PDA

View Full Version : "We Don't Have Plan A or B. We're going Plan C?!"



Cugel
03-14-2015, 09:50 PM
Last year, Elway famously said, when asked about what their "plan B" was: "Plan B? We don't have Plan B. We're going Plan A!" But, this year, they seem to be going with Plan C. I can accept Plan A or Plan B, but Plan C??? :tsk:

Plan A - Bring back Peyton Manning for 1 more season.

Plan B - Tell Peyton to ride off into the sunset and go with Brock Osweiler.

Let's look at Plan B first.

If Elway believed that Osweiler was going to be his franchise QB of the future, then he'd have confidence that Brock could lead this team to a SB at some point. If so, there's zero reason to bring back Peyton this year. You'd have to give Brock some experience as an NFL starter and the sooner the better - IF they are going to commit to him long term. It's just like the Packers shoving Brett Favre out the door, saying "thanks for the memories and have fun sexting in NY!", because they had Aaron Rogers waiting in the wings and wanted to get him started.

If would also mean that you try and start as many of the younger players as possible - Like C Paradis, RT Michael Schofield, WR Cody Latimer, and CB Bradley Roby and get them as much experience as possible, because they are also the foundation of your future and you might as well get them ready now while Brock is in his first year, learning how to be a starter in the NFL, because obviously he's not going to take you to a SB in his first season, nobody has ever done that.

Remember that while we haven't seen much of Brock, Elway has. He's seen him in practices that are closed to the public, he's heard what the coaches are saying privately to him about Brock's development. He must have concluded "this isn't my guy long term."

Plan A - Bring Back Petyon.
Going Plan A presupposes two things. One, that you think Peyton still has a chance to lead the team to a Super Bowl, AND two, that Brock Osweiler is NOT your Franchise QB of the future.

Is there any reason to think Peyton can win the SB this season after the last 3 seasons' failure? Sure there is. He's still Peyton Manning. Until he was injured in the last month of the season he was playing well enough to be in the top 5 QBs in the NFL in passing, QBR and TDs.

They've brought in an entirely new coaching staff. They will be utilizing the zone blocking system and committing to run more and relying on Peyton less. IF it works as they hope, then the Broncos think they could revive Peyton's career the way DeMarco Murray and the running game revived Tony Romo's career in Dallas.

You may not agree but Elway clearly does believe it.

If Elway looks at Brock and says to himself "this guy's never going to be a SB QB" he's NOT going to say it publicly of course. You might need him for a season or two starting in 2016 while they look for a franchise QB. They have to support him and say all the right things to support him, just like Elway said about Tim Tebow.

But, actions speak louder than words. And Elway's forgotten more about how to play QB than any fan will ever know. You have to believe he knows what he's doing when evaluating Brock.

HOWEVER, if you're going Plan A, don't you need to give Peyton every chance to win it all? What does Peyton need more than anything? A bunch of stud pass-blocking OL that's what! Guys who can give Peyton 2.5 seconds to throw the ball. Give him some serious talented pass-blockers and an improved run game and maybe Peyton can win the SB.

Remember the Seahawks game last year (http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2014092112/2014/REG3/broncos@seahawks#menu=gameinfo|contentId%3A0ap3000 000398711&tab=videos)? The Seahawks hit Peyton in the mouth over and over and dominated the Broncos offense for 3 quarters and went up 17-3. They got pass-rushers in his face within 2 seconds. Then in the fourth quarter the Seahawks back off and starting giving Peyton more time. Result? He throws 2 TD passes and ties the game going into overtime. Even against the best defense in football, the difference was the protection they gave Peyton on the last few drives. Extend this over an entire season, and mix in an effective running game, and they could hope to win it all.

But, what makes NO sense is MIXING plan A and B! By failing to sign some stud FA OL and going with maybe a rookie draft pick at LG, Manny Ramirez or Paradis who's never started a game at C, Michael Schofield or a rookie draft pick who's never started at RT? There's ZERO chance that patchwork OL with rookies can take the Broncos to the SB in Peyton's last season?

Maybe some of these OL guys can be effective starters long term, but take this team to a SB after never starting an NFL game? Going with guys who've failed in the past like Manny Ramirez? Signing a mediocre backup like Shelly Smith to be your LG in place of Orlando Franklin?

