Sanchez Real Option for Broncos [Archive]

WARHORSE

04-24-2009, 03:27 AM

Personally, I wouldnt mind Sanchez. Simply because he looks like the real deal to me. Very accurate deep ball with great anticipation skills on intermediate and short routes. He gets rid of the ball, and throws many times before the receivers actually break. Thats top flight stuff there.

Ive moved to where Id give up the two firsts for him. If he pans out, and I really think he will, then we got our franchise QB back, with an extra third rounder this year and an extra first next year. By the time we choose next year, Sanchez will have a year under his belt. But I think we can get him without giving up the two firsts. Seattle is an option. Give them our 12 and our second, plus our fourth. That still leaves us #18, and the two thirds.

ACE QB Real Option for Broncos
http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_12214434
Denver Post

The Broncos have engaged in discussions regarding a draft trade for USC quarterback Mark Sanchez, according to an NFL source.

In possession of the No. 12 and No. 18 overall picks in the NFL draft, which begins Saturday, the Broncos understand they may have to move up to snag Sanchez, who is drawing interest from several teams. One possible trade partner is the Jacksonville Jaguars, who want to drop down from No. 8 overall.

The problem for the Broncos is teams picking higher than Jacksonville are considering drafting Sanchez with the idea of flipping him in trade. The higher Sanchez is selected, the more lucrative his contract and the less likely the Broncos could afford him.

The Broncos also made preliminary inquiries about Brady Quinn but were told the Cleveland Browns' third-year quarterback was not available for trade.
Apparently, Sanchez made a strong impression Tuesday during a private workout-interview in Los Angeles with Broncos general manager Brian Xanders and offensive coordinator Mike McCoy.

Although the Broncos have several glaring needs on defense, particularly in the front seven of their new 3-4 alignment, there is also sentiment the team should replace Jay Cutler as their franchise quarterback while they have the rare flexibility that comes with having two first-round picks.

Cutler, the Broncos' starting quarterback since the 12th game of the 2006 season and a Pro Bowl selection last season, was granted his request to be traded this month following a falling-out with new coach Josh McDaniels.

In return for sending Cutler to the Chicago Bears, the Broncos received quarterback Kyle Orton and draft picks that include the No. 18 selection and a third-rounder in this year's draft. Even if the Broncos nab Sanchez, Orton could still be their starting quarterback this year.

Orton has one year left on his contract for an affordable $1.095 million, and it's possible the Broncos could retain him for a second season as a restricted free agent. The Broncos also signed another veteran quarterback, Chris Simms, to a two-year contract last month.

It should be noted the Broncos also expressed interest this offseason in acquiring New England quarterback Matt Cassel but ultimately decided against the deal. Cassel wound up getting traded to Kansas City.

Competition for Sanchez could be fierce as the Washington Redskins, New York Jets and Tampa Bay Buccaneers figure to be interested. But he is not the Broncos' only draft option.

If it's determined the cost for acquiring him is too steep, the Broncos covet several other draft prospects, most notably defensive tackle B.J. Raji, defensive end Tyson Jackson and outside linebacker Brian Orakpo.

One reason the Broncos may balk at moving up to the No. 8 draft spot is the same reason the Jaguars want to move down: money. When both teams picked at the same positions last year, Jacksonville endured a lengthy holdout from defensive end Derrick Harvey before paying him a $17.1 million guarantee while the Broncos signed left tackle Ryan Clady to an $11.4 million guarantee.

That's a $5.7 million difference between the No. 8 and No. 12 spots — enough to challenge the Broncos' budget after they committed $106 million to sign 12 new free-agent players this offseason.

Elevation inc

04-24-2009, 03:40 AM

Italianmobstr7

04-24-2009, 04:14 AM

We will not draft Sanchez its a smokescreen. Sanchez is going to Seattle, Clevland, San fran or some otehr team willing to trade up with jacksonville besides us.

the DP hasnt a clue, moreno is more likely according to Adam shefter than mark Sanchez....and if we were to trade up it would be for a front seven player according to shefter.

Nothing you've stated as a fact is true. Sanchez could be a Bronco. You have no idea just like the rest of us. Where did you get these Schedter quotes? He hasn't been used in NFLn at all in the past 2 or 3 months. When his contract is up he's going to ESPN. A ok k to these quoted would be great

dogfish

04-24-2009, 04:14 AM

Ive moved to where Id give up the two firsts for him.

ugggghhhh. . . . . war, don't make me go broncojoe on you. . . ..

Hawgdriver

04-24-2009, 04:56 AM

Too much hype, too many bidders.

Dirk

04-24-2009, 05:20 AM

I think it's a smoke screen as well. At least I hope so!

I sure would not give the #12 and #18 for him! We agree on a lot of things War..but not this one! We need front 7 help in the worst way! If we want a "franchise" QB...then next year would be there year to do it. We have 2 firsts again and a better crop to pick from.

sneakers

04-24-2009, 05:22 AM

It would be very foolish for the Broncos to draft anything offense in the 1st/2nd/3rd rounds....

Ask yourself, are we weaker at QB? or DT, DE, LB, etc?

WARHORSE

04-24-2009, 05:52 AM

ugggghhhh. . . . . war, don't make me go broncojoe on you. . . ..

I know, it seems like alot. But the Broncos are in a mess.

Everyone thinks defense is the number one priority, but its not anymore. Its QB. We have none.

I dont want to hear the Orton, Simms stuff. Thats for those who are smarter than I.

Of course we can go defense, and Im good with that too.

But I believe Sanchez is custom fit to the McDannyboy offense.

His deep throws are far more accurate than Cutlers ever were.

Its my opinion, and I dont think two firsts is too much for the QB I want.

Thats just me.

WARHORSE

04-24-2009, 05:54 AM

It would be very foolish for the Broncos to draft anything offense in the 1st/2nd/3rd rounds....

Ask yourself, are we weaker at QB? or DT, DE, LB, etc?

QB.

We dont have one.

Orton at QB is no different than Marcus Thomas at DT.

In fact, I think Marcus has a leg up in that one.

honz

04-24-2009, 06:01 AM

I wouldn't mind Sanchez at 12, but don't really want to trade up for him.

Elevation inc

04-24-2009, 06:03 AM

Nothing you've stated as a fact is true. Sanchez could be a Bronco. You have no idea just like the rest of us. Where did you get these Schedter quotes? He hasn't been used in NFLn at all in the past 2 or 3 months. When his contract is up he's going to ESPN. A ok k to these quoted would be great

actually on a 850 KOA Adam shefter AKA GOD...lol said he has it on good authority we value moreno or orakpo or jenkins at 12 over a QB and prefers to address other areas of need way before QB. Could be a smokecreen but i doubt it. i dont think they buy the sanchez hype either, and i think they know denver fans would crucify them if sanchez was drafted

i dont have the link as it was a radio snippet, you dont have to believe me as i am just some dude on a message board, with only 200 somme odd posts. But for me i take what i heard from him much more seriously then the DP who was a big reason for so much BS during the cutler SAGA, these guys are saying we draft offense first rd because MCD likes it yet MCD was directly quoted saying the front seven is a priority. perhaps the DP missed that quote....

to each his own i guess.....perhaps i should have posted with more blackened lines than a grey area such as i heard on the radio.....:beer:

sneakers

04-24-2009, 06:07 AM

We had a pro bowl quarterback who passed for 4500 yards and still finished 8-8, at what point to you realized that maybe we need help on defense?

claymore

04-24-2009, 06:10 AM

We had a pro bowl quarterback who passed for 4500 yards and still finished 8-8, at what point to you realized that maybe we need help on defense?

If Our QB sucks we will finish 3-13. I dont want sanchez. I hope with all my heart Ortons turns out good for us.

