The plan is in place - trust it

[MOtorboat]

The general manager of my favorite baseball team, the Kansas City Royals, likes to tell the fans to "trust the process." Dayton Moore means that there is a plan in place, a plan that they've formulated over time, which may take time. And he's urging fans to trust that plan.

A baseball "plan" takes a lot longer than a football "plan," but if you have the right people in place - people you can trust as a fan - you trust the process. (Full disclosure: I'm not entirely sure I'm trusting the process in Kansas City)

Denver Broncos fans should trust the process. John Elway is a shrewd businessman. He has a plan and he's working it.

http://www.broncosforums.com/forums/entry.php/36-The-plan-is-in-place-trust-it

[Denver Native (Carol)]

Totally agree with you MO, and when I read some of the threads, posts on BF, it is like - there is NOTHING any one on here can do, there is NO ONE on here with the background, with the knowledge, etc., to run a pro football team, so, you either remain a fan and trust that Elway & company are trying to do the best they can for the Broncos, and see how it works out, or you jump ship.

[MOtorboat]

Being a fan doesn't mean you can't question what's happening. That's not what I'm suggesting at all.

[Denver Native (Carol)]

Being a fan doesn't mean you can't question what's happening. That's not what I'm suggesting at all.

I know that - that is my opinion.

[threefolddead]

Hahaha it's gotta be bad Juju to compare this organization with the Royals. I live out here in MO and I cannot believe how people keep the glass half full, next year is the year thing going year after year. At some point mediocrity isn't good enough. I don't think Elway would ever be willing to settle for mediocre anyways though.

[Ziggy]

Good write up Mo. I agree on all counts.

[dogfish]

Mo, did you just link to your blog?

man, i hope rex never sees this. . .

[MOtorboat]

Mo, did you just link to your blog?

man, i hope rex never sees this. . .

I think I'm OK because I didn't mention supply and demand.

[EastCoastBronco]

The general manager of my favorite baseball team, the Kansas City Royals, likes to tell the fans to "trust the process." Dayton Moore means that there is a plan in place, a plan that they've formulated over time, which may take time. And he's urging fans to trust that plan.

A baseball "plan" takes a lot longer than a football "plan," but if you have the right people in place - people you can trust as a fan - you trust the process. (Full disclosure: I'm not entirely sure I'm trusting the process in Kansas City)

Denver Broncos fans should trust the process. John Elway is a shrewd businessman. He has a plan and he's working it.

http://www.broncosforums.com/forums/entry.php/36-The-plan-is-in-place-trust-it

Seeing as I'm a log time fan with no delusions whatsoever of my ability to influence John Elway's decisions...I'm totally on board with "the plan".

[BroncoStud]

Moreno is a "productive back when healthy"...? I always thought he should try his hand at dancing, but I don't think he has the coordination to.

Terrible 1st round pick and wasted roster space.

[Nomad]

Go broncos!

[Simple Jaded]

"nearly four months to go before the season starts". :frusty:.......

[Cugel]

"Charlie Adams is a solid signing and, yes, we can expect some development from the young safeties on the squad."

Who the Hell is Charlie Adams? :confused:

You mean Mike Adams, the former Cleveland Browns safety?

That was a good pickup, I agree. Adding Drayton Florence and Tracy Porter along with Adams greatly strengthens the secondary.

As for the failure to get a run-stuffing DT, I have been as critical as anybody over that, but Fox clearly wanted a guy who could be an elite penetrating UT.

The lack of effort to re-sign Ty Warren indicates they think Wolfe can have an immediate impact and even start. I don't know how that could be, but Fox doesn't appear worried.

As for the offense, the key will be Demaryius Thomas staying healthy. He has top 10 WR skills. He just has to stay on the field.

[Chef Zambini]

see my sig, but...
I still would have prefered somthing with more emmediate impact with our second pick of the draft
and fail to understand the urgency or fixation with brockO.
Hope you're right JE,
and i hope we dont have to see " the future" in a real game this season.
Because my feeling is that both of you will look , um shall we say "silly" if brocko has to play in a real game this season.

[BroncoNut]

well, being a fan of the organization, I feel that I am entitled to be somewhat distrusting. particularly in light of what's been going on in recent years. I have hope, but trust????? Time will tell if that will be the case again

In the future Mo, I'd appreciate it if you would at least attempt to refrain from telling me how to think. tia :hi:

[silkamilkamonico]

well, being a fan of the organization, I feel that I am entitled to be somewhat distrusting. particularly in light of what's been going on in recent years. I have hope, but trust????? Time will tell if that will be the case again

In the future Mo, I'd appreciate it if you would at least attempt to refrain from telling me how to think. tia :hi:

I agree.

I am glad Elway is running the ship, but I think it's ok to say I want to see results before I trust. Ofcourse, last year is a very good year and I can certainly say I am beginning to trust as long as they build on that.

[BroncoNut]

I agree.

I am glad Elway is running the ship, but I think it's ok to say I want to see results before I trust. Ofcourse, last year is a very good year and I can certainly say I am beginning to trust as long as they build on that.

there are degrees of trust, and I have more than I did 3/4 seasons ago. I just hate it when Mo gets all uppity about how everyone should think and behave.

[Cugel]

see my sig, but...
I still would have prefered somthing with more emmediate impact with our second pick of the draft
and fail to understand the urgency or fixation with brockO.
Hope you're right JE,
and i hope we dont have to see " the future" in a real game this season.
Because my feeling is that both of you will look , um shall we say "silly" if brocko has to play in a real game this season.

Osweiler is very raw and not remotely ready to start. If Manning has to miss any games this year it's Caleb Haney not Osweiler who will start unless he just wildly exceeds any reasonable expectations.

[vandammage13]

Still not sold on Elway the VP...If he really thinks Osweiller is our QB of the Future, I think he's sadly mistaken.

I like the short-term prospects of this team if and only if Manning stays healthy, but beyond that, I don't see a future with Osweiler...

I do think developing a young guy for 3 years behind Manning is the best move, I just don't think Osweiller should be that guy.

[OrangeHoof]

Hasn't Elway had a few business ventures fail on him over the years? Certainly, he's had some successes but I don't think he has a "Midas Touch", Plus, the NFL is littered with successful businessmen who sucked at owning/running an NFL franchise.

So, I don't take comfort in the "plan is in place, just trust us" talk, particularly when citing the KC Royals as an example. I'm more than willing to give the Broncos their due when they are successful but the success isn't here yet.

Signing Peyton Manning is a huge risk/reward move. It may get us to a Super Bowl or set us back five years. I like the boldness and if they are confident Manning can take a hit, I presume they've had doctors check him out. The question, in my mind, is whether Manning has enough other players in place to make us a champion. My gut reaction says "no" but I'm willing to be proven wrong and willing to take 2-3 years to see what develops.

[Cugel]

I agree.

I am glad Elway is running the ship, but I think it's ok to say I want to see results before I trust. Ofcourse, last year is a very good year and I can certainly say I am beginning to trust as long as they build on that.

The good you can take away from last year is as follows:

#1 -- Fox proved flexible enough to start Orton and when that didn't work out, adapt his offensive scheme to get the most out of Tebow. He will need to do that this year with Peyton Manning, which will be a lot easier task.

#2 -- Elway has proven his worth in signing Peyton Manning, Mike Adams, Drayton Florence, Terry Porter, Joel Dreessen and Jacob Tammie. All will contribute.

This is easily the best FA class in Broncos history and immediately makes the Broncos the team to beat in the AFC West, and a SB contender if all works out as they hope.

