PDA

View Full Version : Thoughts on number 3 QB.....



Pages : [1] 2

Superchop 7
04-04-2013, 03:26 PM
Veteran or ? (Since nobody knows my choice.....here is a portion of an article on him)

The College Football Metrics.com Overview of our Interview with Peter Lalich...

What if one of the best quarterback prospects for the 2013 NFL Draft is from Division-II (D2), and is a name you've never heard of?

But what if I told you that this "unknown" Division-II quarterback was a four-star high school recruit, and was the debated #1-2 ranked prospect in the state of Virginia in 2007...and ranked as high as a top-5 quarterback prospect nationally that year? Would you be impressed to learn that Lalich is a quarterback that measures in at 6'4"+ and 230+ pounds with a huge arm (can throw the ball 70+ yards) and has an effortless/quick release? For those more in the draft prospect "know" -- does a 37 on the Wonderlic (unconfirmed practice test) and a 10"+ hand size get your attention?

Lalich forced his way into splitting time as a starting quarterback at Virginia as a true freshman in 2007. Later, he broke passing records at California University (PA) in 2011, and was on his way to breaking several more marks in 2012 before he lost a few games due to a fluke injury (staph infection).

Lalich has the scouting measurables and production to be a top 5-10 quarterback prospect in the 2013 NFL Draft. So why have we not heard more about him? What's the catch?

I had a chance to speak with Lalich about his highly unusual college path -- the journey from big expectations, to nearly quitting football, and finally finding redemption. His story is one of the more fascinating tales you will find in this, or any other, NFL Draft.

Lalich was supposed to be the "savior" of Virginia Cavaliers football upon his arrival in 2007. The plan was for him to redshirt initially and then fulfill his hoped-for destiny. Lalich instead pushed right into playing time as a true freshman, playing in a dual-QB system (one "running" QB and the other a "passer," and Lalich was the passer) early on. The following season (2008), Lalich was named the sole starting QB for Virginia. In May 2008, Lalich was arrested and charged with being a minor (age 20) in possession of alcohol at a campus party. Lalich received probation from the judge and given extra "workout" time with the team's conditioning coach as his football penance.

At his first meeting with his probation officer, Lalich admitted that he had a beer during his probation period. The probation officer noted Lalich's drinking admission in his report to the judge. Upon reading the report, the judge brought Lalich in to tell him he could not drink on probation, and the judge issued Lalich a warning (a couple of weeks into the 2008 football season). Despite the "mere" warning and no actual arrest record, the second event was a catalyst for the Virginia Cavaliers Athletic Director to release Lalich from the football program after two games as the starting quarterback in 2008. Lalich, and the coaches, were shocked.

Then Virginia head coach Al Groh quickly got Lalich in touch with Oregon State coach Mike Riley, and three days after his Virginia dismissal, Lalich was on his way to play football at Oregon State. It was at Oregon State that Lalich experienced some of his "lowest of lows," but it also began his redemption story. Lalich initially struggled with the quick change of geography, the disappointment of his letdown at Virginia, and the thought of having to sit without playing football. Lalich would have to sit out the rest of 2008, and then was to redshirt in 2009. He would be without "real" football for nearly two years.

Lalich admitted that he struggled mightily with this transition and that he did not work very hard upon arrival at Oregon State. However, Mike Riley was a great influence and Lalich rededicated himself on the field and in the classroom. Lalich boosted his grades to all "A's" and picked up Riley's advanced offense quickly and dominated in a spring game. Lalich appeared to be back on track going into the 2010 season when he rented a boat with friends, and headed out to a popular Oregon State vacation/party hangout on Lake Shasta. Lalich bumped another boat while parking his...and he ended up receiving a boating DUI. He also received a dismissal from Oregon State by Coach Riley due to his past alcohol infraction.

Lalich considered quitting football altogether due to the turmoil it had become in his life. Twice, Lalich was within reach of his young life's ambition -- becoming a starting quarterback at a major university. Twice, Lalich let himself, his family, and his teammates down. One of the more respected Division-II programs, a notorious home to "second chance" players, California (PA) reached out and convinced Lalich to join their football program. Lalich sat out and studied under NFL quarterback Josh Portis for a season (2010), and then took over as the starting quarterback in 2011.

Lalich would go on to throw for a school record 3,725 yards in 2011. He completed 63.3% of his passes while throwing for 31 touchdowns and just 12 interceptions. After his first three games with Cal (PA) in 2011, Lalich went on a 25 passing touchdown (and just 5 interceptions) tear as a passer in winning eight of his next nine games, before eventually falling in the playoffs to Winston Salem State (Winston Salem then went on to lose in the title game in 2011).

The following season, Lalich probably would have broken every meaningful passing record at Cal (PA). However, he ended up playing only seven games in 2012 due to a freak staph infection from a cut on his hand. The 2012 team was headed toward a possible championship run had Lalich not missed four games (team went 6-1 with him, 2-2 without him). If Lalich had been afforded a full 13 games in 2012 (as he had the year before), he was on a pace to throw for an astonishing 4,500+ yards and 40+ TDs for a 13-game season.

Instead of smashing all the school records at Cal (PA), Lalich had to settle for a great college career and his Bachelors' degree...and redemption.

As Lalich looks back on it, he confided in me, "I wish I wasn't so short-sighted early in my college career and let everyone down. Even in my own turmoil, so many people at Virginia and Oregon State helped me behind-the-scenes. I learned so much at both schools, and gained so much from the great coaches at both schools. I only wish I could have delivered success and happiness to the fans and coaches at those schools. I will always regret letting everyone down. However, I believe God put me on this path so that I could have my character changed and realize how to work hard and what is truly important in life. I am so thankful to the coaches and fans at California (PA) for a chance, and for all they taught me. Many people will see my story and might think "what a pity," but if it were not for this strange journey, I do not think I would have been prepared to work hard and succeed at the next level. It has truly been a blessing in disguise."

Dapper Dan
04-04-2013, 03:42 PM
That's a lot of words.

Lancane
04-04-2013, 05:31 PM
Simple, he is who is or who he is not, they may add another quarterback or may not...for to be or not to be shall remain the question.

BroncoWave
04-04-2013, 05:31 PM
Tl;dr

Ravage!!!
04-04-2013, 05:54 PM
Ok.. I didn't read all that, but I wouldn't be surprised if we have a 3rd at camp, but only have 2 during game weeks. Why waste a roster spot on a 3rd QB? I don't want to waste one of the 53 on a guy that will never seee the field, and if he does, we are more than screwed anyway. Give me a guy that is excellent at special teams coverage, or a special package guy that sees the field only 3-4 times a game That's still 60 more times on the field than the 3rd QB will see.

SR
04-04-2013, 06:45 PM
None at all

TXBRONC
04-04-2013, 06:55 PM
Fox generally carries three quarterbacks on the roster. So I think it's pretty safe bet that he'll carry three again this year. I would also bet he'll carry two on the game day roster and deactivate the the 3rd option from most if not all the games.

OrangeHoof
04-04-2013, 07:20 PM
I would not use a draft pick on him but I'd have no problem with a UDFA. He would be on a very short leash but would get to learn under Peyton Manning which could be the type of influence that would keep him out of trouble. The article makes it sound like he hardly ever drank yet a lot of guys with drinking problems only have a time or two when they get "caught" and then have a ready excuse. That's why I wouldn't invest anything more than a UDFA. I'm guessing he won't be drafted.

Dapper Dan
04-04-2013, 09:07 PM
I think we will probably have an UDFA brought in to camp and kept on the practice squad.

RebelRocker
04-04-2013, 09:09 PM
According to the prospect meetings page on Walter football, we're bringing Matt Scott in for a private workout

topscribe
04-04-2013, 09:16 PM
Thank you for this contribution, Chop. I found it interesting.

Might be worth at least a UFA look . . .
.

Dapper Dan
04-04-2013, 09:42 PM
According to the prospect meetings page on Walter football, we're bringing Matt Scott in for a private workout

Isn't he more of a running QB?

RebelRocker
04-04-2013, 09:54 PM
Isn't he more of a running QB?

Dual threat. Obviously the Broncos like him, regardless of what he is

Dapper Dan
04-04-2013, 10:04 PM
Dual threat. Obviously the Broncos like him, regardless of what he is

Maybe a good practice squad guy, since a lot of these QBs are becoming better athletes. I don't see us wasting a pick on this guy.

Jsteve01
04-04-2013, 10:23 PM
I would be cool with using a 7th rounder on him. Not worried at all about the few drinking beer issues. Dumb yes. But damn I was waaaay dumber at that age.

Simple Jaded
04-04-2013, 10:25 PM
Matt Scott won't make it to anyone's practice squad. Just say no to dual threat QB's anyway, I'd just as soon QB's master the nuances of being an actual QB. You want a RB draft a RB.

Jsteve01
04-04-2013, 10:30 PM
http://www.knowitallfootball.com/2013/02/26/nfl-draft-2013-peter-lalich-the-forgotten-one/

cmc0605
04-04-2013, 11:14 PM
I can be the #3 QB. I'll have as much relevance as any other #3 QB on this team. I can throw 20-30 yards accurately.

Dapper Dan
04-04-2013, 11:15 PM
Matt Scott won't make it to anyone's practice squad. Just say no to dual threat QB's anyway, I'd just as soon QB's master the nuances of being an actual QB. You want a RB draft a RB.

I know, right? It's like with these receiving tight ends. If you want a receiving tight end, get a wide receiver. And everyone wants the running back to be able to pass block. If you want a blocker, get a full back, or offensive lineman and stick him in the backfield.


:rolleyes:

Dapper Dan
04-04-2013, 11:16 PM
I can be the #3 QB. I'll have as much relevance as any other #3 QB on this team. I can throw 20-30 yards accurately.

Psht. Doubt it. :cool:

Superchop 7
04-05-2013, 10:06 AM
Manning is not going to be here very long.

This is why we got OZ last year.

Number 3 QB needs to be on the roster to develop and become the number 2 QB when Manning leaves. (which is uber important if Oz goes down)

silkamilkamonico
04-05-2013, 11:24 AM
Someone who can play special teams, and prefereably see the field at another position as well.

Superchop 7
04-05-2013, 11:41 AM
Fairfax Times......MORE WORDS !!!


Yet it’s Lalich’s mental grasp of the game that typically impresses coaches most. Kellar recalls sitting in his office straining to keep up with his former pupil, who frequently took pleasure in inventing complicated plays at the whiteboard. Lalich remains adamant about mastering any concept that could give him an edge on the field, whether it be learning a defender’s techniques so that he can better anticipate a pass rush or studying ankle flexion so that he can expend less energy throwing the football.

His intrinsic understanding of the X’s and O’s was ingrained from an early age, gaining full traction when his parents had a quarterback guru teach him protection schemes in ninth grade. At West Springfield, Lalich used to call his own shots, flourishing in a no-huddle offense that ran scripted plays where they would go five plays in one formation and then five plays in another.

“At that point it was all on the quarterback to make the right decisions of who to throw to,” said Bill Renner, a former West Springfield head coach whose son, Bryn, is the starting quarterback at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. “Peter had an understanding to start with on who is number one and who is number two, etcetera, but he got to the point where he could do two-thirds of the games like that because he knew the offense so well and he knew when he came to the line of scrimmage what was a good thing to throw and not throw and where we wanted to run and where not to run. The elite guys have the plays in their brains, and he has that.”

Lalich is currently finishing up his master’s degree in exercise science at Cal-U while keeping himself fit in case any NFL teams want to put him through individual workouts. He spent January and February training intensively in Miami, Fla., at Bommarito Performance Systems, an NFL Combine/Pro Day prep camp that saw him work out with NFL receivers like Wes Welker and Antonio Brown.

While he wasn’t invited to the NFL Combine in February, Lalich participated in Cal-U’s Pro Day on March 11, performing in front of scouts from 15 NFL teams. Only two teams — the New York Jets and Green Bay Packers — have conducted in-depth interviews with him so far.

Superchop 7
04-05-2013, 11:58 AM
This message has been brought to you by Superchop 7, senior draft analyst for Broncos Forums.

Ravage!!!
04-05-2013, 12:14 PM
I don't think we need to 'develop' a #2 at this point in time. Sure you can take a flyer on a 6th round QB that might have some hidden potential in the hopes that he has the hidden talent from a small school. But the need to "develop" a #2, at this point in time, is pretty useless.

Chef Zambini
04-05-2013, 12:14 PM
sounds like lalich coul;d challemge OS. I doubt the broncos will bring in anyone to diminish their "investment' in brock.
They SHOULD, but i doubt they will.
we will have 3 or 4 QBs in camp. NONE will get the chance to displace the 1-2 combo of PFM and OS.
I doubt we use a draft pick on ANY QB !
... and why should we, when OS is the entitled heir apparent.

Ravage!!!
04-05-2013, 12:16 PM
sounds like lalich coul;d challemge OS. I doubt the broncos will bring in anyone to diminish their "investment' in brock.
They SHOULD, but i doubt they will.
we will have 3 or 4 QBs in camp. NONE will get the chance to displace the 1-2 combo of PFM and OS.
I doubt we use a draft pick on ANY QB !
... and why should we, when OS is the entitled heir apparent.
Back to the ridiculous reasoning, I see.

Lancane
04-05-2013, 01:32 PM
This message has been brought to you by Superchop 7, senior draft analyst for Broncos Forums.

:rofl: The world would be dire without good comedy!

chazoe60
04-05-2013, 01:43 PM
sounds like lalich coul;d challemge OS. I doubt the broncos will bring in anyone to diminish their "investment' in brock.
They SHOULD, but i doubt they will.
we will have 3 or 4 QBs in camp. NONE will get the chance to displace the 1-2 combo of PFM and OS.
I doubt we use a draft pick on ANY QB !
... and why should we, when OS is the entitled heir apparent.
Chef, I like you but your take on OS is silly. Elway thinks OS is worth developing so that's all I need to know.

Timmy!
04-05-2013, 02:19 PM
No.

Superchop 7
04-05-2013, 02:53 PM
Superchop 7.......The peoples draft analyst.

Superchop 7
04-05-2013, 02:58 PM
Point B, we all know OZ is the heir apparent.....BUT.....if you can turn a late round QB into something.....people will be lining up to hand you draft picks.

Superchop 7
04-05-2013, 03:01 PM
To the latino community,

The last message was brought to you by Superchop 7, "Senor" draft analyst.

Superchop 7
04-05-2013, 06:49 PM
More WORDS, this time from his friend Harrison Weinhold,

In 2011, his first full season as a starter, Peter would break every single-season Cal-U passing record. Pete would finish 16-4 as quarterback for the Vulcans.

"Peter is the most different, entertaining, fun, quarterback I've ever been around," says Cal-U head coach Mike Kellar.

"I've never seen a guy - if you've seen the movie "A Beautiful Mind" - sometimes I'll leave at night and come back in the morning and that's what my greaseboard looks like in my office: Peter will go in there and draw up 60 plays, and a lot of them would be great ideas if everyone could keep up with Pete - including myself. Man it's hard to tell how many plays we could have had in a gameplan. Extremely accurate - yeah, can make any throw - yeah, but the things I noticed is he can throw from different arm angles, his pocket presence and he's just cerebral as can be - Pete made me a better football coach because of the way he made me look at things in the office"

Through all his trials and tribulations, the one thing that gets lost in Peter's story is his unmatched football IQ and the respect he gained from his coaches as a true student of the game. Ask any of his prior coaches, from coach Riley at Oregon State to Al Groh and his former staff at UVA, they all use phrases (seriously, at least four former coaches have said this, including current Chicago Bears WR coach Mike Groh) such as: "football savant" and "a real life Will Hunting" when it comes to understanding defensive schemes and the quarterback position

Simple Jaded
04-06-2013, 01:43 AM
I know, right? It's like with these receiving tight ends. If you want a receiving tight end, get a wide receiver. And everyone wants the running back to be able to pass block. If you want a blocker, get a full back, or offensive lineman and stick him in the backfield.


:rolleyes:


Sooner or later one of these dual threats is gonna revolutionize the game, right?

Dapper Dan
04-06-2013, 01:46 AM
Sooner or later one of these dual threats is gonna revolutionize the game, right?

Nope. I doubt it.

Joel
04-06-2013, 02:33 AM
Sooner or later one of these dual threats is gonna revolutionize the game, right?
One named Thorpe already did—with his arm. But then WWII and that OTHER draft happened, so the NFL changed the rule against anyone leaving the game returning before the next quarter, and liked it so much they made it permanent in the late forties, ushering in the specialists. Counting playoffs, the season is roughy twice as long as in Thorpes day, and completing every other pass has gone from acceptable to abysmal.

It remains to be seen whether true dual threats can survive and thrive in such an environment, but I'm not sure the pure pocket passer can either. There aren't many left, not good starters. Manning, Brady and Brees, maybe Stafford if his career arc is broader than Rivers'. Less running has led to more blitzing and higher paid OTs, so anyone without the agility to dodge and size to absorb a few tackles needs either stellar pass blocking all the way across, or stellar insurance. Were it enough to stand still and be accurate Brian Griese would have as many Super Bowl Rings as his dad, because he does that job just as well.

We can say scrambling isn't running, but beyond a certain point that's semantics. If a QB can consistently dodge blitzers and/or shove them face first into the turf, it's a lot easier to keep running for that first down than look downfield and find an open man, especially since most remaining defenders will be running toward those receivers and away from him.

Let's be real here, guys: Rapistburger didn't win the starting job on his "laser, rocket arm," no one would trade Rodgers for Stafford, and no one here would trade Elway for Marino. There may be more dual threats starting than pocket passers, but no one was pressuring Elway in his careers signature play: As he's said in interviews, everyone was covered so he tucked it away, ran and leapt for the first down as two defenders sent him spinning. Even in his mid-thirties he was willing and able to make that kind of play, though not as routinely as a decade earlier. Not saying it was revolutionary, but he was the first QB to start 5 SBs. ;)

Obviously QBs must still be passers first and foremost in a passing league. But whether they can be JUST passers any more than JUST runners is increasingly dubious.

Chef Zambini
04-06-2013, 02:35 AM
Chef, I like you but your take on OS is silly. Elway thinks OS is worth developing so that's all I need to know.I am not disputing that Os is worth developing. what concerns me is he is NOT competing for his role!
instead it is being HANDED TO HIM, he has niot EARNED anything, and it seems like JFE and the powers that be are afraid to show us what OS can do against first tier competition.
I too love JFE, but I do not share your blind faith.
brock hasd to earn his roster spot and position on the depth chart, just like everyone else, that was not the case last year, and I am curous to see how much of BO will be revealed this year !
please excuse my scepticism, I believe in performance, not promise.

Joel
04-06-2013, 02:58 AM
I can't imagine Denver putting all their eggs in one basket with Osweiler; Elway is surely as aware as everyone else how well HIS heir apparent DIDN'T pan out for us. Every team needs a plan B, and that is more true at QB than at any other one position. Right now Osweiler is all potential and practice field; we won't know what we have until he's had a few starts, which hopefully won't be for another couple years. I don't think Elway and Co. are stupid enough to risk waiting till then only to find out what we've got is "bupkis." Spending another high pick on a QB amid a title run would be foolish, but drafting one SOMEWHERE wouldn't.

RebelRocker
04-06-2013, 09:50 AM
I can't imagine Denver putting all their eggs in one basket with Osweiler; Elway is surely as aware as everyone else how well HIS heir apparent DIDN'T pan out for us. Every team needs a plan B, and that is more true at QB than at any other one position. Right now Osweiler is all potential and practice field; we won't know what we have until he's had a few starts, which hopefully won't be for another couple years. I don't think Elway and Co. are stupid enough to risk waiting till then only to find out what we've got is "bupkis." Spending another high pick on a QB amid a title run would be foolish, but drafting one SOMEWHERE wouldn't.

Great post, Joel.

As someone who was a big Oz fan last year and even predicted him to be our 2nd round pick, I completely agree with what you just said. I still like Osweiler and his upside, but to simply "hand over the keys" to him after Manning hangs it up is a tad risky. Like you mentioned, it would be very much like the Elway/Griese transition.

Not to say that Osweiler won't pan out, but ALL players do need to be pushed in order to reach their maximum potential.

People tend to forget that the same off-season Favre "retired" from the Packers, Green Bay drafted TWO quarterbacks (Brohm in the 2nd round and Flynn in the 7th) to go along with Rodgers. Regardless of what some people may say, you don't draft a QB in the 2nd round with the idea of them being a career back up. Even after Rodgers had sat on the bench and taken countless snaps in practice for three years, the Packers FO still felt it was necessary to bring in guys to compete.

A lot of elite teams in the league have had a history of drafting QB's even after they've found "their guy". I'm not suggesting that we take a QB early this year, but I do encourage us to atleast bring in a late round-UDFA QB every off-season for developmental purposes.

I agree with the majority of us on this subject. Unless a top notch prospect falls, I don't like the idea of using one of our first four picks on a QB. After the 4th round and depending on the value, I wouldn't mind it.

