Osweiler not taking Manning's knowledge for granted.

[Northman]

http://www.denverbroncos.com/news-and-blogs/article-1/Osweiler-not-taking-Manning%E2%80%99s-knowledge-for-granted/e040d6b3-dd70-4c0f-bb07-907fcff597b2


While it has been tough for QB Brock Osweiler to watch and learn the past three seasons from QB Peyton Manning, he's not taking any of No. 18's knowledge for granted.

Quarterback Brock Osweiler (http://www.denverbroncos.com/team/roster/brock-osweiler/4185fe41-eb11-43c8-b812-31a069b07176/) has spent his three years in Denver watching and learning from the unquestioned future Hall-of-Fame quarterback Peyton Manning (http://www.denverbroncos.com/team/roster/peyton-manning/5e49338e-cd44-4226-9451-f111c0eb767d/)

But while it might be difficult for Osweiler to sit back and spend these years learning the ropes from Manning, he isn’t taking any of the wisdom and experience he’s gained for granted.

“I'd be lying to you if I said it hasn't been tough to not play over the past three years,” Osweiler said Tuesday on Yahoo! Sports Radio, “but the one thing I do know is… that I'm going to work on a daily basis with one of the greatest quarterbacks to ever play the game and I guess I really just want to make the most of that situation.”

Osweiler has remained patient these past years spending his time improving his football IQ while also mentally preparing for each game like he’s the starter because he’ll never know when he’s needed. Just last season, Osweiler had to step in for Manning during a divisional game at San Diego for a series to finish the first half.

“I think in this league you consistently need to be getting better on a daily basis and when you're around a guy like Peyton you're able to do that because you're constantly learning so much,” Osweiler said. “So, that was one way I was able to stay patient but then at the same time every single week I prepare like I'm going to be playing because at any point in time in this league the starter can go down. …My head's been in the game as though I was the guy.”

[DenBronx]

That fool better be ready to step up!!! Fans will soon be saying Russell Wilson who!?

[Northman]

I hope he pans out, i like him and think he will do well but nothing is ever guaranteed.

[Buff]

I hope he pans out, i like him and think he will do well but nothing is ever guaranteed.

He had all the grace of a newborn baby moose in the pocket last year.

[BroncoWave]

I hope he pans out, i like him and think he will do well but nothing is ever guaranteed.

This is some killer insight here. :D

[Buff]

#HotTakesFromNorth

[Northman]

#NorththenewNostradamustakenfromTimmeh!

[Timmy!]

Nobody is taking my title, especially in a thread about the Montana giraffe.

[Northman]

Bwhahhahahahaah, well played Timmy, well played.

[Cugel]

That fool better be ready to step up!!! Fans will soon be saying Russell Wilson who!?

It would be nice if you were right, but you're not. The Broncos don't think Osweiler is remotely as good as Russell Wilson. RW is a franchise QB who has led his team to 2 SBs and won one. If the Broncos thought they had a SB caliber QB in Osweiler, they would NEVER in Hell brought back Peyton Manning for his last season. They'd have let Peyton walk off into the sunset and been eager to start the Osweiler era.

Just the way that the Packers told Brett Favre when he tried to come back to the Packers, "thanks for the memories Brett, and have fun sexting in NY. But, we've got Aaron Rogers and we're going with him!"

The Broncos didn't do that because after seeing Brock for years in meetings, in closed practices, and reviewing all the tape they don't think he's something special. Actions speak louder than words. They will give him the starting job, but they will also be looking for a long-term franchise QB and Osweiler isn't that guy. He's going to be a place holder until Elway finds a better QB, which may take a few years.

[TXBRONC]

It would be nice if you were right, but you're not. The Broncos don't think Osweiler is remotely as good as Russell Wilson. RW is a franchise QB who has led his team to 2 SBs and won one. If the Broncos thought they had a SB caliber QB in Osweiler, they would NEVER in Hell brought back Peyton Manning for his last season. They'd have let Peyton walk off into the sunset and been eager to start the Osweiler era.

Just the way that the Packers told Brett Favre when he tried to come back to the Packers, "thanks for the memories Brett, and have fun sexting in NY. But, we've got Aaron Rogers and we're going with him!"

The Broncos didn't do that because after seeing Brock for years in meetings, in closed practices, and reviewing all the tape they don't think he's something special. Actions speak louder than words. They will give him the starting job, but they will also be looking for a long-term franchise QB and Osweiler isn't that guy. He's going to be a place holder until Elway finds a better QB, which may take a few years.

You have an active imagination.

[Dapper Dan]

If Seattle had signed Peyton Manning, Russell Wilson would still be on their bench.

[Cugel]

If Seattle had signed Peyton Manning, Russell Wilson would still be on their bench.

Just like Aaron Rogers sat on the Packers bench when Hall of Famer and SB winning QB Brett Favre wanted to come back for 1 more year, . . . oh, wait. :coffee:

Aaron Rogers played in exactly 7 games in 3 seasons, prior to being given the starting job in Green Bay over Favre. They didn't know they had a future Hall of Famer when they gave him the starting job, they thought they had a QB who could lead the team in the future, so they went with him, instead of bringing Brett back for a final year.

Denver did the opposite. Why? Because the team has looked at Brock and does NOT conclude they have a franchise QB in him they can build around.

He's apparently a serviceable Qb (in their view) and they're going to give him a chance to start and see how he does, but they are in no rush about it. They might even bring Peyton back for the final year on his contract next year depending on how he does in the new offense, in which case Brock will try and find a job elsewhere where he'll have a chance to become a starter in 2016. He's said it's been very hard on him to have to wait all this time for his chance, and his contract expires this year. His patience might just wear out if forced to sit for yet another year (totalling five).

[BroncoJoe]

Just like Aaron Rogers sat on the Packers bench when Hall of Famer and SB winning QB Brett Favre wanted to come back for 1 more year, . . . oh, wait. :coffee:

Aaron Rogers played in exactly 7 games in 3 seasons, prior to being given the starting job in Green Bay over Favre. They didn't know they had a future Hall of Famer when they gave him the starting job, they thought they had a QB who could lead the team in the future, so they went with him, instead of bringing Brett back for a final year.

Denver did the opposite. Why? Because the team has looked at Brock and does NOT conclude they have a franchise QB in him they can build around.