Dirk

04-24-2009, 06:22 AM

If Our QB sucks we will finish 3-13. I dont want sanchez. I hope with all my heart Ortons turns out good for us.

I'm right there with you on that one! :beer:

Elevation inc

04-24-2009, 06:25 AM

I know, it seems like alot. But the Broncos are in a mess.

Everyone thinks defense is the number one priority, but its not anymore. Its QB. We have none.

I dont want to hear the Orton, Simms stuff. Thats for those who are smarter than I.

Of course we can go defense, and Im good with that too.

But I believe Sanchez is custom fit to the McDannyboy offense.

His deep throws are far more accurate than Cutlers ever were.

Its my opinion, and I dont think two firsts is too much for the QB I want.

Thats just me.

if we ignore defense and consider Qb our biggest need and draft sanchez, he will not only have to overcome his lack of expirience from college he will have to play in the same boat jay cutler did.....a good qb with a crappy defense.

unless you belive jarvis moss, tim crowder, kenny peterson, matthias Askew, marcus thomas, renaldo hill, andre goodman, andra davis among crappy otehrs are the way to the promise land for a 1 year starting qb from college who had the luxury of a top defense.

There are some main ingredients you need when drafting a Franchise QB who you hope to be succesful:

1. A LT
2. A Legit #1 Wideout
3. A good Run game
4. A defense

when we drafted Jay cutler after the 2005 AFC title game in shannys eyes we had all that.

1. A LT- Matt Lepsis played very well
2. Got Javon Walker a legit #1
3. Shanny belived after the Tatum bell/andersen Duo he could create a master running game with any back so in his mind the run game was set
4. We just got done coming off a great defensive season. where the browncos did very well and the secondary held up for the most part depsite some age and rookie walls

in 2006 however it crashed when cutler entered because AL wilson the leader of the D went down, our safty core was hit hard by injuries, which led to more diffcult times for D-will, and champ went down as well, lynch was rapidly losing a step. The browncos were crahsing and guys like courtney brown couldnt even stay healthy. the whole team fell apart becasue it was a patchwork to begin with. javon got doubled teamed when smith went down etc.....however we drafted cutler becasue in shannys eyes he had it in place. in fact many picked us to go back to the title game. had we not had those pieces we wouldnt have drafted cutler.

in the end cutler failed because the run game dissapeared, the defense disengrated, we lost leaders and motivation became non-existnet, attitudes were bad, chemistry was gone. etc.

My point is you do not draft a franchise Qb and expect him to be succesaful unless you know have a good run game, a # 1 WR, a LT and a defense. We have so many questions on defense and have a suspect run game as well as scheme switches its doubtful he takes that sanchez risk, if it goes bad his credibility with qb's is shot, if he fails with orton but the defense improves he earns respect and time. if sanchez does well like cutler did but the d loses games, his head will be on a platter for not addressing what has been a plauge with this franchsie for the last 4 years.

fix the defense and no matter what the qb does the fans will come around. if sanchez gets good stats but the d loses games constantly he will be crucified for it, becasue we are no better of than we were then when the cutler situation reared its head.

Den21vsBal19

04-24-2009, 06:43 AM

Nomad

04-24-2009, 07:25 AM

Sorry, we've gone down this route before.

Potential 'Franchise' QB plus no defense = mediocrity

I could live with a quality RB in the first, because that will help our TOP and the D, but let's try to get a D that can keep us in games

True, DEN! I just don't get why Sanchez is a must-have though he is a really nice guy. We know what our defense is like....pathetic. And we don't know what our offense will offer until after the season. I have never said Orton is the 'saviour' for this team but I'm willing to give this offense a shot before going into panic mode and wanting a 1st rd QB. Next year's class is just as good maybe better, BRONCOS have 2 1st rd picks, so secure the defense and if the offense(QB) doesn't pan out then we know what the 1st draft pick will be next year.

As far as RB, Moreno reminds me of LT (SD). It would be nice to have him but this team needs defensive help in a serious way plus would he be utilized like an LT in McDaniels system? I don't know, I haven't watched McDaniels coach a game yet.....it's all speculation and assumptions right now. All we can hope for is that the GM, BRONCOS coaches, and scouts have done their jobs and we come out on the winning side. The draft is just a gamble by itself, so who knows!!!! We'll find out in about 01 day 08 hours!!

Tned

04-24-2009, 07:29 AM

Has Detroit and Stafford come to a contract agreement yet? If they don't, and Detroit takes Smith number 1, then Sanchez could slip a bit. I don't think he would fall all the way to 12, but he could slip, maybe to SF at 10.

I would hate to see us use two firsts to get Sanchez, as then we are worse off then before we traded Cutler. When we had Cutler, we had a good QB and the 12th pick. If we draft Sanchez with two firsts, we have no first round pick, a 'potential' franchise QB that will take a year to three to develop, and don't get impact players to fix the front seven.

Nomad

04-24-2009, 07:35 AM

Traveler

04-24-2009, 07:43 AM

I'd be highly disappointed if the DL wasn't addressed in the first round. Orton can be a nice stop gap player for possibly two years. Sanchez is not a franchise type QB you expend two first picks on to acquire IMO

The FO has to address all the holes on defense! If Jackson is now considered to be a top 5 selection, defense should still be our focus if he is gone before we select.

Tned

04-24-2009, 07:56 AM

Haven't heard a deal yet? I don't know who'll win the chicken match but I think Stafford will cave in by this afternoon.

As far as Sanchez, many analysts believe that the Redskins or Jets will move up to get the guy if he goes past #8.

I was listening on Sirius NFL Radio on the way home from work and they were saying they didn't think the Redskins had enough picks/firepower to move up.

However, I have also read/heard some say Seattle (#4 I think) will take Sanchez, other's have them not taking him.

I'd be highly disappointed if the DL wasn't addressed in the first round. Orton can be a nice stop gap player for possibly two years. Sanchez is not a franchise type QB you expend two first picks on to acquire IMO

The FO has to address all the holes on defense! If Jackson is now considered to be a top 5 selection, defense should still be our focus if he is gone before we select.

I agree, I would like to see those two first rounders adress the front seven. Either Raji if he falls, to play nose tackle, or one of the DE's capable of playing DE in a 3-4, then either grabbing another DE, or a small DE that can play OLB.

If Orton pans out, then maybe we resign him and move forward. If he bombs, then with our schedule, we probably win 4-5 games, and have a great pick next year when there are a number of QB's coming out, and we can use one of our firsts next year on a QB, and hopefully that QB comes on to a team with a much better defense than now exists.

honz

04-24-2009, 08:03 AM

I don't think it would take 2 firsts to move up to #8 anyways. It would most likely take #12 and a 2nd round pick...without looking at a value chart.

Timmy!

04-24-2009, 08:06 AM

Just say no to dirty Sanchez.

Traveler

04-24-2009, 08:09 AM

Just say no to dirty Sanchez.

Timmy,

Did I miss something? What's with the Dirty Sanchez label?:confused:

broncofaninfla

04-24-2009, 08:10 AM

I'm hoping this is a misinformation campaign by Denver. We need DL help early and often, doesn't make any sense for us to trade the ability to build on the defensive side of the ball in this draft.

Timmy!

04-24-2009, 08:12 AM

Timmy,

Did I miss something? What's with the Dirty Sanchez label?:confused:

:laugh: Oh trust me, I wasn't the first to start referring to Sanchez as "dirty Sanchez."

If we wasted two 1st rounders on him I will friggin hang myself. Even if he is there at 12 and the Broncos draft him I still wouldn't be happy, but at least that's forgivable. Personally, I don't think there is as snowballs chance in hell he's a Bronco after Saturday. I hope I'm right.

Traveler

04-24-2009, 08:14 AM

:laugh: Oh trust me, I wasn't the first to start referring to Sanchez as "dirty Sanchez."