Ravage!!!
04-06-2013, 10:13 AM
I am not disputing that Os is worth developing. what concerns me is he is NOT competing for his role!
instead it is being HANDED TO HIM, he has niot EARNED anything, and it seems like JFE and the powers that be are afraid to show us what OS can do against first tier competition.
I too love JFE, but I do not share your blind faith.
brock hasd to earn his roster spot and position on the depth chart, just like everyone else, that was not the case last year, and I am curous to see how much of BO will be revealed this year !
please excuse my scepticism, I believe in performance, not promise.

This is absurd for several reasons.... one... you are talking about competing for the #2 spot. He's already competed for the #2 spot, and won. How many times do you have to draft a QB to be the guy standing on the sidelines behind Manning? Two, when it comes to for Brock to be the guy coming into camp as the #1, THEN you can worry about "who's competing for the role." If Elway doesn't feel confident that Brock can handle it, he WILL bring someone in.

Elway doesn't have his career being carried by the Brock pick. Brock was simply plan "B" to Manning and Manning's injury. Elway, is in no way, married to the success of Brock Osweiler. So why would we want to draft a QB that very well could have been the VERY BEST QB drafted in this year's draft? How high of a pick would you want to use on "competing" for the back-up role???? :confused:

MOtorboat
04-06-2013, 10:18 AM
I am not disputing that Os is worth developing. what concerns me is he is NOT competing for his role!
instead it is being HANDED TO HIM, he has niot EARNED anything, and it seems like JFE and the powers that be are afraid to show us what OS can do against first tier competition.
I too love JFE, but I do not share your blind faith.
brock hasd to earn his roster spot and position on the depth chart, just like everyone else, that was not the case last year, and I am curous to see how much of BO will be revealed this year !
please excuse my scepticism, I believe in performance, not promise.

So you spent six months bitching about how Elway drafted a third string quarterback in the second round, and then he won the second string position before the season and you're now bitching that he didn't earn it?

Good grief, that's stoopid.

Ravage!!!
04-06-2013, 10:56 AM
So you spent six months bitching about how Elway drafted a third string quarterback in the second round, and then he won the second string position before the season and you're now bitching that he didn't earn it?

Good grief, that's stoopid.

Exactly. But I'm sure Zam believes he's earned nothing, and is given the #2 spot because John has "all his cards" in on the success of Os.

Northman
04-06-2013, 11:08 AM
Nick Foles didnt earn anything, it was handed to him when Vick went down. Kirk Cousins didnt earn anything, it was handed to him when RGIII went down. Jake Locker didnt earn anything, it was handed to him after the starter stunk up the joint. Andrew Luck didnt earn anything, it was handed to him from the word go. Shall i go on? The argument that Oz needs to earn his spot is utterly retarded. OBVIOUSLY, when Manning is gone they will see where Oz is in his development. But, he was drafted to succeed Manning and he will be the favorite when Manning retires. Sure, if Denver wants to gamble on a late round QB let them knock themselves out. But i guarantee you that Oz will still #1 on the draft chart because he was picked to be THE guy after Manning is gone. The only way that Oz isnt the #1 backup/starter going forward is if he shits the bed in practice and preseason and cant seem to "get" the playbook.

Chef Zambini
04-06-2013, 11:18 AM
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/nfl/news/20130405/backup-quarterbacks/?xid=si_topstories
sportys illustrated article.
look at all the great things they had to say about brock osweiler.

Chef Zambini
04-06-2013, 11:22 AM
So you spent six months bitching about how Elway drafted a third string quarterback in the second round, and then he won the second string position before the season and you're now bitching that he didn't earn it?

Good grief, that's stoopid.
he did NOT earn it! he was listed as the #3 QB and when the press questioned JFE how the 'heir apparant could be no better than HAINY, suddenly he became the #2 without ANY performance on the field!
BO NEVER played against anything other than 3rd and 4th string talent, late in meaningless PS games.

sorry, but unlike some of you , I will find faith in BO when he justifies it on the field!

Ravage!!!
04-06-2013, 11:25 AM
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/nfl/news/20130405/backup-quarterbacks/?xid=si_topstories
sportys illustrated article.
look at all the great things they had to say about brock osweiler.

Are you saying that because he's not mentioned, its a bad thing? Did you see some of the names he DOES talk about? Chase Daniels, Jason Campbell, Luke McCown?? :lol:

This article isn't listing who has the best back-up plan, its just talking about some of the moves around the NFL and how it's changed the faces.

Northman
04-06-2013, 11:25 AM
Are you saying that because he's not mentioned, its a bad thing? Did you see some of the names he DOES talk about? Chase Daniels, Jason Campbell, Luke McCown?? :lol:

This article isn't listing who has the best back-up plan, its just talking about some of the moves around the NFL and how it's changed the faces.


Just typical Zam. No substance whatsoever.

Ravage!!!
04-06-2013, 11:27 AM
he did NOT earn it! he was listed as the #3 QB and when the press questioned JFE how the 'heir apparant could be no better than HAINY, suddenly he became the #2 without ANY performance on the field!
BO NEVER played against anything other than 3rd and 4th string talent, late in meaningless PS games.

sorry, but unlike some of you , I will find faith in BO when he justifies it on the field!

How do you know he didn't earn it? You complained that he "couldn't even beat out Hanie"... then he does, and now you are say he didn't earn it. How were they supposed to compete in the NFL games for that back-up role? The coaches determine ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL the starting roles/spots by practices and camps. That's how rosters are determined to begin with.

MOtorboat
04-06-2013, 11:27 AM
he did NOT earn it! he was listed as the #3 QB and when the press questioned JFE how the 'heir apparant could be no better than HAINY, suddenly he became the #2 without ANY performance on the field!
BO NEVER played against anything other than 3rd and 4th string talent, late in meaningless PS games.

sorry, but unlike some of you , I will find faith in BO when he justifies it on the field!

There's no other response to this crap anymore than just laughing.

:laugh:

Chef Zambini
04-06-2013, 11:28 AM
I can't imagine Denver putting all their eggs in one basket with Osweiler; Elway is surely as aware as everyone else how well HIS heir apparent DIDN'T pan out for us. Every team needs a plan B, and that is more true at QB than at any other one position. Right now Osweiler is all potential and practice field; we won't know what we have until he's had a few starts, which hopefully won't be for another couple years. I don't think Elway and Co. are stupid enough to risk waiting till then only to find out what we've got is "bupkis." Spending another high pick on a QB amid a title run would be foolish, but drafting one SOMEWHERE wouldn't.
JOEL, I only hope this is the mindset of JFE!
but he seems alittle to 'sensative" about his hand picked successor to PFM.
I am not promoting waisting a draft pick on another QB, but i would like to see BO beat out some legitimate competition for the job.

Ravage!!!
04-06-2013, 11:46 AM
I'm glad Elway isn't stupid enough to waste money bringing in a vet QB to back-up Manning when we already have a young back-up. Like nearly every other team in the NFL, why waste money? I'm guessing Belicheck wasn't being smart when taking Mallet, either. Whom did Luck have to beat out, RGIII, or Kirk Cousins? Who did Chase Daniels have to beat out in KC? Who did Foles have to beat out to back-up Vick, or Tannehill have to beat out to take over in Miami?

topscribe
04-06-2013, 11:49 AM
he did NOT earn it! he was listed as the #3 QB and when the press questioned JFE how the 'heir apparant could be no better than HAINY, suddenly he became the #2 without ANY performance on the field!
BO NEVER played against anything other than 3rd and 4th string talent, late in meaningless PS games.

sorry, but unlike some of you , I will find faith in BO when he justifies it on the field!
Well, that's true. Oz was proclaimed #2 essentially without any on-field performance.
However, it is beyond me why they signed Haney in the first place. I guess the
reasoning is that if something happened to Manning a veteran could take over. But
it was also consensus that if something happened to Manning it's wait till next year.
So why sign a proven scrub to back him up? If all is lost, then put our quarterback-
of-the-future in to get him some game experience. I just never understood it. :tsk:
.

topscribe
04-06-2013, 11:51 AM
There's no other response to this crap anymore than just laughing.

:laugh:
Why? Because it's Zam? I can't figure out what was so funny about that.
.

MOtorboat
04-06-2013, 11:56 AM
Why? Because it's Zam? I can't figure out what was so funny about that.
.

Partially yes. His arguments suck. He's talking in circles.

First it was a criticism of Elway for taking a quarterback in the second round and him only being third string. Then Osweiler obviously earns the move from third string to second string in training camp. Now, he's saying he didn't earn it.

Because Zam didn't see it on the practice field doesn't mean it didn't happen.

topscribe
04-06-2013, 12:02 PM
Partially yes. His arguments suck. He's talking in circles.

First it was a criticism of Elway for taking a quarterback in the second round and him only being third string. Then Osweiler obviously earns the move from third string to second string in training camp. Now, he's saying he didn't earn it.

Because Zam didn't see it on the practice field doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Well, that's true, which is why I said "game experience." Apparently, they saw
a lot out of Os in practice - at least, I hope so. My thinking is, it would seem
he wouldn't have to be very good to be better than Hanie, anyway . . .
.

MOtorboat
04-06-2013, 12:06 PM
Well, that's true, which is why I said "game experience." Apparently, they saw
a lot out of Oz in practice - at least, I hope so. My thinking is, it would seem
he wouldn't have to be very good to be better than Haney, anyway . . .
.

What makes it more ridiculous, in my opinion, is that we're talking about the BACK UP.

There's no real reason to sign a mid-priced veteran (say Matt Hasselback) to "compete" for the BACK UP. Because its a BACK UP. To a guy who has never missed a start in 14 seasons (excluding the nerve damage year, granted).

Ravage!!!
04-06-2013, 12:18 PM
Mallet is backing up Brady, how much 'game experience' does Mallet have? Cousins was drafted to back up RGIII, how much game experience did he have? Foles to Vick.... we can go on and on. It basically comes down to nothing other than Zam not liking Os, because NO NFL team drafts guys to come in and compete for the "backup" role. YOu draft guys to be the backups and learn. Elway not only drafted Brock to learn from Manning, but to be the plan "B" had Manning not been able to come back from his injury. There is NO reasonable need to simply draft a QB to compete for Os at this juncture...

Like mentioned, I think it was obvious that Os was going to be the back-up from the start. I think Hanie was brought in purely for that "plan B" situation in which case Manning was unable to go from an early stage. Then we would have a veteran in camp to compete for the starting position. Other than that, this is a non-topic. BUt...always fun to see Zam pulling his same junk.

Timmy!
04-06-2013, 02:04 PM
Dear NFL,

I would like to request that you impliment a new rule. All backup NFL qb's should be required to be viewed personally by me, during a game, before they are allowed to be listed as #2 on the depth chart. It is imperative that they have "game experience." Also please make Champ Bailey a safety. ThAnk yOU.

Sincerely,
ZamBiNi.

Simple Jaded
04-06-2013, 03:36 PM
If we won't know if Osweiler is the future until we see him on the field and he won't see the field for years what's.......the.......point?

Btw, Lalich ran a 5.36 at his pro day, which makes Peyton Manning look like Joe Flacco.

Ravage!!!
04-06-2013, 03:51 PM
which makes Peyton Manning look like Joe Flacco.

:confused:

Simple Jaded
04-06-2013, 04:13 PM
:confused:

Flacco is fast. Apparently.

topscribe
04-06-2013, 04:19 PM
Flacco is fast. Apparently.
No kidding. I've never seen a white QB run like that.

Maybe Elway fresh out of college, before all his leg injuries?
.

Simple Jaded
04-06-2013, 05:21 PM
No kidding. I've never seen a white QB run like that.

Maybe Elway fresh out of college, before all his leg injuries?
.

I was thinking more like Darrell Green and Malcolm Jenkins.

Jsteve01
04-06-2013, 11:18 PM
Not really worried about that if he can move around in the pocket. What I do like is genius football mind and the fact that he can spin the laces the with the best of them. I would definitely take a 7th round flier on this kid.

Chef Zambini
04-07-2013, 03:00 AM
How do you know he didn't earn it? You complained that he "couldn't even beat out Hanie"... then he does, and now you are say he didn't earn it. How were they supposed to compete in the NFL games for that back-up role? The coaches determine ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL the starting roles/spots by practices and camps. That's how rosters are determined to begin with.right...
just like TEBOW earned his #2 spot with the jets.when did OS play in the first half of ANY pre-season game?
when did he play against ANY first or second string personnel?
when?
who amongst the zam bashers can say they have seen OS perform against a first or second string NFL defense?
thats what I thought.
to date, OS has been hidden from view, at least the view of him against legitimate NFL defenses, even in pre-season !
its the same horseshit we were asked to swallow when TEBOW was gifted the #2 spot, yet he never earned the job !
I watched OS play a few games at ASU.
NOTHING about his performance made me think, "this guy could be an NFL QB....NOTHING !
and since he has put on a bronco uni, NOTHING is still what I have seen from OS!
... and none of you have seen anything either!
all you have is your blind faith and some of you have said as much !
you can slurp JFE's undercarriage all you want, that still does not make BO a starting NFL QB.

MOtorboat
04-07-2013, 09:06 AM
right...
just like TEBOW earned his #2 spot with the jets.when did OS play in the first half of ANY pre-season game?
when did he play against ANY first or second string personnel?
when?
who amongst the zam bashers can say they have seen OS perform against a first or second string NFL defense?
thats what I thought.
to date, OS has been hidden from view, at least the view of him against legitimate NFL defenses, even in pre-season !
its the same horseshit we were asked to swallow when TEBOW was gifted the #2 spot, yet he never earned the job !
I watched OS play a few games at ASU.
NOTHING about his performance made me think, "this guy could be an NFL QB....NOTHING !
and since he has put on a bronco uni, NOTHING is still what I have seen from OS!
... and none of you have seen anything either!
all you have is your blind faith and some of you have said as much !
you can slurp JFE's undercarriage all you want, that still does not make BO a starting NFL QB.

It's a shame Osweiler is going to be the starter. Oh, wait...

:derp:

:laugh:

Joel
04-07-2013, 11:15 AM
Great post, Joel.

As someone who was a big Oz fan last year and even predicted him to be our 2nd round pick, I completely agree with what you just said. I still like Osweiler and his upside, but to simply "hand over the keys" to him after Manning hangs it up is a tad risky. Like you mentioned, it would be very much like the Elway/Griese transition.

Not to say that Osweiler won't pan out, but ALL players do need to be pushed in order to reach their maximum potential.

People tend to forget that the same off-season Favre "retired" from the Packers, Green Bay drafted TWO quarterbacks (Brohm in the 2nd round and Flynn in the 7th) to go along with Rodgers. Regardless of what some people may say, you don't draft a QB in the 2nd round with the idea of them being a career back up. Even after Rodgers had sat on the bench and taken countless snaps in practice for three years, the Packers FO still felt it was necessary to bring in guys to compete.

A lot of elite teams in the league have had a history of drafting QB's even after they've found "their guy". I'm not suggesting that we take a QB early this year, but I do encourage us to atleast bring in a late round-UDFA QB every off-season for developmental purposes.

I agree with the majority of us on this subject. Unless a top notch prospect falls, I don't like the idea of using one of our first four picks on a QB. After the 4th round and depending on the value, I wouldn't mind it.
Dallas got Aikman with the #1 overall pick of the 1989 draft—and got Jimmy Johnsons old QB Steve Walsh with the #1 pick of the supplemental draft. The battle for the starting job was fierce throughout their rookie and into their sophomore year (Walsh got Dallas' ONLY win in '89.) I personally thought Walsh the better QB at the time, but the competition honed the skills of BOTH players; after the Cowboys traded Walsh to the Saints in '90 he took them to their first playoff game EVER, while Aikman became... Aikman.

The deal is teams shouldn't put all their eggs in one basket, paint themselves into a corner; whatever we want to call it: If the first untested option explodes on the launchpad we don't get to cancel the season, but must move on with a different option. As you say, we didn't spend a 2nd rounder just to get our 37 year old QBs backup; we could've done that with a proven FA who'd shown himself to be reliable, if not necessarily spectacular. This is about who takes Peytons spot when he retires, probably either next year or the following one, a question too important to choose just one answer and hope it's right.

I don't doubt Os tears up on the practice field, or he wouldn't be the CURRENT plan B, the guy our season would depend on if, heaven forbid, Peyton missed multiple games with an injury. Yet many guys have torn up in practice or camp over the years only to BLOW up in their first real game, where opposing LBs and DEs are not only allowed but encouraged to hit them as hard as possible. Things move faster on Sundays than Thursdays, and a lot of guys with all the physical talent and practiced skill just can't handle the NFLs combination of complexity and pressure. Running the option with ones mom and girlfriend watching isn't quite the same as going through progressions and making check downs, hot reads and timing passes in front of the less forgiving world on MNF, head-hunted by All Pro blitzers as All Pro DBs play robber.

Maybe Os has the chops and maybe he doesn't, but one thing I'm sure off: Since we won't know the answer until he takes the field, and HE won't do that as long as Manning's starting, Elway and Co. won't wait for that day with no contingency plan. The risk of getting caught with their pants down is too large, and the consequences too dire, to roll those dice.


http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/nfl/news/20130405/backup-quarterbacks/?xid=si_topstories
sportys illustrated article.
look at all the great things they had to say about brock osweiler.
To be fair, most guys in that article are vets no one expects to ever be more than backups now. Hasselback was only nominally a franchise QB in Seattle, but that was nearly a decade ago; he'd be no ones long term solution now even with tools I'm unsure he EVER had. Same with Garrard. McCown, Skelton, McCoy, Campbell? If those guys could start they'd still be doing it for their old teams, not riding pine on new ones.


Are you saying that because he's not mentioned, its a bad thing? Did you see some of the names he DOES talk about? Chase Daniels, Jason Campbell, Luke McCown?? :lol:

This article isn't listing who has the best back-up plan, its just talking about some of the moves around the NFL and how it's changed the faces.
An article titled "Many teams added new No. 2 QBs, but who has best backup plan?" isn't about who has the best backup plan? Who's kidding whom now? ;) But OUR debate isn't whether Os is the best choice to avoid screw ups for a month or so if Manning pulls a hammy; that debate would be far less contentious. It's about whether he can lead the attack, not just hold down the fort, when Manning's gone for good.

That's a valid question that will be answered one way or the other VERY soon. Does anyone really want to be naked in the very possible event the answer is "Dear heaven, NO!"?


JOEL, I only hope this is the mindset of JFE!
but he seems alittle to 'sensative" about his hand picked successor to PFM.
I am not promoting waisting a draft pick on another QB, but i would like to see BO beat out some legitimate competition for the job.
One way or the other I'm sure you eventually will, if he can. Finding a franchise QB as quickly and easily as the Cowboys found Aikman or the Colts found Luck almost always requires going through what those teams endured to get first choice of an entire draft class (and even then you can get screwed if there are no decent QB prospects, hence the 'Skins had a losing team and STILL traded up to get RGIII.)

By the time Os is trying for the starting job, he'll surely have some decent competition, if only because we'll want competent insurance against the winner getting hurt. Again, this isn't really about who rides the pine, but if it were, consider this: If Mannings LAST team had had even a serviceable backup they probably wouldn't have Luck now—but wouldn't have NEEDED him as desperately as they did the last two years.


What makes it more ridiculous, in my opinion, is that we're talking about the BACK UP.

There's no real reason to sign a mid-priced veteran (say Matt Hasselback) to "compete" for the BACK UP. Because its a BACK UP. To a guy who has never missed a start in 14 seasons (excluding the nerve damage year, granted).
Again, that's not what this is about and we all know it; as RebelRocker already noted, intended backups, even QBs, aren't drafted in the 2nd round. Fourteen seasons is a looong time—but 15 or 16 is even longer.


If we won't know if Osweiler is the future until we see him on the field and he won't see the field for years what's.......the.......point?
We won't see him for YEAR. After that, well, Manning turns 38 in eleven months and a few weeks; he MIGHT stick around another year (though I frankly doubt it if he wins another Super Bowl instead of hitting a second year wall,) but I can't see him on the field at 39. I'm not even sure any of us WANT to see that; people questioned the guys arm strength at 23, and those questions are only louder 15 years later.


Btw, Lalich ran a 5.36 at his pro day, which makes Peyton Manning look like Joe Flacco.
No, running a 4.8 flat instead of Flaccos 4.84 made Peyton Manning look like Joe Flacco, at least as a runner, and since when do you value that in a QB? ;) Right now, that comparison doesn't really flatter Manning; last time they played Flacco had more yards and a third as many turnovers, despite facing a much better secondary.

Timmy!
04-07-2013, 11:20 AM
There needs to be a word limit on posts

MOtorboat
04-07-2013, 12:21 PM
I guess I'm not sure what it is people want from Elway here.

Dapper Dan
04-07-2013, 12:28 PM
I guess I'm not sure what it is people want from Elway here.