He's apparently a serviceable Qb (in their view) and they're going to give him a chance to start and see how he does, but they are in no rush about it. They might even bring Peyton back for the final year on his contract next year depending on how he does in the new offense, in which case Brock will try and find a job elsewhere where he'll have a chance to become a starter in 2016. He's said it's been very hard on him to have to wait all this time for his chance, and his contract expires this year. His patience might just wear out if forced to sit for yet another year (totalling five).

The Packers with Rodgers went 6-10 his first year starting. Following a 13-3 year from Favre.

I think you're talking out of your ass, as usual.

[Cugel]

You have an active imagination.

And you have no imagination at all.

What would you do if you were John Elway and you thought that Osweiler was a franchise QB? Would you bring back Peyton for one last ditch chance after 3 post seasons ended in disaster and humiliation? Or would you figure it's time to start your QB of the future?

Plenty of Broncos fans (not including me) wanted "to see what we've got in Brock!" Many wanted to send Peyton packing at the end of last season, and some still do now. Their numbers will only grow if Peyton struggles in the new offense this year (certainly possible since they have only a raw rookie starting at LT).

What's the point in bringing Peyton back if you think Brock is going to be the franchise QB the team can build around for the next 6-10 years? Why waste another year when he's going to need time to develop anyway? The sooner they get him in the better, right?

Logical conclusion, since they didn't do that: They don't think Brock is anything special. They are in no hurry to get to the Osweiler era.

[Cugel]

The Packers with Rodgers went 6-10 his first year starting. Following a 13-3 year from Favre.

I think you're talking out of your ass, as usual.

You're the one talking out of your ass, as usual! How does the team's failure in Roger's first year mean that they weren't eager to start Rogers?

Do you even know the history? Brett tried to come back. They told him to shove off and went with Rogers. He went to NY Jets and complained bitterly about the Packers refusing to bring him back. The Packers didn't care, because they believed Rogers was their QB of the future, as he proved to be.

[BroncoJoe]

You're the one talking out of your ass, as usual! How does the team's failure in Roger's first year mean that they weren't eager to start Rogers?

Do you even know the history? Brett tried to come back. They told him to shove off and went with Rogers. He went to NY Jets and complained bitterly about the Packers refusing to bring him back. The Packers didn't care, because they believed Rogers was their QB of the future, as he proved to be.

First - Favre is no Manning, on the field or off.

Second, perhaps you should revisit history, instead of rewriting it. The Packers drafted Rodgers because Favre played the retirement game for 4+ years. They grew tired of the indecision. Do you live an isolated life or do you just simply not remember the full story?

Finally, you have some good takes, but most of the time you have no idea what you're talking about and are generally wrong in your assessments.

[Cugel]

First - Favre is no Manning, on the field or off.

Second, perhaps you should revisit history, instead of rewriting it. The Packers drafted Rodgers because Favre played the retirement game for 4+ years. They grew tired of the indecision. Do you live an isolated life or do you just simply not remember the full story?

Finally, you have some good takes, but most of the time you have no idea what you're talking about and are generally wrong in your assessments.

The Packers drafted Rodgers in 2005, because Brett was then 36 and nearing normal retirement even if he wanted to stay. He still played 2 more seasons until January 2008 at which point he was 38 years old, or nearly as old as Peyton is now and Rodgers was entering his 3rd season and was considered ready to start.

The "indecision" would have mattered NOTHING if the Packers didn't think Aaron Rodgers was their long-term franchise QB, which they did. If they didn't they'd let Brett come back and start for another year, because he was their best QB option,
just the way the Broncos let Peyton come back after "thinking it over" for over a month at the age of 39, and have put off re-signing Osweiler to a long-term deal despite the fact that his contract is expiring this season.

Brett accused the Packers of "forcing him to make a decision on his return to the team too quickly" and that they pushed him out the door in order to start Rodgers.

Well, that's exactly what they did.

If the Broncos really believed Osweiler was their franchise QB of the future why wouldn't they re-sign him right now, this off-season instead of letting him become a FA? What if Peyton gets hurt and Brock plays well? His contract price would soar through the roof - just as the worthless Matt Cassel got a $15 million contract from the Chiefs after subbing for the injured Tom Brady for 1 season. They're just not that concerned about locking up Brock Osweiler long-term. They haven't even made a firm decision about bringing him back next year at all -- or they'd re-sign him now. Everything depends on how things go with Peyton this year.

They might re-sign Peyton for 2016, let Brock go and draft a QB for instance.

[BroncoJoe]

That's your opinion. It's wrong in mine.

I'm not holding Oz's jock - I just believe you're WAY off in your assessment. As usual.

[BroncoJoe]

The Packers drafted Rodgers in 2005, because Brett was then 36 and nearing normal retirement even if he wanted to stay. He still played 2 more seasons until January 2008 at which point he was 38 years old, or nearly as old as Peyton is now and Rodgers was entering his 3rd season and was considered ready to start.

Really?


He’s right that both sides were at fault. Favre’s annual indecision about retiring compelled the team to draft Rodgers in 2005, and after three years on the bench the Packers were ready to use him. So the Packers, instead of cutting Favre or trading him in the offseason, pushed Favre for a definitive answer as to his plans for 2008 in February, knowing that if pressed for an answer in any February his answer would be, “I’m done.”

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/06/07/favre-has-no-regrets-but-acknowledges-fault-in-leaving-packers/

Yes, they were ready to move on, but having Rodgers (who had a MAJOR slide in the draft - it's not like they took him with their first pick) was probably a minor factor.

EDIT: My bad - I thought he slipped into the 2nd round. The Packers did select him in the first round with their first pick.

[DenBronx]

I don't know if Brock will be here long term and no one else does either. I really don't care if your opinion is that the Broncos will move on without him or not. But if he DOES stay here, he will have one hell of a WR core. This will make his transition go alot smoother with pro bowl WRs to throw to.

I'm pulling for the guy and think Kubiak can get the best out of him. Hope he plays a ton in preseason.

[Simple Jaded]

The Broncos know they have the Next Ben Roethlisberger on their hands which is why they're bringing Manning back another season so they can resign Oz for a fraction of what they would if they cut Manning and started Oz.

You's guys are stupid if you think otherwise, this is as obvious as the nose on your face.

Talking out the ass is fun.

[TXBRONC]

And you have no imagination at all.

What would you do if you were John Elway and you thought that Osweiler was a franchise QB? Would you bring back Peyton for one last ditch chance after 3 post seasons ended in disaster and humiliation? Or would you figure it's time to start your QB of the future?