The failure to address DT in FA and letting their top 4 DTs from last year go was mitigated by drafting Wolfe with the #1 overall pick. They still could use a NT but could possibly get one over the summer if someone they like is released. They re-signed Vickerson, who seems like a very ordinary scrub to me, but he's likely to start game 1.

They signed Joe Mays at MLB. I'm not particularly impressed with Mays as the long-term answer, but they like he so we'll see.

If D. Thomas stays healthy they should have a lot of weapons on offense. This is easily the most talented offensive team since the Elway era.

Short-comings of the Elway regime:

Despite all the successes there have been some conspicuous failures in Elway's tenure.

#1 -- draft mistakes. While nothing compares with McMoron's drafts or even some of Shanahan's blunders, Elway has had some bloopers in the draft already.

Rahim Moore 2nd round FS -- They hired Mike Adams for $4 million a season at FS to replace him after starting Moore his rookie year. Moore appeared to regress as the season went along and while they still have hopes for the future he's lost confidence and the confidence of his coaches. As of now that's a busted pick.

Nate Irving 3rd round MLB -- Irving never impressed and now they've signed Joe Mays to take his place. Mays is no Al Wilson but he is solid. Irving looks lost and needs to improve every aspect of his game to play a significant role even as a backup.

Brock Osweiler QB -- If Osweiler ever emerges as a good starting QB, then this pick is great. But, he won't play much for the next 3 years if Manning stays healthy and by the time he's ready to start he could be in the last year of his contract. He's very raw and needs a lot of work to develop before he'd be ready if he ever is.

It's likely they should have waited a year to draft a QB so that he doesn't sit on the bench earning millions of dollars for several years and they don't spend a 2nd round pick until they need to.

[Day1BroncoFan]

I have zero trust and low expectations.

I have high apple pie in the sky hopes.

[BroncoNut]

Still not sold on Elway the VP...If he really thinks Osweiller is our QB of the Future, I think he's sadly mistaken.

I like the short-term prospects of this team if and only if Manning stays healthy, but beyond that, I don't see a future with Osweiler...

I do think developing a young guy for 3 years behind Manning is the best move, I just don't think Osweiller should be that guy.
that's all well and good, but what do you think of Osweiler as our future qb?

[Simple Jaded]

Hasn't Elway had a few business ventures fail on him over the years? Certainly, he's had some successes but I don't think he has a "Midas Touch", Plus, the NFL is littered with successful businessmen who sucked at owning/running an NFL franchise.

So, I don't take comfort in the "plan is in place, just trust us" talk, particularly when citing the KC Royals as an example. I'm more than willing to give the Broncos their due when they are successful but the success isn't here yet.

Signing Peyton Manning is a huge risk/reward move. It may get us to a Super Bowl or set us back five years. I like the boldness and if they are confident Manning can take a hit, I presume they've had doctors check him out. The question, in my mind, is whether Manning has enough other players in place to make us a champion. My gut reaction says "no" but I'm willing to be proven wrong and willing to take 2-3 years to see what develops.

How could signing Manning possibly set the team back for 5 years? The idea is to improve and that's exactly what they did. This is no more risky than any other move, some might even argue that signing a future HoFer is as safe as it gets.

Btw, I didn't trust Elway any more than the next guy at first, but the mere fact that he never bought into the hype and made one of the most inexplicably unpopular moves in Bronocs history tells me all I need to know about his resolve to build a SB winner.......

[OrangeHoof]

How could signing Manning possibly set the team back for 5 years?

Really?? You don't understand that we invested almost $100 million on a QB past 35 years of age and re-tooled all our priorities to make a run at the Super Bowl when we might have taken a measured approach to build a sustaining dynasty? And then what if Manning suffers a serious injury and we're left with Hanie or a development squad QB?

If you shoot your wad to win it all now and then don't it's called failure and a rebuilding process takes 4-5 years.

[Simple Jaded]

Really?? You don't understand that we invested almost $100 million on a QB past 35 years of age and re-tooled all our priorities to make a run at the Super Bowl when we might have taken a measured approach to build a sustaining dynasty? And then what if Manning suffers a serious injury and we're left with Hanie or a development squad QB?

If you shoot your wad to win it all now and then don't it's called failure and a rebuilding process takes 4-5 years.

"a measured approach to build a sustaining dynasty" without a QB like Peyton Manning? Really??

Two points, A; Mannings contract was apparently structured to protect the Broncos. And, B; They haven't had a QB like Manning since 1998. If Manning suffers a serious injury exactly how would that set the team back 5 years? They didn't have their QB before any more than they do with Hanie or Osweiler.

Apparently I'm not trying hard enough to understand your point, how in the world could signing such an accomplished QB possibly set the team back? There's absolutely no logic to that whatsoever, if they lose Manning they're losing something they haven't had in over a decade.

It's not like they put off the "measured approach" until Manning is gone. They signed a HoF QB and drafted what they consider to be the 21-year-old future at the position.......all in one offseason, I'd say that's a fairly measured approach to building a sustaining dynasty.......

[OrangeHoof]

Apparently I'm not trying hard enough to understand your point, how in the world could signing such an accomplished QB possibly set the team back? There's absolutely no logic to that whatsoever, if they lose Manning they're losing something they haven't had in over a decade.

It's not like they put off the "measured approach" until Manning is gone. They signed a HoF QB and drafted what they consider to be the 21-year-old future at the position.......all in one offseason, I'd say that's a fairly measured approach to building a sustaining dynasty.......

It isn't signing Manning that sets the team back. It's the "win now" attitude that comes with it. The Vikings and Jets were not like the Broncos when they acquired Brett Favre. The Vikings and Jets were both loaded on both sides of the ball but did not have a great QB. The Broncos aren't loaded on either side of the ball but Manning is now going to be expected to take them to the Super Bowl in the next four years.

You'll find more money spent on players like Tracy Porter (an older veteran with no upside) and less on developing the sort of guys who will be good in a few years. Regardless, in four years, the Broncos will probably need to tear it all down and start over (unless Jack Elway's friend actually has starting QB talent).

BTW, the Vikings and Jets never reached the Super Bowl even though their clubs had more talent than the Broncos have now.

[Day1BroncoFan]

One thing the Broncos do better is play as a team.

[Ravage!!!]

Osweiler is very raw and not remotely ready to start. If Manning has to miss any games this year it's Caleb Haney not Osweiler who will start unless he just wildly exceeds any reasonable expectations.

I think this his highly exaggerated. not "remotely" ready, really??? HOw is it he had a 2nd round grading if he wasn't "remotely" ready??? Thats quite an Over The Top statement.

I think if Manning goes down early, we see Hanie for a game or so, and then Os comes in. I don't think Os is NEARLY as far away as you two are making it sound out to be, and Elway isn't going to look "silly" if Os has to start a game

[Ravage!!!]

It isn't signing Manning that sets the team back. It's the "win now" attitude that comes with it. The Vikings and Jets were not like the Broncos when they acquired Brett Favre. The Vikings and Jets were both loaded on both sides of the ball but did not have a great QB. The Broncos aren't loaded on either side of the ball but Manning is now going to be expected to take them to the Super Bowl in the next four years.

You'll find more money spent on players like Tracy Porter (an older veteran with no upside) and less on developing the sort of guys who will be good in a few years. Regardless, in four years, the Broncos will probably need to tear it all down and start over (unless Jack Elway's friend actually has starting QB talent).

BTW, the Vikings and Jets never reached the Super Bowl even though their clubs had more talent than the Broncos have now.

The NFL is NOT set up for a "build for later" attitude. ITs win now, ALWAYS. The Vikings are a great example. You can had a ton of talent, but if you don't have a great QB... you don't go anywhere. As a result, they went to the NFC Championship game. Once Brett was gone, that entire team fell apart. Now they are trying their best to find "that guy" again. Wasted years when you odn't have a good QB.