He needs to put Os in during a big game. If he underperforms, we cut him.

Jesus, MO, keep up.

SR
04-07-2013, 12:35 PM
He needs to put Os in during a big game. If he underperforms, we cut him.

Jesus, MO, keep up.

That's what I gathered.

Also, Joel needs to really cliff his posts.

MOtorboat
04-07-2013, 12:36 PM
He needs to put Os in during a big game. If he underperforms, we cut him.

Jesus, MO, keep up.

Obviously, if he can't beat out Peyton Manning for the starting job it was a worthless pick.

Dapper Dan
04-07-2013, 12:39 PM
Obviously, if he can't beat out Peyton Manning for the starting job it was a worthless pick.

It's not really his fault. It's Elway's for putting all of his bricks in one basket.

MOtorboat
04-07-2013, 12:43 PM
It's not really his fault. It's Elway's for putting all of his bricks in one basket.

Osweiler better get it going this next year.

broncohead
04-07-2013, 12:43 PM
People aren't satisfied with a backup QB because they haven't seen them personally perform on the football field? Coaches see these players everyday in practices and camps. I don't think the coaching staff and FO care about "proving" Os is the successor to the fans. So this is really pointless

Joel
04-07-2013, 12:46 PM
Just so it's not buried in the preceding textwall, I stumbled on this yesterday at Bleacher Report: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1591029-a-guide-to-drafting-a-franchise-quarterback

Firm declarations would be risky with so small a sample (32 starters plus a decade of QB drafts,) but it's more than enough for confirmation bias, which is good enough for me since I mostly agree with the article. :tongue:

A few things stuck out:

Of current starters, 23 were drafted in the first round, 4 in the second, 2 in the third and 2 (Brady and Flynn) later (Romo was undrafted.) That suggests 1) QBs chosen in the first 2-3 rounds are projected starters (no surprise) and 2) those chosen later are projected BACKUPS. Wilson went in the middle and Schaub the end of the third; after that teams may hope for Brady, but will be lucky to get Romo or Flynn.

Even the current and imminent crop of dual threat pro QBs knows they must be passers first and runners second, winning their jobs with their arms in the pocket, not their legs in the flat. Some of that's about longevity, but much of it is that if a QB can't run for a first down his offense usually has someone cheaper who can; if he can't pass for a first down, they have no one, and are screwed.

Along that same line, accuracy trumps strength. It doesn't matter how far a guy throws balls that usually land in the dirt (or an opponents hands.) The West Coast Offense was literally DESIGNED for a brilliant guy with a very weak accurate arm (Virgil Carter, a fascinating figure who both inspired the WCO and co-authored the seminal statistical analysis on Expected Points for any given field position.) More recently, PFM. Smart accurate passers can make a good living with noodle arms; inaccurate bombers should stick to putting shot (unless a murderous teammate announces retirement before the playoffs; then they're golden. :))

Drafting a great QB without a line to protect him is probably the worst thing possible for his development. We talk about seeing the whole field, going through progressions, finding checkdowns, internal clocks, recognizing "NFL open," etc. but all those skills are IMPOSSIBLE to acquire when the rush is on a guy at the snap. I didn't need this article to tell me the Texans erred colossally by making a QB their first pick ever; I knew that the moment it happened. As I watched Carr run for his life and get pummelled over the next five years I pretty much figured I was seeing a promising QBs career destroyed.

"Nobody deserves to be sacked 76 times, and it's extremely difficult to come back from that, both physically and emotionally." Amen. It got better, but not much; in their first five seasons the Texans gave up 272 sacks, or >54/year, leaving David Carr a broken man and Houston in need of a head coach who understood the offensive lines purpose. The Texans have recovered nicely, but Carr probably never will.

It's not just that QBs can't produce without protection (though that's certainly true, of course,) it's that unprotected QBs often end up so shell shocked they CAN'T recover. Calling the snap count is supposed to make OTHER people flinch, after all. A QB who must simultaneously take the snap and duck three tacklers can forget about ever developing a sense of timing or reading coverage; it's hard to read a defense while supine.

After all that, the article could be said to end as it began with the point most relevant to any team seeking to groom as an aging HoFers imminent replacement: Take chances, and pray for success. Of course, the more chances one takes, the more likely at least one pays off as hoped; if one MUST play the lottery, it's better to buy more tickets than less. I'm not saying I want or expect us to keep drafting QBs on the first day until we fill a straight (for one thing, we have too many other needs) but can easily see us grabbing such picks once deemed "busts" by teams that threw them to the lions and complained they got shredded.

Joel
04-07-2013, 12:48 PM
That's what I gathered.

Also, Joel needs to really cliff his posts.
There's no concise way to answer six different arguments by five different people. Maybe you people should post less. :tongue:

Dapper Dan
04-07-2013, 12:59 PM
Just so it's not buried in the preceding textwall, I stumbled on this yesterday at Bleacher Report: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1591029-a-guide-to-drafting-a-franchise-quarterback

Firm declarations would be risky with so small a sample (32 starters plus a decade of QB drafts,) but it's more than enough for confirmation bias, which is good enough for me since I mostly agree with the article. :tongue:

A few things stuck out:

Of current starters, 23 were drafted in the first round, 4 in the second, 2 in the third and 2 (Brady and Flynn) later (Romo was undrafted.) That suggests 1) QBs chosen in the first 2-3 rounds are projected starters (no surprise) and 2) those chosen later are projected BACKUPS. Wilson went in the middle and Schaub the end of the third; after that teams may hope for Brady, but will be lucky to get Romo or Flynn.

Even the current and imminent crop of dual threat pro QBs knows they must be passers first and runners second, winning their jobs with their arms in the pocket, not their legs in the flat. Some of that's about longevity, but much of it is that if a QB can't run for a first down his offense usually has someone cheaper who can; if he can't pass for a first down, they have no one, and are screwed.

Along that same line, accuracy trumps strength. It doesn't matter how far a guy throws balls that usually land in the dirt (or an opponents hands.) The West Coast Offense was literally DESIGNED for a brilliant guy with a very weak accurate arm (Virgil Carter, a fascinating figure who both inspired the WCO and co-authored the seminal statistical analysis on Expected Points for any given field position.) More recently, PFM. Smart accurate passers can make a good living with noodle arms; inaccurate bombers should stick to putting shot (unless a murderous teammate announces retirement before the playoffs; then they're golden. :))

Drafting a great QB without a line to protect him is probably the worst thing possible for his development. We talk about seeing the whole field, going through progressions, finding checkdowns, internal clocks, recognizing "NFL open," etc. but all those skills are IMPOSSIBLE to acquire when the rush is on a guy at the snap. I didn't need this article to tell me the Texans erred colossally by making a QB their first pick ever; I knew that the moment it happened. As I watched Carr run for his life and get pummelled over the next five years I pretty much figured I was seeing a promising QBs career destroyed.

"Nobody deserves to be sacked 76 times, and it's extremely difficult to come back from that, both physically and emotionally." Amen. It got better, but not much; in their first five seasons the Texans gave up 272 sacks, or >54/year, leaving David Carr a broken man and Houston in need of a head coach who understood the offensive lines purpose. The Texans have recovered nicely, but Carr probably never will.

It's not just that QBs can't produce without protection (though that's certainly true, of course,) it's that unprotected QBs often end up so shell shocked they CAN'T recover. Calling the snap count is supposed to make OTHER people flinch, after all. A QB who must simultaneously take the snap and duck three tacklers can forget about ever developing a sense of timing or reading coverage; it's hard to read a defense while supine.

After all that, the article could be said to end as it began with the point most relevant to any team seeking to groom as an aging HoFers imminent replacement: Take chances, and pray for success. Of course, the more chances one takes, the more likely at least one pays off as hoped; if one MUST play the lottery, it's better to buy more tickets than less. I'm not saying I want or expect us to keep drafting QBs on the first day until we fill a straight (for one thing, we have too many other needs) but can easily see us grabbing such picks once deemed "busts" by teams that threw them to the lions and complained they got shredded.

I almost read all of this.

topscribe
04-07-2013, 01:05 PM
I almost read all of this.
Work on your attention span. :D

It's actually a pretty good post . . .
.

Dapper Dan
04-07-2013, 01:12 PM
Work on your attention spam. :D

It's actually a pretty good post . . .
.

I'm gonna go nap, regroup, and try again tonight.

topscribe
04-07-2013, 01:26 PM
I'm gonna go nap, regroup, and try again tonight.
Anyway, I've confused myself. What is "attention spam"? lol
.

Simple Jaded
04-07-2013, 01:35 PM
I guess I'm not sure what it is people want from Elway here.

He needs to come out and publicly admit Manning was just a two-year rental who couldn't throw when he was 25 and start drafting multiple successors over the course of the next 5 to 6 drafts until one proves worthy of taking all four spots on the depth chart and practice squad.

How's that for cliff notes?

SR
04-07-2013, 03:43 PM
There's no concise way to answer six different arguments by five different people. Maybe you people should post less. :tongue:

Nah. Ill keep posting the same. And ignoring most of everything you say.

Joel
04-07-2013, 05:05 PM
He needs to come out and publicly admit Manning was just a two-year rental who couldn't throw when he was 25 and start drafting multiple successors over the course of the next 5 to 6 drafts until one proves worthy of taking all four spots on the depth chart and practice squad.

How's that for cliff notes?
Pretty horrible, since that's not what I said at all. Except for the two year rental part; we MIGHT get three from Manning (though I doubt it if we win next years SB) but that's all I expect, and if he's still playing at 39 most of us will probably wish he weren't. He's always thrown really well, but never been a bomber; the point of that observation was that, once again, precision trumps power. I SPECIFICALLY stated, "I'm not saying I want or expect us to keep drafting QBs on the first day until we fill a straight," so I'm not sure why you think I said the opposite.

If you think finding a franchise QB is as simple as drafting whoever's at the top of your board on your first pick, call Josh McDaniels. Or Brian Griese.

MOtorboat
04-07-2013, 05:15 PM
Pretty horrible, since that's not what I said at all. Except for the two year rental part; we MIGHT get three from Manning (though I doubt it if we win next years SB) but that's all I expect, and if he's still playing at 39 most of us will probably wish he weren't. He's always thrown really well, but never been a bomber; the point of that observation was that, once again, precision trumps power. I SPECIFICALLY stated, "I'm not saying I want or expect us to keep drafting QBs on the first day until we fill a straight," so I'm not sure why you think I said the opposite.

If you think finding a franchise QB is as simple as drafting whoever's at the top of your board on your first pick, call Josh McDaniels. Or Brian Griese.

And nothing Denver has done suggests they haven't been prudent at the quarterback position.

Denver's quarterback situation after 2012 was in shambles. They started 2012 with a quarterback who couldn't handle the pressure of late-game situations, and inside the red zone, and finished the season with possibly the worst quarterback to ever suit up.

I see people, especially Zam, screaming about a veteran quarterback. Well, Denver went out and got the best one available. He just happens to be possibly the ultimate team leader and a future Hall of Famer. They then drafted a young guy with a big arm, and big upside (the crap being spewed that he showed nothing at ASU is someone just not knowing what they're looking at) to groom.

On top of that, they brought in a third guy who has NFL experience, has a decent arm, but likely won't be anything more than a backup in the league, to hedge their bets (Hanie).

Denver has been nothing but prudent about their approach to the quarterback position.

Northman
04-07-2013, 05:19 PM
And nothing Denver has done suggests they haven't been prudent at the quarterback position.

Denver's quarterback situation after 2012 was in shambles. They started 2012 with a quarterback who couldn't handle the pressure of late-game situations, and inside the red zone, and finished the season with possibly the worst quarterback to ever suit up.

I see people, especially Zam, screaming about a veteran quarterback. Well, Denver went out and got the best one available. He just happens to be possibly the ultimate team leader and a future Hall of Famer. They then drafted a young guy with a big arm, and big upside (the crap being spewed that he showed nothing at ASU is someone just not knowing what they're looking at) to groom.

On top of that, they brought in a third guy who has NFL experience, has a decent arm, but likely won't be anything more than a backup in the league, to hedge their bets (Hanie).

Denver has been nothing but prudent about their approach to the quarterback position.


Perfect post. Can we close the book on this already?

SR
04-07-2013, 05:35 PM
Perfect post. Can we close the book on this already?

No. This argument must go on until a) we have a backup QB that is better than Peyton Manning or b) I don't know.

Lancane
04-07-2013, 05:47 PM
Ooooh, I know the answer, we'll bring back Tebow once he's cut by the Jets we can make him our special teams player, that way we have Mr. Golden Boy and he'll be able to backup the quarterback, tailback, fullback and tight end positions, and all the people who bitched that we wronged him can once again cream their pants that he's a Bronco once more.


(I was being sarcastic...)

Dapper Dan
04-07-2013, 08:31 PM
Anyway, I've confused myself. What is "attention spam"? lol
.

I don't know, but I'm hungry now.

Joel
04-07-2013, 08:45 PM
And nothing Denver has done suggests they haven't been prudent at the quarterback position.

Denver's quarterback situation after 2012 was in shambles. They started 2012 with a quarterback who couldn't handle the pressure of late-game situations, and inside the red zone, and finished the season with possibly the worst quarterback to ever suit up.

I see people, especially Zam, screaming about a veteran quarterback. Well, Denver went out and got the best one available. He just happens to be possibly the ultimate team leader and a future Hall of Famer. They then drafted a young guy with a big arm, and big upside (the crap being spewed that he showed nothing at ASU is someone just not knowing what they're looking at) to groom.

On top of that, they brought in a third guy who has NFL experience, has a decent arm, but likely won't be anything more than a backup in the league, to hedge their bets (Hanie).

Denver has been nothing but prudent about their approach to the quarterback position.
I really don't dispute that except for doubting whether Hanie is a reliable backup; there's a reason the Bears let him go, and it's not that Cutler's surrounded by capable understudies. Getting Osweiler last year made sense, but I doubt we're done yet. There's just only so many draft picks and roster spots, QB isn't our only concern, and we have at least one more year before we MUST have a solid starter ready to go. It's entirely possible that when Manning goes we hire a journeyman FA for a year or two until 1) Os is ready to start for a decade or 2) we find someone who is. Rome wasn't built in a day, after all.


Ooooh, I know the answer, we'll bring back Tebow once he's cut by the Jets we can make him our special teams player, that way we have Mr. Golden Boy and he'll be able to backup the quarterback, tailback, fullback and tight end positions, and all the people who bitched that we wronged him can once again cream their pants that he's a Bronco once more.


(I was being sarcastic...)
Sarcasm notwithstanding, I'd love to see him return, because he has the physical talent and mental acuity to be great—with a LOT of coaching to engrain the skill so woefully lacking. Elway and Manning would be ideal and sorely needed tutors he didn't have in NY, and his window of opportunity is rapidly closing, but that bridge burned and fell into the sea. The Broncos will go on; I doubt Tebow can.

Simple Jaded
04-07-2013, 09:38 PM
There are dozens of players with the physical talent and mental acuity to be great with a lot of coaching, however only one player comes with the severe brain damage associated with Tebowmania. You're better off hoping that Jarius Jackson or Bradlee Van Punk is brought back.

Simple Jaded
04-07-2013, 09:45 PM
Pretty horrible, since that's not what I said at all. Except for the two year rental part; we MIGHT get three from Manning (though I doubt it if we win next years SB) but that's all I expect, and if he's still playing at 39 most of us will probably wish he weren't. He's always thrown really well, but never been a bomber; the point of that observation was that, once again, precision trumps power. I SPECIFICALLY stated, "I'm not saying I want or expect us to keep drafting QBs on the first day until we fill a straight," so I'm not sure why you think I said the opposite.

If you think finding a franchise QB is as simple as drafting whoever's at the top of your board on your first pick, call Josh McDaniels. Or Brian Griese.

No, you're the one who thinks Manning was a two-year rental who couldn't throw when he was 25, Zam is the one who thinks the Broncos should draft a QB every year until he's personally satisfied.

I never implied that you thought they should draft a QB because I know the real reason behind your discontent with the current QB situation.

Joel
04-07-2013, 11:43 PM
No, you're the one who thinks Manning was a two-year rental who couldn't throw when he was 25, Zam is the one who thinks the Broncos should draft a QB every year until he's personally satisfied.

I never implied that you thought they should draft a QB because I know the real reason behind your discontent with the current QB situation.
I didn't say he couldn't throw at 25, I said he didn't have a strong arm (relatively speaking; I couldn't throw a ball as far as Manning if I had two tries.) Many people have said that since he was 23; it's why the Bolts took Ryan Leaf (and aren't we all glad they did?) That doesn't mean he was or is a poor passer; again, the whole point of the observation is that a guy with a quick mind and "laser" arm doesn't need a "rocket" arm.

I'm concerned about losing guys like Doom and Clady and inability to get others because Manning's eating 1/6th of our cap the next two years, and that if Os or someone else can't take his place afterward we're boned. I'm a little concerned our franchises anointed savior turned the ball over THREE TIMES in our last playoff game, the last of which ended our season, and has never won a playoff game when it was <40°.

I know things look rosy now, but in a couple years, perhaps even this time next year, we could have a skeleton team. We have about six truly great players, half of whom are >30 and consuming a third of our cap. Yes, that worries me. It's not certain doom, and might be worth it even if it were if we got a Super Bowl or two out of it. But it IS a valid concern, especially if we end up with NO titles to show for it.

Timmy!
04-08-2013, 12:51 AM
Imagine if the Texans somehow acquired Tebow. Joel would shit rainbows.

Joel
04-08-2013, 03:48 AM
Imagine if the Texans somehow acquired Tebow. Joel would shit rainbows.
They do need a QB in the worst way, and Kubes would be a good choice to develop him, but as long as they're in title contention I think they'd be better served by putting Yates back in and/or looking for a solid FA vet. Trouble is, they aren't likely to get any FA vets better than Schaub even if one of the few becomes available, not unless they're willing and able to spend a LOT of money (which I don't believe they are.)

Tebow's got two, MAYBE three years to learn the many skills he lacks or he never will, not in time for a meaningful NFL career. I frankly don't expect it, and do think it's a shame, but such is life. It's too bad Bum Phillips and Don Meredith never got to a Super Bowl, but they never will and that won't change, whether or not people spend another 30-40 years crying about it. I doubt they ever have.

Northman
04-08-2013, 05:24 AM
They do need a QB in the worst way, and Kubes would be a good choice to develop him, but as long as they're in title contention I think they'd be better served by putting Yates back in and/or looking for a solid FA vet. Trouble is, they aren't likely to get any FA vets better than Schaub even if one of the few becomes available, not unless they're willing and able to spend a LOT of money (which I don't believe they are.)

Tebow's got two, MAYBE three years to learn the many skills he lacks or he never will, not in time for a meaningful NFL career. I frankly don't expect it, and do think it's a shame, but such is life. It's too bad Bum Phillips and Don Meredith never got to a Super Bowl, but they never will and that won't change, whether or not people spend another 30-40 years crying about it. I doubt they ever have.


Bwhahahahahahahahaa

Dapper Dan
04-08-2013, 06:55 AM
Houston will draft Tyler Bray and everything will be okay.

TXBRONC
04-08-2013, 06:57 AM
They do need a QB in the worst way, and Kubes would be a good choice to develop him, but as long as they're in title contention I think they'd be better served by putting Yates back in and/or looking for a solid FA vet. Trouble is, they aren't likely to get any FA vets better than Schaub even if one of the few becomes available, not unless they're willing and able to spend a LOT of money (which I don't believe they are.)

Tebow's got two, MAYBE three years to learn the many skills he lacks or he never will, not in time for a meaningful NFL career. I frankly don't expect it, and do think it's a shame, but such is life. It's too bad Bum Phillips and Don Meredith never got to a Super Bowl, but they never will and that won't change, whether or not people spend another 30-40 years crying about it. I doubt they ever have.

Tebow is going into his 4th season as pro why should he get another two to three years to develop when the average career length is five years? It would be unrealistic to believe he should get more time than any other player.

MOtorboat
04-08-2013, 07:28 AM
People will be rolling out the "he just needs time to develop" line when Tebow is 30.

TXBRONC
04-08-2013, 08:20 AM
Houston will draft Tyler Bray and everything will be okay.

I don't know. I wouldn't be surprised if quite in middle of the first week of camp. :heh:

Chef Zambini
04-08-2013, 10:27 AM
People aren't satisfied with a backup QB because they haven't seen them personally perform on the football field? Coaches see these players everyday in practices and camps. I don't think the coaching staff and FO care about "proving" Os is the successor to the fans. So this is really pointlessthis is an absolutely valid point!
But MY FEAR, is that JFE is so personnaly invested in the OS pick, that he has a defensive posture on the matter.
I see os moving up the depth chart without any sign of competition or demonstration of performance in pre-season.
I hear JFE defending the draft pick by calling an untested rookiethe ' HEIR apparent and declaring him "the future".
JFE has painted himself into a corner with brock.
its very much like the TEBOW bsituation.
"i drafted him and he is going to be our future".
enjoy all the comedy, I REMAIN CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS POST-MANNING !
i HAVE NEVER SAID 'DRAFT ANOTHER qb !
i have said all along, BO should be subject to REAL competition for his role as the "future".