So, what is the point of bringing Peyton back if you're not going to surround him with the players - particularly stud pass-blocking OL he needs to win it all?

Plan C makes no sense! What are your thoughts?

MOtorboat
03-14-2015, 09:55 PM
Still obsessing over that four-year-old, half-a-second quote?

Ziggy
03-14-2015, 09:56 PM
Joel, is that you?

I'll say it one more time. The Broncos are surrounding Peyton with 10 other pro bowlers. You can only have studs at every position WHILE PLAYING MADDEN.

Cugel
03-14-2015, 10:09 PM
Joel, is that you?

I'll say it one more time. The Broncos are surrounding Peyton with 10 other pro bowlers. You can only have studs at every position WHILE PLAYING MADDEN.

They don't need studs at every position. Just OL. :coffee:

You don't see me criticize them for letting Julius Thomas go, or Rahim Moore or Orlando Franklin or Pot-Roast. You can't keep everybody and pay everybody.

But, Peyton is 39 and a statue. We've seen for 3 years what happens when the OL fails to give him time to throw. He throws incomplete and throws picks. The offense sputters. The Broncos get whipped in the Playoffs.

That same formula had fans about to run Tony Romo out of Dallas. Then they got some stud OL and committed to a running game and went to the NFC Championship game last year.

The only thing that would give the Broncos a chance to win the SB is NOT to have a better defense, but to protect Peyton better.

Is there any chance to do that with a patchwork OL? That's what they tried in 2014 remember!

Orlando Franklin sucked at RT in the SB, so move him to LG. Move Chris Clark to RT. That didn't work. Try Paul Cornick at RT. That didn't work. Move Louis Vasquez to RT. That didn't work AND left a big hole at RG. Move long-time G Manny Ramirez to C. That didn't work.

Shuffle the OL around all year and nothing worked because they didn't get really good OL. What do they need this off-season? Really good FA OL. What did they get? Nothing.

The weakness that was exposed in the SB has still not been fixed. And it's not going to be fixed this off-season because they're not getting any top flight OL in FA. They're going to try ONCE AGAIN to "fix" the OL with patches and moving guys around and bringing in FA scrubs and backups to be starters.

Cugel
03-14-2015, 10:15 PM
Still obsessing over that four-year-old, half-a-second quote?

The quote isn't important at all. It's merely a way of categorizing the Broncos choices.

1 - Roll with Peyton and try and win it all his last season, at the cost of not starting Brock during his entire rookie contract which expires in 2015.

2 - Roll with Brock and let Peyton walk away.

But to win it all with Peyton they need better OL and how can they get that with the same stiffs that failed last year and the year before, plus a few rookies who might develop into real players in a couple of years? Years that Peyton doesn't have left!

SR
03-14-2015, 10:15 PM
They don't need studs at every position. Just OL. :coffee: Peyton is 39 and a statue. We've seen for 3 years what happens when the OL fails to give him time to throw. He throws incomplete and throws picks. The offense sputters. The Broncos get whipped in the Playoffs. That same formula had fans about to run Tony Romo out of Dallas. Then they got some stud OL and committed to a running game and went to the NFC Championship game last year. The only thing that would give the Broncos a chance to win the SB is NOT to have a better defense, but to protect Peyton better. Is there any chance to do that with a patchwork OL? That's what they tried in 2014 remember! Orlando Franklin sucked at RT in the SB, so move him to LG. Move Chris Clark to RT. That didn't work. Try Paul Cornick at RT. That didn't work. Move Louis Vasquez to RT. That didn't work AND left a big hole at RG. Move long-time G Manny Ramirez to C. That didn't work. Shuffle the OL around all year and nothing worked because they didn't get really good OL. What do they need this off-season? Really good FA OL. What did they get? Nothing. The weakness that was exposed in the SB has still not been fixed. And it's not going to be fixed this off-season because they're not getting any top flight OL in FA. They're going to try ONCE AGAIN to "fix" the OL with patches and moving guys around and bringing in FA scrubs and backups to be starters.

Peyton was a statue when he was 19. Nothing new there. Even as shaky as the line was last year he was still one of the least hurried and least sacked in the league. Peyton's success has never been about moving around outside the pocket, it has been about unloading the ball with a quickness. That won't change.