The NE Patriots, don't have much talent on their team except at QB. One year after drafting 2 TEs, they are in the Super Bowl. The QB is the absolute MUST have to be a Super Bowl contender. We are MUCH better off with Manning and our YOUNG WRs than any team trying to "build first then magically find the QB."

Winning isn't setting a team back.

[Ravage!!!]

Really?? You don't understand that we invested almost $100 million on a QB past 35 years of age and re-tooled all our priorities to make a run at the Super Bowl when we might have taken a measured approach to build a sustaining dynasty? And then what if Manning suffers a serious injury and we're left with Hanie or a development squad QB?

If you shoot your wad to win it all now and then don't it's called failure and a rebuilding process takes 4-5 years.

So instead of shooting for the Super Bowl now, you want to take 4-5 years to try and build.... like the Vikings did...then try to find a QB. Instead, we've FOUND the QB, and are already LEAPS AND BOUNDS ahead of the approach of trying to "rebuild" and look for the QB that MIGHT fill the role. How is winning now a set-back? The Viking had all this talent, and had ONE shot. Now they are trying to recoup. They took the approach you are talking about, how has it worked for them? Sustained success?

[OrangeHoof]

If we "found" the QB, why did the Colts let him go? Do they not want to win? If EVERY team is WIN NOW, why do teams let good players go?

If you answered "salary cap", you're learning something about champion-building. You try to find several key young players at roughly the same age and, in 3-4 years, have a nucleus of star players you fit under a salary cap to make a run for the championship. When you're almost there, you might add a free agent or two who fill a key hole and put you over the top.

The Broncos were in Year One of the rebuilding job needed to recover from the McDaniels Era. The talent level was terrible. They lucked out to win the division at 8-8. They aren't that good. Adding Manning at age 36 means you are expecting to be in Year Four of the rebuilding job when, frankly, the remaining talent is not there. He's not going to take a 4-12 team (which we were two years ago and pretty much still are without last year's gimmick offense) and make them champions.

But when you have a Manning at the end of his career, you're going to dump future draft choices for more veterans because you don't have the time to have some draft pick develop because the age and salary of your QB demands that you win now.

It's a risk. It may be better than staying the course and it may turn out great. But there's a better than 50% chance the Broncos do not return to the Super Bowl with Manning at QB and when that's done, the Broncos are going to need to start over.

I'm not saying the risk isn't worth taking but I am saying the best organizations don't build this way. Look at the Patriots. Look at the Steelers. They have a definite plan in place as to what they want to do over the course of several years. They look for the personnel that fit that plan and they develop that personnel with an eye to reaching a peak by a certain point and then trying to sustain that peak for as long as possible.

It's borderline childish to think you can just plug in a quarterback, regardless how good he is, and expect to win championships. You have to have an organization with a plan to build a group to win a championship. It wasn't Elway who finally won a Super Bowl, it was Elway surrounded by Davis, Sharpe, Smith, McCaffrey, Zimmerman, Nalen, Schlereth, etc.

Can you look at McGahee, Moreno, Clady, Beadles, Thomas, Decker, etc. and see the same quality as the late 90s Broncos?

[vandammage13]

If we "found" the QB, why did the Colts let him go? Do they not want to win? If EVERY team is WIN NOW, why do teams let good players go?

If you answered "salary cap", you're learning something about champion-building. You try to find several key young players at roughly the same age and, in 3-4 years, have a nucleus of star players you fit under a salary cap to make a run for the championship. When you're almost there, you might add a free agent or two who fill a key hole and put you over the top.

The Broncos were in Year One of the rebuilding job needed to recover from the McDaniels Era. The talent level was terrible. They lucked out to win the division at 8-8. They aren't that good. Adding Manning at age 36 means you are expecting to be in Year Four of the rebuilding job when, frankly, the remaining talent is not there. He's not going to take a 4-12 team (which we were two years ago and pretty much still are without last year's gimmick offense) and make them champions.

But when you have a Manning at the end of his career, you're going to dump future draft choices for more veterans because you don't have the time to have some draft pick develop because the age and salary of your QB demands that you win now.

It's a risk. It may be better than staying the course and it may turn out great. But there's a better than 50% chance the Broncos do not return to the Super Bowl with Manning at QB and when that's done, the Broncos are going to need to start over.

I'm not saying the risk isn't worth taking but I am saying the best organizations don't build this way. Look at the Patriots. Look at the Steelers. They have a definite plan in place as to what they want to do over the course of several years. They look for the personnel that fit that plan and they develop that personnel with an eye to reaching a peak by a certain point and that trying to sustain that peak for as long as possible.

It's borderline childish to think you can just plug in a quarterback, regardless how good he is, and expect to win championships. You have to have an organization with a plan to build a group to win a championship. It wasn't Elway who finally won a Super Bowl, it was Elway surrounded by Davis, Sharpe, Smith, McCaffrey, Zimmerman, Nalen, Schlereth, etc.

Can you look at McGahee, Moreno, Clady, Beadles, Thomas, Decker, etc. and see the same quality as the late 90s Broncos?

^^^This....

I honestly won't be surprised if we fail to make the playoffs this year.

[vandammage13]

Back to the OP thought of trusting the plan that's in place...

I think the most troubling thing to me was what Elway said during the Peyton Manning introductory press conference after we signed him.

Elway stated "There is no Plan B...We're going with Plan A"

Did Elway not just see what happened to the last team Peyton was on when they had no Plan B?...

Just seems pretty foolish to me to bank the entire team that we all love on a guy who is coming off multiple neck surgeries with no capable Plan B in place.

The guy on the Colts who held the same position Elway does lost his job over not having a Plan B...Those who don't learn from history are bound to repeat it.

[Ravage!!!]

If we "found" the QB, why did the Colts let him go? Do they not want to win? If EVERY team is WIN NOW, why do teams let good players go?
Question marks. I think the situation is COMPLETELY different with a guy like Luck, and a guy like Tebow at your helm.


The Broncos were in Year One of the rebuilding job needed to recover from the McDaniels Era. The talent level was terrible. They lucked out to win the division at 8-8. They aren't that good. Adding Manning at age 36 means you are expecting to be in Year Four of the rebuilding job when, frankly, the remaining talent is not there. He's not going to take a 4-12 team (which we were two years ago and pretty much still are without last year's gimmick offense) and make them champions.
So you don't think that a team with Manning, and the rest of this team, can build enough to be SB contenders in FOUR years??? really? How long do you think it takes??? Most rookie QBs are looked upon as "failures' if they aren't contending for the Super Bowl in 4 years. We were in "year one" after McD....yet still only had Tebow to lead. How many years does that hold us back? Aren't we still adding other players and still drafting even though we ADDED Manning??? :confused: Did we let everyone else go?

Tebow is NOT the guy. That means that not only did we NOT have the guy on the roster, but we don't know if/when we'll FIND that guy. Which is why when McD let Cutler go, he ABSOLUTELy set this team back 10 years. But guys like Manning NEVER EVER EVER hit the FA market. Its an extraordinary circumstance that you can't compare to any other.


But when you have a Manning at the end of his career, you're going to dump future draft choices for more veterans because you don't have the time to have some draft pick develop because the age and salary of your QB demands that you win now.
So again, you want to try and win later...with a hope...than to actually make a solid run NOW while you have the QB in place. Winning doesn't set your team back, and I haven't seen us throw out draft picks for veteran players.