If we wasted two 1st rounders on him I will friggin hang myself. Even if he is there at 12 and the Broncos draft him I still wouldn't be happy, but at least that's forgivable. Personally, I don't think there is as snowballs chance in hell he's a Bronco after Saturday. I hope I'm right.

I hope you are right too!

Hobe

04-24-2009, 08:14 AM

We had a pro bowl quarterback who passed for 4500 yards and still finished 8-8, at what point to you realized that maybe we need help on defense?

Not to mention the 52 -to 10 drubbing to close the season and lose the division.

Draft defense early, or maybe an offensive player that is a surprise to still be on the board in the second or third round. Pick up third string QB on Sunday.

Give Orton and Simms a chance this year. There is a lot more QB talent next year and we still have two first round picks.

Scarface

04-24-2009, 08:27 AM

I'm just glad McD isn't sold on Orton. I knew all the good stuff they were saying about him was your typical bs that is fed to the media. If they can move up w/out giving up 18 (maybe throw Scheffler in there since McD hates him) I'd definitely be down for drafting Sanchez. Then we can draft defense and maybe a RB the rest of the way and next year.

LRtagger

04-24-2009, 08:43 AM

I don't think it would take 2 firsts to move up to #8 anyways. It would most likely take #12 and a 2nd round pick...without looking at a value chart.

According to the value chart, it would take our #12 plus our first 3rd round pick to move up to #8...but Jax is so desperate to move back we could probably offer our second 3rd rounder and get it if no one else had a better offer.

BUT in my opinion, McD thinks his offense doesn't need a "franchise" type QB. He just needs a smart guy with a decent arm that can read defenses before the snap and check down to the correct receiver. I think (hope) Orton or Simms can do that.

I just don't buy that we sent Jay to Chicago just because Orton was included in the deal....only to turn around and use two firsts to draft another QB. It doesn't make any sense at all.

CrazyHorse

04-24-2009, 08:53 AM

Sanchez at 12 and Moreno at 18 would be the best thing ever.
I would be so freaking happy.
Like the best thing ever!
A franchise QB and RB!

Krugan

04-24-2009, 09:00 AM

Please no!

Next year, if Ortorn or Simms cant play, use some picks for Bradford.

Just say no to Sanchez.

broncofaninfla

04-24-2009, 09:21 AM

We have two #1's next year too and that draft is going to have more top tier QB's. Doesn't make sense to pull the trigger for Sanchez or any other QB early this year.

turftoad

04-24-2009, 09:36 AM

Broncos In Play For Sanchez
Posted by Mike Florio on April 24, 2009, 9:48 a.m.
Of the teams drafting in the teens, the Redskins and the Jets are mentioned most often as candidates to trade up for USC quarterback Mark Sanchez.

But the team best suited to make a move — given those two first-round picks at No. 12 and No. 18 — is the Broncos.

According to Mike Klis of the Denver Post, the Broncos have engaged in discussions aimed at making such a trade.

And Klis mentions as a reality something we included as a possibility in our SportingNews.com pre-draft Ten-Pack: Teams picking above the Jags at No. 8 are considering drafting Sanchez and then trading him to someone else.

There’s a problem with such an approach, which is addressed in the Ten-Pack. (We’d mention the problem now, but then you’d have one less reason to read the Ten-Pack, which should be live soon at SportingNews.com.)

broncofaninfla

04-24-2009, 09:46 AM

shank

04-24-2009, 09:51 AM

if we trade up for sanchez then i hope McD doesn't go another day in his life without stubbing his toe, getting a paper cut, having explosive diarrhea, and poking himself in the eye.

Dirk

04-24-2009, 09:55 AM

ugh.....this is just making me sick!

If we draft Sanchez it wouldn't be the end of the world, but what would we have to give up/trade in order to do so?

The DL is where we should concentrate on first and foremost!

Sanchez if handled correctly and not put out in front of the opposing defenses his first year out will be a very high caliber QB in the league, but I don't want Denver to trade away the ability to get some good prospects for the DL in order to get him.

Man Saturday is a year away so it seems.......

Northman

04-24-2009, 09:57 AM

If Our QB sucks we will finish 3-13. I dont want sanchez. I hope with all my heart Ortons turns out good for us.

Bingo.

There is absolutely no reason to draft a QB when the defense is the crutch of the problem right now. And since we havent seen what Orton or even Simms can do yet its pointless to waste any EARLY pick on a QB. If they want to take a guy later in the draft than im ok with that. But taking Sanchez is a waste of time at this moment. Get the defense straight and then worry about the QB position if need be.

getlynched47

04-24-2009, 10:21 AM

No defense = doesn't matter who you have at QB.

Do you want to know why Matt Ryan and Joe Flacco were so successful last year? They had a defense and running game to lean on.

Maybe our running game is fine with the new additions, now we need to go defense.

Trading picks to draft Mark Sanchez would be the stupidest thing ever.

Den21vsBal19

04-24-2009, 10:30 AM

According to the value chart, it would take our #12 plus our first 3rd round pick to move up to #8...but Jax is so desperate to move back we could probably offer our second 3rd rounder and get it if no one else had a better offer.

BUT in my opinion, McD thinks his offense doesn't need a "franchise" type QB. He just needs a smart guy with a decent arm that can read defenses before the snap and check down to the correct receiver. I think (hope) Orton or Simms can do that.

I just don't buy that we sent Jay to Chicago just because Orton was included in the deal....only to turn around and use two firsts to draft another QB. It doesn't make any sense at all.
Especially if there was interest from Washington for Campbell and their 1st round pick (13).

jrelway

04-24-2009, 10:41 AM

getlynched47

04-24-2009, 10:52 AM

IF sanchez falls to us at 12 or 18, then take him. but no way in hell do we give up both our firsts to move up to take him. we dont have something called a defense remember guys. this is the pits, i just heard on sportscenter that inside sources say broncos want sanchez pretty badly too.

Hell even if Sanchez fell to us, I still wouldn't take him. We need to use our first day picks on DEFENSE.

The fact is, Sanchez has only started 16 games. He's started less games than certain Junior QB's that come into the league and fail.

Junior QB's rarely succeed, and if they do then most of the time they have somebody to sit behind and learn from for 2 or 3 years. Sanchez wouldn't have that here in Denver.

He'll be a bust IMO...

Italianmobstr7

04-24-2009, 10:56 AM

if we ignore defense and consider Qb our biggest need and draft sanchez, he will not only have to overcome his lack of expirience from college he will have to play in the same boat jay cutler did.....a good qb with a crappy defense.

unless you belive jarvis moss, tim crowder, kenny peterson, matthias Askew, marcus thomas, renaldo hill, andre goodman, andra davis among crappy otehrs are the way to the promise land for a 1 year starting qb from college who had the luxury of a top defense.

There are some main ingredients you need when drafting a Franchise QB who you hope to be succesful:

1. A LT
2. A Legit #1 Wideout
3. A good Run game
4. A defense

when we drafted Jay cutler after the 2005 AFC title game in shannys eyes we had all that.

1. A LT- Matt Lepsis played very well
2. Got Javon Walker a legit #1
3. Shanny belived after the Tatum bell/andersen Duo he could create a master running game with any back so in his mind the run game was set
4. We just got done coming off a great defensive season. where the browncos did very well and the secondary held up for the most part depsite some age and rookie walls

in 2006 however it crashed when cutler entered because AL wilson the leader of the D went down, our safty core was hit hard by injuries, which led to more diffcult times for D-will, and champ went down as well, lynch was rapidly losing a step. The browncos were crahsing and guys like courtney brown couldnt even stay healthy. the whole team fell apart becasue it was a patchwork to begin with. javon got doubled teamed when smith went down etc.....however we drafted cutler becasue in shannys eyes he had it in place. in fact many picked us to go back to the title game. had we not had those pieces we wouldnt have drafted cutler.

in the end cutler failed because the run game dissapeared, the defense disengrated, we lost leaders and motivation became non-existnet, attitudes were bad, chemistry was gone. etc.