RebelRocker
04-08-2013, 02:02 PM
http://m.denverpost.com/denverpost/pm_110155/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=EIdpEUmi

Zac dysert is visiting Dove Valley today
That makes it two QBs taking visits with Matt Scott

broncohead
04-08-2013, 07:54 PM
this is an absolutely valid point!
But MY FEAR, is that JFE is so personnaly invested in the OS pick, that he has a defensive posture on the matter.
I see os moving up the depth chart without any sign of competition or demonstration of performance in pre-season.
I hear JFE defending the draft pick by calling an untested rookiethe ' HEIR apparent and declaring him "the future".
JFE has painted himself into a corner with brock.
its very much like the TEBOW bsituation.
"i drafted him and he is going to be our future".
enjoy all the comedy, I REMAIN CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS POST-MANNING !
i HAVE NEVER SAID 'DRAFT ANOTHER qb !
i have said all along, BO should be subject to REAL competition for his role as the "future".

Tebow was a 1st rd QB not a 2nd. Who did RG3 have to beat out? Luck? Weeden? Tannehill was drafted to start his rookie year. Thats just examples of last years draft. Most rookie QBs drafted early are handed the reins and drafted to start EARLY. We have the luxury to sit os and let him develop where most teams don't.

TXBRONC
04-08-2013, 09:20 PM
Tebow was a 1st rd QB not a 2nd. Who did RG3 have to beat out? Luck? Weeden? Tannehill was drafted to start his rookie year. Thats just examples of last years draft. Most rookie QBs drafted early are handed the reins and drafted to start EARLY. We have the luxury to sit os and let him develop where most teams don't.

Don't give Zam any facts he already has his mind made up.

tomjonesrocks
04-08-2013, 10:39 PM
****.

Joel
04-09-2013, 08:47 AM
Tebow is going into his 4th season as pro why should he get another two to three years to develop when the average career length is five years? It would be unrealistic to believe he should get more time than any other player.
I never said he SHOULD get another 2-3 years, only that it's all he CAN get; he may need it whether or not he gets it. The stark reality of modern pro football is that it's probably already too late for him to get the training to match his evident physical ability, brains and work ethic. The only people who thought McDumbas could fix that were the two of them; the closest Tebow got to pro QB coaching was the one year when McDumbass was out and Elway in as his mentor. Rex Ryan couldn't find his ample posterior with both hands and a map (else Sanchez wouldn't stay in,) so expecting he'd develop a QB was expecting too much.

Not what this thread is about though. I don't think Elway dumb enough to bet the farm on Osweiler, but it takes time to acquire a stable of potential starters, especially when there are so many other holes to fill in pursuit of a championship and the CURRENT starter is consuming 1/6th of the team salary. Before Manning retires we'll probably see another midround pick this year and/or next plus a journeyman free agent, someone who's been around long enough to have some experience playing Sundays but young enough it's too soon to know whether he's a stud or a dud.

TXBRONC
04-09-2013, 09:18 AM
I never said he SHOULD get another 2-3 years, only that it's all he CAN get; he may need it whether or not he gets it. The stark reality of modern pro football is that it's probably already too late for him to get the training to match his evident physical ability, brains and work ethic. The only people who thought McDumbas could fix that were the two of them; the closest Tebow got to pro QB coaching was the one year when McDumbass was out and Elway in as his mentor. Rex Ryan couldn't find his ample posterior with both hands and a map (else Sanchez wouldn't stay in,) so expecting he'd develop a QB was expecting too much.

Not what this thread is about though. I don't think Elway dumb enough to bet the farm on Osweiler, but it takes time to acquire a stable of potential starters, especially when there are so many other holes to fill in pursuit of a championship and the CURRENT starter is consuming 1/6th of the team salary. Before Manning retires we'll probably see another midround pick this year and/or next plus a journeyman free agent, someone who's been around long enough to have some experience playing Sundays but young enough it's too soon to know whether he's a stud or a dud.

No that's pretty much what you said "He's got two maybe three more years..." You're contridicting yourself. Previously you said he has two to three now you're saying it's probably to late. Either he has the time or he doesn't. As I pointed out if he has two to three more years to get straightened out that would mean he's got until he's in his sixth or seventh year in the League. That is unrealistic. Also you are mistaken that McDaniel was only one who thought he could fix Tebow. The guy he went to see last summer thought he could fix him and there were two or three other reputable quarterback coaches who believed they could get Tebow and IIRC one of them was a mentor of Tom Brady. Blaming Rex Ryan is silly especially considering that Tebow had just spent with quarterback's coach in LA just a few months before he joined the Jets. That's just poor excuse to blame Ryan couldn't get. He had three seasons prior to even going to Jets to get it down and he never did.

What do mean potential starters? Are talking about potential starters at quarterback? If that's what you're saying Joel that doesn't happen. There is no team in NFL that's going try and develop three or four quarterbacks to potential starters. That kind of time doesn't exsist.

Chef Zambini
04-09-2013, 11:17 AM
can somebody help me?
4 years ago I cut off a pigs ear, and I have been trying to make a silk purse out of it ever since.

Chef Zambini
04-09-2013, 11:22 AM
Tebow was a 1st rd QB not a 2nd. Who did RG3 have to beat out? Luck? Weeden? Tannehill was drafted to start his rookie year. Thats just examples of last years draft. Most rookie QBs drafted early are handed the reins and drafted to start EARLY. We have the luxury to sit os and let him develop where most teams don't.with genuine respect I say to you and others,
OS is NOT going to improve by SITTING!
sure he can WATCH and LEARN, but ...
COMPETITION for his JOB is, was and will always be the best 'TEACHER".

Ravage!!!
04-09-2013, 12:55 PM
with genuine respect I say to you and others,
OS is NOT going to improve by SITTING!
sure he can WATCH and LEARN, but ...
COMPETITION for his JOB is, was and will always be the best 'TEACHER".

so you want him to compete so that he can sit and watch?

broncohead
04-09-2013, 01:14 PM
with genuine respect I say to you and others,
OS is NOT going to improve by SITTING!
sure he can WATCH and LEARN, but ...
COMPETITION for his JOB is, was and will always be the best 'TEACHER".

So Rogers would have been great from day 1? If you have a HOF QB still playing top notch you WILL learn from that player. Simple as that

Simple Jaded
04-09-2013, 01:19 PM
I didn't say he couldn't throw at 25, I said he didn't have a strong arm (relatively speaking; I couldn't throw a ball as far as Manning if I had two tries.) Many people have said that since he was 23; it's why the Bolts took Ryan Leaf (and aren't we all glad they did?) That doesn't mean he was or is a poor passer; again, the whole point of the observation is that a guy with a quick mind and "laser" arm doesn't need a "rocket" arm.

I'm concerned about losing guys like Doom and Clady and inability to get others because Manning's eating 1/6th of our cap the next two years, and that if Os or someone else can't take his place afterward we're boned. I'm a little concerned our franchises anointed savior turned the ball over THREE TIMES in our last playoff game, the last of which ended our season, and has never won a playoff game when it was <40°.

I know things look rosy now, but in a couple years, perhaps even this time next year, we could have a skeleton team. We have about six truly great players, half of whom are >30 and consuming a third of our cap. Yes, that worries me. It's not certain doom, and might be worth it even if it were if we got a Super Bowl or two out of it. But it IS a valid concern, especially if we end up with NO titles to show for it.

And you think resigning Clady is easier with garbage at QB? He's gonna take the same negotiation strategy regardless and will be far less inclined to re-up with a team that has a QB that YOU deem worthy of Pat Bowlen's money. Same goes for "others", and you know it. Deep down inside you know it.

Having more cap space looks Rosie on paper but does absolutely nothing for you on the field. Good luck winning a Championship with Doom, Clady, Random Garbage QB and boat loads of cap space.

As for how rosie things look a couple years from now, I don't care, I fully intend to enjoy watching Manning take up 1/6th of Denver's cap while I have the chance.

Simple Jaded
04-09-2013, 01:26 PM
KC had talent on offense/defense, boatloads of cap space and garbage at QB, worked out real well for them. Look at all the FA's flocking to play with the Chefs. Hard to believe that they had any interest in the same QB that is currently eating up 1/6th of Denver's cap.

Simple Jaded
04-09-2013, 01:52 PM
with genuine respect I say to you and others,
OS is NOT going to improve by SITTING!
sure he can WATCH and LEARN, but ...
COMPETITION for his JOB is, was and will always be the best 'TEACHER".
One question; if the current backup can't improve/learn while sitting/watching how is another backup supposed to improve/learn from sitting/watching?

Seems to me you'd have two backups not improving/learning from sitting/watching.

MOtorboat
04-09-2013, 02:07 PM
with genuine respect I say to you and others,
OS is NOT going to improve by SITTING!
sure he can WATCH and LEARN, but ...
COMPETITION for his JOB is, was and will always be the best 'TEACHER".

:fart:

SR
04-09-2013, 02:16 PM
with genuine respect I say to you and others,
OS is NOT going to improve by SITTING!
sure he can WATCH and LEARN, but ...
COMPETITION for his JOB is, was and will always be the best 'TEACHER".

How'd Aaron Rodgers do it then? Sat behind one of the GOAT and is now one of the best in the league. There goes that argument.

SR
04-09-2013, 02:17 PM
:fart:

Beer?

MOtorboat
04-09-2013, 02:34 PM
Beer?

Maybe later.

SR
04-09-2013, 02:45 PM
Maybe later.

K. Weather is kinda bad here right now anyway.

MOtorboat
04-09-2013, 02:49 PM
K. Weather is kinda bad here right now anyway.

Mostly just sleet/snow flurries here, but the wind is blowing like crazy. Can't wait to just get home and not have to go anywhere tonight.

Joel
04-09-2013, 03:06 PM
No that's pretty much what you said "He's got two maybe three more years..." You're contridicting yourself. Previously you said he has two to three now you're saying it's probably to late. Either he has the time or he doesn't. As I pointed out if he has two to three more years to get straightened out that would mean he's got until he's in his sixth or seventh year in the League. That is unrealistic. Also you are mistaken that McDaniel was only one who thought he could fix Tebow. The guy he went to see last summer thought he could fix him and there were two or three other reputable quarterback coaches who believed they could get Tebow and IIRC one of them was a mentor of Tom Brady. Blaming Rex Ryan is silly especially considering that Tebow had just spent with quarterback's coach in LA just a few months before he joined the Jets. That's just poor excuse to blame Ryan couldn't get. He had three seasons prior to even going to Jets to get it down and he never did.
Sorry if I was unclear: He's PROBABLY done now, but DEFINITELY in two, maybe three, years unless his skill increases by the tremendous amount necessary. He needs more than an offseason or two with a couple guys who made their names "improving" Pro Bowlers and Super Bowl winners. Ryan sucks, as Mark Sanchez would demonstrate even in Tebows absence. The whole Ryan family sucks, actually, but the closest any of them came to any offensive knowledge was when Buddy punched Kevin Gilbride in the face during an Oilers playoff game (because the problem with those teams was their OFFENSE. :rolleyes:)


What do mean potential starters? Are talking about potential starters at quarterback? If that's what you're saying Joel that doesn't happen. There is no team in NFL that's going try and develop three or four quarterbacks to potential starters. That kind of time doesn't exsist.
No, I'm talking about bringing in potential starting LBs as QBs; yes, I'm talking about potential starting QBs. Someone like Flynn, or (to use horrible examples from a horrible team,) Cassel, Huard or Green a few years ago. Maybe the Rams bringing in Warner when Green was their starter would be a better example. Teams try to develop multiple QBs to starter level all the time, though rarely more than two at once because there are only so many ways to divide reps with the starting offense and practices with the best coaches before reaching marginal returns.

However, I DON'T think Denver will say, "Osweiler's our guy; we aren't looking at anyone else, and any other QBs we sign will only practice with the third string while our STs coach watches." That's the kind of thing everyone's (falsely) accusing Zam of suggesting, and no less ridiculous coming from another source. Again I note: When Dallas drafted Aikman with the #1 overall pick, they still drafted Steve Walsh with the #1 pick of the supplemental draft, and worked so hard developing both that they ALSO developed a QB controversy that lasted past the start of the NEXT season. Because you don't bet the farm on ONE untested QB.

Joel
04-09-2013, 03:15 PM
And you think resigning Clady is easier with garbage at QB? He's gonna take the same negotiation strategy regardless and will be far less inclined to re-up with a team that has a QB that YOU deem worthy of Pat Bowlen's money. Same goes for "others", and you know it. Deep down inside you know it.
Right; Doom bolted for Baltimore because he thinks Flacco's SO much better than Manning it gives him his best chance at a Ring. Who the Hell said our options at QB are "garbage or Manning." I sure HOPE we have more options, because Manning turned 37 two weeks ago: One way or the other we'll need a better option than "garbage" soon; that's why we've spent 9 pages (so far...) discussing it.


Having more cap space looks Rosie on paper but does absolutely nothing for you on the field. Good luck winning a Championship with Doom, Clady, Random Garbage QB and boat loads of cap space.

As for how rosie things look a couple years from now, I don't care, I fully intend to enjoy watching Manning take up 1/6th of Denver's cap while I have the chance.
Having more cap space DIRECTLY affects what you can PUT on the field, so yeah, it matters, not in some abstract feel-good sort of way, but in points and wins. IF we win a Super Bowl with Manning I'll enjoy the Hell out of it; otherwise I'll be wishing we'd spent $20 million/year on a half a dozen young studs with half a dozen Pro Bowls and a few Super Bowls left in them. If we come out of this with NO Super Bowls and Doom, Clady and Thomas winning them with other teams, I'll expect you to explain how how we're better off for it.

SR
04-09-2013, 03:19 PM
Mostly just sleet/snow flurries here, but the wind is blowing like crazy. Can't wait to just get home and not have to go anywhere tonight.

I have about three feet of snow covering most of my back yard and hardly anything in my front yard. But damn that giant drift behind my truck. I'm loathing shoveling that

Joel
04-09-2013, 06:56 PM
I have about three feet of snow covering most of my back yard and hardly anything in my front yard. But damn that giant drift behind my truck. I'm loathing shoveling that
I live in Norway; it snowed on 1 June last year: I win (if you can call that winning.) :tongue:

SR
04-09-2013, 07:02 PM
I live in Norway; it snowed on 1 June last year: I win (if you can call that winning.) :tongue:

Joke is on you. You live in Norway.

Simple Jaded
04-09-2013, 07:06 PM
Right; Doom bolted for Baltimore because he thinks Flacco's SO much better than Manning it gives him his best chance at a Ring. Who the Hell said our options at QB are "garbage or Manning." I sure HOPE we have more options, because Manning turned 37 two weeks ago: One way or the other we'll need a better option than "garbage" soon; that's why we've spent 9 pages (so far...) discussing it.


Having more cap space DIRECTLY affects what you can PUT on the field, so yeah, it matters, not in some abstract feel-good sort of way, but in points and wins. IF we win a Super Bowl with Manning I'll enjoy the Hell out of it; otherwise I'll be wishing we'd spent $20 million/year on a half a dozen young studs with half a dozen Pro Bowls and a few Super Bowls left in them. If we come out of this with NO Super Bowls and Doom, Clady and Thomas winning them with other teams, I'll expect you to explain how how we're better off for it.

And having a Championship caliber QB doesn't DIRECTLY affect what you put in the field?

Btw, YOUR idea of a QB is garbage, that's why you've spent 9 pages discussing it.

Joel
04-09-2013, 08:12 PM
And having a Championship caliber QB doesn't DIRECTLY affect what you put in the field?
I never said it didn't, but it's not the ONLY thing that affects what you put on the field, not unless you're planning to draft 22 QBs to block, run, catch and play defense as well as throw.


Btw, YOUR idea of a QB is garbage, that's why you've spent 9 pages discussing it.
My idea of a QB is drafting the best available prospects and signing the best available FAs until you have two or three good ones to compete for the job in training camp, and at least one decent fall back option if the training camp star bombs on Sundays. Your idea seems to be waiting for someone to release their first ballot HoFer due to age and injury then offering him every dime you can beg, borrow or steal. Good luck with that, because even if it were wise it's not an opporunity that arises every other season, which is about how often you'll have to do it if you won't sign anyone who hasn't turned 35 and made half a dozen Pro Bowls.

Simple Jaded
04-09-2013, 08:22 PM
I never said it didn't, but it's not the ONLY thing that affects what you put on the field, not unless you're planning to draft 22 QBs to block, run, catch and play defense as well as throw.


My idea of a QB is drafting the best available prospects and signing the best available FAs until you have two or three good ones to compete for the job in training camp, and at least one decent fall back option if the training camp star bombs on Sundays. Your idea seems to be waiting for someone to release their first ballot HoFer due to age and injury then offering him every dime you can beg, borrow or steal. Good luck with that, because even if it were wise it's not an opporunity that arises every other season, which is about how often you'll have to do it if you won't sign anyone who hasn't turned 35 and made half a dozen Pro Bowls.

Manning was the best available QB. And I don't have to wait for somebody to release a HoFer, the Colts already did, perhaps you've heard.

Instead of complaining about "$20 mil", "1/6th of cap salary cap", cap space that FA's otherwise want no part of and draft/build around some random "best available" QB, perhaps you have some specific alternative in mind? Because when the Broncos fail to win a Championship with Manning I'm gonna expect you to explain how this random/unnamed QB would have.

Joel
04-09-2013, 08:23 PM
Joke is on you. You live in Norway.
Yeah, but my SB XLVII half time show was the Aurora Borealis. Still a bit surprised I could see it downtown.

Simple Jaded
04-09-2013, 08:42 PM
Take a look at the available QB's from the time they signed Manning up until this point and tell us which QB you deem worthy of building a Championship team around. Weeden, Osweiler, Wilson and Foles? Did you see the other FA's last year? How bout this years FA's? How bout the '13 group of draft eligible QB?

What, Russel Wilson? Are you gonna rip the Broncos for signing Manning over a 5-10 rookie? Even with the benefit of hindsight?

Joel
04-09-2013, 10:30 PM
Which second year QB is good enough to build a championship team? If I could answer that an NFL team would be paying me to do so. It's hard enough to know that very few grab a single 23 year old and say, "this is THE guy; if we're wrong we'll take our lumps with a couple 4-12 seasons and try again." Even Denver had Kubes waiting in case Elway exploded on the launchpad, and he was as close to a sure thing as it gets.

There's only so many roster spots though, one is already taken, and we've had a total of ONE draft to seek Mannings replacement. We got a one QB out of it, too, all anyone could reasonably expect, but I sincerely doubt we're done shopping just because we ran out of draft picks and money last year. We're also low on cash in a weak QB draft now, but should have at least one more year before we need a new starter.

Simple Jaded
04-10-2013, 12:32 AM
Which second year QB is good enough to build a championship team? If I could answer that an NFL team would be paying me to do so. It's hard enough to know that very few grab a single 23 year old and say, "this is THE guy; if we're wrong we'll take our lumps with a couple 4-12 seasons and try again." Even Denver had Kubes waiting in case Elway exploded on the launchpad, and he was as close to a sure thing as it gets.

There's only so many roster spots though, one is already taken, and we've had a total of ONE draft to seek Mannings replacement. We got a one QB out of it, too, all anyone could reasonably expect, but I sincerely doubt we're done shopping just because we ran out of draft picks and money last year. We're also low on cash in a weak QB draft now, but should have at least one more year before we need a new starter.
No, no, no, your issue isn't with finding Manning's replacement, your issue is the Broncos choice of starting QB and how much money he makes. You said yourself that I will have some explaining to do when Denver doesn't win a SB with Manning as opposed to half-dozen ProBowl FA's and some random QB.

Who is that random QB Joel? Certainly you have a better alternative in mind, and while you're at it lets have some FA ProBowl names you'd bag with all that Manning cap space. Tell me you're not constantly whining about the same thing over and over and over without a better solution in mind.

Certainly there's a perfectly logical reason for your discontent with the Broncos QB situation?

Chef Zambini
04-10-2013, 10:55 AM
Take a look at the available QB's from the time they signed Manning up until this point and tell us which QB you deem worthy of building a Championship team around. Weeden, Osweiler, Wilson and Foles? Did you see the other FA's last year? How bout this years FA's? How bout the '13 group of draft eligible QB?

What, Russel Wilson? Are you gonna rip the Broncos for signing Manning over a 5-10 rookie? Even with the benefit of hindsight?there was NOTHING stoppiong our broncos from drafting russel wilson.
you try to make it sound like once we signed PFM, somehow russel was unavailable to us?
that is ludicrous!
what you should be asking is WHY! why did we not see the potential in russel?
and you shpuld also be asking which guy you would rather have, russel who EARNED jis job in competition, or OS who has been declared the heir apparent and the future and can just sit back and watch.