Plenty of Broncos fans (not including me) wanted "to see what we've got in Brock!" Many wanted to send Peyton packing at the end of last season, and some still do now. Their numbers will only grow if Peyton struggles in the new offense this year (certainly possible since they have only a raw rookie starting at LT).

What's the point in bringing Peyton back if you think Brock is going to be the franchise QB the team can build around for the next 6-10 years? Why waste another year when he's going to need time to develop anyway? The sooner they get him in the better, right?

Logical conclusion, since they didn't do that: They don't think Brock is anything special. They are in no hurry to get to the Osweiler era.

Sorry Cugel it's not a logical conclusion. You're assuming Denver doesn't like him based on the fact Manning is still here and that's nonsense.

[SR]

Sorry Cugel it's not a logical conclusion. You're assuming Denver doesn't like him based on the fact Manning is still here and that's nonsense.

Not much of what he says is logical or makes sense.

[Cugel]

I don't know if Brock will be here long term and no one else does either. I really don't care if your opinion is that the Broncos will move on without him or not. But if he DOES stay here, he will have one hell of a WR core. This will make his transition go alot smoother with pro bowl WRs to throw to.

I'm pulling for the guy and think Kubiak can get the best out of him. Hope he plays a ton in preseason.

You miss the point. EVERYBODY wants him to succeed, unless they are not Broncos fans. The question is: "How do the Broncos evaluate Osweiler at this point? Do they see him as their future franchise QB?"

And the answer is "no" because if they did they wouldn't make him wait 5 or 6 years to start his first NFL game, if he even re-signs with Denver next year, which is not a given if Peyton comes back to complete his contract.

Personally, it's painful to consider the Broncos could have drafted Russell Wilson instead of Osweiler, which would have meant that Seattle would never have been in the SB, because they would have had a crap QB like Matt Flynn, which means the Broncos could have won a SB by now, maybe 2.

[underrated29]

You miss the point. EVERYBODY wants him to succeed, unless they are not Broncos fans. The question is: "How do the Broncos evaluate Osweiler at this point? Do they see him as their future franchise QB?"

And the answer is "no" because if they did they wouldn't make him wait 5 or 6 years to start his first NFL game, if he even re-signs with Denver next year, which is not a given if Peyton comes back to complete his contract.

Personally, it's painful to consider the Broncos could have drafted Russell Wilson instead of Osweiler, which would have meant that Seattle would never have been in the SB, because they would have had a crap QB like Matt Flynn, which means the Broncos could have won a SB by now, maybe 2.




And by the same token you would have been here complaining that we drafted a midget QB who has to run for his life while the seahawks drafted a giant who can see over anything and has a cannon arm. Man we should have drafted that guy, instead we go for the midget. Well done John. Well done.

[Cugel]

Sorry Cugel it's not a logical conclusion. You're assuming Denver doesn't like him based on the fact Manning is still here and that's nonsense.

I don't think they "don't like him" at all. If he signs a new contract, then either in 2016 or 2017 he's probably going to be given a chance to be the starting QB.

But, there's a difference between "Franchise QB" and "starting QB." The franchise QB position is so important that if the Coach & GM get that wrong, they normally get fired. EX: Brian Billick. Won the SB & was a universally admired coach, but he thought Kyle Boller was his Franchise QB, so he got FIRED.

Teams either have their "Franchise QB" set, which means they've got a guy they think they can plug in and build the team around for the next 5-10 years, or they don't. That means they think if they get the right players around their QB and develop him properly they can compete for a SB.

Ex: Miami's Ryan Tannehill. The Dolphins are committed to him long-term and think they have their guy.

About 1/2 the teams in the league don't have Franchise QBs and are looking for desperately that guy.

Ex: Buffalo. Great defense in 2014, with studs like Mario Williams and Marcel Dareus and should be even better this year with Rex Ryan as coach. But, they are starting Matt Cassel at QB with E.J. Manuel backing up. This equals ZERO chance of a SB. (Vegas has them at 35-1, which is bad considering there are only 32 teams!)

Buffalo has a "starting QB", just like everybody in the league. They don't have a "Franchise QB" - at least not yet. And frankly, they've been looking for that guy since Jim Kelly retired.

The Broncos have a "starting QB" in Osweiler (probably). They don't have a "Franchise QB" which means a guy they are committed to long-term and whom they believe they can build around for the next 5-10 years and go to the SB. If they did they would have already re-signed him and they would want to give him more of an opportunity than starting in his 6th season.

The difference is that the team is probably going to go out in FA or the draft and look for another QB and groom him while letting Brock start. He's a place-holder, like 1/2 the QBs in the NFL. If he does great - fine. He keeps his job. But, they are going to make contingency plans and his leash is going to be rather short.

[underrated29]

The difference is that the team is probably going to go out in FA or the draft and look for another QB and groom him while letting Brock start. He's a place-holder, like 1/2 the QBs in the NFL. If he does great - fine. He keeps his job. But, they are going to make contingency plans and his leash is going to be rather short.



This is entirely possible. I actually see it happening anyway. That said I have been watching a lot of brocks games lately and I like him a fair amount more than I used to. I think he could be that guy. Problem is we wont know for a little bit. Should a guy like Hackenberg fall within range in the first next year or Phillip Rivers become a FA- then by all means I expect the broncos to explore those options very heavily. IF so, what you just said will likely be the case. But we do not know yet and I just have this feeling about Brock, I think he gets it and if he can nail the "touch aspect" of throwing and improve his accuracy a little better, he can be at least a joe flacco....(I hate flacco btw and think he sucks) but IMO right now- brock is only slightly lesser. He will have to go through his lumps just like all the other qbs did, but if flacco can win a SB, then Oz surely can with our team.

[Northman]

Denver is not going to stop looking at QB's just because they have Brock. Elway understands that he may not work out so for any Brock doubters dont fret, John has it covered in case it doesnt pan out. But i think its also safe to say that Brock will get his shot to see if can be the man.

[Simple Jaded]

Answer me this, if we don't know if Osweiler is a Starting QB how would we know if Russell is a Franchise QB had they drafted him instead?

Btw, my opinion is the same as before the 2012 draft, if Russell were 4" taller he'd been the 2nd best QB in the draft by a large margin. But he's not 6'-2", let some other team figure out how to win with a 5'-10" QB, I'm still not interested.