My point is you do not draft a franchise Qb and expect him to be succesaful unless you know have a good run game, a # 1 WR, a LT and a defense. We have so many questions on defense and have a suspect run game as well as scheme switches its doubtful he takes that sanchez risk, if it goes bad his credibility with qb's is shot, if he fails with orton but the defense improves he earns respect and time. if sanchez does well like cutler did but the d loses games, his head will be on a platter for not addressing what has been a plauge with this franchsie for the last 4 years.

fix the defense and no matter what the qb does the fans will come around. if sanchez gets good stats but the d loses games constantly he will be crucified for it, becasue we are no better of than we were then when the cutler situation reared its head.

Tell that to the Falcons last year. Everything on their team was a crap shoot. They had nothing solidified. Ryan came in there, became a leader and the falcons ended up having a good running game. They made the playoffs. Even if we give up 2 picks to get Sanchez, we still have 8 left to draft defense.

rationalfan

04-24-2009, 10:57 AM

I haven't "scouted" sanchez (by the way, does watching YouTube video constitute "scouting" a player?). But, trading up for the guy doesn't sound too bad.

Look at it this way, if tyson jackson and Raji - the two players agreed to be real impact players in the 3-4 - are off the board by the time denver picks in the 12th slot do we really want to waste first round money on a DE or DL that isn't too much better than what we'd find in round 2?

I'd be much more concerned about Denver selecting Orakpo than Sanchez. Drafting players from Texas scares me.

getlynched47

04-24-2009, 11:02 AM

Tell that to the Falcons last year. Everything on their team was a crap shoot. They had nothing solidified. Ryan came in there, became a leader and the falcons ended up having a good running game. They made the playoffs. Even if we give up 2 picks to get Sanchez, we still have 8 left to draft defense.

You're kidding yourself if you believe Matt Ryan and Joe Flacco did it all on their own.

The Falcons got Michael Turner. The Ravens were the #1 rush offense in the league.

The Falcons had a steady defense (don't know the rank, but no worse than 20). The Ravens had a top-10 defense.

The fact is, a young QB isn't going to succeed unless a team is already built around him to help. Jay Cutler carried in the entire team on his back last year. No defense. No consistent running game. If we don't fix the defense, Kyle Orton isn't going to do much better than Cutler did.

Say no to Sanchez.

underrated29

04-24-2009, 11:04 AM

turftoad

04-24-2009, 11:06 AM

Tell that to the Falcons last year. Everything on their team was a crap shoot. They had nothing solidified. Ryan came in there, became a leader and the falcons ended up having a good running game. They made the playoffs. Even if we give up 2 picks to get Sanchez, we still have 8 left to draft defense.

That would make sense if the 8 draft picks were in the first three rounds.

You get depth and back ups later in the draft, usually not starters. We need starters on defense. You get those in the first couple of rounds.
Spare me the exceptions to the rule.

Trading our first round picks to move up to get Sanchez would just be stupidity on the new young front office. They would show how immature they really are if they do so.

bcbronc

04-24-2009, 11:07 AM

QB.

We dont have one.

Orton at QB is no different than Marcus Thomas at DT.

In fact, I think Marcus has a leg up in that one.

I agree with you that Sanchez will be a good QB and is a great fit for McD's system. he has great feet (much better than Safford's in my uneducated opinion, and like I tell my pre-Atoms, there's a reason it's called FOOTball). if he fell to 12, I wouldn't have a coronary if we took him. But give up 2 #1's for him? no way.

using your Orton=Thomas, give me a franchise defensive line over a franchise QB every day.

Hell even if Sanchez fell to us, I still wouldn't take him. We need to use our first day picks on DEFENSE.

The fact is, Sanchez has only started 16 games. He's started less games than certain Junior QB's that come into the league and fail.

Junior QB's rarely succeed, and if they do then most of the time they have somebody to sit behind and learn from for 2 or 3 years. Sanchez wouldn't have that here in Denver.

He'll be a bust IMO...

RC posted elsewhere that Junior QBs have a 50% success rate (8 of 16 I believe). well, I haven't looked at the numbers, but I'd consider it a safe bet that that is a higher success rate than senior QBs taken in the draft.

I was listening to the radio yesterday (might have been Dan Patrick, not sure) and they were breaking down the success rates of QBs taken early. again it was a 50% success rate, with Vince Young and Tubby Raider considered "incomplete". the only rating I disagreed with is rating Vick a bust--he did take his team to three NFCCG's before going to jail, so that's debateable.

so there you have it. A junior QB has the same bust rate as a QB taken in the first half of the first round (50%, give or take a Mike Vick), while if you take in ALL the senior QBs drafted each year, their success rate is going to be WAY below that (my guess, 1 in 10 starts even 16 games in their career).

Dirk

04-24-2009, 11:08 AM

They would show how immature they really are if they do so.

They have already done that!

Let's just hope they "fix" it by drafting solid players and not trade away help for this kid.

Nomad

04-24-2009, 11:08 AM

How can a player who has only started 16 games be considered a 1st rd pick. and maybe even a top 10...

This is just insane to me. There is no way you can get an accurate reading on a QB with 16 games. You have no idea how he does with different defenses and reads and everything else. I do think he will be pretty good.

BUT TOP TEN picks are sure fire cant miss perrennial PRO BOWLERS. I do not see that in him, why any other team would is beyond me.

Ever heard of 'impulse buying', that's what this is....not many products to compare to but some teams too impatient to wait. Skip Bayless calls it the 'Matt Leinhart' syndrome!! Now if we were drafting off of character, then Sanchez is a must-have, can't miss!

turftoad

04-24-2009, 11:10 AM

I agree with you that Sanchez will be a good QB and is a great fit for McD's system. he has great feet (much better than Safford's in my uneducated opinion, and like I tell my pre-Atoms, there's a reason it's called FOOTball). if he fell to 12, I wouldn't have a coronary if we took him. But give up 2 #1's for him? no way.

using your Orton=Thomas, give me a franchise defensive line over a franchise QB every day.

RC posted elsewhere that Junior QBs have a 50% success rate (8 of 16 I believe). well, I haven't looked at the numbers, but I'd consider it a safe bet that that is a higher success rate than senior QBs taken in the draft.

I was listening to the radio yesterday (might have been Dan Patrick, not sure) and they were breaking down the success rates of QBs taken early. again it was a 50% success rate, with Vince Young and Tubby Raider considered "incomplete". the only rating I disagreed with is rating Vick a bust--he did take his team to three NFCCG's before going to jail, so that's debateable.

so there you have it. A junior QB has the same bust rate as a QB taken in the first half of the first round (50%, give or take a Mike Vick), while if you take in ALL the senior QBs drafted each year, their success rate is going to be WAY below that (my guess, 1 in 10 starts even 16 games in their career).

A 50% success rate is not good enough to give up two first round picks for.

Dirk

04-24-2009, 11:11 AM

Skip Bayless calls it the 'Matt Leinhart' syndrome!!

:lol:

bcbronc

04-24-2009, 11:20 AM

A 50% success rate is not good enough to give up two first round picks for.

agreed.

the point was that a Junior Qb has the same bust rate as a top 5 QB (that was the breakdown, now that I remember, not top half of first round). so gl47's saying junior QBs don't have success is completely unfounded, at least compared to all other Qbs taken in the draft.

Italianmobstr7

04-24-2009, 11:31 AM

You're kidding yourself if you believe Matt Ryan and Joe Flacco did it all on their own.

The Falcons got Michael Turner. The Ravens were the #1 rush offense in the league.