BroncoJoe
04-10-2013, 11:00 AM
Zam, please explain exactly what you'd like management to do with Os. I'd really like to hear it.

MOtorboat
04-10-2013, 11:07 AM
there was NOTHING stoppiong our broncos from drafting russel wilson.
you try to make it sound like once we signed PFM, somehow russel was unavailable to us?
that is ludicrous!
what you should be asking is WHY! why did we not see the potential in russel?
and you shpuld also be asking which guy you would rather have, russel who EARNED jis job in competition, or OS who has been declared the heir apparent and the future and can just sit back and watch.

:fart:

This is a complete load of bullshit.

If the Broncos drafted Russell he'd be doing the same ******* thing that Osweiler is doing. What a load of horse shit.

This is all because you just don't like Osweiler, for some reason isn't it? He stiff you on a tip like Bailey?

Chef Zambini
04-10-2013, 11:36 AM
Zam, please explain exactly what you'd like management to do with Os. I'd really like to hear it.
I would like to see os run the first string offense in a pre-season game. I would like to see os perform against a #1 defense in a real game9pre-season0 situation.
I would like to have him COMPETE for his job as PFMs replacement insted of just beiung declared the replacement.
Thats what i want, plain and simple.
I watched OS in college.
NOTHING about this kids play made me think, he can be an NFL starting QB..... nothing.
so now that he is in a bronco uniform,
' i would like to see something with my own eyes.
I dont like the way os was essentially hidden from view last year.
i dont like the way he was suddenly handed the #2 spot over hainy. and even if he was better than haine, who wants to hang their hat on that?
If OS was good enuff to be hand selected as PFMs eventual replacement. lets see him work !
dont tell me he is the heir apparent, SHOW ME !
joe, thats what i want.

Ravage!!!
04-10-2013, 11:41 AM
:lol:

BroncoJoe
04-10-2013, 12:04 PM
I would like to see os run the first string offense in a pre-season game. I would like to see os perform against a #1 defense in a real game9pre-season0 situation.
I would like to have him COMPETE for his job as PFMs replacement insted of just beiung declared the replacement.
Thats what i want, plain and simple.
I watched OS in college.
NOTHING about this kids play made me think, he can be an NFL starting QB..... nothing.
so now that he is in a bronco uniform,
' i would like to see something with my own eyes.
I dont like the way os was essentially hidden from view last year.
i dont like the way he was suddenly handed the #2 spot over hainy. and even if he was better than haine, who wants to hang their hat on that?
If OS was good enuff to be hand selected as PFMs eventual replacement. lets see him work !
dont tell me he is the heir apparent, SHOW ME !
joe, thats what i want.

Pure entertainment.

thanks.

Timmy!
04-10-2013, 12:15 PM
Good thing this thread hasn't gotten ridiculous

SR
04-10-2013, 12:52 PM
I would like to see os run the first string offense in a pre-season game. I would like to see os perform against a #1 defense in a real game9pre-season0 situation.
I would like to have him COMPETE for his job as PFMs replacement insted of just beiung declared the replacement.
Thats what i want, plain and simple.
I watched OS in college.
NOTHING about this kids play made me think, he can be an NFL starting QB..... nothing.
so now that he is in a bronco uniform,
' i would like to see something with my own eyes.
I dont like the way os was essentially hidden from view last year.
i dont like the way he was suddenly handed the #2 spot over hainy. and even if he was better than haine, who wants to hang their hat on that?
If OS was good enuff to be hand selected as PFMs eventual replacement. lets see him work !
dont tell me he is the heir apparent, SHOW ME !
joe, thats what i want.

So Oz needs to prove his worth to you specifically? Never mind that he has obviously proven himself to the coaching staff and front office? What makes you such a great evaluator of talent?

Ravage!!!
04-10-2013, 01:18 PM
So Oz needs to prove his worth to you specifically? Never mind that he has obviously proven himself to the coaching staff and front office? What makes you such a great evaluator of talent?

Especially since he didn't see ANYTHING from Os to make him believe he can be a starting QB to begin with.

Lancane
04-10-2013, 01:53 PM
Especially since he didn't see ANYTHING from Os to make him believe he can be a starting QB to begin with.

Even more so when you look at Mike Mayock's comments about the Osweiler last year, the most respected draft analyst in the business...who said that Osweiler could find his way into the first round, that he is raw but has everything you look for in a franchise quarterback at this level. That is good enough for me, and should be good enough for most, of course we still have fans that are a part of this base which feel Tebow was shafted and was a better quarterback option then even Manning! (LMAO)

Chef Zambini
04-10-2013, 01:54 PM
So Oz needs to prove his worth to you specifically? Never mind that he has obviously proven himself to the coaching staff and front office? What makes you such a great evaluator of talent?joe asked me what I wanted.
I gave my answer. what do you want from os and the broncos?
I guess none of you cARE IF YOU ecver see him face a first string defense until PFM retires?
where does your confidense come from?
do you have video of great os performances?
do you have combine numbers to shut me up?
is there a memorable game performance you can refer to?
... or should I just believe in Os because JFE hand picked him?
... and if thats true, why not apply the same logic to HILLMAN?

Chef Zambini
04-10-2013, 01:59 PM
:fart:

This is a complete load of bullshit.

If the Broncos drafted Russell he'd be doing the same ******* thing that Osweiler is doing. What a load of horse shit.

This is all because you just don't like Osweiler, for some reason isn't it? He stiff you on a tip like Bailey?

Originally Posted by Jaded

Take a look at the available QB's from the time they signed Manning up until this point and tell us which QB you deem worthy of building a Championship team around. Weeden, Osweiler, Wilson and Foles? Did you see the other FA's last year? How bout this years FA's? How bout the '13 group of draft eligible QB?

What, Russel Wilson? Are you gonna rip the Broncos for signing Manning over a 5-10 rookie? Even with the benefit of hindsight?
(end of jaded quote)

jaded made it sound like it was an either /or option with russel and manning.
my post just clarified how far from the truth thaT CONTENTION WAS.
BUT ONCE AGAIN mo THE FART HAS TO PRETEND I SAID SOMETHING ELSE.

Ravage!!!
04-10-2013, 02:02 PM
Zam.. has nothing to do with any "confidence" that you claim we have. We know that EVERY team in the NFL has drafted QBs in the 1st and second round and "given" them the reigns to the buggy without having to beat anyone out for the job. Why would you draft a QB highly ify ou didn't already admire their skill set? What do you gain buy continuing to draft players at the same position? WHEN do you think Os is going to prove to you anything.... pre-season games??? Seriously? Pre-season games prove shit.

As far as him being "handed" the job when Manning retires.... that hasn't happened yet. Your COMPLETE BS crap of him being the "heir apparant" is total shit, considering that NFL teams all across the league draft guys when their QB retires and then START them their following season. So what, in god's name, is the problem with the Broncos having their "plan B" sit the bench for a couple years? Your line of thinking has ZERO logic.. none.

For some reason you feel you need to be "proved" that they were right when promoting Brock to #2 when you dont' know SHIT about evaluating a QB to begin with. For some reason you feel the Broncos OWE you some kind of "reason" as to why he's the back-up instead of ...well.. someone else?? You think they HAVE to prove to you that he can perform when it seems that THEY don't seem to have the same qustions as you do while THEY are the ones that actually see him play.

Its just an absurd argument that has absolutely no substance.

Ravage!!!
04-10-2013, 02:03 PM
Even more so when you look at Mike Mayock's comments about the Osweiler last year, the most respected draft analyst in the business...who said that Osweiler could find his way into the first round, that he is raw but has everything you look for in a franchise quarterback at this level. That is good enough for me, and should be good enough for most, of course we still have fans that are a part of this base which feel Tebow was shafted and was a better quarterback option then even Manning! (LMAO)

Not to mention that Brock very well could have been the #1 QB in this class had he stayed for his senior season.

Chef Zambini
04-10-2013, 02:05 PM
rav you continue to bring up DRAFTING. I have NEVER suggested we DRAFT another QB, EVER !
so get off that dead horse, it wont takew you where you want to go!
I am a proponent of OS competing for his role of the next bronco QB !
apparently you oppose the idea!
"we have os, we dont need any other QBs around". that must be your mentality.
' that make yoy a @!E$%$EW%$#^%R^JY I OY

Chef Zambini
04-10-2013, 02:11 PM
Not to mention that Brock very well could have been the #1 QB in this class had he stayed for his senior season.
oh and that shoulda, woulda, coulda has so much value!
see barkley for details!
jamarcus russel was a #1 pick!
I guess os could have been the next jamarcuss russel?
How about the kid shows us something on a gameday against legitimate NFL competition?
why are YOU, MO and JFE so afraid of seeing OS on the field, playing against bona fide NFL competition?
why?

MOtorboat
04-10-2013, 02:26 PM
oh and that shoulda, woulda, coulda has so much value!
see barkley for details!
jamarcus russel was a #1 pick!
I guess os could have been the next jamarcuss russel?
How about the kid shows us something on a gameday against legitimate NFL competition?
why are YOU, MO and JFE so afraid of seeing OS on the field, playing against bona fide NFL competition?
why?

When did I say that?

Simple Jaded
04-10-2013, 02:32 PM
why are YOU, MO and JFE so afraid of seeing OS on the field, playing against bona fide NFL competition?
why?

You're the one who thinks they should keep drafting QB's before Osweiler has ever seen the field, seems like you don't wanna see him on the field more than anyone. I'm afraid of him seeing the field because it means Manning is not on the field, but I'm quirky like that.

Chef Zambini
04-10-2013, 02:43 PM
jaded, pre- season, try again.
maybe you can back peddle from your russel arguement while you are at it!
hey zam bashers,
where is the great brock video you want to show everyone?
or the great brock combine numbers?
where is the justification?

Simple Jaded
04-10-2013, 02:47 PM
jaded, pre- season, try again.
maybe you can back peddle from your russel arguement while you are at it!
hey zam bashers,
where is the great brock video you want to show everyone?
or the great brock combine numbers?
where is the justification?
What Russell argument? And what about preseason? Hey, I'm on your side most of the time but I gotta tell ya you're completely irrational on this one. You don't make an ounce of sense, sorry.

Chef Zambini
04-10-2013, 02:47 PM
You're the one who thinks they should keep drafting QB's before Osweiler has ever seen the field, seems like you don't wanna see him on the field more than anyone. I'm afraid of him seeing the field because it means Manning is not on the field, but I'm quirky like that.get off the "drfat another QB horse"
I never said it and you are beating a dead horse thaT rav continues to ride!
show me ANY quote of mine where i said we should DRAFT another QB and i will stop posting until the first pre-season game!
I demand C-O-M-P-E-T-I-T-I-O-N, I SAid nothing about drafting!
maybe you can waste your time looking for a quote that does not exist, like looking for brock video that justifies his uncontested role as the next bronco QB !

Chef Zambini
04-10-2013, 02:53 PM
Take a look at the available QB's from the time they signed Manning up until this point and tell us which QB you deem worthy of building a Championship team around. Weeden, Osweiler, Wilson and Foles? Did you see the other FA's last year? How bout this years FA's? How bout the '13 group of draft eligible QB?

What, Russel Wilson? Are you gonna rip the Broncos for signing Manning over a 5-10 rookie? Even with the benefit of hindsight?jaded this quote from you makes it sound like PFM / russel wilson was an either or proposition.

nothing could be further from reality.
lets go ahead and adress the elephant in the room:
who here would rather have brock over russel wilSON ?

Joel
04-10-2013, 02:55 PM
No, no, no, your issue isn't with finding Manning's replacement, your issue is the Broncos choice of starting QB and how much money he makes. You said yourself that I will have some explaining to do when Denver doesn't win a SB with Manning as opposed to half-dozen ProBowl FA's and some random QB.
I said, "IF," not "when." For a guy who complains about reductio ad absurdum you sure DO it a lot. The one thing you're right about is that whether or not anyone but Bowlen and Elway agrees with Denvers current choice of starter is irrelevant now; we dance with the one what brung us (or perhaps vice versa.) It doesn't really matter if you, I or anyone else would have preferred Flynn, sucking for Luck, trading up for RGIII or whatever: Even if those options once existed, they vanished a year ago.


Who is that random QB Joel? Certainly you have a better alternative in mind, and while you're at it lets have some FA ProBowl names you'd bag with all that Manning cap space. Tell me you're not constantly whining about the same thing over and over and over without a better solution in mind.

Certainly there's a perfectly logical reason for your discontent with the Broncos QB situation?
Well, gee willikers, Col. Jessep, I guess those 31 poor SOBs who don't have PFM under center are as boned as we will be in a year or two. Though the Ravens did OK with a second rate passer like Flacco; they not only managed to win a Super Bowl, but BEAT PFM in his own house to do it. And the biggest reasons were the aging first ballot HoFer who turned the ball over THREE TIMES and the aging first ballot HoFer who gave up TWO TD bombs; neither ones accomplished career changes that, however much we dance around it.

You could've saved us 11 pages of thread about who's fit to succeed PFM if you'd just said "NO ONE!" at the outset. Either Osweiler's a viable long term solution or he's not; whether he's ready to go today doesn't change that. Carson Palmer hit the market last year, but we didn't bid because we didn't need a QB. Flynn was available, we could've traded up for RGIII just like the 'Skins did; there's plenty of options if we don't paint ourselves into a corner by saying, "Peyton or bust!" without even acknowledging the real possibility of "Peyton AND bust!"

As to which non-QB FAs we could've gotten instead, there's a guy named Dumervil who's pretty good, and this other guy named Clady is a FA next season, because the geniuses who franchise tagged him this year can't afford what he's worth. Doom wasn't even the top rated FA DE this year: Avril and Bennett were, and Seattle signed one to a two and the other to a one year contract for a COMBINED total that, coincidentally, is EXACTLY what we're paying PFM EACH of the next two years. There's a pretty good CB named Revis about to hit the market, and he's a lot younger than Champ—but WE can't afford him.

Or how about this: While we were offering PFM $20 million/year in 2012, the Bills got Super Mario for $16 million/year, the Saints got Curtis Lofton for $7 million/year (which they more than halved with a restructure a few months ago,) the Bucs got Carl Nicks for $9 million/year, the Seahawks got Matt Flynn for about the same, and the Jets gave Laron Landry a one year $4 million deal. We could have nearly ALL of them (except Williams, though we could have him and any one other) for what PFM got instead. I'm not saying Manning sucks but, holy crap, $20 million is a LOT of money, especially when the table limit's $120 million.

Those are just the top 2012 FAs at positions we NEED. Maybe you think Flynn sucks big hairy donkeys because he's not PFM, but we've talked (at length) about Denvers guards, and you can't tell me Carl Nicks wouldn't be a big help, even AFTER signing Vasquez. We haven't had a decent MLB since Wilson retired, and it's still the biggest hole in the heart of our D: Curtis Lofton would've filled it nicely for the next five years or more; instead, we can't even afford the last dregs of Urlacher. Would you rather start Laron Landry than Rahim Moore? Do I have to ask? Would we miss Doom with Super Mario?

Five or ten minutes of googling is enough to answer your question, and the answer is "no, signing PFM for $20 million/year isn't the only way to win a Super Bowl; just ask all the FIVE teams that won the last SIX." Including two (last years Ravens and the '09 Saints) who beat PFM to do it.

SR
04-10-2013, 02:57 PM
joe asked me what I wanted.
I gave my answer. what do you want from os and the broncos?
I guess none of you cARE IF YOU ecver see him face a first string defense until PFM retires?
where does your confidense come from?
do you have video of great os performances?
do you have combine numbers to shut me up?
is there a memorable game performance you can refer to?
... or should I just believe in Os because JFE hand picked him?
... and if thats true, why not apply the same logic to HILLMAN?

I don't need any of that shit because a) Peyton Manning is currently our quarterback and you don't take one of the best QBs ever out of any of his normal playing time so that his backup and potential successor can get a little face time and 2) you don't know WTF you're talking about.

Simple Jaded
04-10-2013, 03:05 PM
jaded this quote from you makes it sound like PFM / russel wilson was an either or proposition.

nothing could be further from reality.
lets go ahead and adress the elephant in the room:
who here would rather have brock over russel wilSON ?

For Joel it is an either/or proposition, Zam, he doesn't want Manning playing for the Denver Broncos.

Btw, I would still not draft Wilson, not as a starter. I said it before he started as a rookie and I stand by it. He's good, I think he rivals Griffin for the 2nd QB drafted if he's not so short but he is 5-10. Let someone else solve that riddle, I'll take the guy who replaced him in NCST over him. Crazy as that sounds atm.

Chef Zambini
04-10-2013, 03:08 PM
brilliant.
I guess thats why brady and brees take every single snap in pre-season too.
this whole competition thing is overrated,
WTF was I thinking?
gosh, look at sanchez in NY!
the total lack of competition has not hurt him any !

Simple Jaded
04-10-2013, 03:14 PM
I said, "IF," not "when." For a guy who complains about reductio ad absurdum you sure DO it a lot. The one thing you're right about is that whether or not anyone but Bowlen and Elway agrees with Denvers current choice of starter is irrelevant now; we dance with the one what brung us (or perhaps vice versa.) It doesn't really matter if you, I or anyone else would have preferred Flynn, sucking for Luck, trading up for RGIII or whatever: Even if those options once existed, they vanished a year ago.


Well, gee willikers, Col. Jessep, I guess those 31 poor SOBs who don't have PFM under center are as boned as we will be in a year or two. Though the Ravens did OK with a second rate passer like Flacco; they not only managed to win a Super Bowl, but BEAT PFM in his own house to do it. And the biggest reasons were the aging first ballot HoFer who turned the ball over THREE TIMES and the aging first ballot HoFer who gave up TWO TD bombs; neither ones accomplished career changes that, however much we dance around it.

You could've saved us 11 pages of thread about who's fit to succeed PFM if you'd just said "NO ONE!" at the outset. Either Osweiler's a viable long term solution or he's not; whether he's ready to go today doesn't change that. Carson Palmer hit the market last year, but we didn't bid because we didn't need a QB. Flynn was available, we could've traded up for RGIII just like the 'Skins did; there's plenty of options if we don't paint ourselves into a corner by saying, "Peyton or bust!" without even acknowledging the real possibility of "Peyton AND bust!"

As to which non-QB FAs we could've gotten instead, there's a guy named Dumervil who's pretty good, and this other guy named Clady is a FA next season, because the geniuses who franchise tagged him this year can't afford what he's worth. Doom wasn't even the top rated FA DE this year: Avril and Bennett were, and Seattle signed one to a two and the other to a one year contract for a COMBINED total that, coincidentally, is EXACTLY what we're paying PFM EACH of the next two years. There's a pretty good CB named Revis about to hit the market, and he's a lot younger than Champ—but WE can't afford him.

Or how about this: While we were offering PFM $20 million/year in 2012, the Bills got Super Mario for $16 million/year, the Saints got Curtis Lofton for $7 million/year (which they more than halved with a restructure a few months ago,) the Bucs got Carl Nicks for $9 million/year, the Seahawks got Matt Flynn for about the same, and the Jets gave Laron Landry a one year $4 million deal. We could have nearly ALL of them (except Williams, though we could have him and any one other) for what PFM got instead. I'm not saying Manning sucks but, holy crap, $20 million is a LOT of money, especially when the table limit's $120 million.

Those are just the top 2012 FAs at positions we NEED. Maybe you think Flynn sucks big hairy donkeys because he's not PFM, but we've talked (at length) about Denvers guards, and you can't tell me Carl Nicks wouldn't be a big help, even AFTER signing Vasquez. We haven't had a decent MLB since Wilson retired, and it's still the biggest hole in the heart of our D: Curtis Lofton would've filled it nicely for the next five years or more; instead, we can't even afford the last dregs of Urlacher. Would you rather start Laron Landry than Rahim Moore? Do I have to ask? Would we miss Doom with Super Mario?

Five or ten minutes of googling is enough to answer your question, and the answer is "no, signing PFM for $20 million/year isn't the only way to win a Super Bowl; just ask all the FIVE teams that won the last SIX." Including two (last years Ravens and the '09 Saints) who beat PFM to do it.

I'm sorry, is there an answer in there?

Chef Zambini
04-10-2013, 03:14 PM
For Joel it is an either/or proposition, Zam, he doesn't want Manning playing for the Denver Broncos.

Btw, I would still not draft Wilson, not as a starter. I said it before he started as a rookie and I stand by it. He's good, I think he rivals Griffin for the 2nd QB drafted if he's not so short but he is 5-10. Let someone else solve that riddle.sorry, I have not drawn the same conclusion from joels posts.
bringing in PFM opened the door to pushing TEBOW out!
that alone was worth the money spent!
tebow was a cancer!
he was a PR nightmare, and we needed a guy like manning to justify his release !
all of this is a completly seperate issue from the development of BROCK ! if he is indeed the future, shouldnt we staret building on his foundation?
thats all i am asking, and I find it curious that he is not being subjected to more competition !