[Valar Morghulis]

Answer me this, if we don't know if Osweiler is a Starting QB how would we know if Russell is a Franchise QB had they drafted him instead?

.

lol - #logic

[Al Wilson 4 Mayor]

Jaded loves the hammer.

[TXBRONC]

I don't think they "don't like him" at all. If he signs a new contract, then either in 2016 or 2017 he's probably going to be given a chance to be the starting QB.

But, there's a difference between "Franchise QB" and "starting QB." The franchise QB position is so important that if the Coach & GM get that wrong, they normally get fired. EX: Brian Billick. Won the SB & was a universally admired coach, but he thought Kyle Boller was his Franchise QB, so he got FIRED.

Teams either have their "Franchise QB" set, which means they've got a guy they think they can plug in and build the team around for the next 5-10 years, or they don't. That means they think if they get the right players around their QB and develop him properly they can compete for a SB.

Ex: Miami's Ryan Tannehill. The Dolphins are committed to him long-term and think they have their guy.

About 1/2 the teams in the league don't have Franchise QBs and are looking for desperately that guy.

Ex: Buffalo. Great defense in 2014, with studs like Mario Williams and Marcel Dareus and should be even better this year with Rex Ryan as coach. But, they are starting Matt Cassel at QB with E.J. Manuel backing up. This equals ZERO chance of a SB. (Vegas has them at 35-1, which is bad considering there are only 32 teams!)

Buffalo has a "starting QB", just like everybody in the league. They don't have a "Franchise QB" - at least not yet. And frankly, they've been looking for that guy since Jim Kelly retired.

The Broncos have a "starting QB" in Osweiler (probably). They don't have a "Franchise QB" which means a guy they are committed to long-term and whom they believe they can build around for the next 5-10 years and go to the SB. If they did they would have already re-signed him and they would want to give him more of an opportunity than starting in his 6th season.

The difference is that the team is probably going to go out in FA or the draft and look for another QB and groom him while letting Brock start. He's a place-holder, like 1/2 the QBs in the NFL. If he does great - fine. He keeps his job. But, they are going to make contingency plans and his leash is going to be rather short.

Cugel, everything Elway has said and done suggest that he sees Oswieler as his future franchise quarterback. Friend,the conclusions you're coming to do not match the available information.

[TXBRONC]

Denver is not going to stop looking at QB's just because they have Brock. Elway understands that he may not work out so for any Brock doubters dont fret, John has it covered in case it doesnt pan out. But i think its also safe to say that Brock will get his shot to see if can be the man.

Elway back when he was hired said he would look at quarterbacks every which is exactly what he has done. That said, he's only drafted two and brought in two others as UDFAs. If and when Elway takes a quarterback in first round then it's reasonable to assume that Elway's evaluation of Osweiler has changed.

[Simple Jaded]

Nothing hits like a Hammer.

[TXBRONC]

Nothing hits like a Hammer.

Can't touch this.

[Ravage!!!]

I don't think there is any reason to believe that Elway sees Oz as a "franchise QB" any more than there is reason to believe he doesn't. Lots of teams passed on Rodgers, and the Packers sat him on the bench a long time bfore giving him the nod over the aged Favre. Breese is another example of a QB taking years to blossom into a top QB. Kurt Warner, a QB that was completely overlooked UNTIL forced into the lineup. No one knows until they are actually on the field. Oz hasn't had that opportunity to succeed, nor fail...YET.

So no.. I don't think Elway sees him as a franchise QB purely because there would be no reason to make that deduction. However, I don't see his lack of playing time as an indicator since he's playing behind Manning.

[TXBRONC]

I don't think there is any reason to believe that Elway sees Oz as a "franchise QB" any more than there is reason to believe he doesn't. Lots of teams passed on Rodgers, and the Packers sat him on the bench a long time bfore giving him the nod over the aged Favre. Breese is another example of a QB taking years to blossom into a top QB. Kurt Warner, a QB that was completely overlooked UNTIL forced into the lineup. No one knows until they are actually on the field. Oz hasn't had that opportunity to succeed, nor fail...YET.

So no.. I don't think Elway sees him as a franchise QB purely because there would be no reason to make that deduction. However, I don't see his lack of playing time as an indicator since he's playing behind Manning.

What do you mean because Elway has said as much? Also Elway has had opportunity to draft a quarterback higher than he did Osweiler. From the moment Rodgers was drafted it was said he heir apparent.

[Ravage!!!]

What do you mean because Elway has said as much? Also Elway has had opportunity to draft a quarterback higher than he did Osweiler. From the moment Rodgers was drafted it was said he heir apparent.

Yeah.. let me try to explain my meaning.

Being the "heir APPARENT" doesn't necessarily mean anything other than saying "as of right now, he's the guy we want to take over the reigns." It doesn't really "appoint" anything. Like you've said, Elway can change his mind tomorrow. But Elway knows, like most people, that he HAS to be and sound 100% confident in Oz...especially to the public and media. That's an absolute must, because any hesitation or meadering answer to that question, only causes MORE questions to be asked and more people to push for more definitive answers. They create problems. So Elway WANTS Oz to be the guy, but there is no way he really "knows" if Oz is the guy or not. Not until he's on the field taking the fire in games.

Just like Rodgers, they WANTED Rodgers to be the guy to take over for Favre, but they didn't KNOW for sure. They didn't know confidently enough to let Favre go TOO soon. They waited until they knew Favre was on his last ligaments. This will be Manning's last year with the Broncos, and Oz will go into next season as the lead guy to be the starter. Elway will be crossing his fingers that Oz is the man.

[Simple Jaded]

My, my, my music hits me. . .so hard.
Makes me say. . .oh my lord.

[Poet]

Peyton Manning can be seen as an elite quarterback in this league right now. He makes the Broncos one of the best teams in the AFC, and definite SB contenders just by his mere presence. The only question about Manning is if he is healthy, and considering that the Broncos wanted him back, it's 'safe' to assume that he is healthy.

So, what would Denver actually do if they had a QB they believed in duplicates? I think they would play the one who is most prepared to win now. Assuming Manning is healthy, does anyone think Brock will outplay him this year? If they do, they're being silly.

Take it a step further - In years past many young talented QB's ate bench for several years. We have only moved away from that line of thinking since to the mid to late 90's, which isn't that long in regards to pro football history. One could postulate, with a high degree of sensibility at that, that Denver might believe they are doing what is best for the short term and the long term.