Cugel
03-14-2015, 10:26 PM
Peyton was a statue when he was 19. Nothing new there. Even as shaky as the line was last year he was still one of the least hurried and least sacked in the league. Peyton's success has never been about moving around outside the pocket, it has been about unloading the ball with a quickness. That won't change.

He gets rid of the ball quickly and rarely gets sacked. But, he got rid of the ball quickly in the SB too and we know what happened there.

They simply need to protect him better and give him more time to throw. To do that they need better offensive linemen. And they didn't get them. They could live without some of the high-priced FAs they've signed. What they can't do without is a stud pass-blocking FA veteran RT, C and LG.

Because for three years we've seen what happens when they don't have that. Peyton sees that some guy like Michael Bennett or Robert Mathis is going to hit him in 2 seconds. He throws the ball in 1.7 seconds. There's no time for the play to develop. Result: It's incomplete or a pick or a gain of 2 or 3 yards.

We saw that in the Playoffs this year and in the SB. What's the point of bringing Peyton back for more of the same?

SR
03-14-2015, 10:38 PM
That was ONE game TWO seasons ago. Move on. Focus on tomorrow.

DenBronx
03-14-2015, 11:46 PM
I don't know what the plan is but this offseason isn't the norm for Elway.


Right now, I don't like it but time will tell.


I'm now more interested in the draft. If we blow that too this Denver team will struggle.

Poet
03-15-2015, 12:08 AM
I don't find this convincing for a myriad of reasons. Firstly, there has been an egregious misnomer about the lines that Manning played behind during his tenure in Indy. The only perennial pro bowler he played with was Saturday. For a brief window he had a pro bowl LT, whose career was ended with injuries. What does this all mean? It means that this is a quarterback who avoids sacks largely by dissecting the defense, making adjustments, audibles, quick releases, and mixing in the running game with every formation -sans the obvious no RB sets- to keep teams off balance. Manning hasn't had a team with a great LT for the better part of a eight years. Anyone remember the name of his guards in Indy? Right tackle? No? There's a reason for that.

What they're doing is essentially asking Manning to do what he has done for most of his career. Denver could not realistically keep Franklin, who might not have been a good fit for the ZBS in the first place. Manning understands that, and he understands that he was the guy who made players like Ramirez play better than they are. He made a line with third stringers at key positions look decent before. Why would this be any different? Remember last year's fall off? The line didn't help, but Manning was out there and he was wounded. He's no more likely to be wounded now than he was then, or when he was 24, or 27, or 30.

I just have to reject your notion that the Broncos are mixing plans. I doubt that Elway just sort of shrugged and said 'well he needs a line but, hey, **** him because we'll still make a ton of money with him and stay in the public's eye.'

I also have to reject the notion that because Manning came back they devalue Oz. Even the vaunted Aaron Rodgers wasn't a great QB in his first year of starting. He was a good one. Can we agree that you can be a great QB, or even a HoF QB, and be worse than Rodgers in his prime? Because if so that should serve as an example of how the Broncos could look at your backup QB and go 'he can be good, really good, maybe great, but he ain't PFM' right now. They feel a certain way about Oz, and it's not linked to him starting this year.

That presupposition simply doesn't exist.

Simple Jaded
03-15-2015, 01:28 AM
So what is/was Plan C?

chazoe60
03-15-2015, 02:25 AM
Tldr

Merc
03-17-2015, 10:47 AM
The only explanation I have, is that Kubiak wants the chance to coach Manning. He was on the opposite sideline, for a few years, so he wants to see if he can win with Manning on his side. I HOPE that's it, not because Elway has no confidence in Oz.

Ziggy
03-17-2015, 11:48 AM
So what is/was Plan C?

Matt Paradis competing with a draft pick is my guess. If it doesn't work out, they can sign Meyers. At some point, you have to give draft picks a chance to compete. Fox didn't, and that's one of the reasons he's gone.