MOtorboat
04-10-2013, 03:15 PM
brilliant.
I guess thats why brady and brees take every single snap in pre-season too.
this whole competition thing is overrated,
WTF was I thinking?
gosh, look at sanchez in NY!
the total lack of competition has not hurt him any !

You do realize he played, by my count, six or seven quarters in the preseason and HAD competition at the position, right?

Simple Jaded
04-10-2013, 03:19 PM
Wait a ****** minute? $20 mil for a QB or $16 mil for a DE? Instead of giving a QB 1/6th of the cap you'd prefer Denver give a DE approximately the same? Yeah, that pretty much confirms what we already knew, you're fine with one player taking up a huge chunk of cap space as long as that player isn't taking the roster spot of your idea of a QB.

I'm not the one thinking "My QB or bust", that would be you.

Simple Jaded
04-10-2013, 03:20 PM
sorry, I have not drawn the same conclusion from joels posts.
bringing in PFM opened the door to pushing TEBOW out!
that alone was worth the money spent!
tebow was a cancer!
he was a PR nightmare, and we needed a guy like manning to justify his release !
all of this is a completly seperate issue from the development of BROCK ! if he is indeed the future, shouldnt we staret building on his foundation?
thats all i am asking, and I find it curious that he is not being subjected to more competition !

More competition? He's been here less than a year.

Joel
04-10-2013, 03:53 PM
Wait a ****** minute? $20 mil for a QB or $16 mil for a DE? Instead of giving a QB 1/6th of the cap you'd prefer Denver give a DE approximately the same? Yeah, that pretty much confirms what we already knew, you're fine with one player taking up a huge chunk of cap space as long as that player isn't taking the roster spot of your idea of a QB.

I'm not the one thinking "My QB or bust", that would be you.
See, there was an answer in there once you bothered to look. Super Mario wouldn't have been my first choice because I don't share the general obsession with pass rushers, but did you notice the FOUR other top FAs at positions of need, in the 2012 market alone? That Williams was the only one who cost even HALF as much as Manning?

Maybe instead of the worst case scenario of Super Mario plus one of the others you could consider the possibility of Flynn, a top MLB and a top safety for the EXACT amount we paid PFM? I'm not saying Matt Flynn wouldn't have turned the ball over three times in a playoff game, but I doubt Landry would've been as far out of position on the game saving Hail Mary as Rahim Moore was. Or how about Nicks, Flynn and Landry for ~$2 million more than we paid for ONE QB who's got one, MAYBE two, years left?

There was Flynn, Palmer, trading up for RGIII, even suck for Luck. I'M not the one saying PFM is the only person fit to play QB in the NFL; I don't think Tebow was as hopeless as most others do, but even if I concede that I'M not saying or suggesting our SOLE options were Manning and Tebow. And trying to make every discussion about Tebow two years after the fact is pretty weak. Reductio ad absurdum has a valid place when arguments lead inexorably to absurdity, but ignoring multiple quite reasonable alternatives just to caricature an argument as absurd is disingenuously arguing in bad faith.

MOtorboat
04-10-2013, 04:04 PM
If $20 million was such a burden on the Broncos cap, how in the world did they have one of the lowest cap numbers last year?

And really, Mario Williams on a team that already had two top tier rushers BETTER than Williams? Weak.

SR
04-10-2013, 04:05 PM
brilliant.
I guess thats why brady and brees take every single snap in pre-season too.
this whole competition thing is overrated,
WTF was I thinking?
gosh, look at sanchez in NY!
the total lack of competition has not hurt him any !

Who exactly is Brock going to be competing against? You're so completely mixed up.

Chef Zambini
04-10-2013, 04:11 PM
Who exactly is Brock going to be competing against? You're so completely mixed up.
funny, thats my question.

SR
04-10-2013, 04:15 PM
funny, thats my question.

The answer is "HE DOESN'T NEED ANY".

Chef Zambini
04-10-2013, 04:16 PM
See, there was an answer in there once you bothered to look. Super Mario wouldn't have been my first choice because I don't share the general obsession with pass rushers, but did you notice the FOUR other top FAs at positions of need, in the 2012 market alone? That Williams was the only one who cost even HALF as much as Manning?

Maybe instead of the worst case scenario of Super Mario plus one of the others you could consider the possibility of Flynn, a top MLB and a top safety for the EXACT amount we paid PFM? I'm not saying Matt Flynn wouldn't have turned the ball over three times in a playoff game, but I doubt Landry would've been as far out of position on the game saving Hail Mary as Rahim Moore was. Or how about Nicks, Flynn and Landry for ~$2 million more than we paid for ONE QB who's got one, MAYBE two, years left?

There was Flynn, Palmer, trading up for RGIII, even suck for Luck. I'M not the one saying PFM is the only person fit to play QB in the NFL; I don't think Tebow was as hopeless as most others do, but even if I concede that I'M not saying or suggesting our SOLE options were Manning and Tebow. And trying to make every discussion about Tebow two years after the fact is pretty weak. Reductio ad absurdum has a valid place when arguments lead inexorably to absurdity, but ignoring multiple quite reasonable alternatives just to caricature an argument as absurd is disingenuously arguing in bad faith.
joel I agree with you on almost everything, and even when i dont, i can see the merit in your opinion / slash perspective, however...
tim tebow is as close to worthless as any current NFL QB !
with all his great HUMAN atributes, the fact remains that he is a poor excuse for a PASSER of the football !
he is an overhyped fullback, masquerading as a QB.

SR
04-10-2013, 04:17 PM
joel I agree with you on almost everything, and even when i dont, i can see the merit in your opinion / slash perspective, however...
tim tebow is as close to worthless as any current NFL QB !
with all his great HUMAN atributes, the fact remains that he is a poor excuse for a PASSER of the football !
he is an overhyped fullback, masquerading as a QB.

You don't need to say "slash" after you actually put a slash in there. And as far as you agreeing with Joel...well...someone has to.

Simple Jaded
04-10-2013, 04:19 PM
See, there was an answer in there once you bothered to look. Super Mario wouldn't have been my first choice because I don't share the general obsession with pass rushers, but did you notice the FOUR other top FAs at positions of need, in the 2012 market alone? That Williams was the only one who cost even HALF as much as Manning?

Maybe instead of the worst case scenario of Super Mario plus one of the others you could consider the possibility of Flynn, a top MLB and a top safety for the EXACT amount we paid PFM? I'm not saying Matt Flynn wouldn't have turned the ball over three times in a playoff game, but I doubt Landry would've been as far out of position on the game saving Hail Mary as Rahim Moore was. Or how about Nicks, Flynn and Landry for ~$2 million more than we paid for ONE QB who's got one, MAYBE two, years left?

There was Flynn, Palmer, trading up for RGIII, even suck for Luck. I'M not the one saying PFM is the only person fit to play QB in the NFL; I don't think Tebow was as hopeless as most others do, but even if I concede that I'M not saying or suggesting our SOLE options were Manning and Tebow. And trying to make every discussion about Tebow two years after the fact is pretty weak; reductio ad absurdum, indeed.

This is 100% about your love for Tebow, weak and absurd, nonetheless. You whine over and over about how much they're paying a QB and then advocate the same thing for a DE, all while assuming any of these FA's want the situation Denver was in before they signed Manning, weak and absurd, indeed.

You're as transparent as it gets, Joel, you advocate Flynn because he's not even available until January and (in your warped mind) poses no real threat to your idea of a QB. As if either QB has a snowballs chance in hell of QBing a team at the level of a Peyton Manning, even at his 37 years of age. Suffice to say you're fine with one player taking 1/6th of the cap just as long as it's not at Tebow's position.

I never once said that Manning is the only QB fit to play in the NFL, I said he's a SB caliber QB and he is, that's not some pie-in-the-sky leap of faith. It's a fact and it's irrefutable. Anybody abvocating Palmer (as much as I like him) or Flynn over Peyton Manning clearly has ulterior motives, especially when he debunks his own reasoning by advocating doing the same exact thing (taking up 1/6th of the cap) at another position.

Would I take Luck over Manning? No doubt. Griffin? Maybe, hell I might even consider Tannehill, but what I can't understand is whining over and over about having a better QB than any of them simply because of who he replaced.

Chef Zambini
04-10-2013, 04:20 PM
The answer is "HE DOESN'T NEED ANY".so, to be clear, it is YOUR assertion that BO does not need any competition?

SR
04-10-2013, 04:21 PM
so, to be clear, it is YOUR assertion that BO does not need any competition?

Yeah. He had some last year, won the #2 job, and has nothing else to prove until Peyton retires.

Chef Zambini
04-10-2013, 04:25 PM
I w3ant to know if mo, rav or any others agree with red.
is the box of rocks united?
lets not worry about post-manning.
afterall, how bad was post-elway?
brock-schmock, who cares?
you guys are 87123RY7F3BNICWOYWQVLIB !!!

Simple Jaded
04-10-2013, 04:27 PM
Oh, and btw, the Broncos still had cap space to sign those other four FA's after signing Manning. So there goes that argument.......again.

MOtorboat
04-10-2013, 04:34 PM
I w3ant to know if mo, rav or any others agree with red.
is the box of rocks united?
lets not worry about post-manning.
afterall, how bad was post-elway?
brock-schmock, who cares?
you guys are 87123RY7F3BNICWOYWQVLIB !!!

Pretty much, but I fully expect four arms to enter camp, and three to play in preseason. So, in essence, he will have competition.

When Manning is done, is when you bring in competent competition for the young guy. You don't do it one, two or three years early, so that you have two competent guys riding pine and making decent salaries. THAT is what doesn't make sense.

Chef Zambini
04-10-2013, 04:40 PM
do you expect brock to play against first string talent?

BroncoJoe
04-10-2013, 04:41 PM
I always LOL when zam calls others a box of rocks.

SR
04-10-2013, 04:49 PM
do you expect brock to play against first string talent?

No. Unless Peyton can't go.

MOtorboat
04-10-2013, 04:58 PM
No. Unless Peyton can't go.

(I'll take it one step further, because I know what Zam is trying to do...)

And I have zero problem with that. It's likely that he'll start the fourth preseason game and play the second and third quarters of the first two preseason games this year, so maybe that will make Zam feel better.

SR
04-10-2013, 05:02 PM
(I'll take it one step further, because I know what Zam is trying to do...)

And I have zero problem with that. It's likely that he'll start the fourth preseason game and play the second and third quarters of the first two preseason games this year, so maybe that will make Zam feel better.

Nothing will make Zam feel better.

Ravage!!!
04-10-2013, 05:08 PM
rav you continue to bring up DRAFTING. I have NEVER suggested we DRAFT another QB, EVER !
so get off that dead horse, it wont takew you where you want to go!
I am a proponent of OS competing for his role of the next bronco QB !
apparently you oppose the idea!
"we have os, we dont need any other QBs around". that must be your mentality.
' that make yoy a @!E$%$EW%$#^%R^JY I OY

No...you are talking about him COMPETING for the back-up role!! He's NOT the starting QB,and NO ONE has proclaimed/named him the starting QB. Peyton MANNING is the starting QB, and until he is NOT the starting QB, its absurd.... no... STUPID...to suggest the Broncos need to bring in a veteran QB to be the back-up.

So you want to bring in a veteran QB...right now... to be the next starting QB for the Denver Broncos for when Manning retires? Does that make sense to you? Who would you like to bring in? What veteran would you like to see "compete" with Brock as the back-up QB to Manning? What veteran is available, or was even on the market at all this past off season, that you would have liked the Broncos to bring in to sit on the sidelines with Osweiler so that YOU would be satisfied that Brock is "earning" his back-up role?

How can you not see how absurd your statements are?

Chef Zambini
04-10-2013, 05:45 PM
No...you are talking about him COMPETING for the back-up role!! He's NOT the starting QB,and NO ONE has proclaimed/named him the starting QB. Peyton MANNING is the starting QB, and until he is NOT the starting QB, its absurd.... no... STUPID...to suggest the Broncos need to bring in a veteran QB to be the back-up.

So you want to bring in a veteran QB...right now... to be the next starting QB for the Denver Broncos for when Manning retires? Does that make sense to you? Who would you like to bring in? What veteran would you like to see "compete" with Brock as the back-up QB to Manning? What veteran is available, or was even on the market at all this past off season, that you would have liked the Broncos to bring in to sit on the sidelines with Osweiler so that YOU would be satisfied that Brock is "earning" his back-up role?

How can you not see how absurd your statements are?
whon said 'bring in a vet Qb right now"
not me.
once again the zam bashers have to make up shit to propell their arguements.once again the zam bashers must avoid the real questions and re4alities to try and argue anything and evberything that zam might pose.
NOW, they discount competition.they avoid the subject like it was AIDS !
and yet we all still wait for that awesome brock osweiler footage of him being spectacular in a football game.
footage that obviously does not exist !
amazing combine numberts, also a fantasy.
but who cares about the post PFM era, thats TEN years away !
my brilliant box of rocks.

MOtorboat
04-10-2013, 05:47 PM
whon said 'bring in a vet Qb right now"
not me.
once again the zam bashers have to make up shit to propell their arguements.once again the zam bashers must avoid the real questions and re4alities to try and argue anything and evberything that zam might pose.
NOW, they discount competition.they avoid the subject like it was AIDS !
and yet we all still wait for that awesome brock osweiler footage of him being spectacular in a football game.
footage that obviously does not exist !
amazing combine numberts, also a fantasy.
but who cares about the post PFM era, thats TEN years away !
my brilliant box of rocks.

And he begins to talk in circles when he gets called on shit...

If they don't bring someone in, who's he supposed to compete with? Or do they draft someone? It better be someone you approve of, right? Maybe they can hop in that time machine of yours and re-draft Wilson so he could sit on the bench behind Manning and learn...

SR
04-10-2013, 05:48 PM
And he begins to talk in circles when he gets called on shit...

If they don't bring someone in, who's he supposed to compete with? Or do they draft someone? It better be someone you approve of, right? Maybe they can hop in that time machine of yours and re-draft Wilson so he could sit on the bench behind Manning and learn...

MO, lets start a "Zam is right all the time so lets just nod our heads and smile" coalition.

Chef Zambini
04-10-2013, 05:49 PM
when has brock EVER played against first string NFL competition?
second string?

SR
04-10-2013, 05:50 PM
when has brock EVER played against first string NFL competition?
second string?

Second string last preseason. The rest doesn't matter because HE IS A BACKUP.

MOtorboat
04-10-2013, 05:51 PM
when has brock EVER played against first string NFL competition?
second string?

What is your obsession with this?

He hasn't. No one is saying he has. No one else cares. Because he's the ******* backup.

MOtorboat
04-10-2013, 05:51 PM
MO, lets start a "Zam is right all the time so lets just nod our heads and smile" coalition.

We need an approved bobble head. I think it should be Champ Bailey.

SR
04-10-2013, 05:54 PM
We need an approved bobble head. I think it should be Champ Bailey.

Easy enough. Consider it done?

Ravage!!!
04-10-2013, 06:05 PM
rav you continue to bring up DRAFTING. I have NEVER suggested we DRAFT another QB, EVER !
so get off that dead horse, it wont takew you where you want to go!
I am a proponent of OS competing for his role of the next bronco QB !
apparently you oppose the idea!
"we have os, we dont need any other QBs around". that must be your mentality.
' that make yoy a @!E$%$EW%$#^%R^JY I OY


whon said 'bring in a vet Qb right now"
not me.
once again the zam bashers have to make up shit to propell their arguements.once again the zam bashers must avoid the real questions and re4alities to try and argue anything and evberything that zam might pose.
NOW, they discount competition.they avoid the subject like it was AIDS !
and yet we all still wait for that awesome brock osweiler footage of him being spectacular in a football game.
footage that obviously does not exist !
amazing combine numberts, also a fantasy.
but who cares about the post PFM era, thats TEN years away !
my brilliant box of rocks.

Wait.. you have NEVER suggested to draft another QB? You are not the one that was complaining that becase Elway drafted Os, that he won't be looking to draft another QB to "compete" for the starting role, because you felt Elway had already "committed" himself to Brock? Weren't you the one saying that now that Elway was "obsessed" with Osweiler, that he wouldn't be likely to draft another QB?

Now you are saying that Brock shouldn't be the starting QB when Manning retires because he hasn't "proved" to be the guy....yet...although still hasn't been in the NFL 2 years and never has had the chance to be the starter.... and although you say that you aren't saying Elway should draft a guy to compete with Os, you are saying that we shouldn't bring in a veteran...YET.

So you are complaining that Brock is the "supposed" starting QB to the Broncos, 2 years from now, without competiion. So you aren't saying that Elway should draft another QB, but....should later bring in a veteran to compete with Os to be the starter.

Then why don't you just simply say "Once Manning retires, I would like to see a veteran brought in to compete for the starting job"..rather than make all the ridiculous comments in between?

1) I don't think Elway is married to Brock as the starter when Manning retires. He absolutely 100% is going to support that plan as he has NOOOO reason NOT to be 100% supportive of Brock at this point. It would be absolutely STUPID of John to do anything other than be 100% behind his young QB. There is no benefit in publicly doubting him, at all, at this point.

2) If you don't think Brock will be the guy in 2 years to be the eventual starter, why not draft a guy? OHhhh..but you think Elway has "all his cards" in on Osweiler..for some reason? Really? A 2nd round QB with a rookie salary cap is a concern for you? :confused:

I don't know what the plan is 2 years down the road OTHER than I'm sure the "PLAN" is to have Os be ready to go. I also feel very confident that if Os is not the guy, then they will bring someone in. BUT.... like every other team in the NFL that throws their rookie into the lineup after drafting him, I don't see the "risk" in making that plan for Os to be the eventual starter? Why is that bothersome? Elway didn't hesitate in shipping out the most popular persona in sports the MOMENT he got a chance...why do you think he would hesitate in replacing some 2nd round pick? Please don't bring up nepotism because John has been a very successful business man for many years, and is certainly wise enough not to risk failure on something as simple as that.

SR
04-10-2013, 06:52 PM
Rav...you're wasting your time buddy

Joel
04-10-2013, 06:57 PM
Geez, guys, way to cherry pick an argument: Mario Williams was one of FIVE top free agents available last year, and I only mentioned him because without Doom even I (who thinks they're overrated) concede we need an RDE. So everyone just glibly skips over $4 million for a sorely needed safety that would've stopped Flaccos Hail Mary at the end of our playoff loss, $7 million for the first real MLB we would have had since 2006, $9 million for an elite guard when we wound up shelling out a huge chunk for a lesser one this year ANYWAY and, of course, $9 million for a 27 year old QB instead of $20 million for a 37 year old one.

Somehow, out of all that all any of you got was "you don't really love our cap at all; you want to spend $16 million on a pass rusher we don't need." And we'll just pretend the past months crying about how screwed we are if Freeny or Abraham won't play for $6 million never happened, right? ;)


If $20 million was such a burden on the Broncos cap, how in the world did they have one of the lowest cap numbers last year?
Because the new CBA let us roll over $27 million of 2011 cap space. Guess what: It's gone; that's why Doom is, too. Also, are you looking at our cap space BEFORE or AFTER signing Manning? Profootballtalk had it at $45 million B.M. but his payday cut that nearly in HALF. Champ, Doom and Kuper combined cost a little over what we paid Manning, so figure $120 million+$27 million-$42 million leaves us ~$105 million to split between 50 other players. I doubt that left much cap space (this years number certainly doesn't indicate that,) especially once we signed Dreesen, Tamme, Porter and Florence.


And really, Mario Williams on a team that already had two top tier rushers BETTER than Williams? Weak.
Like I say, I cited FOUR other guys, and Williams would've been my last choice. But we'll just ignore the FACT Flynn, Lofton and Landry COMBINED cost the same amount as Manning and have a HELL of a lot more than 2-3 years left, because that actually supports my argument (which is kind of why I cited them.) Let's just focus on the ONE most expensive guy to the exclusion of ALL other options; it's working so far, right?

You're fitting data to your curve instead of the reverse, and ignoring a great deal of the former.


joel I agree with you on almost everything, and even when i dont, i can see the merit in your opinion / slash perspective, however...
tim tebow is as close to worthless as any current NFL QB !
with all his great HUMAN atributes, the fact remains that he is a poor excuse for a PASSER of the football !
he is an overhyped fullback, masquerading as a QB.
Again, even if I concede that for the sake of argument, replacing Tebow doesn't AUTOMATICALLY require signing Manning, as if those were the only two pro QBs out of 32 pro teams.