Even if the Broncos cut ties with Brock, it won't be because they looked at him and say 'you're not as good as the best or second best pure passing quarterback ever.' By that logic they wouldn't want Unitas, Montana, Young, Moon, Favre, or even Tom Brady to play for them.

Cugel, if they do get rid of Brock, please don't think it somehow validates your opinion on the matter.

[Cugel]

Cugel, everything Elway has said and done suggest that he sees Oswieler as his future franchise quarterback. Friend,the conclusions you're coming to do not match the available information.

Actions speak louder than words. If Elway really believed what he's said they would have signed Osweiler by now. Why let him become an unrestricted FA? Teams never do that with players they see as key pieces of their team long-term. Why let other teams negotiate with your future franchise QB? And it's not as if they are going to have the franchise tag available for Osweiler. They are going to need that for Von Miller, whose contract $ will be over $16M a year, and will be as difficult to negotiate as D.T.'s was.

Also, let all the people who can't wrap their minds round the obvious answer this question: If you were Elway and really believed that Osweiler was going to be your starting QB 5 years from now, and that the team would be competing for a SB with him at QB, why would you bring back Peyton for one last season?

It just makes no sense. They're starting a new offense in Peyton's last year with a rookie LT protecting his blind-side?

Osweiler is going to struggle his rookie year. Even great QBs like Elway, Peyton and Andrew Luck did that. So, why waste time? Why not get that rookie year out of the way, since you're going to have to do that anyway? Get the kid some experience and move on to the Osweiler era. Introduce the new offense and get Osweiler experience in running it.

Were not a majority of Broncos fans saying exactly that after the playoff loss? "Time to move on! Let's see what we have in Brock!"

Everybody on these boards acts like I'm suggesting the sky is yellow, when all the reporters on Sports talk radio are saying the exact same thing - Elway does NOT view Osweiler as the long-term QB, or he'd be starting this season!

If Elway really believed Osweiler could win the SB, then it only makes sense to get him in there and let him develop now!

It's only if you don't really believe that, if you think Osweiler is just a guy, that you take one last desperate ride with Peyton.

How many of you really believe that the Broncos are going to win the SB this year with 39 year old Peyton? After the way the last 3 seasons ended, are your expectations for this year "Super-bowl or bust?" Really? :coffee:

But, if you do NOT believe that the Broncos can win the SB this season with Peyton, and this is probably his last year, then what's the plan? Waste a year they could be developing Osweiler who really COULD win the SB in the future? :confused:

[Poet]

Why would he sign Oz before Oz has hit the field? Why would him sitting behind one of the best ever, and one of the best right now, mean anything bad.

Cugel, once the premise of your argument is inspected it starts to fall apart.

Regardless, you've argued your stance quite well, but at this point we're just being redundant.

[Cugel]

Peyton Manning can be seen as an elite quarterback in this league right now. He makes the Broncos one of the best teams in the AFC, and definite SB contenders just by his mere presence. The only question about Manning is if he is healthy, and considering that the Broncos wanted him back, it's 'safe' to assume that he is healthy.

So, what would Denver actually do if they had a QB they believed in duplicates? I think they would play the one who is most prepared to win now. Assuming Manning is healthy, does anyone think Brock will outplay him this year? If they do, they're being silly.

Take it a step further - In years past many young talented QB's ate bench for several years. We have only moved away from that line of thinking since to the mid to late 90's, which isn't that long in regards to pro football history. One could postulate, with a high degree of sensibility at that, that Denver might believe they are doing what is best for the short term and the long term.

Even if the Broncos cut ties with Brock, it won't be because they looked at him and say 'you're not as good as the best or second best pure passing quarterback ever.' By that logic they wouldn't want Unitas, Montana, Young, Moon, Favre, or even Tom Brady to play for them.

Cugel, if they do get rid of Brock, please don't think it somehow validates your opinion on the matter.

Of course it validates my opinion! What on earth would make the Broncos ditch Osweiler if he's a future SB caliber QB? BTW that has only happened one time in the history of the NFL to my knowledge; that a team dumped a QB who later went on to win the Super-Bowl. That would be Brett Favre who was drafted by the Falcons before going to the Packers. Nobody wants to make that mistake again.

Is it really likely the Broncos can win the SB this season, with Peyton at 39, when they fell disastrously short last year with him at 38? Do they really think that? Or are they not worried about it because he's by far the best option.

What's the long-term best plan?

A. If you think Osweiler is going to be the guy going forward, then you bring him in and start him now. Get him some experience and move forward because you're going to have to do that at some point anyway.

B. If you do not think Osweiler is the guy long-term, then you roll Peyton out one last time, because what have you got to lose? He not only is the best option for 2015, he's the only option.

Because realistically, after Peyton goes, it's going to be exactly like after Elway retired. That is precisely what I expect. This team is going to be filled with tremendously talented players like D.T., Von Miller and Chris Harris, and they're going to struggle to win their division, because their QB is mediocre at best. And it may take many years to find another elite QB just as it took 12 years between Elway and Peyton. And without an elite QB, they're not getting a whiff of the SB.

Like Alfred Williams and D-Mac keep saying on the radio, for 2016, the Broncos should be starting Osweiler, but looking to the draft to get a QB in the first or second round.

[Cugel]

Why would he sign Oz before Oz has hit the field? Why would him sitting behind one of the best ever, and one of the best right now, mean anything bad.

Cugel, once the premise of your argument is inspected it starts to fall apart.

Regardless, you've argued your stance quite well, but at this point we're just being redundant.

The answer to your questions is simple. The Broncos have tried 3 years running with Peyton. It failed. He's played his worst game of the year in the last and most important game every time. He was injured last year, which may have contributed to his poor performance the last 8 games and in the playoffs. Maybe.

Actually, that's what I'm hoping. But, it could be his skills are declining. And realistically, this is the NFL. Is Peyton more likely to stay perfectly healthy this year with a rookie starting at LT?

So, is Peyton's last ride more likely to result in a championship? Or less?

If you have the answer sitting on the bench why wait? Why not sign him long term now, get him in there and start him?

Name one QB who ever won a SB who sat around waiting for 6 years before he started his first regular season NFL game? I don't think its ever happened.

[Poet]

Of course it validates my opinion! What on earth would make the Broncos ditch Osweiler if he's a future SB caliber QB? BTW that has only happened one time in the history of the NFL to my knowledge; that a team dumped a QB who later went on to win the Super-Bowl. That would be Brett Favre who was drafted by the Falcons before going to the Packers. Nobody wants to make that mistake again.