It's a risk. It may be better than staying the course and it may turn out great. But there's a better than 50% chance the Broncos do not return to the Super Bowl with Manning at QB and when that's done, the Broncos are going to need to start over.

YEs, but as you said :lol: IF we were just in "year one" of the "rebuilding process"...then it seems that we didn't really lose much by making a run for it now..right?


I'm not saying the risk isn't worth taking but I am saying the best organizations don't build this way. Look at the Patriots. Look at the Steelers. They have a definite plan in place as to what they want to do over the course of several years. They look for the personnel that fit that plan and they develop that personnel with an eye to reaching a peak by a certain point and then trying to sustain that peak for as long as possible.

wait. So the STeelers and the Patriots are doing it the right way? How so? The Patriots are KNOWN fo rthrowing away draft choices, and haven't drafted worth a SHIT... .and they didn't win a Super Bowl UNTIL they got Brady. The Steelers. They supposedly are "building it right"....yet.... they are now considered old, and they didn't win a Super Bowl since the 70's before Roth. DO you see the connection? How did they do it "better?" They got their QB and since then, started winning. The St Louis Rams were losing until they got a QB off the bench in the name of Warner.

Its blind to say that the QB isn't the KEY to success, and its not just "any" QB we are talking about. It's one of the best to ever play.

As far as comparing this team to the 90s team. I don't see the Giants NOR the Patriots as having as much talent as the 90's team, yet they still went to the Super Bowl.

[OrangeHoof]

Rav, you don't seem to be able to see past the quarterback position in this debate. I'm looking at the entire team and what I'm saying is that adding Manning to a 4-12 team is not going to take you to a Super Bowl. We added Von last year but who else?

I'm not trying to debate whether Manning is better than Tebow. I'm trying to debate whether building a team around a 36-year-old quarterback who didn't play at all last year and expecting championships when the talent around the QB position doesn't merit such optimism is a healthy or realistic viewpoint. I would argue it is not.

[Ravage!!!]

Rav, you don't seem to be able to see past the quarterback position in this debate. I'm looking at the entire team and what I'm saying is that adding Manning to a 4-12 team is not going to take you to a Super Bowl. We added Von last year but who else?

I'm not trying to debate whether Manning is better than Tebow. I'm trying to debate whether building a team around a 36-year-old quarterback who didn't play at all last year and expecting championships when the talent around the QB position doesn't merit such optimism is a healthy or realistic viewpoint. I would argue it is not.

I understand where you are coming from, OH. I"m saying that the QB is the absolute KEY to success. THat being said, this team isn't being led by Orton... and its not led by Tebow. Orton did NOTHING for this team, and just because it was 4-12 with him, doesn't mean its a 4 win team. This team is better than TEbow showed, because we were the epitome of a one dimensional team with him at the helm.

Do I think we go to the SUper Bowl this year? No, I don't. But to think its not reasonable to see within the next couple.. why not? ITs MUCH MUCh easier to build around a stud QB than to build around a guy as bad as Orton and Tebow were.

You think this team should acquire a ton of talent, and then look for a QB somewhere down the road in HOPES of finding one that can take the acquired talent somewhere. While what we've done, is get the great QB, and now just have to add the pieces to compliment that player.

The Talent AROUND the QB doesn't have to be as good when you have a great one..... like the Patriots have shown. I don't think the talent on this team is as bad as you believe it is.

[Cugel]

Really?? You don't understand that we invested almost $100 million on a QB past 35 years of age and re-tooled all our priorities to make a run at the Super Bowl when we might have taken a measured approach to build a sustaining dynasty? And then what if Manning suffers a serious injury and we're left with Hanie or a development squad QB?

If you shoot your wad to win it all now and then don't it's called failure and a rebuilding process takes 4-5 years.

As opposed to what exactly? Trading three #1 picks for a chance to draft the QB of the future in the top 2 picks? Assuming that you can even make that trade.

And then hoping that RGIII in 3 or 4 years becomes 1/2 the QB that Manning is right now?

You need an elite QB to win the SB. Manning is an elite QB without the slightest doubt. He gives the Broncos a chance to win the SB over the next 3 seasons or so.

That's at least three more chances than they would have had with Tebow. And probably three more than they will get with Osweiler or some other young QB.

Whether you like it or not, Manning is probably the only chance the Broncos will have of winning a SB in the 2010's. That's just because it's damn HARD to find an elite QB, no matter how you approach it.

Only the most die-hard reactionary unrepentant Tebowniacs thinks the Manning signing is anything but the greatest thing to happen to the Broncos since Elway retired!

[Cugel]

Quote Originally Posted by OrangeHoof View Post
If we "found" the QB, why did the Colts let him go? Do they not want to win? If EVERY team is WIN NOW, why do teams let good players go?

There's so much wrong with this post that it's hard to know where to begin. :noidea:

But, here's a good place. The Colts drafted Andrew Luck #1 overall. His contract will be slightly more than Cam Newton got last year:


7/29/2011: Signed a four-year, $22.025 million contract. The deal is fully guaranteed, including a $14,518,544 signing bonus.


So, they will be paying Luck something like $22 million guaranteed, including close to $16 million for his first season (including the signing bonus). They would be paying Manning $18 million just like the Broncos are.

Are they going to sit Luck on the bench for the next 3 years and pay him $22 million to hold a clip-board?

Sure as HELL not when their entire team stinks BAD. They aren't going anywhere this season with Manning or without him, they might as well get Luck in there and let him get some experience, then get a good draft pick next season and get some more talent around him. It's going to be a 2-3 year rebuilding process, which is about how long it's going to take Luck to learn to play QB.

So, by the time the team is ready to compete for a championship, then Luck should have the NFL experience to lead them to a SB. If everything works out.


The Broncos were in Year One of the rebuilding job needed to recover from the McDaniels Era. The talent level was terrible. They lucked out to win the division at 8-8. They aren't that good. Adding Manning at age 36 means you are expecting to be in Year Four of the rebuilding job when, frankly, the remaining talent is not there. He's not going to take a 4-12 team (which we were two years ago and pretty much still are without last year's gimmick offense) and make them champions.

The team has improved steadily over what it was in the McDaniels era. The defense is a LOT stronger and will only get better as Dumervil and Miller get used to it. Adding Wolfe should help shore up their biggest weakness at DT. They've added Tracy Porter, Drayton Florence and Mike Adams, all good cover guys to strengthen a secondary that was the biggest weakness a year ago.

The OL will have another year playing together and will have a QB in Peyton Manning who helps them out by getting rid of the ball quickly. They added two decent TEs who can catch the ball and they will feature a lot more 2 TE formations. D. Thomas is a top 5 WR talent, if he can stay healthy he would be another Brandon Marshall, except without the domestic violence.

This is a GOOD team that won a playoff game last year. Sure they were lucky to get into the playoffs at 8-8 but to pretend this is the same group of sad-sacks as in 2010 is just insane!

This is a GOOD team, justifiably favored to win their division, and a real SB contender, THIS season. Are they the absolute AFC favorites over the Ravens, Steelers and Patriots? No, but they certainly COULD win it all.

And that's a LOT more than anybody could say last season!


But when you have a Manning at the end of his career, you're going to dump future draft choices for more veterans because you don't have the time to have some draft pick develop because the age and salary of your QB demands that you win now.

What nonsense is this? What future draft picks did they "dump" to win now? Didn't happen. :rolleyes:


I'm not saying the risk isn't worth taking but I am saying the best organizations don't build this way.

