a template in DEN.
I have read the QB training program in the offseason in GB is legendary.

[topscribe]

I doubt it.

In 14 years in Indy Manning was unable to groom anyone under him.

It would be better to draft somebody who could help Manning now rather than waste a pick on a QB. If Manning goes down we are screwed anyway.
That would depend more on Gase than Manning . . .

[SmilinAssasSin27]

A WR with a broken foot is a reach.

NOOOOOO...a reach is a player taken way before their projected draft spot. Projected draft spots are based on all info provided, including broken feet. He was not a reach. Tebow was a reach.

[Cugel]

Quote Originally Posted by Ravage!!! View Post
Cutler wasn't a reach at all. Neither was Deltha, or Ayers considering their grade at the time of the draft.

But you can't go PURELY on BPA. The only time you can do that is when you are a VERY good team, that has the LUXURY of taking ANY position that comes to you. That is very very rarely the case. The Saints aren't going to pick a QB in the first round, EVEN if the BPA is the QB. We aren't going to take a LT or a DE, EVEN if its the BPA.

The Bears won't take a RB in the first round, neither will the Vikings, Baltimore, or Houston.... EVEN if the RBs are the BPAs. The Patriots will not take a QB, even if he is the BPA.

BPA sounds so good, but it doesn't do anyone any good to take the BPA if its not a position of NEED. Don't take a player purely to take a player.

The truth is that nobody in the NFL drafts purely on the "best player available" theory. They draft "best player available at a position of need." Only idiots like former Lions GM Matt Millen draft a WR in the top 5 2 years in a row when they desperately need OL and DL, just because he's the "best player available."

That's how you get to be a "former" GM.

You don't simply say "we need a WR so we'll take the best one available" -- who turns out to be Marcus Nash. You don't say: "I'll take a WR because he's the most talented guy on the board even though we are desperate to get OL and DL."

You say: "we could use help at DT, LB, OG or C. We'll take the best player available at one of those positions." If you don't like anybody available at any of those positions then trade down. If nobody will trade up with you, then you bite the bullet like KC did a couple of years ago and draft Tyson Jackson, even though they had just drafted Glenn Dorsey in the top 5 the year before. There weren't any really good options for them so they went with the best option they had.

Denver's in an even worse position, because they are desperate for DTs -- they have no young DTs who are even starting quality, let alone pro-bowl caliber. They have upgraded their DEs with Dumervil and Ayers, their LBs with Miller, their S's with Moore & Carter (although Moore is probably a bust), their CBs with FA Porter.

The remaining weak points on the defense are DT and MLB (SS LB could be a problem too since DJ is facing a suspension).