Is it really likely the Broncos can win the SB this season, with Peyton at 39, when they fell disastrously short last year with him at 38? Do they really think that? Or are they not worried about it because he's by far the best option.

What's the long-term best plan?

A. If you think Osweiler is going to be the guy going forward, then you bring him in and start him now. Get him some experience and move forward because you're going to have to do that at some point anyway.

B. If you do not think Osweiler is the guy long-term, then you roll Peyton out one last time, because what have you got to lose? He not only is the best option for 2015, he's the only option.

Because realistically, after Peyton goes, it's going to be exactly like after Elway retired. That is precisely what I expect. This team is going to be filled with tremendously talented players like D.T., Von Miller and Chris Harris, and they're going to struggle to win their division, because their QB is mediocre at best. And it may take many years to find another elite QB just as it took 12 years between Elway and Peyton. And without an elite QB, they're not getting a whiff of the SB.

Your stance is that 'if they think he's any good they wouldn't take Manning back.' Which literally means, I do mean literally, that only like four other QB's could start on the Denver, and the rest aren't any good. Do you not understand how absurd that is? That means, by your logic, Matt Ryan, Joe Flacco, Big Ben, Russel Wilson, Cam Newton, Tony Romo, and Rivers, amongst others, are bad.

They could easily look at him and go 'you have talent, we believe in you, but you're not as good as Manning, so eat bench, just like all about four other guys would.

Is it likely that the Broncos win a SB with Manning? Well, Cugel, it's obviously more likely to occur with PM than Brock. Is it that unlikely? Do the Broncos not have a talented offense? Do they not have a very talented defense? Are they not in a winnable division? They tanked last year in the playoffs with a really hurt Peyton Manning, but you can tear your quad at 38 just like at 28, or 24 for that matter.

What's the best long term plan? That presupposes that Denver is looking towards the long term only. That's the problem with your analysis - you think the only way to approach the Bronco's position is to look at it purely long term.

Every year, for the most part, quarterbacks are taken early in the draft and they have great potential. Let's take Carr from Oakland. Let's say somehow, someway, he fell to Denver, right, just assume for sake of argument that it happened. He's a first round talent. A real smart player as well. Do you think that he would be starting over Manning right now? Do you think Russel Wilson would be? Other than an all-world nutty talent, just about any young rookie is going to sit behind Manning. Why?

1. Because he's Peyton Manning and he makes teams with just a solid roster look like a SB contender.

2. He's still an elite QB.

3. Denver believes it has an offensive guru who can match Peyton's smarts and remaining passing ability with a running game that stands under scrutiny by itself.

4. A young QB who is talented can still develop and gain knowledge about the game on the bench. It is quite possible that Denver can have it's cake and eat it too.

So instead of going 'Brock sucks they have no faith in him because he's behind PM, just realize that most QB's are behind Peyton Manning. And if he does play next year and doesn't cut it, don't believe, please don't believe, that it validates your opinion. Because all that means is that he's another young talented QB who didn't pan out, and most young Qb's with talent, i.e. recent draft picks, would be sitting behind PM regardless of how they pan out.

[Poet]

The answer to your questions is simple. The Broncos have tried 3 years running with Peyton. It failed. He's played his worst game of the year in the last and most important game every time. He was injured last year, which may have contributed to his poor performance the last 8 games and in the playoffs. Maybe.

Actually, that's what I'm hoping. But, it could be his skills are declining. And realistically, this is the NFL. Is Peyton more likely to stay perfectly healthy this year with a rookie starting at LT?

So, is Peyton's last ride more likely to result in a championship? Or less?

If you have the answer sitting on the bench why wait? Why not sign him long term now, get him in there and start him?

Name one QB who ever won a SB who sat around waiting for 6 years before he started his first regular season NFL game? I don't think its ever happened.

So the three years PM had are failures? If that's the case, there's only one good season a year in the NFL. If you think I'm being unfair to your stance by taking it literally, then reexamine your stance, Cugel. With your logic, literally representing it the same way you are, Mallet should have taken over for Brady in New England prior to being traded to Houston, no?

Yes, he might have a rookie LT, but he also has a new coach with a scheme that can take a lot of the burden off of him. Does that mean nothing?

If you have what you think might be the answer, you ask yourself if you think PM can last another season. If you think he can, you ask yourself is a SB is more likely with PM than Brock, and you ask yourself if you want to get another year of value out of all the veterans you signed for the short term.

[Cugel]

Quote Originally Posted by Ravage!!! View Post
I don't think there is any reason to believe that Elway sees Oz as a "franchise QB" any more than there is reason to believe he doesn't. Lots of teams passed on Rodgers, and the Packers sat him on the bench a long time bfore giving him the nod over the aged Favre. Breese is another example of a QB taking years to blossom into a top QB. Kurt Warner, a QB that was completely overlooked UNTIL forced into the lineup. No one knows until they are actually on the field. Oz hasn't had that opportunity to succeed, nor fail...YET.

So no.. I don't think Elway sees him as a franchise QB purely because there would be no reason to make that deduction. However, I don't see his lack of playing time as an indicator since he's playing behind Manning.

Come on Rav, really? Rodgers only fell to #24 of the first round. Osweiler was taken at #53 of the 2nd round.

There has only been 1 QB in the last 15 years drafted lower than that (i.e. since Tom Brady in 2000) who was any good - Russell Wilson. That's 1 out of about 139 QBs drafted in the late 2nd - 7th round!

Drew Brees was drafted #32.

And neither of them sat for more than 3 seasons, not 5 or 6.

[Poet]

Come on Rav, really? Rodgers only fell to #24 of the first round. Osweiler was taken at #53 of the 2nd round.

There has only been 1 QB in the last 15 years drafted lower than that (i.e. since Tom Brady in 2000) who was any good - Russell Wilson. That's 1 out of about 139 QBs drafted in the late 2nd - 7th round!

Drew Brees was drafted #32.

And neither of them sat for more than 3 seasons, not 5 or 6.

Matt Schaub was never any good? What round did Montana go in? Tarkenton? What about Dan Fouts?

Why does it have to be in the past fifteen years?

Here's an idea, Cugel, and this might just blow your mind - what if you can find nice and good solid QB's in the second round who might need time to develop on the bench?