The reason other teams don't do this is that sure-fire, first-ballot Hall of Fame QBs just aren't available, pretty much EVER. There are about 20 teams that would trade places with the Broncos right now! But Manning didn't want to play for them. (Think how badly Miami and the Titans wanted Manning and what efforts they went through to sign him). The Seahawks flew their entire staff into Denver even without an appointment just on the off-chance Manning would meet with them (he wouldn't). The Chiefs inquired but were told he had no interest in KC. Despite making the NFC Championship game last year with Alex Smith, Jim Harbaugh flew across the country to attend a private Manning workout and the 49ers tried to sign Manning. Etc., etc.

[claymore]

This franchises nose dive stopped when Elway got here. We started moving in the right direction the second we got Manning and dumped Tebow.

[slim]

The general manager of my favorite baseball team, the Kansas City Royals, likes to tell the fans to "trust the process." Dayton Moore means that there is a plan in place, a plan that they've formulated over time, which may take time. And he's urging fans to trust that plan.

A baseball "plan" takes a lot longer than a football "plan," but if you have the right people in place - people you can trust as a fan - you trust the process. (Full disclosure: I'm not entirely sure I'm trusting the process in Kansas City)

Denver Broncos fans should trust the process. John Elway is a shrewd businessman. He has a plan and he's working it.

http://www.broncosforums.com/forums/entry.php/36-The-plan-is-in-place-trust-it

Bill Geivett agrees with you.

[dogfish]

You'll find more money spent on players like Tracy Porter (an older veteran with no upside) and less on developing the sort of guys who will be good in a few years. Regardless, in four years, the Broncos will probably need to tear it all down and start over (unless Jack Elway's friend actually has starting QB talent).

BTW, the Vikings and Jets never reached the Super Bowl even though their clubs had more talent than the Broncos have now.

tracy porter is 25 years old-- not an "older vet" by any definition of the word. . . if he re-signs here, he could be a solid starter for the next five or six years. . .


also, peyton manning is about five times as good as brett favre. . .

i'm sorry, i just don't see where you're coming from with talk about setting us back. . . you set yourself back when you trade high draft picks for older players-- we gave NO draft picks for manning. . . and did we go after reggie wayne, jeff saturday and dallas clark? nope. . . we signed two TEs who are just starting to enter their prime, and two WRs coming off their rookie deals. . . tracy porter is in his prime, joe mays is in his prime, wes woodyard is in his prime. . . the only old guys we signed are adams and florence-- we have young guys behind both of them, but it's clear the FO wanted to repair our garbage secondary with some guys who are ready now. . . florence and porter buy us a year or two to sort out all the young DBs, and get guys besides QC up to speed. . .

we're going to re-sign clady-- all five of our starting OLs are well under 30. . . aside from token old guy stokley, our entire wide receiver and tight end group is under probably 27. . . all of our backs are young besides mcgahee. . . this team has a ton of youth-- we could still use more at safety and DT (and better quality at RB and OT), but you can't field an entire 53-man roster of kids. . . whether you like osweiler or not, we have youth at every single position on offense-- and we've been adding defensive pieces as quickly as possible. . .

the only way i can possibly see any setback is if you think bowlen was going to spend manning's salary on a bunch of young talent. . . and i don't. . . in any case, his contract is only guaranteed for this year if he's not healthy. . .

if he is healthy, we added the best player in the league-- i don't really see any way that can be viewed as a negative. . .

[dogfish]

Can you look at McGahee, Moreno, Clady, Beadles, Thomas, Decker, etc. and see the same quality as the late 90s Broncos?

OH, i notice you kinda forgot to add champ bailey, elvis dumervil and von miller to your list. . . :D

but to answer your question, no-- this team can't match the overall talent level our super bowl teams had on offense, and we don't have enough time, draft picks or money to get there. . . that's what manning is for-- to maximize the developing young talent we do have on offense. . . you don't need three or four HOFers to win when the QB is one-- ask tom brady. . .

with a quality coaching staff, this team can be better on defense than our super bowl defenses were. . . maybe not this year, but by next year, i think absolutely. . . with a year or two to really polish his game, von miller is going to be a terror-- probably one of the top two or three defensive players in the game. . . he'll be the best defensive player peyton has ever had on the other side of the ball-- and even if we don't have the personnel right now to dominate, i have little fear that a fox and del taco defense will ever be as soft as indy's defense was just about every year. . .

we don't need to be better or more talented than denver's super bowl teams. . . we simply need to be better than the indy teams that lost conference championship games, or the one that lost the super bowl. . . given that manning is surrounded by youth on offense, he isn't preventing the development of any young player on that side of the ball other than the quarterback. . .

we've started re-vamping the LB corps, and added a lot of youth to the secondary in the past two drafts. . . and i'm afraid D-tackle may always be a bit of a re-tread position here, but we even added a young body there as well. . . it's not like going for it with manning has changed the long-term plan of building through the draft. . . hell, we even spent a valuable pick on a QB of the future that we don't expect to play for three or four years. . . if that doesn't reassure you that we aren't mortgaging the future, i don't know what will. . .

if we were truly all-in to win now, that pick should have been spent on another lineman or running back-- not a developmental guy who does zero to help win now. . .

[OrangeHoof]

You think this team should acquire a ton of talent, and then look for a QB somewhere down the road in HOPES of finding one that can take the acquired talent somewhere. While what we've done, is get the great QB, and now just have to add the pieces to compliment that player.

Optimally, yes, we should build the talent (including the QB) all at the same time for each to reach their peak - such as the Colts did or the way the Cowboys did in the early 90s. I understand that Peyton Mannings don't appear every off-season and you have to get them as you can. We will just need to adapt to it.


The Talent AROUND the QB doesn't have to be as good when you have a great one..... like the Patriots have shown. I don't think the talent on this team is as bad as you believe it is.

Besides adding Von Miller, what did the Broncos do last season regarding personnel to improve the 4-12 group of 2010? Who came to the Broncos last season to make them a far better team other than Von? Nobody I can think of. That's why I think adding Manning and a few free agents aren't going to make that huge a difference. Give it a year to gel and see where the upgrades need to be made, and I can see them making the playoffs in 2013 but that's only if things go right and Manning stays healthy.

[OrangeHoof]

You need an elite QB to win the SB.

So, Trent Dilfer was an elite QB? Brad Johnson was an elite QB?



Only the most die-hard reactionary unrepentant Tebowniacs thinks the Manning signing is anything but the greatest thing to happen to the Broncos since Elway retired!

Not me. I think the greatest thing to happen to the Broncos was firing McDaniels who traded the guy who OUGHT to be leading the Broncos to championships right now in his prime if McDaniels hadn't dismantled a very prolific offense when what was needed was to fix the defense. We had our young elite QB to build around then. Now, we've had to reach for an elite but past-his-prime quarterback who may fall apart before the rest of the pieces come together.

[Cugel]

So, Trent Dilfer was an elite QB? Brad Johnson was an elite QB?

Sweet Jumping Jesus, how many times do I have to post this in response to the same damn dumb arguments? :rolleyes:

The 2000 Ravens and the 2002 Bucs had respectively the #1 and the #3 ALL-TIME scoring defenses since the 1985-86 Bears!

Not a "good" defense or even a "great" defense, not the best defense of the year or even the last 5 years, but the flat out best defenses of the modern NFL era (at least since they changed the passing rules).

Sure, you can win with Trent Dilfer or Brad Johnson IF you have one of the best 3 defensive teams of the last 25 years stacked with All-Pro players like Sam Adams and Tony Siragusa and Chris McAllister and Ray Lewis or Dexter Jackson, Simeon Rice, Warren Sapp & John Lynch.

Otherwise, no! You need an elite QB. PERIOD!