This is 100% about your love for Tebow, weak and absurd, nonetheless. You whine over and over about how much they're paying a QB and then advocate the same thing for a DE, all while assuming any of these FA's want the situation Denver was in before they signed Manning, weak and absurd, indeed.
Neither Carl Nicks, Matt Flynn, Curis Lofton nor Laron Landry are DEs, and those are just the TOP 2012 FAs we could actually USE. You cherrypicked data to focus on the ONE most expensive player to the exclusion of the other 80% and want to talk about "transparency"? Seriously? If we had all that cavernous cap room and in irresistible FA draw in Manning, why didn't we sign a top FA to replace the MLB we haven't had since 2006, or a FS who doesn't blow playoff games, or a G who can actually get positive yardage on 4th and G at the 1? None of whom, by the way, is >28 NOW.

We could've been set for the next FIVE seasons (not counting last year.) Instead we're sitting here debating whether we have any backup QBs who'll be ready to start in a year or two.


You're as transparent as it gets, Joel, you advocate Flynn because he's not even available until January and (in your warped mind) poses no real threat to your idea of a QB. As if either QB has a snowballs chance in hell of QBing a team at the level of a Peyton Manning, even at his 37 years of age. Suffice to say you're fine with one player taking 1/6th of the cap just as long as it's not at Tebow's position.
Flynn's not even available till January? We signed Manning in (late) MARCH, man, just two DAYS after the Seahawks signed Flynn to a MUCH smaller deal. He'd have jumped at the chance to make even half what we offered Manning (he took slightly less,) leaving us $11 million to sign, say, Lofton or Nicks AND Landry. Two Pro Bowlers and a top QB, all <30, or a 37 year old first ballot HoFer.

Flynn was our consensus fan choice in 2012 till Manning became available and we defenestrated our whole rebuild to win now. And if we don't do it within a year, MAYBE two, we'll be left in a pile of rubble. People are already talking about Thomas as a cap casualty next year, we can't afford Kuper, Clady's franchised and a FA next year, Doom's gone. Pretty steep price; sure hope the two or three years of payoff are worth it.


I never once said that Manning is the only QB fit to play in the NFL, I said he's a SB caliber QB and he is, that's not some pie-in-the-sky leap of faith. It's a fact and it's irrefutable. Anybody abvocating Palmer (as much as I like him) or Flynn over Peyton Manning clearly has ulterior motives, especially when he debunks his own reasoning by advocating doing the same exact thing (taking up 1/6th of the cap) at another position.
I didn't say it was Mario or Manning any more than I said it was Tebow or Manning; why do you insist on arguing absolutes when I've given you half a dozen or more options rather than just TWO? Maybe Manning IS still a SB caliber QB (though the last two times he went to a SB it was to watch his kid brother play; the last time he PLAYED one was '08, and his SOLE win '06.) He's not the only one though, and banking 1/6th of the cap on him in his last 2-3 years when there are multiple fine options available and MANY other holes on the team is an expensive high risk gamble.

The Vikings had a first ballot HoFer at QB for a couple years, too; think anyone outside Green Bay cares? When you think of the great '90s AFC teams, who comes to mind, Montanas Chiefs or Elways Broncos?


Would I take Luck over Manning? No doubt. Griffin? Maybe, hell I might even consider Tannehill, but what I can't understand is whining over and over about having a better QB than any of them simply because of who he replaced.
It's NOT simply because of who he replaced, and I wish you could or would grasp that. Although, if you MUST go there, he's still the only Broncos QB to win a playoff game since Elway, and, IIRC, one of only FOUR in the franchises 60 year history to do so; one would think that worth something. But even if he weren't the answer we still could've signed Flynn, Nicks/Lofton and Landry and, when Tebow exploded on the launchpad in 2012 or lost the job in camp, thrown Flynn out there and had a pretty good QB.

Offense is all about flexibility, options; mortgaging the team for a 36 year old QB—even a first ballot HoFer—leaves few options and NO flexibility. It's Manning or bust, and pray heaven it's not Manning AND bust.


Oh, and btw, the Broncos still had cap space to sign those other four FA's after signing Manning. So there goes that argument.......again.
The BEST number I've seen on our '12 cap was $5 milllion A.M. That's barely enough to get Landry, but not Lofton, and only about HALF what Flynn and Nicks got. We spent $12 million on Porter, Florence, Adams, Tamme and Dreessen: How do we parlay that into any of the others without leaving ourselves naked at TE and CB? I know a way at CB, but it involves someone who got run down by a big slow white guy. ;)

Gah. I said I wouldn't do this again; it's a moot point because no one can go back in time and sign those other guys and Flynn, Palmer, RGIII, Luck or anyone else instead of Manning, and ya'll hear what you want and ignore the rest, regardless. It is what it is and done is done: Here's to the Broncos winning a Super Bowl by 2014 at the LATEST, because I fear we're in trouble after that. The good news is that unless Doom inspires Von to do something equally stupid his contract's good through 2014, and Manning didn't get a signing bonus so there'll be no cap hit if (when) he's retired by 2015.

SR
04-10-2013, 07:06 PM
If anyone reads that, gimmie cliffs

MOtorboat
04-10-2013, 07:25 PM
If anyone reads that, gimmie cliffs

I read the first sentence.

Denver got the best free agent on the market, and Mario Williams, and any other "top five" free agent we maybe-could have-possibly-but-we-don't-know-have signed couldn't make the impact that Manning did last year. To imply so is, frankly, idiotic.

We signed Peyton Manning. Still had plenty of money (so that argument is bunk to begin with) and had the best record in the league. I can't believe you're still whining about that Joel.

And to the other four names...

Curtis Lofton and the Saints missed the playoffs, Flynn couldn't even beat a rookie for a starting position and Landry was a non factor for a shit team.

I'll take Manning, even if it is only three years.

SR
04-10-2013, 07:27 PM
I read the first sentence.

Denver got the best free agent on the market, and Mario Williams, and any other "top five" free agent we maybe-could have-possibly-but-we-don't-know-have signed couldn't make the impact that Manning did last year. To imply so is, frankly, idiotic.

We signed Peyton Manning. Still had plenty of money (so that argument is bunk to begin with) and had the best record in the league. I can't believe you're still whining about that Joel.

Thanks.

Simple Jaded
04-10-2013, 08:29 PM
The Broncos had over $40 before they cut dead weight in early March, Joel, that's enough for Manning AND Williams. Although only one meets your stringent standards (ie, NOT A QB). Whether or not you wanted Denver to sign Williams is beside the point, you advocated doing the same thing with the cap at a position that you flat out admitted that you don't hold in high regard. Ironically, it's the same position that you feel was DIRECTLY affected by the signing of Manning. So you're ok with losing Doom and committing 1/6th of the cap to one player just so long as it has no DIRECT affect on Tim Tebow.

Do you not see the obvious contradiction?

As for Flynn, I thougt he was franchised, my bad. Though the very thought of that makes the argument even more laughable, considering there isn't a team in the league that's gonna sign Flynn over Manning if both are free agents, including the team that eventually signed Flynn.

Either way, I'm glad we at least got some idea of whom you consider worthy of building a franchise Championship hopes around. As I said, when Denver doesn't win a SB and I have to explain how Denver was better off with Manning you'll be explaining how Denver was better off with the likes of Palmer, Flynn and Tebow.

Should be a hoot.

TXBRONC
04-11-2013, 10:20 AM
The Broncos had over $40 before they cut dead weight in early March, Joel, that's enough for Manning AND Williams. Although only one meets your stringent standards (ie, NOT A QB). Whether or not you wanted Denver to sign Williams is beside the point, you advocated doing the same thing with the cap at a position that you flat out admitted that you don't hold in high regard. Ironically, it's the same position that you feel was DIRECTLY affected by the signing of Manning. So you're ok with losing Doom and committing 1/6th of the cap to one player just so long as it has no DIRECT affect on Tim Tebow.

Do you not see the obvious contradiction?

As for Flynn, I thougt he was franchised, my bad. Though the very thought of that makes the argument even more laughable, considering there isn't a team in the league that's gonna sign Flynn over Manning if both are free agents, including the team that eventually signed Flynn.

Either way, I'm glad we at least got some idea of whom you consider worthy of building a franchise Championship hopes around. As I said, when Denver doesn't win a SB and I have to explain how Denver was better off with Manning you'll be explaining how Denver was better off with the likes of Palmer, Flynn and Tebow.

Should be a hoot.

Signing Mario Williams wouldn't have done squat help the offense improve.

I find it laughable that anyone could with a straight face ay that they would try and build a championship team around Matt Flynn who couldn't beat out rookie.

Superchop 7
04-11-2013, 11:02 AM
In week four Cal welcomed undefeated and 12-ranked IUP to Adamson Stadium. Behind a pair of Lalich touchdown passes, the Vulcans took a 14-10 into the locker rooms at halftime. IUP stormed back to take the lead in the second half, and with 1:03 left the Crimson Hawks looked to increase their advantage to 10 points.

But Ullman's kick missed the uprights, and Lalich led his team onto the field needing a touchdown. On the Vulcans' first play from scrimmage after the missed field goal, Lalich lined up in the shotgun and took a three-step drop after receiving the snap. He was flushed left, and after a few hurried steps he tossed a 50-yard bomb down the left sideline to receiver Nadir Brown, who beat his man and sprinted into the end zone for a score.

Cal missed the extra point, meaning the Vulcans would have to recover the ensuing onside kick. They did just that, giving Lalich the ball back at the IUP 44-yard-line with 51 seconds left. Lalich completed three of his next four passes, bringing Cal to the IUP 13-yard-line. Kicker Cody Nuzzo nailed the ensuing field goal, and Cal pulled out the improbable win.

Lalich finished the game with 438 passing yards, the second highest single-game total in school history, to go along with three touchdowns. His improbable story, from program savior to two-time dropout, had taken one more turn: Veritable hero.

"There's no one who I’d rather have in that situation,” Kellar said, "other than Peter."

Lalich’s reputation as a brainy player followed him to Cal, where he would spend late nights diagramming plays on the grease board in Kellar’s office.

Along with his physical attributes, Lalich's unique understanding of the game should help him as he meets with NFL teams.

"He's a bit of a football savant, he eats, sleeps and drinks football,” Kellar said. “He's fascinated by the X's and O's of the game."

Lalich says he has nothing to hide.

"I wish I was a little more mature about how I handled myself," Lalich says. "But at the same time I wouldn’t have learned if I didn’t get in trouble. I’m glad that I learned my lesson and I’m smarter about things now."

Few people have a better perspective than Kellar, who saw Lalich mature from a talented youngster into an NFL prospect. Kellar says that at 24 years old, Lalich is ready to begin his second act anew.

"The two years I was with him, I trusted our offense with him,” Kellar said. "He was in my office more than I was. I've got a daughter who’s a sophomore, I would trust them together ... Has he messed up at Virginia and Oregon State? Yeah, that's well documented. Everyone knows what happened. But I think that was a different kid."

excerpt from an article by Robbie Levin...."A reputation rebuilt"

Chef Zambini
04-11-2013, 11:50 AM
there may be too much buzz for lalich to go undrafted, but this is EXACTLY the kind of guy the broncos should bring in to ACUALLY CHALLENGE os for his role of heir apparent!

the big question remains is JFE willing to allow an undrafted free agent or late round draft pick to actually unseat his hand picked, "FUTURE" that he used his second pick on in last years draft, and then spent the entire off season DEFENDING his questionable decision?
I]f OS is the future , JUST 2 OR 3 YEARS AWAY, AT MOST, then lets see him justify that role!
thats all I'm askin.

Ravage!!!
04-11-2013, 12:05 PM
spent entire off season "Defending" his "questionable" decision?? Not many are questioning the decision, and where/when has he spent time feeling he has had to "defend" that pick at all?

Also, If rookies are starting the first time out of college, why is it you feel ANYONE has to justify the pick, prove the pick, or simply show you anything right now?

BTW... didn't you just tell me in a few posts earlier that you NEVER suggested drafting another QB??? :confused:

Northman
04-11-2013, 12:05 PM
there may be too much buzz for lalich to go undrafted, but this is EXACTLY the kind of guy the broncos should bring in to ACUALLY CHALLENGE os for his role of heir apparent!

the big question remains is JFE willing to allow an undrafted free agent or late round draft pick to actually unseat his hand picked, "FUTURE" that he used his second pick on in last years draft, and then spent the entire off season DEFENDING his questionable decision?
I]f OS is the future , JUST 2 OR 3 YEARS AWAY, AT MOST, then lets see him justify that role!
thats all I'm askin.


Both John's will go with who they think is the future of the franchise. If they think its Os than you will just have to suck it up and deal.

Timmy!
04-11-2013, 06:55 PM
How the **** did this get to 14 pages?

SR
04-11-2013, 06:56 PM
How the **** did this get to 14 pages?

Well 12 pages are Zam and Joel, so...

Timmy!
04-11-2013, 06:58 PM
Well 12 pages are Zam and Joel, so...

Ah yes. The land where Champ is a safety, Tebow is the Broncos pro bowl starting QB and the Texans win the superbowl.

MOtorboat
04-11-2013, 07:18 PM
How the **** did this get to 14 pages?

Let's get it to 20.

Joel, please discuss moving Von Miller to MLB and Orlando Franklin to guard, please...

tia

SR
04-11-2013, 07:24 PM
Let's get it to 20.

Joel, please discuss moving Von Miller to MLB and Orlando Franklin to guard, please...

tia

You're a real *******

Jsteve01
04-11-2013, 10:49 PM
The Franklin to guard discussion is at least valid as he was a beastie of a guard in college.

Joel
04-12-2013, 03:33 AM
The Franklin to guard discussion is at least valid as he was a beastie of a guard in college.
It's at least as valid for Miller if he can play zone; we've sorely needed a decent, let alone great, Mike going on SEVEN years, and it shows every time we play teams like the Pats. 239 is a bit light for the DE everyone wants Miller to be anyway; DJ weighs more. HOWEVER, at the moment Miller's the only legit pass rusher we've got, and—contrary to popular belief—I don't want to fill one dire need by creating another.

TXBRONC
04-12-2013, 06:45 AM
It's at least as valid for Miller if he can play zone; we've sorely needed a decent, let alone great, Mike going on SEVEN years, and it shows every time we play teams like the Pats. 239 is a bit light for the DE everyone wants Miller to be anyway; DJ weighs more. HOWEVER, at the moment Miller's the only legit pass rusher we've got, and—contrary to popular belief—I don't want to fill one dire need by creating another.

Denver went 13-3 with an over-hill linebacker who had never played the position before and you would like to do something as stupid as move a premiere pass rusher to middle linebacker. You have no idea what you're talking about absolutely, positively none. Bottom line it's not a valid discussion.

Joel
04-12-2013, 01:38 PM
Denver went 13-3 with an over-hill linebacker who had never played the position before and you would like to do something as stupid as move a premiere pass rusher to middle linebacker. You have no idea what you're talking about absolutely, positively none. Bottom line it's not a valid discussion.We beat TWO winning teams last (one of which won our SOLE playoff game) for our ONLY winning season in the SIX years since we lost Wilson: Yea. I doubt Brooking plays another down, but OK, getting by with scrubs and last decades Pro Bowlers is working fine; we don't need a real Mike. Let's see what happens with a new schedule where all opponents have 17 games worth of tape on the Denver version of PFM.

Odd though: Half the teams don't even run a 4-3, and none start more than one Mike, yet the NFL isn't exactly overrun with them. Meanwhile, seemingly every draft has half a dozen or more guys too small for DE but too slow for OLB yet talked about as potential HoF pass rushers. It's almost like guys who only do ONE thing well are easier to find than guys who do THREE things well, even with four times the demand.

At DE, NFL.com projects DE Ezekiel Ansah as a top 10, Cornelius Carradine, Datone Jones and Björn Werner as first round and Damontre Moore and Cornelius Washington as second round pass rushers.

At OLB, they project Dion Jordan as a top 10, Barkevious Mingo and Jarvis Jones as first round and Corey Lemonier and Jamie Collins as second round picks.

The top MLB pick is, what, Teo? For six YEARS I've asked the draftniks whether there were we had any good Mike prospects, and each season, in between raving about a dozen guys with a great first step, fast 40, good hands and/or 12 sacks against the likes of San Diego State and Miami (OH,) I've been told how hard top Mikes are to find. Obviously, if that means none are there (as seems the case this year) we should't blow a pick on wishful thinking, but top Mikes are just as important as top pass rushers in a 4-3, and far harder to find.

Blitz specialists are GREATLY overrated, IMHO. They spend 90% of the game on the bench because they can't cover or runstop and therefore don't play 1st down, 2nd down or offense. Just because big hits make the highlight reels and people somehow think a sack on 3rd down is better than an incomplete pass or pick doesn't change that. Maybe I'd feel differently, if the one trick ponies could force passing situations with 1st/2nd down sacks and/or tackles for loss, but few play the run well enough to be in on 1st/2nd down, so I don't.

All that said, I already conceded we have NO great pass rushers left save Miller, so he's as critical there as he would be at Mike. Yet if we signed Freeney/Abraham and drafted two of the abov SIX top pass rushing DEs...? More likely and appealing than gambling Teo regains his sanity and can cover in the NFL. Right now we have ONE proven pass rusher who MIGHT ultimately be a top Mike. Giving up "definitely" for "maybe" with only a single palyer at either position would not be smart, no.

SR
04-12-2013, 02:14 PM
LOL'ed at the more tape on Peyton comment. Bro, in case you missed the memo, Peyton Manning has been doing the same thing to teams since 1998. If no one has stopped him yet, no one is going to. And I quit reading your post after that.

Ravage!!!
04-12-2013, 02:36 PM
LOL'ed at the more tape on Peyton comment. Bro, in case you missed the memo, Peyton Manning has been doing the same thing to teams since 1998. If no one has stopped him yet, no one is going to. And I quit reading your post after that.

Its absolutely absurd to think that the "news is out" on Peyton. As if a defense can come up with a scheme to stop everything. If there was such a defense, it would have been implimented. It's utterly ridiculous, and obviously thought of by only someone that despises Peyton.

Also, the idea of moving Von Miller to MLB....ranks up there higher than suggestions we've seen from Zam.

Joel
04-12-2013, 02:52 PM
It's not a lock, but after switching teams top FA QBs often go through something similar to the sophomore slump. New coaches, playbooks and teammates can be as beneficial to them and detrimental to opponents as they are for rookies, but prompt the same second year adjustments from those opponents once things settle.

Again, we'll see what happens; right now I don't see why everyone's making room in the trophy case just because we got shelled by three playoff teams but beating a bunch of losers plus the Bengals and Ravens (the second of whom beat US at home in the playoffs.) The Longhorns and Sooners usually post a nice record, too, but there's a reason A&M and Nebraska bailed on the Big 12.

SR
04-12-2013, 03:43 PM
It's not a lock, but after switching teams top FA QBs often go through something similar to the sophomore slump. New coaches, playbooks and teammates can be as beneficial to them and detrimental to opponents as they are for rookies, but prompt the same second year adjustments from those opponents once things settle.

Again, we'll see what happens; right now I don't see why everyone's making room in the trophy case just because we got shelled by three playoff teams but beating a bunch of losers plus the Bengals and Ravens (the second of whom beat US at home in the playoffs.) The Longhorns and Sooners usually post a nice record, too, but there's a reason A&M and Nebraska bailed on the Big 12.

There has never been a free agent QB of Peyton's caliber or his profile. He is one of the top QBs to EVER throw a football. What in your mind makes you even suggest that Peyton Manning might have a sophomore slump after he came back from a year off of football and destroyed every major Broncos single season passing records, the highest total QBR ever recorded, and one of his single best seasons as a pro? Your thought process is baffling sometimes.

Ravage!!!
04-12-2013, 03:57 PM
but there's a reason A&M and Nebraska bailed on the Big 12.

Yeah, money.

Joel
04-12-2013, 04:15 PM
There has never been a free agent QB of Peyton's caliber or his profile. He is one of the top QBs to EVER throw a football. What in your mind makes you even suggest that Peyton Manning might have a sophomore slump after he came back from a year off of football and destroyed every major Broncos single season passing records, the highest total QBR ever recorded, and one of his single best seasons as a pro? Your thought process is baffling sometimes.
Joe Montana was pretty high caliber AND profile; I wouldn't dare suggest he was as good as PFM, of course, but being undefeated in twice as many SBs turned a few heads. Favre had the same SB record and a better playoff record after the Pack. C'mon, guys, Peyton's phenomenally good, and was one of the best ever in his prime—but he's not in his prime anymore, and even if he were talking like he's indisputably the best ever is absurd. He had the best total QBR ever? Wow, he's the best ever in a two year old stat.


Yeah, money.
That was a big factor, but not the sole one. The same people who talk about the SEC like the rest of the NCAA is no more than that are especially critical of the Big 12s general talent (hence the Big 8/SWC merger.)

Believe what you like, ya'll, but I measure success by performance and results, not bravado and loyalty, and last years results were no closer to a SB than 2011s. Stomping 11 crappy teams proves we're not crappy; it doesn't prove us champions: The playoffs do that, and one of the only two playoff teams we beat last year sent us out of the playoffs winless. If we do more next year I'll change my tune; till then....