[TXBRONC]

Actions speak louder than words. If Elway really believed what he's said they would have signed Osweiler by now. Why let him become an unrestricted FA? Teams never do that with players they see as key pieces of their team long-term. Why let other teams negotiate with your future franchise QB? And it's not as if they are going to have the franchise tag available for Osweiler. They are going to need that for Von Miller, whose contract $ will be over $16M a year, and will be as difficult to negotiate as D.T.'s was.

Also, let all the people who can't wrap their minds round the obvious answer this question: If you were Elway and really believed that Osweiler was going to be your starting QB 5 years from now, and that the team would be competing for a SB with him at QB, why would you bring back Peyton for one last season?

It just makes no sense. They're starting a new offense in Peyton's last year with a rookie LT protecting his blind-side?

Osweiler is going to struggle his rookie year. Even great QBs like Elway, Peyton and Andrew Luck did that. So, why waste time? Why not get that rookie year out of the way, since you're going to have to do that anyway? Get the kid some experience and move on to the Osweiler era. Introduce the new offense and get Osweiler experience in running it.

Were not a majority of Broncos fans saying exactly that after the playoff loss? "Time to move on! Let's see what we have in Brock!"

Everybody on these boards acts like I'm suggesting the sky is yellow, when all the reporters on Sports talk radio are saying the exact same thing - Elway does NOT view Osweiler as the long-term QB, or he'd be starting this season!

If Elway really believed Osweiler could win the SB, then it only makes sense to get him in there and let him develop now!

It's only if you don't really believe that, if you think Osweiler is just a guy, that you take one last desperate ride with Peyton.

How many of you really believe that the Broncos are going to win the SB this year with 39 year old Peyton? After the way the last 3 seasons ended, are your expectations for this year "Super-bowl or bust?" Really? :coffee:

But, if you do NOT believe that the Broncos can win the SB this season with Peyton, and this is probably his last year, then what's the plan? Waste a year they could be developing Osweiler who really COULD win the SB in the future? :confused:

That is simply not accurate. Even with proven players Elway has waited to re-sign them that should be clear because it's happened several times.

It should be absolutely clear that reason Osweiler isn't on the field is because they playing Manning the franchise money. True it hasn't worked out Denver has won a Super Bowl with Manning but it's not up to us to decide when it's over.

[Cugel]

Your stance is that 'if they think he's any good they wouldn't take Manning back.' Which literally means, I do mean literally, that only like four other QB's could start on the Denver, and the rest aren't any good. Do you not understand how absurd that is? That means, by your logic, Matt Ryan, Joe Flacco, Big Ben, Russel Wilson, Cam Newton, Tony Romo, and Rivers, amongst others, are bad.

I don't think so. I think the question is "how long do you want to wait for the future?" If they have to start him sometime, and they believe he's got what it takes to win the SB someday, and they are committed to him long-term, why wait? Because Peyton gives them the best chance this season?


They could easily look at him and go 'you have talent, we believe in you, but you're not as good as Manning, so eat bench, just like all about four other guys would.

Or they could say, as I think they actually do, "you have talent, we believe in you enough to potentially give you a chance to start for us, but not enough to commit to you long-term, which is why we are in no hurry to re-sign you, and why we are bringing back Peyton for maybe 2 more seasons, which means you wouldn't even play until 2017, your 6th season in the NFL! Then you'll suck your rookie year, like even Peyton and Aaron Rodgers did. Then maybe in 2018 you'll be ready to lead this team somewhere."


Is it likely that the Broncos win a SB with Manning? Well, Cugel, it's obviously more likely to occur with PM than Brock. Is it that unlikely? Do the Broncos not have a talented offense? Do they not have a very talented defense? Are they not in a winnable division? They tanked last year in the playoffs with a really hurt Peyton Manning, but you can tear your quad at 38 just like at 28, or 24 for that matter.

Since I think Brock is the next Brian Griese, you won't get an argument from me! :coffee: The question is "what do the Broncos think? Why haven't they re-signed this guy or given him a chance to start if they think he's so great?"


What's the best long term plan? That presupposes that Denver is looking towards the long term only. That's the problem with your analysis - you think the only way to approach the Bronco's position is to look at it purely long term.

Elway says, "we're not trying to win now. We're trying to win from now on." That means long-term. Teams make long-term decisions all the time that negatively impact this current season! Would this team be better this season with Julius Thomas, and Rahim Moore and Pot Roast and Orlando Franklin on the team? Of course! And if you were only planning for this season they'd have re-signed them all, and future salary cap Hell be damned! They could have done that, but it would have mortgaged their future to the present, so they're starting some rookies and unproven backups at key positions like LT.


Every year, for the most part, quarterbacks are taken early in the draft and they have great potential. Let's take Carr from Oakland. Let's say somehow, some way, he fell to Denver, right, just assume for sake of argument that it happened. He's a first round talent. A real smart player as well. Do you think that he would be starting over Manning right now? Do you think Russell Wilson would be? Other than an all-world nutty talent, just about any young rookie is going to sit behind Manning.

Yes. For two or three seasons. NOT for 6.

And it would be almost impossible to make a high 1st round QB sit for even that long. You're paying them too much. Russell Wilson could sit on the bench his entire rookie contract, because he was a 3rd round player making $660k / season. Cam Newton made $15 million his first three years, and another $20 million the next 2. So, having him sit for 5 seasons would cost the team $35 million, and another $20 million for just his 6th season, which is rather a lot of cap space ($55 million or nearly $9M/year) for someone to just hold a clip-board - in addition to paying Peyton close to $20 million a year his first 3 years of course.

So, no you couldn't draft Cam Newton or any QB in the first round really, and keep him on the bench for 5 or 6 years.


So instead of going 'Brock sucks they have no faith in him because he's behind PM, just realize that most QB's are behind Peyton Manning. And if he does play next year and doesn't cut it, don't believe, please don't believe, that it validates your opinion. Because all that means is that he's another young talented QB who didn't pan out, and most young Qb's with talent, i.e. recent draft picks, would be sitting behind PM regardless of how they pan out.

I suppose if Brock sucks bad, they could cut him after 1 season starting. But, unless he really sucks, and they draft a QB in the top 1/2 of the first round, Brock will still be better than whoever they get to replace him for 1 season, maybe 2. So, I'm guessing he keeps his job for 2 years at least.

They just will be looking to groom someone to replace him. And that assumes they keep him at all, which they might not if they decide to bring back Peyton next year. They could just let Brock go in FA and draft another QB and sign a veteran FA as Peyton's backup in 2016. Then in 2017 either the young kid or the veteran would start.