And notice that neither the Ravens or Bucs has been back to the SB since! Why? It's a lot easier to repeat by getting one elite QB and paying him top $ and keeping him on your team for 10-15 years than to keep a core group of 5 or 6 defenders happy when every one of them can be assured of a $40+ million FA contract if they hit the market and they ALL need to have near career years to replicate that kind of defensive effort.

The Ravens have had good defenses since 2000, but they've never come close to the kind of smothering, crushing defense they had in in their SB year where they gave up about 12 points a game all season long.

The Broncos have never come close to having that kind of defense since the old Orange Crush of the 70's and they probably never will, now that the QB and passing rules keep getting bent to favor the offense.

As Alfred Williams said on 104.3 the Fan the other day in reference to the Ravens 2000 defense, "it's a different era now." I don't think any team is going to win a SB with smothering defense and a pedestrian QB and mediocre offense any time soon.

BTW: You won't get any argument from me that FIRING McMoron was a great day in Broncos history! The day that Denver was "de-wormed."

[Cugel]

Back to the OP thought of trusting the plan that's in place...

I think the most troubling thing to me was what Elway said during the Peyton Manning introductory press conference after we signed him.

Elway stated "There is no Plan B...We're going with Plan A"

Did Elway not just see what happened to the last team Peyton was on when they had no Plan B?...

Just seems pretty foolish to me to bank the entire team that we all love on a guy who is coming off multiple neck surgeries with no capable Plan B in place.

The guy on the Colts who held the same position Elway does lost his job over not having a Plan B...Those who don't learn from history are bound to repeat it.

Oh, I think we can be pretty sure that he did have a plan "B". His name is Brock Osweiler.

Whether that works or not is another question, but Elway certainly has one.

[Cugel]

Besides adding Von Miller, what did the Broncos do last season regarding personnel to improve the 4-12 group of 2010? Who came to the Broncos last season to make them a far better team other than Von? Nobody I can think of. That's why I think adding Manning and a few free agents aren't going to make that huge a difference. Give it a year to gel and see where the upgrades need to be made, and I can see them making the playoffs in 2013 but that's only if things go right and Manning stays healthy.

The Broncos added Miller, Franklin and Quinton Carter, all of whom became starters and who should all be better in their 2nd years.

This year they added Wolfe and Hillman in the draft, and Mike Adams, Drayton Florence and Terry Porter to the secondary, as well as TEs Tammie and Dreesman and WR Caldwell.

All these additions make the team better. If Irving and Rahim Moore ever progress, and D. Thomas can ever stay healthy, the impact would be even greater.

But, this team has a core of good players at almost every position now (other than center where J.D. Walton has been a disappointment and they failed to land a veteran C).

[Cugel]

Can you look at McGahee, Moreno, Clady, Beadles, Thomas, Decker, etc. and see the same quality as the late 90s Broncos?

Let's skip that nonsense shall we? :rolleyes:

There isn't ONE TEAM IN THE NFL that has the talent of those Broncos teams with FOUR Hall of Fame caliber players on offense: T.D., Elway, Zimmerman and Sharpe.

If that's what it took to win the SB nobody would ever win it.

[MOtorboat]

It blows my mind that any Denver fan would actually think this is a bad thing.

Every person I've talked to who is a fan of another team thinks this is an amazing move for Denver. Haven't met one person who has said otherwise.

The fans I know of the Chiefs are freaking out about having to play him twice a year with Matt Cassell under center.

The best sports talk guy I've ever heard, Soren Petro, said, "The Chiefs had a great chance of competing for the division until Peyton Manning showed up in Denver. That's how important it is to have an elite quarterback."

Blows my mind...

[Simple Jaded]

You can win a SB with Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson, but why would you even try? Both QB's are better than anything the Broncos have had recently, btw.......

[Simple Jaded]

It isn't signing Manning that sets the team back. It's the "win now" attitude that comes with it. The Vikings and Jets were not like the Broncos when they acquired Brett Favre. The Vikings and Jets were both loaded on both sides of the ball but did not have a great QB. The Broncos aren't loaded on either side of the ball but Manning is now going to be expected to take them to the Super Bowl in the next four years.

You'll find more money spent on players like Tracy Porter (an older veteran with no upside) and less on developing the sort of guys who will be good in a few years. Regardless, in four years, the Broncos will probably need to tear it all down and start over (unless Jack Elway's friend actually has starting QB talent).

BTW, the Vikings and Jets never reached the Super Bowl even though their clubs had more talent than the Broncos have now.
You weren't expecting the Broncos to make a run in the next 4 years? So you like the Rockies rebuilding plan? Say no more.

Also, if it takes more than 4 years I believe that is where Osweiler comes into the picture.

And who would you have the Broncos spend their money on if not Porter? You said yourself they don't have any talent, if that's true who exactly is Porter stealing money from? Porter signed a one year deal, if it doesn't work they'll have that money to spend on some random unspecified player of your choosing next year. Same goes for Manning, actually.

Btw, the Vikings are poor example in your case, they're the case study in how not to build a team. They built a contender and then tried to find a QB, they put cart before the horse. Whether we agree or not the Broncos believe they have found their answers at the QB position and can now focus on the task at hand, which may or may not include building a sustaining dynasty that can expect to win a SB in the next 4 years.......

[iLands]

I'm absolutely thrilled.

The only leeriness I felt on the Manning acquisition was put to rest with pick fifty-seven.

We have a group of great, young receivers.

We have put together an impressive TE unit.

The secondary Brady, Stafford, and Rawdgas munched on? Revamped. Our nickel and dime packages will be fantastic.

We have an elite pass-rushing unit and it has only gotten better with a true penetrating UT.

We brought in strong competition for the center position.

With the Hillman choice, I'm feeling pretty up on our back stable. If Moreno can stay healthy, I look forward to him being great friends with Mr. Manning.

I do look for us to make the playoffs this year, though I don't expect a Super Bowl berth initially. That said, I wouldn't be surprised.

Peyton will have a good running game to fall back on and an actual defense behind him.

Our O has the potential to be a buzz saw next year. I would be surprised if we don't have one of the top ten passing defenses in the league.

Oh, how far we've come so fast.

I'm sure I am like most of you when I say that I am biting at the bit for this upcoming season.

[OrangeHoof]

Nobody can be right or wrong about what the Broncos will be in 2012 while it is May or June. We're all going to have to wait until September and October at the earliest. I understand everyone being excited - particularly the Tebow-haters. I probably should have more faith in Fox and Del Rio to put together a solid defense since their track records in this area are darned solid

But I've seen plenty of great quarterbacks who came to a new city with extremely high expectations and didn't get the brass ring because even a great quarterback needs blockers and needs weapons. Did Favre do it for the Jets or Vikings? Did McNabb do it for the Redskins? Did Montana do it for the Chiefs?

I hope Manning wins us three Super Bowls. To me, this isn't about Manning and it isn't about Tebow. This is about building a champion and while a top quarterback can be a key part, my argument is that you still need a lot of other parts and I just don't see that yet in Denver. Not even close.

[silkamilkamonico]

Favre certainly made the Vikings relevant. If it wasn't for an AP fumble at the worst possible time Minnesota probably would have won the SuperBowl. I am not sure why McNabb is used in that comparison, he had a great career but was never on Favre's/Montana's caliber, and he was a mere shell of what he used to be before he even got to Minnesota. Montana is one of the best, and i am moving a step further in an opinionated argument and saying "system" QB's.

I'm not sure why anyone is worried about Peyton Manning. This is the greatest QB of all time when all is said and done. Name one other QB in the history of the NFL that spent the majority of his NFL career running his own NFL offense. The dude is beyond special, the best of the best, and as rare as they come.