Cugel
03-17-2015, 01:27 PM
I don't find this convincing for a myriad of reasons. Firstly, there has been an egregious misnomer about the lines that Manning played behind during his tenure in Indy. The only perennial pro bowler he played with was Saturday. For a brief window he had a pro bowl LT, whose career was ended with injuries. What does this all mean? It means that this is a quarterback who avoids sacks largely by dissecting the defense, making adjustments, audibles, quick releases, and mixing in the running game with every formation -sans the obvious no RB sets- to keep teams off balance. Manning hasn't had a team with a great LT for the better part of a eight years. Anyone remember the name of his guards in Indy? Right tackle? No? There's a reason for that.

What they're doing is essentially asking Manning to do what he has done for most of his career. Denver could not realistically keep Franklin, who might not have been a good fit for the ZBS in the first place. Manning understands that, and he understands that he was the guy who made players like Ramirez play better than they are. He made a line with third stringers at key positions look decent before. Why would this be any different? Remember last year's fall off? The line didn't help, but Manning was out there and he was wounded. He's no more likely to be wounded now than he was then, or when he was 24, or 27, or 30.

I just have to reject your notion that the Broncos are mixing plans. I doubt that Elway just sort of shrugged and said 'well he needs a line but, hey, **** him because we'll still make a ton of money with him and stay in the public's eye.'

I also have to reject the notion that because Manning came back they devalue Oz. Even the vaunted Aaron Rodgers wasn't a great QB in his first year of starting. He was a good one. Can we agree that you can be a great QB, or even a HoF QB, and be worse than Rodgers in his prime? Because if so that should serve as an example of how the Broncos could look at your backup QB and go 'he can be good, really good, maybe great, but he ain't PFM' right now. They feel a certain way about Oz, and it's not linked to him starting this year.

That presupposition simply doesn't exist.

#1 - You're wrong, but make some good points. )Peyton never had great OLs in Indy. Personally, I don't think Peyton's skills have diminished all that much, but that's been the argument among fans and sports experts. Certainly, he's not going to be able to throw as well as he did when he was 27 or 30 now that he's 39. Most players his age have been retired for 5 or 6 years now. He's lost something off his arm strength that was never great to begin with. His mind is as sharp as ever.

#2 - Peyton's injury. He claimed that he "felt fine" in the playoff game. He didn't look fine. OF course it wasn't entirely Peyton's fault that the team was flat. The coaches were all looking to get jobs elsewhere immediately after the game. Reports out of Dove Valley in the last week point to infighting between Del Rio and Elway, etc. Clearly the coaching staff was not in harmony with Elway and the team was not ready to play. So, is Peyton going to recover and play at the level that he did at the beginning of the season? I sure hope so, otherwise it's going to be a long year.

#4 - Brock Osweiler. As DMAC and Big Al said on 104.3 the Fan yesterday "Elway sure doesn't have any faith in Brock Owseiler! That much is clear."

Indications are:

a. Peyton Manning inserted a no-trade clause in his latest contract (http://www.milehighreport.com/2015/3/14/8215217/peyton-mannings-restructured-contract-with-broncos-includes-a-no)? Why now? There have been rumors that the Broncos considered trading him in an effort to get another QB:


Vic LombardiVerified account ‏@VicLombardi

The fact Peyton asked for a no-trade clause tells me the Broncos did indeed have a Plan B.

The plan "B" seems to have been to get something in exchange for Peyton. If they traded him, either they would get a player or draft pick(s) or else Peyton would refuse to report to the new team and retire - in which case the Broncos (or his new team) would be entitled to recover part of his bonuses - just exactly what happened in the case of Jake Plummer when he refused to report to the Dolphins and ended up paying them about $3 million or something.

#5 - The Broncos attempted to sign Tyrod Taylor, Joe Flacco's backup for the last 4 seasons, but he signed with Bills where he will have a chance to compete for the starting job. He actually turned down more money from the Broncos because he could wind up the starter in Buffalo this year (he just has to out-compete E.J. Manuel and Matt Cassel, and both suck).


This is an interesting development regarding backup quarterback Brock Osweiler. Why would the Broncos offer a backup quarterback a decent deal when they have trust in their so-called "quarterback of the future"? Denver Broncos General Manager has spoken positively about Osweiler ever since they spent a second-round selection on him. However, it does make one wonder if Gary Kubiak isn't as high on quarterback Brock Osweiler as we assumed he would be.