Timmy!
04-12-2013, 04:29 PM
Lol. Joel is sooooo butthurt from Peyton making the Texans his bitch for a decade.

Ravage!!!
04-12-2013, 04:31 PM
Lol. Joel is sooooo butthurt from Peyton making the Texans his bitch for a decade.

That, and he was hired and Tebow tossed didn't help matters any.

MOtorboat
04-12-2013, 04:32 PM
Joe Montana was pretty high caliber AND profile; I wouldn't dare suggest he was as good as PFM, of course, but being undefeated in twice as many SBs turned a few heads. Favre had the same SB record and a better playoff record after the Pack. C'mon, guys, Peyton's phenomenally good, and was one of the best ever in his prime—but he's not in his prime anymore, and even if he were talking like he's indisputably the best ever is absurd. He had the best total QBR ever? Wow, he's the best ever in a two year old stat.


That was a big factor, but not the sole one. The same people who talk about the SEC like the rest of the NCAA is no more than that are especially critical of the Big 12s general talent (hence the Big 8/SWC merger.)

Believe what you like, ya'll, but I measure success by performance and results, not bravado and loyalty, and last years results were no closer to a SB than 2011s. Stomping 11 crappy teams proves we're not crappy; it doesn't prove us champions: The playoffs do that, and one of the only two playoff teams we beat last year sent us out of the playoffs winless. If we do more next year I'll change my tune; till then....

Just like you didn't know Favre wasn't drafted by Green Bay, I'll forgive you for not knowing Montana wasn't a free agent.

Considering Manning had one of the best years of his career, I'm not sure I follow the rest of that logic. It seems very lacking in actual logic.

Ravage!!!
04-12-2013, 04:47 PM
Joe Montana was pretty high caliber AND profile; I wouldn't dare suggest he was as good as PFM, of course, but being undefeated in twice as many SBs turned a few heads. Favre had the same SB record and a better playoff record after the Pack. C'mon, guys, Peyton's phenomenally good, and was one of the best ever in his prime—but he's not in his prime anymore, and even if he were talking like he's indisputably the best ever is absurd. He had the best total QBR ever? Wow, he's the best ever in a two year old stat.




I can't believe I missed what MO just pointed out, as I didn't read this...but Joe Montana wasn't a FA. When he DID go to the Chiefs, he (nor Favre) were nearly as good as Peyton is right now. They were LONG past their "good playing years"...where as Peyton is obviously NOT in that category.

Manning is, by far, the best FA QB that has EVER hit the market since FA became a part of the NFL. Considering he was ACTUALLY a FA, and is still at the TOP of the NFL at playing his position (as opposed to Montana when he was traded to the Chiefs), you won't come up with any other single player that has made the impact that Manning has via any FA.

Joel
04-12-2013, 06:22 PM
Lol. Joel is sooooo butthurt from Peyton making the Texans his bitch for a decade.
Everyone pounded the Texans till Kubes showed up; I have no more animosity toward Manning than of the others, though I do question how good the Colts really were over the past decade considering they racked up wins against a division consisting of them, an expansion team, the garbage Jags and a Titans team Dud Adams has been mismanaging since the '70s.


That, and he was hired and Tebow tossed didn't help matters any.
It's really nothing personal. Really. What's personal is people being so fixated on PFM every comment I make—on DB, LB, or finding PFMs successor, or ANYTHING becomes a rehash of the same tired debate over signing PFM, even after I've already said I don't want to engage further in that pointless post mortem. It's done, and I've moved on: Why can't anyone else?


Just like you didn't know Favre wasn't drafted by Green Bay, I'll forgive you for not knowing Montana wasn't a free agent.

Considering Manning had one of the best years of his career, I'm not sure I follow the rest of that logic. It seems very lacking in actual logic.
Again, GBs GM WANTED to draft Favre but the Falcons beat him to it, and traded the #19 overall pick for him almost on arrival in GB, so they PRACTICALLY "drafted" him even after he spent a year on a sorry teams bench. You're right about Montana being a trade rather than FA, but the suggestion Montana and Favre were washed up has-beens when they left their original teams but Manning's still the best is very selfserving. It smacks more of cheerleading than of "logic."


I can't believe I missed what MO just pointed out, as I didn't read this...but Joe Montana wasn't a FA. When he DID go to the Chiefs, he (nor Favre) were nearly as good as Peyton is right now. They were LONG past their "good playing years"...where as Peyton is obviously NOT in that category.

Manning is, by far, the best FA QB that has EVER hit the market since FA became a part of the NFL. Considering he was ACTUALLY a FA, and is still at the TOP of the NFL at playing his position (as opposed to Montana when he was traded to the Chiefs), you won't come up with any other single player that has made the impact that Manning has via any FA.
Manning's so close to his peak Indy released him despite going 2-14 without him. He's still very good, but the blind hero worship is a bit over the top and premature after yet another one-and-done postseason.

Now, can we go back to discussing who succeeds him instead of revisiting his current worth for the umpteenth time as if anyones mind will change?

Ravage!!!
04-12-2013, 06:29 PM
Manning's so close to his peak Indy released him despite going 2-14 without him. He's still very good, but the blind hero worship is a bit over the top and premature after yet another one-and-done postseason.

Now, can we go back to discussing who succeeds him instead of revisiting his current worth for the umpteenth time as if anyones mind will change?

Oh Stop with the victim card. You keep changing the points to fit. Indy releasing him has NOTHING to do with the fact that he was (and still is) the greatest FA to ever hit the market. He's not just "very good".. he's still GREAT..... and that's the point. But this blind disdain you have for him is a bit over the top, and those of us that continue to point it out to you won't stop because your posts/thoughts drip with the motivation that is behind your comments.

No different than when we read what Zam has to say about Os. "Cellphane, Mr. Cellophane..."

WKHzTtr_lNk

SR
04-12-2013, 07:15 PM
Joe Montana was pretty high caliber AND profile; I wouldn't dare suggest he was as good as PFM, of course, but being undefeated in twice as many SBs turned a few heads. Favre had the same SB record and a better playoff record after the Pack. C'mon, guys, Peyton's phenomenally good, and was one of the best ever in his prime&mdash;but he's not in his prime anymore, and even if he were talking like he's indisputably the best ever is absurd. He had the best total QBR ever? Wow, he's the best ever in a two year old stat.

That was a big factor, but not the sole one. The same people who talk about the SEC like the rest of the NCAA is no more than that are especially critical of the Big 12s general talent (hence the Big 8/SWC merger.)

Believe what you like, ya'll, but I measure success by performance and results, not bravado and loyalty, and last years results were no closer to a SB than 2011s. Stomping 11 crappy teams proves we're not crappy; it doesn't prove us champions: The playoffs do that, and one of the only two playoff teams we beat last year sent us out of the playoffs winless. If we do more next year I'll change my tune; till then....

Peyton isn't in his prime anymore? He sure as shit outperformed almost every other QB in the league last year. Your thought processes are hilarious.

Joel
04-12-2013, 07:34 PM
Oh Stop with the victim card. You keep changing the points to fit. Indy releasing him has NOTHING to do with the fact that he was (and still is) the greatest FA to ever hit the market. He's not just "very good".. he's still GREAT..... and that's the point. But this blind disdain you have for him is a bit over the top, and those of us that continue to point it out to you won't stop because your posts/thoughts drip with the motivation that is behind your comments.

No different than when we read what Zam has to say about Os. "Cellphane, Mr. Cellophane..."
I'm not playing victim at all, I'm dismissing ad hominems for what they are. My feelings aren't bruised and I'm not looking for sympathy, I'm just disappointed because I expected better of you. When people resort to attacking arguers rather than arguments I typically score it a default concession and consider anything further gravy if they want to keep digging themselves deeper. You're not a mind reader, so speculation about my personal feelings on Manning are neither here nor there until/unless I express them, which I haven't and won't because they DO NOT MATTER.

I haven't changed any points to fit anything, though I have cited further documented evidence for my position, because THAT'S how one makes logical arguments.


Peyton isn't in his prime anymore? He sure as shit outperformed almost every other QB in the league last year. Your thought processes are hilarious.
Dude, NO pro football player is in his prime at 37. I can't believe we're even debating THAT.

SR
04-12-2013, 07:50 PM
I'm not playing victim at all, I'm dismissing ad hominems for what they are. My feelings aren't bruised and I'm not looking for sympathy, I'm just disappointed because I expected better of you. When people resort to attacking arguers rather than arguments I typically score it a default concession and consider anything further gravy if they want to keep digging themselves deeper. You're not a mind reader, so speculation about my personal feelings on Manning are neither here nor there until/unless I express them, which I haven't and won't because they DO NOT MATTER.

I haven't changed any points to fit anything, though I have cited further documented evidence for my position, because THAT'S how one makes logical arguments.

Dude, NO pro football player is in his prime at 37. I can't believe we're even debating THAT.

As long as Peyton Manning is playing the same elite football at 37 as he was at 30, I don't know what else you could possibly call it. Age wise he isn't in his prime, but the way he played last year says otherwise.

Joel
04-12-2013, 08:20 PM
As long as Peyton Manning is playing the same elite football at 37 as he was at 30, I don't know what else you could possibly call it. Age wise he isn't in his prime, but the way he played last year says otherwise.
Age isn't just a number; last year we played 5 winning teams, and 3 beat the crap out of us. Another won the playoff rematch, and we needed TWO kick return TDs to stay close; Manning had more turnovers than TDs. To be fair, many have noted he's NEVER done better, but January in Denver's not getting any warmer, so there we are. Note: This is the last time I discuss anything but backup QBs without more game data.

SR
04-12-2013, 09:26 PM
Age isn't just a number; last year we played 5 winning teams, and 3 beat the crap out of us. Another won the playoff rematch, and we needed TWO kick return TDs to stay close; Manning had more turnovers than TDs. To be fair, many have noted he's NEVER done better, but January in Denver's not getting any warmer, so there we are. Note: This is the last time I discuss anything but backup QBs without more game data.

This is the last time you'll discuss Manning because somewhere deep inside that creepy avatar mug of yours you know you're wrong.

Simple Jaded
04-13-2013, 12:13 AM
Joel preaching about hero worship? I love irony.

TXBRONC
04-13-2013, 07:27 AM
We beat TWO winning teams last (one of which won our SOLE playoff game) for our ONLY winning season in the SIX years since we lost Wilson: Yea. I doubt Brooking plays another down, but OK, getting by with scrubs and last decades Pro Bowlers is working fine; we don't need a real Mike. Let's see what happens with a new schedule where all opponents have 17 games worth of tape on the Denver version of PFM.

Odd though: Half the teams don't even run a 4-3, and none start more than one Mike, yet the NFL isn't exactly overrun with them. Meanwhile, seemingly every draft has half a dozen or more guys too small for DE but too slow for OLB yet talked about as potential HoF pass rushers. It's almost like guys who only do ONE thing well are easier to find than guys who do THREE things well, even with four times the demand.

At DE, NFL.com projects DE Ezekiel Ansah as a top 10, Cornelius Carradine, Datone Jones and Björn Werner as first round and Damontre Moore and Cornelius Washington as second round pass rushers.

At OLB, they project Dion Jordan as a top 10, Barkevious Mingo and Jarvis Jones as first round and Corey Lemonier and Jamie Collins as second round picks.

The top MLB pick is, what, Teo? For six YEARS I've asked the draftniks whether there were we had any good Mike prospects, and each season, in between raving about a dozen guys with a great first step, fast 40, good hands and/or 12 sacks against the likes of San Diego State and Miami (OH,) I've been told how hard top Mikes are to find. Obviously, if that means none are there (as seems the case this year) we should't blow a pick on wishful thinking, but top Mikes are just as important as top pass rushers in a 4-3, and far harder to find.

Blitz specialists are GREATLY overrated, IMHO. They spend 90% of the game on the bench because they can't cover or runstop and therefore don't play 1st down, 2nd down or offense. Just because big hits make the highlight reels and people somehow think a sack on 3rd down is better than an incomplete pass or pick doesn't change that. Maybe I'd feel differently, if the one trick ponies could force passing situations with 1st/2nd down sacks and/or tackles for loss, but few play the run well enough to be in on 1st/2nd down, so I don't.

All that said, I already conceded we have NO great pass rushers left save Miller, so he's as critical there as he would be at Mike. Yet if we signed Freeney/Abraham and drafted two of the abov SIX top pass rushing DEs...? More likely and appealing than gambling Teo regains his sanity and can cover in the NFL. Right now we have ONE proven pass rusher who MIGHT ultimately be a top Mike. Giving up "definitely" for "maybe" with only a single palyer at either position would not be smart, no.

Joel I just don't think you have any idea what you're talking. Producing long wordy posts doesn't mean you know what you're talking about. Even if had/have another proven pass rusher Miller wouldn't be moved Mike. It would be stupid. Name one team that has done something that stupid as a long term fix?

Joel
04-13-2013, 11:37 AM
This is the last time you'll discuss Manning because somewhere deep inside that creepy avatar mug of yours you know you're wrong.
Ah, my position is invalid because I'm funny-looking; continually elevating the level of discourse, I see. :rolleyes: I'm done discussing the topic, even when directly challenged to do so, because:

1) It's been done to death and minds will no more change than facts now and
2) It has NOTHING to do with our secondary, linebacking corps, draft or prospective NFL expansion to Europe, DESPITE peoples insistence of raising it in each of those discussions. And ya'll think I'M obsessed?


Joel preaching about hero worship? I love irony.
"Live" is spelled with an "i," not an "o." Just FYI. ;)


Joel I just don't think you have any idea what you're talking. Producing long wordy posts doesn't mean you know what you're talking about. Even if had/have another proven pass rusher Miller wouldn't be moved Mike. It would be stupid. Name one team that has done something that stupid as a long term fix?
The Chicago Bears, when they invented the MLB in the first place: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/G/GeorBi00.htm

TXBRONC
04-13-2013, 11:56 AM
Ah, my position is invalid because I'm funny-looking; continually elevating the level of discourse, I see. :rolleyes: I'm done discussing the topic, even when directly challenged to do so, because:

1) It's been done to death and minds will no more change than facts now and
2) It has NOTHING to do with our secondary, linebacking corps, draft or prospective NFL expansion to Europe, DESPITE peoples insistence of raising it in each of those discussions. And ya'll think I'M obsessed?


"Live" is spelled with an "i," not an "o." Just FYI. ;)


The Chicago Bears, when they invented the MLB in the first place: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/G/GeorBi00.htm

Really that's best you can come up with? A guy who played in era when forward pass wasn't what it is today. You know he was pass rusher because you watched him play? :rofl:

Simple Jaded
04-13-2013, 03:10 PM
Long Live Irony.

Joel
04-13-2013, 04:03 PM
Really that's best you can come up with? A guy who played in era when forward pass wasn't what it is today. You know he was pass rusher because you watched him play? :rofl:
Yes, the ORIGINAL MLB, the guy for whom the position was invented, played a long time ago. That just means Mikes have been critical to defense for six decades, and we haven't had one in six years. George was succeeded by another guy who had 18 sacks in 1967, and is even now considered to have been a fairly useful player: http://espn.go.com/sportscentury/features/00014131.html

TXBRONC
04-13-2013, 09:16 PM
Yes, the ORIGINAL MLB, the guy for whom the position was invented, played a long time ago. That just means Mikes have been critical to defense for six decades, and we haven't had one in six years. George was succeeded by another guy who had 18 sacks in 1967, and is even now considered to have been a fairly useful player: http://espn.go.com/sportscentury/features/00014131.html

You still haven't answered the question. I asked what team has moved premiere pass rusher to middle linebacker. No team has moved premiere pass rusher to middle linebacker. Deflecting to some tripe about how middle linebacker are important to defenses. I never said they weren't. Btw Butkus never changed positions. He was a center and mike linebacker in college and when Halas drafted him he became a full time mike. You obviously don't know what you're talking about but you like pretend that you do.

Joel
04-13-2013, 09:47 PM
You still haven't answered the question. I asked what team has moved premiere pass rusher to middle linebacker. No team has moved premiere pass rusher to middle linebacker. Deflecting to some tripe about how middle linebacker are important to defenses. I never said they weren't. Btw Butkus never changed positions. He was a center and mike linebacker in college and when Halas drafted him he became a full time mike. You obviously don't know what you're talking about but you like pretend that you do.
I never said Butkus changed positions, I said he succeeded the guy who CREATED the MLB position by moving from the defensive line (which has been known to rush passers.) Butkus also had 18 sacks in one year at MLB; it's quite possible something from the same season as SB II isn't unheard of, revolutionary or "stupid." As noted elsewhere, disagreeing with factually documented answers makes them no less answers.

TXBRONC
04-13-2013, 09:57 PM
I never said Butkus changed positions, I said he succeeded the guy who CREATED the MLB position by moving from the defensive line (which has been known to rush passers.) Butkus also had 18 sacks in one year at MLB; it's quite possible something from the same season as SB II isn't unheard of, revolutionary or "stupid." As noted elsewhere, disagreeing with factually documented answers makes them no less answers.

Sacks were not an official stat in 1967 genius. It nothing but a guess that Butkus had 18 in one season as MLB :rolleyes:

Maybe you haven't noticed but the NFL has changed considerbly since 1967. So no you didn't state anything factual. Now I'm just waiting for you tell us how Madden 2007 franchise mode fits into all this.

Joel
04-13-2013, 11:36 PM
Sacks were not an official stat in 1967 genius. It nothing but a guess that Butkus had 18 in one season as MLB :rolleyes:

Maybe you haven't noticed but the NFL has changed considerbly since 1967. So no you didn't state anything factual. Now I'm just waiting for you tell us how Madden 2007 franchise mode fits into all this.
Er, it doesn't? Just because something's not an official stat doesn't mean people who unofficially tracked it at the time pulled the number out of their rears. Sure, the NFL's changed in lots of ways since '67; for one thing, MLBs (and every other defender) can't just lay receivers out while the ball sails by anymore: They have to cover. I don't think that's made Mikes any less likely to blitz, and the shortest distance between two points is still a straight line, not around end.

By the way, wtf does any of this have to do with who should be our #3 QB next year? Or does that even matter in a 16 page thread about the subject?

Chef Zambini
04-14-2013, 02:22 AM
joel, accept reality.
If you told these clowns that the sun does not actually rise or set, but the earth actually rotates on its axis, giving the appearance of a daily sunrise and sunset, they would burn you at the stake for your ludicrous hypothosis.
Far too many folks around here are more interested in just being arguementative then actually learning something or bothering to have an open mind when any of their perceived adversaries post anything about anything.
for some ,joel, you will always be wrong, no matter what you post, as long as the post bares your name.
dont waste your time with these brain dead neanderthals.

Simple Jaded
04-14-2013, 04:14 AM
What's this, a pity party? Why wasn't I invited?

TXBRONC
04-14-2013, 07:36 AM
What's this, a pity party? Why wasn't I invited?

Because you're just to damn jaded about everything.

SR
04-14-2013, 09:14 AM
joel, accept reality.
If you told these clowns that the sun does not actually rise or set, but the earth actually rotates on its axis, giving the appearance of a daily sunrise and sunset, they would burn you at the stake for your ludicrous hypothosis.
Far too many folks around here are more interested in just being arguementative then actually learning something or bothering to have an open mind when any of their perceived adversaries post anything about anything.
for some ,joel, you will always be wrong, no matter what you post, as long as the post bares your name.
dont waste your time with these brain dead neanderthals.

This post is laced with so much irony.

broncohead
04-14-2013, 11:04 AM
Its easier to go around a wall of 300+ lb OL then through it when our 60-70 lbs lighter

Simple Jaded
04-14-2013, 03:21 PM
Because you're just to damn jaded about everything.

And what's a pity party without the cynic?

Timmy!
04-14-2013, 05:06 PM
17 pages. nice work.

SR
04-14-2013, 06:07 PM
17 pages. nice work.

It's not over

Superchop 7
04-21-2013, 05:14 PM
Peter Lalich is beyond your run-of-the-mill Division-II "sleeper" or "diamond in the rough" prospect. Had he taken a different path, maybe Lalich would be recognized as one of the best prospects in the 2013 NFL Draft today. Despite his unusual path, our data and research suggests that Lalich has the raw talent to be considered a top-10 quarterback prospect in the 2013 NFL Draft. His size, arm strength, and pedigree are too hard to ignore. With all the possibilities here, Lalich may be the single best true "sleeper" quarterback in the 2013 draft class.

College Football Metrics

SR
04-21-2013, 05:27 PM
17 pages. nice work.

See?

Chef Zambini
04-22-2013, 01:50 AM
there is NO CHANCE JFE will bring in a guy like LALICH.
he would upstage BROCK, and JFE would have to continue to answer questions about brocks selection.
JFE is going to defend his choice, not by showing us WHY, but instead hiding the kid from view .
meanwhile no other worthwile candidates need apply.