I would most definitely take my chance with him for 4 years, and not even give it a second thought.

Also, let's keep this in perspective. Someone can disagree with Manning all they want. They cannot however, create a legitimate argument on Denver having a better option already in the stable, even considering their future.

[Chef Zambini]

johnny unitas

[silkamilkamonico]

johnny unitas

No. Different era. Different schemes. Different athletes. Special player in his time. Certainly not Peyton Manning in terms of orchestrating an offense.

[Chef Zambini]

Nobody can be right or wrong about what the Broncos will be in 2012 while it is May or June. We're all going to have to wait until September and October at the earliest. I understand everyone being excited - particularly the Tebow-haters. I probably should have more faith in Fox and Del Rio to put together a solid defense since their track records in this area are darned solid

But I've seen plenty of great quarterbacks who came to a new city with extremely high expectations and didn't get the brass ring because even a great quarterback needs blockers and needs weapons. Did Favre do it for the Jets or Vikings? Did McNabb do it for the Redskins? Did Montana do it for the Chiefs?

I hope Manning wins us three Super Bowls. To me, this isn't about Manning and it isn't about Tebow. This is about building a champion and while a top quarterback can be a key part, my argument is that you still need a lot of other parts and I just don't see that yet in Denver. Not even close.I look at my broncos now, and what they were in the wake of the disaster of the JMCD era.
I am amazed at how far they have come.
I applaude JE and Co. for their steady improvements and advancements on the field and in the offices.
much of the improvement comes in the form of what they DISCARDED, as well as what they aquired.
Am I happy with all the decisions, no.
Do I have faith in the decision-makers, yes.
lets go broncos !

[Chef Zambini]

No. Different era. Different schemes. Different athletes. Special player in his time. Certainly not Peyton Manning in terms of orchestrating an offense.is there anybody willing to respond to this?
especially the last sentence?

[Chef Zambini]

No. Different era. Different schemes. Different athletes. Special player in his time. Certainly not Peyton Manning in terms of orchestrating an offense.is there anybody willing to respond to this?
especially the last sentence?

[silkamilkamonico]

is there anybody willing to respond to this?
especially the last sentence?


Take your shot.

I'm not old enough to see Johnny Unitas play, so I probably don't know. I will say he isn't Peyton Manning simply because he didn't play in an era where everything was completely elevated and playing against the absolute best. Yea I'll hold that against him.

[Simple Jaded]

.......my argument is that you still need a lot of other parts and I just don't see that yet in Denver. Not even close.

Is it your argument that Denver is no longer allowed to acquire the other parts they need now that they've acquired the most important part? I guess what I'm struggling with is what you have against trying to win now as well as what you obviously have against Manning/Osweileer being the QB's they build around

Btw, would you have a problem with signing Adrian Peterson if the Vikes cut him this year? He's relatively old for a RB and he's coming off a serious injury, but I'd be doing nekked cartwheels down my street if Denver singed him.......

[Chef Zambini]

Take your shot.

I'm not old enough to see Johnny Unitas play, so I probably don't know. I will say he isn't Peyton Manning simply because he didn't play in an era where everything was completely elevated and playing against the absolute best. Yea I'll hold that against him.with kindness in my heart, and a concession to your youth, I will tell you that UNITAS was exactly the kind of QB that PM has spent his entire football life trying to emmulate.
dont believe me, just ask him.
There are probably a dozen articles on the wb that you can research that make that very comparison, and most likely some actual quotes from PM himself.
UNITAS can only play against what he faced.
he designed offenses every week with out the quality of technology and film and scouts that current QBs like PM get to enjoy.
He designed plays and created offense DURING the actual game, when his teeth were knocked out and they packed mud from the field in his jaw to stop the bleeding.
in some respects you are absolutly right...
there is no comparison.
manning has a much easier path.
UNITAS is the godfather of play-action
and all the TE offense we see blooming in our current NFL sprouted from the UNITAS, "Im gonna make my TE a weapon offensive tree "!

[Ravage!!!]

But I've seen plenty of great quarterbacks who came to a new city with extremely high expectations and didn't get the brass ring because even a great quarterback needs blockers and needs weapons. Did Favre do it for the Jets or Vikings? Did McNabb do it for the Redskins? Did Montana do it for the Chiefs?
In two of your three examples, the QB took their respective team to the CONFERENCE Championship in their first year with the new team. Not to mention, Manning is better than any of your examples. MANY vet QBs move onto another team late in their career instead of retiring....but thats not the case with Manning. Counting McNabb is like counting Joe Namath once he moved onto the Ram.


I hope Manning wins us three Super Bowls. To me, this isn't about Manning and it isn't about Tebow. This is about building a champion and while a top quarterback can be a key part, my argument is that you still need a lot of other parts and I just don't see that yet in Denver. Not even close.

The Rams said the same thing, while the Ravens and Chargers continue to be Vegas favorites. What is the formula? Waiting around until you HOPE to spend a high round pick on a QB, build around him then....or try to build alllll this talent, keep that talent while searching for the QB?

I think you are talking in circles as to whats needed.

[Ravage!!!]

Manning is better than Unitas. We all respect Unitas, but Manning is better. Unitas may have been a better athlete than Manning, but Manning is a better quarterback. Manning is closer to Marino than he is Unitas.

[bcbronc]

Just want to say that Manning isn't better than Montana and Peyton isn't the best ever at the position. Heck he's not the best of his era (Brady), not the best on either franchise he's played for (Elway, Unitas) or even the best in his family (Eli). Still great obviously and I'm as happy as anyone he's a Bronco, but just felt the need to set the record straight.

[Ravage!!!]

Just want to say that Manning isn't better than Montana and Peyton isn't the best ever at the position. Heck he's not the best of his era (Brady), not the best on either franchise he's played for (Elway, Unitas) or even the best in his family (Eli). Still great obviously and I'm as happy as anyone he's a Bronco, but just felt the need to set the record straight.

So you judge by Super Bowl wins alone, then?

[slim]

LOL at the Eli is better than Peyton people.

You guys are funny.

[dogfish]

Just want to say that Manning isn't better than Montana and Peyton isn't the best ever at the position. Heck he's not the best of his era (Brady), not the best on either franchise he's played for (Elway, Unitas) or even the best in his family (Eli). Still great obviously and I'm as happy as anyone he's a Bronco, but just felt the need to set the record straight.

brady is better than peyton?

come on, homie. . . we're all embarrassed that you just said that, and would have been enen if manning was still in indy. . . new england went 11-and freaking-5 without brady-- you just saw how good an indy team that won the division every single year was without peyton. . . there's no question which of them benefits more from the system around him, as opposed to which guy WAS the system. . . also, brady has zero super bowl rings without the other team's signals and gameplan in his pocket. . . we can discuss whether brady or drew brees is better-- there's no question who the best QB of the era is, though, and it certainly isn't tommy boy. . .

[Ravage!!!]

brady is better than peyton?

come on, homie. . . we're all embarrassed that you just said that, and would have been enen if manning was still in indy. . . new england went 11-and freaking-5 without brady-- you just saw how good an indy team that won the division every single year was without peyton. . . there's no question which of them benefits more from the system around him, as opposed to which guy WAS the system. . . also, brady has zero super bowl rings without the other team's signals and gameplan in his pocket. . . we can discuss whether brady or drew brees is better-- there's no question who the best QB of the era is, though, and it certainly isn't tommy boy. . .

I have a much harder team accepting the fact that he said Eli is better. :shocked:

[Cugel]

Just want to say that Manning isn't better than Montana and Peyton isn't the best ever at the position. Heck he's not the best of his era (Brady), not the best on either franchise he's played for (Elway, Unitas) or even the best in his family (Eli). Still great obviously and I'm as happy as anyone he's a Bronco, but just felt the need to set the record straight.