The Falcons had a steady defense (don't know the rank, but no worse than 20). The Ravens had a top-10 defense.

The fact is, a young QB isn't going to succeed unless a team is already built around him to help. Jay Cutler carried in the entire team on his back last year. No defense. No consistent running game. If we don't fix the defense, Kyle Orton isn't going to do much better than Cutler did.

Say no to Sanchez.

I said NOTHING about Flacco. I know he had a good defense. The Falcons had NOTHING. They had nothing for sure. They were picking 3rd in the draft for a reason. They signed Michael Turner HOPING that they were going to have a running game. Their O-line played pretty good, but not spectacular. Their D the year before was trash. Matt Ryan came in there and united their team. I'm not saying that Sanchez would do that for Denver. I'm saying IF Sanchez became a franchise qb, he would be worth 2 of our 10 picks even though we badly need some defense. If Sanchez is the guy that is our "franchise" for the next 10 years, the 2 picks are worth it. Especially when you still have 8 to use on D. QB is not our most pressing need, but Sanchez looks like a very very good prospect who would be great in our system. I'd be very happy to see him in Denver.

Italianmobstr7

04-24-2009, 11:36 AM

That would make sense if the 8 draft picks were in the first three rounds.

You get depth and back ups later in the draft, usually not starters. We need starters on defense. You get those in the first couple of rounds.
Spare me the exceptions to the rule.

Trading our first round picks to move up to get Sanchez would just be stupidity on the new young front office. They would show how immature they really are if they do so.

Regardless. If we could get 1 franchise qb at 8 by trading up, I'd rather take him then draft 2 defensive players in the first. We'd still have 3 picks in the next 2 rounds. Those players can develop in to starters. Ask Eddie Royal, Peyton Hillis, Clinton Portis was a 2nd round guy. Even if we give up our 12 and 18, we still have 8 picks with 3 coming in the 2nd and 3rd rounds. It just makes sense to go ahead and do it. It would stabilize our QB position, and if we struggled on D again, we have 2 first round picks next year to take Defense.

NickelTG

04-24-2009, 11:37 AM

How can a player who has only started 16 games be considered a 1st rd pick. and maybe even a top 10...

This is just insane to me. There is no way you can get an accurate reading on a QB with 16 games. You have no idea how he does with different defenses and reads and everything else. I do think he will be pretty good.

BUT TOP TEN picks are sure fire cant miss perrennial PRO BOWLERS. I do not see that in him, why any other team would is beyond me.

I agree. Sanchez beating two overrated Big Ten schools just isn't enough for me to sell a house to get. I do believe he came out premature.This year would get him off the boards a lot quicker then next year would have.

Please draft defensively. Drafting a qb seems more like pouring salt in the wounds of a nightmare offseason.

getlynched47

04-24-2009, 11:39 AM

RC posted elsewhere that Junior QBs have a 50% success rate (8 of 16 I believe). well, I haven't looked at the numbers, but I'd consider it a safe bet that that is a higher success rate than senior QBs taken in the draft.

I was listening to the radio yesterday (might have been Dan Patrick, not sure) and they were breaking down the success rates of QBs taken early. again it was a 50% success rate, with Vince Young and Tubby Raider considered "incomplete". the only rating I disagreed with is rating Vick a bust--he did take his team to three NFCCG's before going to jail, so that's debateable.

so there you have it. A junior QB has the same bust rate as a QB taken in the first half of the first round (50%, give or take a Mike Vick), while if you take in ALL the senior QBs drafted each year, their success rate is going to be WAY below that (my guess, 1 in 10 starts even 16 games in their career).

Let's analyze, shall we?

Peyton Manning, Phillip Rivers, Eli Manning, Matt Ryan, Donovan McNabb, Drew Brees. What do they all have in common? They're EXCELLENT Quarterbacks that were drafted as seniors.

If you can name me 5 Junior QB's that have started for their team and been successful in the last 5 years, let me know.

(Aaron Rodgers sat behind Brett Favre for 3 years. Ben Roethlisberger has had the luxury known as the Pittsburgh defense and a steady running game with the Bus Bettis and Willie Parker)

I said NOTHING about Flacco. I know he had a good defense. The Falcons had NOTHING. They had nothing for sure. They were picking 3rd in the draft for a reason. They signed Michael Turner HOPING that they were going to have a running game. Their O-line played pretty good, but not spectacular. Their D the year before was trash. Matt Ryan came in there and united their team. I'm not saying that Sanchez would do that for Denver. I'm saying IF Sanchez became a franchise qb, he would be worth 2 of our 10 picks even though we badly need some defense. If Sanchez is the guy that is our "franchise" for the next 10 years, the 2 picks are worth it. Especially when you still have 8 to use on D. QB is not our most pressing need, but Sanchez looks like a very very good prospect who would be great in our system. I'd be very happy to see him in Denver.
Sanchez may look like a good prospect...but so did Ryan Leaf. So did Couch. So did Matt Leinert. So did Joey Harrington.
If you draft a junior QB, your best bet is to sit him behind a solid veteran for a couple of years UNLESS you have a top flight defense and running game in place. That's what works in the NFL.

Mark Sanchez isn't going to have the luxury of sitting behind Kyle Orton or Chris Simms for 3 years. We don't win if we draft him, because our defense will still be in shambles.

turftoad

04-24-2009, 11:41 AM

Regardless. If we could get 1 franchise qb at 8 by trading up, I'd rather take him then draft 2 defensive players in the first. We'd still have 3 picks in the next 2 rounds. Those players can develop in to starters. Ask Eddie Royal, Peyton Hillis, Clinton Portis was a 2nd round guy. Even if we give up our 12 and 18, we still have 8 picks with 3 coming in the 2nd and 3rd rounds. It just makes sense to go ahead and do it. It would stabilize our QB position, and if we struggled on D again, we have 2 first round picks next year to take Defense.
If Orton or Simms don't work out then we have 2 first rounders next year to address the QB position in a better rated QB class.

We don't just need STARTERS on "D", we need difference makers on "D". Normally they come in the first two rounds.

getlynched47

04-24-2009, 11:42 AM

How can a player who has only started 16 games be considered a 1st rd pick. and maybe even a top 10...

This is just insane to me. There is no way you can get an accurate reading on a QB with 16 games. You have no idea how he does with different defenses and reads and everything else. I do think he will be pretty good.

BUT TOP TEN picks are sure fire cant miss perrennial PRO BOWLERS. I do not see that in him, why any other team would is beyond me.

I agree. I would stay away from Mark Sanchez unless a team decides to sit him for 2 or 3 years. He's just way too raw, considering he's only started 16 games.

getlynched47

04-24-2009, 11:42 AM

LawDog

04-24-2009, 11:51 AM

If Orton or Simms don't work out then we have 2 first rounders next year to address the QB position in a better rated QB class.

We don't just need STARTERS on "D", we need difference makers on "D". Normally they come in the first two rounds.

The quality of next year's QB class is the only reason that Sanchez is available in this year's draft. It was a business decision on Sanchez' part to come out early. Wherever he ends up, it will be (almost certainly) at a much better price than if he had waited until next year -- especially if NFL and the NFLPA don't get together and the draft salaries drop way down.

Yes, Sanchez is a quality guy and likely will have a solid NFL career, but he won't be the best player available when we make our first pick, and he is not the best player to address our needs. We need D, plain and simple. The only way I change my mind is if Sanchez is available at 8 and we swap with Jax for anything other than our 12 -- maybe the eighteen and a third rounder and even at that I have strong reservations.

Go with Orton and Simms this year. If they are absolutely horrible, we will have a high first and Chicago's first next year to play with to get one of next year's QB's or trade for a fresh, top-quality veteran.

D must be the focus tomorrow.