Elway has to say nice things about Brock because the Broncos may be stuck with him for a season or two and they can't very well say "we may start Brock right now, but we'll be looking for someone else and the minute we find them, Brock will go sailing right out of Dove Valley!" ESPECIALLY if it's true.

The Broncos could easily find someone cheaper than Tyrod Taylor if all they wanted was an upgrade on Zak Dysert as Osweiler's backup. They wanted to bring someone in to compete with Osweiler in 2016. If they believed in Brock they wouldn't bother. They'd just get a backup like Zak Dysert who would make $510,000.

Here's Taylor's contract with the Bills:


3/12/2015: Signed a three-year, $3.35 million contract. The deal contains $1.2 million guaranteed, including a $400,000 signing bonus. Another $3.65 million is available through incentives.

Remember that the Broncos offered MORE than this, so they were going to bring in a QB who would be making more $ than Brock Osweiler who is making $660,000 in 2015. Do you really think that expresses great confidence in Brock that they were going to bring in someone and pay him over $1 million a year, possibly much more? :laugh:

Cugel
03-17-2015, 01:42 PM
This pretty much clears it up:



Broncos' lack of faith in Brock Osweiler sealed with Peyton Manning offer
(http://www.milehighreport.com/2015/3/5/8152851/broncos-faith-in-osweiler-sealed-with-manning-offer)
By Ian Henson
@theorangepage on Mar 5, 2015, 8:00a 431

Clearly what the Broncos have said publicly about Osweiler's progress or the teams' willingness to play this season with Osweiler at the helm was all lip-service. Denver made that evident when they agreed to pay Peyton Manning $15 million of his contracted $19 million to be their starting quarterback in 2015.

UPDATE (3/15/15):
Former Baltimore Ravens' quarterback Tyrod Taylor reportedly turned down more than two-years and $7 million dollars from Denver to sign with the Buffalo Bills. Taylor reportedly wanted a chance to start this season.

Now why would Denver want to pay a third string quarterback that much money?

Answer, because Kubiak saw a chance for Taylor to be his starter in 2016. Look for the Broncos to part ways with Osweiler this next off season. They might not even make him an offer in FA.

You FLAT DON'T offer a guy who's not going to be your starting QB $3.5 million a year. Period. :coffee:

The hand-writing is on the wall for anybody with eyes to see it. Osweiler is done in Denver. He will never be the starting QB of the Broncos unless they can't find anybody else. And frankly, he might not want to sign with them in 2016 anyway, because he knows they don't have any confidence in him or they wouldn't have tried to sign Taylor.

And you know what else? The chances of Peyton Manning returning in 2016 just went up too. If the Broncos can't find another QB or if they draft a rookie, why not bring Peyton back for to finish out his contract?

Northman
03-17-2015, 01:52 PM
MHReport? Bwhahahahahahahahah

Cugel
03-17-2015, 01:55 PM
MHReport? Bwhahahahahahahahah

They got their info from Vic Lombardi (https://twitter.com/VicLombardi/status/576781796421079040)like everybody else. So your laughter is misplaced. The Broncos offered $7 million to Taylor. You flat don't do that if you believe in Brock.

You'll be laughing out of the other side of your mouth after this season ends and Brock is gone. :coffee:

Northman
03-17-2015, 01:57 PM
They got their info from Vic Lombardi (https://twitter.com/VicLombardi/status/576781796421079040)like everybody else. So your laughter is misplaced. The Broncos offered $7 million to Taylor. You flat don't do that if you believe in Brock.

You'll be laughing out of the other side of your mouth after this season ends and Brock is gone. :coffee:

If a HOF is still able to play and win you absolutely do that. Thank god you dont run this franchise or else Elway would of been traded or cut a long time ago to let Maddox run the show. Your takes are a complete joke dude.

Cugel
03-17-2015, 02:03 PM
If a HOF is still able to play and win you absolutely do that. Thank god you dont run this franchise or else Elway would of been traded or cut a long time ago to let Maddox run the show. Your takes are a complete joke dude.

Has NOTHING to do with Peyton does it? Obviously, they want Peyton back, so you could argue that they just think he's going to win it all in 2016. Fine. I can buy that too.