All wrong. Aside from Eli being younger, is there ONE NFL team that would rather have Eli Manning than Peyton Manning?

Not even the Giants. :ranger:

There are perhaps teams that would rather have John Elway or Tom Brady than Petyon Manning. That's a futile argument over who was better and it's pointless to engage in it. You can never really win or really lose.

But, as for Unitas, I saw him play. Johnny Unitas was the prototype of the modern NFL QB in the way that Jimi Hendrix was the pioneer and prototype of the modern rock guitarist. Are there guitarists who built off of what Hendrix did? Sure. See Stevie Ray Vaughn.

But someone had to go first and be the pioneer, to create what was not even in the imagination yet. Johnny Unitas was instrumental in creating the modern NFL in much the same way that Babe Ruth helped create and define baseball. Other later players came along and hit more home runs, but nobody can ever replace him.

"I can see further because I stand on the shoulders of giants." --- Albert Einstein.

[NorCalBronco7]

Just want to say that Manning isn't better than Montana and Peyton isn't the best ever at the position. Heck he's not the best of his era (Brady), not the best on either franchise he's played for (Elway, Unitas) or even the best in his family (Eli). Still great obviously and I'm as happy as anyone he's a Bronco, but just felt the need to set the record straight.

Thats some funny shit.

[bcbronc]

brady is better than peyton?

come on, homie. . . we're all embarrassed that you just said that, and would have been enen if manning was still in indy. . . new england went 11-and freaking-5 without brady-- you just saw how good an indy team that won the division every single year was without peyton. . . there's no question which of them benefits more from the system around him, as opposed to which guy WAS the system. . . also, brady has zero super bowl rings without the other team's signals and gameplan in his pocket. . . we can discuss whether brady or drew brees is better-- there's no question who the best QB of the era is, though, and it certainly isn't tommy boy. . .

come on dog, you're kidding right? Manning had an organization that bent over backwards to surround him with top end talent. Since Manning was drafted Indy drafted the following offensive players in the first round: Edge, Wayne, Clark, Addai, Gonzales, Donald Brown. Since the year after Brady was drafted NE took Dan Graham, Ben Watson, Maroney, Mankins and Nate Solder.

Their entire careers, Manning has had HOF types at the skill positions while Brady has been throwing to chumps. Could anyone imagine how Peyton would have handled Indy giving him the WRs Brady had pre-Moss/Welker while the FO drafted DTs? Never would have happened.

As far as Indy's collapse is concerned, too much is made of it imo. First, Indy is/was getting OLD, eventually even with PM they were going to slide. Would they have drafted at #1 with PM? No. Would they have been better than Houston with Peyton, assuming they still had some of the other injuries they dealt with last season? Maybe, but no guarantee. That Indy team had passed its best before date and imo wouldn't have been as good even with PM. The fact they played the entire season without an actual NFL calibre QB just magnified things. Heck, give them Orton they probably win at least 5-6 games in total.

Obviously Manning is one of the best all time. Top 10, no argument. Top 5, maybe but I say no. Bottom line for me, when it comes to deciding who's the best, post season takes on an even greater importance.Who cares that Manning routinely beat up on a pretty weak division, more or less his entire career (sometimes another good team, but almost always 1 or 2 weak sisters). Look at Manning's post season record, pretty meh. And it's not correct to say it's all because of the rest of the team...I've seen Manning have enough bad games/drives/plays under the bright lights. Porter in the Superbowl comes most immediately to mind.

Compare Manning's post season performances to Brady, and it's not even close. Even in the two Superbowls Brady lost, the first he gave his team the lead the last time he touched the ball, and in the second if Welker makes a relatively routine catch that game is over. Both guys are all time greats, generational talents, but Brady simply handles the pressure of the biggest moments better than Manning does.

If you have one game or one drive and get your pick of QB from P.Manning, Elway, Montana, or Brady in their primes, you're coo-coo if you take Manning before any of the other three. Manning's great, and I'm ecstatic he's a Bronco, but Brady is and has been the better QB. There's a reason Manning has two Superbowl appearances while Brady has five...and it isn't just because Bellichick set up a bathroom cam.


I have a much harder team accepting the fact that he said Eli is better. :shocked:

yeah, I was just having fun with the Eli bit. :D And I didn't watch Unitas play, so can't really say who is better there. Pretty tough to compare the two eras at any rate.

[Ravage!!!]

I have to agre with bc on this one. As much as I hate Belicheck and he Patriots, Brady has proved to be a better QB than Manning. As bc pointed out...the playoff record is the biggest point to me. If you are good enough to win 10+ games every season, then how is it that you go 1-n-out in the playoffs every year? I like Manning a lot, and considering him one of the all-time greats....but not the best of all time.

[Jsteve01]

I have to agre with bc on this one. As much as I hate Belicheck and he Patriots, Brady has proved to be a better QB than Manning. As bc pointed out...the playoff record is the biggest point to me. If you are good enough to win 10+ games every season, then how is it that you go 1-n-out in the playoffs every year? I like Manning a lot, and considering him one of the all-time greats....but not the best of all time.

The problem there is not about Manning. It's about Polian and the way he went about building those teams. Put manning on the Pats with those defenses and he wins. Plain and simple. I think he and Brady are interchangeable. Both tireless, relentless students of the game and elite. It's a 50/50 argument to me

[Ravage!!!]

The problem there is not about Manning. It's about Polian and the way he went about building those teams. Put manning on the Pats with those defenses and he wins. Plain and simple. I think he and Brady are interchangeable. Both tireless, relentless students of the game and elite. It's a 50/50 argument to me

Eh, I can say the same thing about a lot of QBs. Take Montana off the 49ers, and what do you have? I don't know. I know he went to the AFC Championship with the Chiefs. But the point is, if the Colts were good enough to continue to win first round byes, I don't think its unreasonable to expect a win at least one game once there. I'm not saying that Manning is weak, I'm saying that Brady can't be diminished because he has Belicheck. Belicheck didn't win anything with lesser QBs. Belicheck gets WAYYYY too much credit, and as a result, Brady gets less.

[Northman]

Eh, I can say the same thing about a lot of QBs. Take Montana off the 49ers, and what do you have? I don't know. I know he went to the AFC Championship with the Chiefs. But the point is, if the Colts were good enough to continue to win first round byes, I don't think its unreasonable to expect a win at least one game once there. I'm not saying that Manning is weak, I'm saying that Brady can't be diminished because he has Belicheck. Belicheck didn't win anything with lesser QBs. Belicheck gets WAYYYY too much credit, and as a result, Brady gets less.

I agree with this.

[Cugel]

This is possibly the most futile of all football arguments. . . "is Tom Brady really better than Peyton Manning, or is it that Belicheck put together a better team, especially on defense?"

There's ZERO point in it because there's really no way to know. Obviously football is a team sport, so it's not like Peyton Manning can dominate the way Michael Jordan did in basketball. Jordan can take the clutch shot, but Manning can't throw to himself and can't block for himself. Jordan can make a defensive play himself, but Manning has to rely on 11 other guys.

So, there's just no way to resolve that question. :noidea:

The only point is that if you have ONE of the top 6 QBs in football you have a chance to win the SB every single year. Brady, Brees, Manning, Eli Manning, Roethlisberger and Aaron Rogers. One of those guys is probably going to win it again this season unless one of the other second tier QBs elevates his game considerably and joins the elite 6.

And if you're a pretty good KC team but are stuck with Matt Cassel as your starting QB, then "NO Soup for you!"