Nomad

04-24-2009, 11:53 AM

If Orton or Simms don't work out then we have 2 first rounders next year to address the QB position in a better rated QB class.

We don't just need STARTERS on "D", we need difference makers on "D". Normally they come in the first two rounds.

Well said turf! Now go beat that into McDaniels and Xanders head!!:D Anything otherwise, they'll need a beating!!

LawDog

04-24-2009, 11:54 AM

I agree. I would stay away from Mark Sanchez unless a team decides to sit him for 2 or 3 years. He's just way too raw, considering he's only started 16 games.

Unfortunately, I doubt McDaniels would see it that way... how many games did Cassell start between High School and last year?

CrazyHorse

04-24-2009, 11:56 AM

QB this year and defense next year
OR
Defense this year and QB next year

Does it really matter?

turftoad

04-24-2009, 11:59 AM

QB this year and defense next year
OR
Defense this year and QB next year

Does it really matter?

It sure does.

If Sanchez were in next years draft, he'd probably be the 4th or 5th rated QB the way things are right now.
Is a 4th or 5th rated QB worth giving up 2 first rounders?

Next years top QB class is better than this years.

MOtorboat

04-24-2009, 12:02 PM

It sure does.

If Sanchez were in next years draft, he'd probably be the 4th or 5th rated QB the way things are right now.
Is a 4th or 5th rated QB worth giving up 2 first rounders?

Next years top QB class is better than this years.

I think it was fairly consistent in January that it was Stafford, Bradford, Sanchez, McCoy...I guess I can't think of all these great QBs coming out...Teabow was going to be a second or third round pick...

(Not an argument FOR drafting Sanchez...just an argument that I'm not sure what quarterbacks people are referring to in next year's class)

Nomad

04-24-2009, 12:04 PM

QB this year and defense next year
OR
Defense this year and QB next year

Does it really matter?

Yes, because Orton hasn't been proven a failure yet with a great offense! Defense has been proven a failure the last few years.

LawDog

04-24-2009, 12:26 PM

QB this year and defense next year
OR
Defense this year and QB next year

Does it really matter?

Yes. This year has a better selection of D players vs. QB's. Next year is a better year to pick up a QB.

An improved D will add stability to the team. If McDaniels goes QB this year and fails to field a competitive team, the turmoil will continue as everyone (myself probably included) calls for his head.

Ravage!!!

04-24-2009, 12:30 PM

Sanches didn't announce he was coming out for the draft until AFTER McCoy said he was staying in college. Smart move on Sanchez's part (money wise)...but I sure as hell do NOT want to use our first round pick on a QB after this offseason debacle.

Mike

04-24-2009, 12:31 PM

Just say no, McD. Please.

underrated29

04-24-2009, 12:42 PM

Unfortunately, I doubt McDaniels would see it that way... how many games did Cassell start between High School and last year?

yES BUT CASSEL wasnt drafted to be there starter. He was taken as the backup to brady- he was there only to see the clipboard and when the going got tough the tough got going.

He would not do the same (few starts) for a first rd pcik.

EMB6903

04-24-2009, 01:01 PM

It would be very foolish for the Broncos to draft anything offense in the 1st/2nd/3rd rounds....

Ask yourself, are we weaker at QB? or DT, DE, LB, etc?

i really couldnt answer that for you... we are pretty bad at all 4 positions.. just because we brought in 2 back up QB's doesnt mean that we fine at Quarterback.

bcbronc

04-24-2009, 01:04 PM

Let's analyze, shall we?

Peyton Manning, Phillip Rivers, Eli Manning, Matt Ryan, Donovan McNabb, Drew Brees. What do they all have in common? They're EXCELLENT Quarterbacks that were drafted as seniors.

If you can name me 5 Junior QB's that have started for their team and been successful in the last 5 years, let me know.

(Aaron Rodgers sat behind Brett Favre for 3 years. Ben Roethlisberger has had the luxury known as the Pittsburgh defense and a steady running game with the Bus Bettis and Willie Parker)

Sanchez may look like a good prospect...but so did Ryan Leaf. So did Couch. So did Matt Leinert. So did Joey Harrington.
If you draft a junior QB, your best bet is to sit him behind a solid veteran for a couple of years UNLESS you have a top flight defense and running game in place. That's what works in the NFL.

Mark Sanchez isn't going to have the luxury of sitting behind Kyle Orton or Chris Simms for 3 years. We don't win if we draft him, because our defense will still be in shambles.

you're funny. you're just one big contradiction.

you say junior QBs won't cut it, then name two that did.

you say senior QBs are the way to go, then name a bunch of top 5 picks that were huge busts.

if we did draft him (doubt we do, but if) why is it that Sanchez won't be able to sit behing Orton or Simms? it would seem to be the exact opposite, in fact.

and you want 5 junior qbs over the past 5 years. okay, but first you give me the list of all the junior qbs that came out over the past five years. and include a list of all the senior qbs over the same time frame, and we'll compare success rates.

like I said, rc posted 8 of 16 busts for junior qbs.

Dan Patrick (I think) rated 50% of top 5 qbs taken over the past few years as busts (you've named a few in your post).

so what does that mean? a junior qb is no more likely to bust than a top 5 qb is. I can understand not wanting to draft Sanchez. I sure don't. give me defense. but him being a junior doesn't make him any more likely to bust, plain and simple.

LRtagger

04-24-2009, 01:28 PM

I think it was fairly consistent in January that it was Stafford, Bradford, Sanchez, McCoy...I guess I can't think of all these great QBs coming out...Teabow was going to be a second or third round pick...

(Not an argument FOR drafting Sanchez...just an argument that I'm not sure what quarterbacks people are referring to in next year's class)

Snead would be a perfict fit in Denver and is a first round pick next year if he declares.

Add to that the guys you mention and you potentially have 4 first round QBs next year. Clausen could also go on day 1 and there are a couple of other potential day 1 guys like Pat Devlin and Zac Robinson.

Whereas this draft you have 3 day one guys....next year you have potentially 6 or 7 QBs with day 1 talent.

Lonestar

04-24-2009, 01:46 PM

you're funny. you're just one big contradiction.

you say junior QBs won't cut it, then name two that did.

you say senior QBs are the way to go, then name a bunch of top 5 picks that were huge busts.

if we did draft him (doubt we do, but if) why is it that Sanchez won't be able to sit behing Orton or Simms? it would seem to be the exact opposite, in fact.

and you want 5 junior qbs over the past 5 years. okay, but first you give me the list of all the junior qbs that came out over the past five years. and include a list of all the senior qbs over the same time frame, and we'll compare success rates.

like I said, rc posted 8 of 16 busts for junior qbs.

Dan Patrick (I think) rated 50% of top 5 qbs taken over the past few years as busts (you've named a few in your post).

so what does that mean? a junior qb is no more likely to bust than a top 5 qb is. I can understand not wanting to draft Sanchez. I sure don't. give me defense. but him being a junior doesn't make him any more likely to bust, plain and simple.

YET IIRC Sanchez was a starter for ONLY ONE YEAR, that as a junior QB that is now coming out..

Not like he was a 4 year starter..

MOtorboat

04-24-2009, 01:49 PM

Snead would be a perfit fit in Denver and is a first round pick next year if he declares.

Add to that the guys you mention and you potentially have 4 first round QBs next year. Clausen could also do on day 1 and there are a couple of other potential day 1 guys like Pat Devlin and Zac Robinson.

Whereas this draft you have 3 day one guys....next year you have potentially 6 or 7 QBs with day 1 talent.

That's my point. We just disagree. I don't see Snead, Clausen, Devlin and Robinson as top tier quarterbacks, at least coming out. Maybe one of them has a monster year, but all of them day 1? I just don't see it.

We thought last year's quarterback class sucked and Matt Ryan and Joe Flacco were very productive, and both played in the playoffs.