But why did they offer Tyrod Tayler $7M? Hmmmmn? :coffee:

Care to come up with some idiotic theory that will cover that one other than the obvious truth that they're just not that into Brock Osweiler and were willing to pay some other guy $3.5 million a year or over $2 million more than Brock?

I'm not the only person saying this too. Big Al and DMAC have been saying this on the radio for days. They say that it's the most obvious thing in the world and they're right.

EDIT: P.S. I was totally opposed to Dan Reeves' imbecilic plan to trade John Elway and was calling for him to be fired immediately after that draft blunder, or over 1 year before he was actually let go. So, once again, FAIL.

Northman
03-17-2015, 02:07 PM
Has NOTHING to do with Peyton does it? Obviously, they want Peyton back, so you could argue that they just think he's going to win it all in 2016. Fine. I can buy that too.

But why did they offer Tyrod Tayler $7M? Hmmmmn? :coffee:

Care to come up with some idiotic theory that will cover that one other than the obvious truth that they're just not that into Brock Osweiler and were willing to pay some other guy $3.5 million a year or over $2 million more than Brock?

I'm not the only person saying this too. Big Al and DMAC have been saying this on the radio for days. They say that it's the most obvious thing in the world and they're right.

The theory is easy, Kubiak knows of Tyrod's playing ability while at Baltimore. Doesnt mean for a second that Tyrod was going to be the starter if Peyton didnt return or retires next year. Tyrod has live game time experience and Kubiak is familiar with him. I swear, you and some of the guys at ESPN read far too much into things which is downright hilarious.

BroncoWave
03-17-2015, 02:11 PM
If a HOF is still able to play and win you absolutely do that. Thank god you dont run this franchise or else Elway would of been traded or cut a long time ago to let Maddox run the show. Your takes are a complete joke dude.

Nice strawman there North. I don't see how suggesting possibly trading a 39 year old qb means he'd have also been on board with trading elway in his prime when Maddox came along. That's a pretty cheap argument tactic on your part.

Northman
03-17-2015, 02:15 PM
Nice strawman there North. I don't see how suggesting possibly trading a 39 year old qb means he'd have also been on board with trading elway in his prime when Maddox came along. That's a pretty cheap argument tactic on your part.

No its not. Im right on point.

Poet
03-17-2015, 02:25 PM
Cugel I will try to respond to you later.

chazoe60
03-17-2015, 02:53 PM
Wait a second, is this entire thread about our backup QBs? What a waste of time.

Northman
03-17-2015, 03:00 PM
Anyone who would believe that a team that had a chance at a championship who didnt already have a franchise QB would not sign Manning is completely and utterly out of their mind. If Denver had let Manning walk he would of signed onto another team with the chance to win a championship. Denver did the right thing if there is still that hope that he can get it done physically. To think that Denver would simply pass up that opportunity is just retarded.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
03-17-2015, 03:05 PM
$3.5 would be a normal amount for a journeyman backup QB. That's on part with what we paid Brady Quinn. It would also provide competition for Brock, which the other two QB's we've drafted have not been able to provide.

BroncoWave
03-17-2015, 03:21 PM
To think that Denver would simply pass up that opportunity is just retarded.

Bull. Shit. There is plenty of validity to the opinion that maybe the 39 year old QB doesn't have enough left in the tank to lead us to a title, especially with all the talent we had to lose to keep him. Does that mean we have no shot at a title this year? No. But to call that viewpoint retarded is a little extreme as well.

Poet
03-17-2015, 03:33 PM
Anyone who would believe that a team that had a chance at a championship who didnt already have a franchise QB would not sign Manning is completely and utterly out of their mind. If Denver had let Manning walk he would of signed onto another team with the chance to win a championship. Denver did the right thing if there is still that hope that he can get it done physically. To think that Denver would simply pass up that opportunity is just retarded.

Yeah, the league is so QB starved that apparently teams are offering up firsts for friggen Bradford. Kirk Cousins was at one point worth a second round pick and teams considered offering up a first rounder for him. That in and of itself should tell you that teams at the very least are going to gamble on QB's.

If Manning is healthy he is going to make a lot of rosters SB contenders. If he was available and we had the cap space, I would flip shit if Cincinnati didn't offer him a contract. Look at teams like the Bills, really nice roster, no real QB. The Jets have some talent, no real QB. Even teams with budding QB's like Miami would want him, if they could afford him.