JONtheBRONCO

04-24-2009, 02:01 PM

getlynched47

04-24-2009, 02:06 PM

Unfortunately, I doubt McDaniels would see it that way... how many games did Cassell start between High School and last year?

Again, Cassel sat behind Tom Brady for three years before he got his chance. If we draft Sanchez, the expectations would be to start him either this year or in 2 years because he isn't going to get much out of sitting behind Orton and Chris Simms.

getlynched47

04-24-2009, 02:07 PM

you're funny. you're just one big contradiction.

you say junior QBs won't cut it, then name two that did.

you say senior QBs are the way to go, then name a bunch of top 5 picks that were huge busts.

if we did draft him (doubt we do, but if) why is it that Sanchez won't be able to sit behing Orton or Simms? it would seem to be the exact opposite, in fact.

and you want 5 junior qbs over the past 5 years. okay, but first you give me the list of all the junior qbs that came out over the past five years. and include a list of all the senior qbs over the same time frame, and we'll compare success rates.

like I said, rc posted 8 of 16 busts for junior qbs.

Dan Patrick (I think) rated 50% of top 5 qbs taken over the past few years as busts (you've named a few in your post).

so what does that mean? a junior qb is no more likely to bust than a top 5 qb is. I can understand not wanting to draft Sanchez. I sure don't. give me defense. but him being a junior doesn't make him any more likely to bust, plain and simple.

Find this "magical" post and then I'll believe you.

LRtagger

04-24-2009, 02:12 PM

That's my point. We just disagree. I don't see Snead, Clausen, Devlin and Robinson as top tier quarterbacks, at least coming out. Maybe one of them has a monster year, but all of them day 1? I just don't see it.

We thought last year's quarterback class sucked and Matt Ryan and Joe Flacco were very productive, and both played in the playoffs.

Sanchez in not a top teir QB coming out and its arguable Stafford and Freeman are either. Sanchez will take time to develop and so will Freeman. Stafford may suffer a terrible fate being asked to carry a very bad team.

Snead is a better prospect than Sanchez in my mind. Bradford is better than Sanchez and Stafford. I think Sanchez is about on par with McCoy. Plus TeaBag may be a good fit for someone in the NFL that wants to go a different route with the position....kind of like what some RBs brought with the Wildcat last year. It's the reason Dirty even came out this year despite everyone around him telling him it was a mistake (even Pete Carroll).

Matt Ryan and Flacco were brought into very good teams and very good systems. Both QBs had good running games and good defenses. Flacco was not a top teir QB coming out, but Baltimore took a chance on him because they didn't really have any other needs.

You are also seeing the QBs this year bumped up the boards because you are seeing a lot of staff changes...and anytime you bring in new HC's and GM's they want to go after "their" guy. Look how bad Washington wants a QB and they already have a decent guy in place. But Campbell is Gibb's guy, so they want to go in a new direction. This pushes the QBs up the board.

Next year will have more day 1 QBs taken then this year. I mean for heaven's sake we are talking about Pat White being 4th in this QB class. He would barely be in the top 10 of next year's class. He's a good kid and a good player, but he is not a day 1 NFL QB prospect.

Anyways, just wait...next years class will be head and shoulders above this class. Plus we can probably get Snead without making any trades at all. Even then I think Brandstater could be a stud here if he was allowed to sit for 2-3 years and learn.

Elevation inc

04-24-2009, 02:43 PM

Tell that to the Falcons last year. Everything on their team was a crap shoot. They had nothing solidified. Ryan came in there, became a leader and the falcons ended up having a good running game. They made the playoffs. Even if we give up 2 picks to get Sanchez, we still have 8 left to draft defense.

actually they did alot in FA to shore up there secondary which was a main issue for them there pass defense was horrendous, and they obtained michael turner a legit running threat. they also had a legit number 1 in roddy white. they drafted a LT in sam baker and ryan together, so actually they did plan on surrounding ryan with the right tools and in the end it payed of, a better O-line, a legit weapong for ryan at WR, a very sound run game, and a improved defense. those things right there allowed ryan to be a game manager and look good while doing it

Gamechanger

04-24-2009, 02:45 PM

if you guys even sniff the idea of going for Sanchez (which i believe is a smokescreen in itself) I'd lmao

this guy is going to be a Journeyman

EMB6903

04-24-2009, 03:39 PM

if you guys even sniff the idea of going for Sanchez (which i believe is a smokescreen in itself) I'd lmao

this guy is going to be a Journeyman

He will be far from a Journeyman

but I'd love to know why you think this way of him... and I dare you to do it without mentioning "well hes a junior that doesnt have a lot of experience"

JKcatch724

04-24-2009, 03:43 PM

He will be far from a Journeyman

but I'd love to know why you think this way of him... and I dare you to do it without mentioning "well hes a junior that doesnt have a lot of experience"

Because if you put 75% of Division 1 QBs in USC's offensive system they would have done just as well, if not better.

How good did Leinart look in college?

SmilinAssasSin27

04-24-2009, 03:49 PM

The article loses all credibility when it says Quinn is not available...he is.

EMB6903

04-24-2009, 03:51 PM

Because if you put 75% of Division 1 QBs in USC's offensive system they would have done just as well, if not better.

How good did Leinart look in college?

Leinart was very good in college (and I think hes still going to be a good pro), but hes not the hardest worker, loves the night life... Which is complete opposite of Sanchez... Steve Sarkisian said that Sanchez was the hardest worker he has ever coached... Also Sanchez has a stronger arm, hes more versatile, and he has better mechanics then Leinart.

but dont give me that bs about how hes only good because of the system hes in, tell me what Sanchez does on the field that you dont like?

JKcatch724

04-24-2009, 04:05 PM

Leinart was very good in college (and I think hes still going to be a good pro), but hes not the hardest worker, loves the night life... Which is complete opposite of Sanchez... Steve Sarkisian said that Sanchez was the hardest worker he has ever coached... Also Sanchez has a stronger arm, hes more versatile, and he has better mechanics then Leinart.

but dont give me that bs about how hes only good because of the system hes in, tell me what Sanchez does on the field that you dont like?

How is it a bad argument to say it was because of the system? Not only that, but he faced a cakewalk in the Pac-10 defenses.

Sarkisian may be right about his work ethic, but I'll take Pete Carroll's word saying he's not ready for the next step.

Moot point anyway, Sanchez will not be a Bronco unless he falls to 12.

EMB6903

04-24-2009, 04:14 PM

How is it a bad argument to say it was because of the system? Not only that, but he faced a cakewalk in the Pac-10 defenses.

Sarkisian may be right about his work ethic, but I'll take Pete Carroll's word saying he's not ready for the next step.

Moot point anyway, Sanchez will not be a Bronco unless he falls to 12.

gotcha... it was the system (pro style offense) and pac 10 defenses

Carroll said that because he didnt want Sanchez to leave, he was furious at his decision.

but again can you tell me why you dislike the way he plays?

decision making?

poor mechanics?

not accurate?

to hate on a player because they chose to go to a school that gave them a better chance to succeed is stupid, no offense...if you dont like Sanchez because of the system then you would have to count out Bradford, Clausen, and Mccoy next year for top QB's because they all play in a QB friendly system.

JKcatch724

04-24-2009, 04:24 PM

gotcha... it was the system (pro style offense) and pac 10 defenses

Carroll said that because he didnt want Sanchez to leave, he was furious at his decision.

but again can you tell me why you dislike the way he plays?

decision making?

poor mechanics?

not accurate?

to hate on a player because they chose to go to a school that gave them a better chance to succeed is stupid, no offense...if you dont like Sanchez because of the system then you would have to count out Bradford, Clausen, and Mccoy next year for top QB's because they all play in a QB friendly system.

I'm not hating on him... He looked great last year, but he played in a brilliant system with RIDICULOUS talent around him, aside from the O-line. He makes good decisions, especially when the pockets break down, but I'm not sure he's going to be make all the throws at the next level. He didn't really have to make to many pinpoint throws because his receivers were usually open by about five yards.

I dunno. Could be wrong... more of a gut feeling than anything else. If he winds up in Denver I'll obviously root for him and gladly eat crow if he turns out great.

getlynched47

04-24-2009, 04:24 PM

Dirk

04-24-2009, 04:25 PM

I agree that Sanchez has to be handled right or he will fail. He MUST sit for at least 1 year IMO.

getlynched47

04-24-2009, 04:27 PM

I agree that Sanchez has to be handled right or he will fail. He MUST sit for at least 1 year IMO.

Yeah but not sit behind just any QB, he needs to sit for two years behind a very accomplished QB IMO.

What is he going to learn from Orton and Simms? :lol: He's not ready to start right away either.

Dirk

04-24-2009, 04:29 PM

getlynched47

04-24-2009, 04:32 PM

:rolleyes:

Did you actually say that? :lol:

Say what? :noidea:

DenBronx

04-24-2009, 04:35 PM

why are these idiot news reporters looking shocked when they hear the broncos are not interested in trading up for sanchez or might not even take him at 12? is it really that hard to realize we are trying to rebuild the defense?

Dirk

04-24-2009, 04:36 PM

Say what? :noidea:

That Orton or Simms aren't starters......:lol:

EMB6903

04-24-2009, 04:36 PM

Yeah but not sit behind just any QB, he needs to sit for two years behind a very accomplished QB IMO.

What is he going to learn from Orton and Simms? :lol: He's not ready to start right away either.

why do you think its so important to play behind a great veteran QB? I would think a great QB coach and offensive mind would have a bigger impact on a young Quarterback then anything.

Dirk

04-24-2009, 04:38 PM

why do you think its so important to play behind a great veteran QB? I would think a great QB coach and offensive mind would have a bigger impact on a young Quarterback then anything.

That is true. They can instill good habits early on...but Sanchez still needs to sit on the bench for at least 1 year. He is used to it. :coffee:

EMB6903

04-24-2009, 04:42 PM

All the talent around Sanchez at USC made him look 10x better than he really is IMO.

People have to stop ignoring the fact that he's only started 16 games! He's going to flop in the NFL if he is thrown into a fire by starting right away. He needs to sit 3 good years, like Aaron Rodgers did.

I understand the lack of experience is his biggest weakness and Im totally fine with Sanchez sitting for a year or two even if its behind Orton and Simms.

Sanchez has all the tools though, and a great mentality along with a great work ethic.... Im very confident that he would succeed in Denver learning under a great offensive mind in Josh Mcdaniels for a year or two.

Dirk

04-24-2009, 04:45 PM

I understand the lack of experience is his biggest weakness and Im totally fine with Sanchez sitting for a year or two even if its behind Orton and Simms.

Sanchez has all the tools though, and a great mentality along with a great work ethic.... Im very confident that he would succeed in Denver learning under a great offensive mind in Josh Mcdaniels for a year or two.

I don't disagree with you, I just don't think we even get involved for him. Use this draft wisely for the other needs....QBs will be available next year. And if McD is as good as he thinks he is...a 6th round QB this year is awesome! (a little sarcasm with the truth)

getlynched47

04-24-2009, 05:17 PM

I don't disagree with you, I just don't think we even get involved for him. Use this draft wisely for the other needs....QBs will be available next year. And if McD is as good as he thinks he is...a 6th round QB this year is awesome! (a little sarcasm with the truth)

The wise man has spoken :salute:

Just say no to Sanchez.

MOtorboat

04-24-2009, 05:21 PM

Anyways, just wait...next years class will be head and shoulders above this class. Plus we can probably get Snead without making any trades at all. Even then I think Brandstater could be a stud here if he was allowed to sit for 2-3 years and learn.

Brandstater.

FTW.

EMB6903

04-24-2009, 05:28 PM

I don't disagree with you, I just don't think we even get involved for him. Use this draft wisely for the other needs....QBs will be available next year. And if McD is as good as he thinks he is...a 6th round QB this year is awesome! (a little sarcasm with the truth)

and wait a year before we all realize quarterback is just as big of a need as defense?

I hope they do draft wisely and pick the best player available....

Dirk

04-24-2009, 05:36 PM

and wait a year before we all realize quarterback is just as big of a need as defense?

I hope they do draft wisely and pick the best player available....

simply yes on the QB part of your post....

And I agree to pick the best player available...but not if it costs us in an area of need. For example...if for some reason Sanchez does fall to 12 and so does Raji and Jackson...no way do I pick Sanchez. Does not make sense. Not when we need that area more.

I understand what you are saying, but I hope McD and Xman pick the BPA at a position of need....and I do include RB in that.

Dirk

04-24-2009, 05:37 PM

Just to add a little more to my post...

I think I am giving Orton a little more credit than most....remember he is still young and can become really good..if given the chance.

Nomad

04-24-2009, 07:03 PM

Buying Sanchez a plane ticket to St Louis for Sunday is the Rams way of a smoke screen!!!

claymore

04-24-2009, 07:19 PM

and wait a year before we all realize quarterback is just as big of a need as defense?

I hope they do draft wisely and pick the best player available....

Thing is we dont know if thats a need. Same as OLB. We know we need DT, DE, RB and LB depth more than anything.

WR, and LT are the only thing Im confident in.

Tned

04-24-2009, 07:34 PM

Thing is we dont know if thats a need. Same as OLB. We know we need DT, DE, RB and LB depth more than anything.

WR, and LT are the only thing Im confident in.

RT and RG looked solid last year, but it's unkown moving away from ZBS. I've heard some good things about renaldo hill on sirius NFL radio lately, so I think S looks better than I thought.

RB is a big question, but no bigger question mark on the team than the DL, and to a degree the front seven. I think we are ok in the middle, but have no idea if Dumervil, Crowder and others can stand up and move to OLB.

Bottom line, the reason I think taking a QB would be a huge mistake is that we KNOW that the defense still needs help. We need to use those first round picks to get impact defensive players, and then some more early picks to get depth/options on defense.

Then, if Orton turns out to NOT be a good fit for McD's system, then with our schedule, we will likely be in the 4-6 win range and have at least one great first round pick next year, where there are a number of QB's coming out.

SmilinAssasSin27

04-24-2009, 07:35 PM

I really think Doom will be ok standing up. It will be a transition, but him getting that extra step toward the QB before contact will do wonders for him.

Tned

04-24-2009, 07:37 PM

I really think Doom will be ok standing up. It will be a transition, but him getting that extra step toward the QB before contact will do wonders for him.

I agree, but it's still an unkown. Not sure about moss, crowder or Reid (I think that's the guy we picked up they are talking about possibly using at OLB).

There are just so many unkowns. It's possible that Thomas or the DT we picked up from SF could be solid NT's. Just so many unkowns.

EMB6903

04-24-2009, 07:50 PM

Thing is we dont know if thats a need. Same as OLB. We know we need DT, DE, RB and LB depth more than anything.

WR, and LT are the only thing Im confident in.

you act as if Orton and Simms are both rookies, like they havent started games in this league... Ive seen both play in the NFL and IMO they are no more then mediocre QB's.

that being said I think we are good at the OT position for the next decade.... I think WR is a need...We know we have a mature starter in Royal but Marshall cant seem to stay away from the drama... possibly facing up to an 8 game suspension this year and 1 more incident is likely going to be 1+ year.

so if Sanchez, or Crabtree some how drop to 12 (very unlikely) Im all for drafting 1 of these players..

same with Moreno if he fell to 18... cant pass up talents like these regardless of the need.... esspecially if you have 8 more picks in the draft.