Northman
03-17-2015, 03:48 PM
Bull. Shit. There is plenty of validity to the opinion that maybe the 39 year old QB doesn't have enough left in the tank to lead us to a title, especially with all the talent we had to lose to keep him. Does that mean we have no shot at a title this year? No. But to call that viewpoint retarded is a little extreme as well.

You are completely missing my point. Just because YOU think the QB doesnt have anything left in the tank does not mean owners/coaches around the league believe that including the Broncos. Sorry, you are a fool if you think that had Denver let Peyton walk no team would sign him. You are just fooling yourself otherwise.

Northman
03-17-2015, 03:49 PM
Yeah, the league is so QB starved that apparently teams are offering up firsts for friggen Bradford. Kirk Cousins was at one point worth a second round pick and teams considered offering up a first rounder for him. That in and of itself should tell you that teams at the very least are going to gamble on QB's.

If Manning is healthy he is going to make a lot of rosters SB contenders. If he was available and we had the cap space, I would flip shit if Cincinnati didn't offer him a contract. Look at teams like the Bills, really nice roster, no real QB. The Jets have some talent, no real QB. Even teams with budding QB's like Miami would want him, if they could afford him.

Exactly.

BroncoJoe
03-17-2015, 03:59 PM
Any thread started by Cugel is a joke.

BroncoWave
03-17-2015, 04:36 PM
You are completely missing my point. Just because YOU think the QB doesnt have anything left in the tank does not mean owners/coaches around the league believe that including the Broncos. Sorry, you are a fool if you think that had Denver let Peyton walk no team would sign him. You are just fooling yourself otherwise.

Where did I imply no other team would sign him? Just because another team would sign him wouldn't make Denver stupid for letting him go. And sorry, North, just because someone doesn't agree with you om something doesn't make their viewpoint retarded.

Northman
03-17-2015, 04:40 PM
Where did I imply no other team would sign him? Just because another team would sign him wouldn't make Denver stupid for letting him go. And sorry, North, just because someone doesn't agree with you om something doesn't make their viewpoint retarded.

Dude, i have no idea what you are trying to argue here. I think you need to go back and read what was actually being discussed. Cugel's viewpoint (and that of the article he posted) was that the team only signed Manning because they had no faith in Oz being the future. But that isnt the case, the Broncos (and any logical team worth a grain of salt in the NFL) kept Manning because he still gives them the best chance to win a SB now. The decision to bring Manning back had nothing to do with Oz's expectations with the team. And yes, anyone who actually believes that is totally retarded. Sorry you dont agree.

CrazyHorse
03-17-2015, 10:40 PM
Plan C. Swap Manning For Brady straight up.

Simple Jaded
03-17-2015, 11:18 PM
$3.5 would be a normal amount for a journeyman backup QB. That's on part with what we paid Brady Quinn. It would also provide competition for Brock, which the other two QB's we've drafted have not been able to provide.

This.

$3.5 MM is veteran backup money and Taylor took less money to go somewhere else because he wants to start, if we're going to read between the lines let's focus on those lines for a moment; he was offered backup money from Denver, which implies that he talked directly with the Broncos, he turned down the offer to look for a starting job.

Maybe Taylor doesn't think he'd get a legit chance to start on a team that will be losing their starting QB sooner than later.

Personally, I'd be more worried about the implication that the Broncos see Taylor as a starting NFL QB than what that implication means to Brock Osweiler.

capt. Jack
03-18-2015, 01:06 PM
I think we go with PLAN P - PHILLIP RIVERS!!!
His contract is up next year, he plays GREAT in Denver, we could channel that energy he has in a positive direction.

PLAN-P !!!!!!!!

:)

Simple Jaded
03-18-2015, 09:36 PM
I think we go with PLAN P - PHILLIP RIVERS!!!
His contract is up next year, he plays GREAT in Denver, we could channel that energy he has in a positive direction, And he reminds me a lot of JOHN ELWAY!!!!

PLAN-P !!!!!!!!

:)
You had me til the Elway comment, wtf?

capt. Jack
03-19-2015, 04:45 AM
I fixed my post, don't want to upset anyone.

:)