Think of that as the "Kyle Orton scenario" when he was starting ahead of Timmeh!

[Cugel]

That is simply not accurate. Even with proven players Elway has waited re-sign them that should be clear because it's happened several times.

It should be absolutely clear that reason Osweiler isn't on the field is because they playing Manning the franchise money. True it hasn't worked out Denver has won a Super Bowl with Manning but it's not up to us to decide when it's over.

#1 - players yes. Franchise QB, no. They don't even have a franchise tag for Brock, since they have to use it on Von Miller, who will get at least $10 million a year more than Brock next year if they re-sign him. So, they are being rather nonchalant about letting Brock hit FA at least. Which rather implies they aren't that salty about potentially losing him to another team.

#2 - I am pro-Manning. I think Brock is meh! I hope Manning plays until he's 41! And, no, it is not up to me. For some strange reason, sadly Elway has not yet called me to ask my opinion.

[TXBRONC]

#1 - players yes. Franchise QB, no. They don't even have a franchise tag for Brock, since they have to use it on Von Miller, who will get at least $10 million a year more than Brock next year if they re-sign him. So, they are being rather nonchalant about letting him hit FA at least. Which rather implies they aren't that salty about potentially losing him to another team.

#2 - I am pro-Manning. I think Brock is meh! I hope Manning plays until he's 41! And, no, it is not up to me. For some strange reason, sadly Elway has not yet called me to ask my opinion.

Cugel why would Elway put a franchise on a guy whose still under contract? For that matter neither is Miller.

[Cugel]

Cugel why would Elway put a franchise on a guy whose still under contract?

I mean in 2016, not now. Because in 2016 Brock is NOT under contract. Did you not understand? The Broncos need their 2016 franchise tag for Von Miller just like they needed their 2015 tag for D.T. because the contract negotiations will be complex and they absolutely can't let Von become an UFA and they won't be able to get the contract done before the start of FA, because Von will want to see what other top FAs get before signing his new deal, just as D.T. waited to see what Dez Bryant got before re-signing.

So, they won't be able to use the Franchise Tag on Brock. That means he's going to be an unrestricted FA who could sign with any team, which he might just do if Peyton comes back for his final contract year.

Is this what you would do with your future Franchise QB? The most important player on your team? Or would you make an effort to re-sign him to a long term deal now before he became an UFA?

[TXBRONC]

I mean in 2016, not now. Because in 2016 Brock is NOT under contract. Did you not understand? The Broncos need their 2016 franchise tag for Von Miller just like they needed their 2015 tag for D.T. because the contract negotiations will be complex and they absolutely can't let become an UFA and they won't be able to get the contract done before the start of FA, because Von will want to see what other top FAs get before signing his new deal, just as D.T. waited to see what Dez Bryant got before re-signing.

Friend, that isn't what you said. It's not rocket science if anyone is going to get a franchise tag it's going be Miller. If I'm not mistaken franchise tags are not only type of tag at Denver's disposal.

[Ravage!!!]

The answer to your questions is simple. The Broncos have tried 3 years running with Peyton. It failed. He's played his worst game of the year in the last and most important game every time. He was injured last year, which may have contributed to his poor performance the last 8 games and in the playoffs. Maybe.

Actually, that's what I'm hoping. But, it could be his skills are declining. And realistically, this is the NFL. Is Peyton more likely to stay perfectly healthy this year with a rookie starting at LT?

So, is Peyton's last ride more likely to result in a championship? Or less?

If you have the answer sitting on the bench why wait? Why not sign him long term now, get him in there and start him?

Name one QB who ever won a SB who sat around waiting for 6 years before he started his first regular season NFL game? I don't think its ever happened.



How about the obvious?? Peyton is one of the greatest QBs to ever play the game. You do NOT have him sit the bench for an unknown...period.

How do you walk into your locker room, look the guys in the eyes and say "Yeah, we know that Peyton broke the NFL records, won the NFL MVP award, and took us to the Super Bowl just two years ago...but we want to go with the unknown guy this year because..well... we just wanna see." HOW DO DYOU DO THAT??? YOu absolutely do NOT do that.... EVER!!

Thank god you aren't in the decision making business, here, Cuges.....this is just such bad logic. You are ALWAYS better with a 80% Elite QB (one of the best of all time)...than some unknown player that hasn't started a single game. Seriously... its just dumbfounding to me that you would actually believe....or the tiniest of moments..... that this proves your point? You actually think your "sitting Manning for the future" at this point is sound thinking? It's horrible.

Brock was plan B in signing Manning. Manning's injury was an unknown as to how it would hold up, and we weren't goign to go into the season with some other vet. Manning....or the drafted guy. As it turns out, Manning's neck has been fine. So Brock gets to learn. OBVIOUSLY the odds of Brock being a "Franchise QB" are low. Even stating that is like smacking yourself in the "should have been a V8" kind of way. No duh.

But your thought process on why Brock isn't signed to a long-term deal, or SHOULD be on the field....is very very flawed. To the point of not making much sense... kind of way. You are stretching the logic to fit some kind of belief/agenda...rather than just looking at what is in front of you.

[ShaneFalco]

tebow > brock

[SR]

tebow > brock

Not by a long shot

[BroncoJoe]

tebow > brock

:bandit:

[TXBRONC]

tebow > brock

:rofl:

[Poet]

Cugel, I do love making long rebuttals, but everything that I would use to rebut your stance I've already said. It's not worth the effort for either of us for this to continue.

[SR]

Cugel, I do love making long rebuttals, but everything that I would use to rebut your stance I've already said. It's not worth the effort for either of us for this to continue.

His posts should never be replied to.

[Poet]

His posts should never be replied to.

I'm responding to every single post he's made in this thread and then forwarding them to you.

[Simple Jaded]

tebow > brock

Well yeah, Osweiler's never even played Punt Protector. Duh!

[ShaneFalco]

or won a playoff game vs the #1 d.

Alot of things brock has not done... :)

[Simple Jaded]

or won a playoff game vs the #1 d.

Alot of things brock has not done... :)

Never completed a 10-yard out to Joe SixPack in Row 10, Section 100.

[ShaneFalco]

never was born as the 2nd son of god either.

[Simple Jaded]

never was born as the 2nd son of god either.

Yeah, Osweiler will never measure up to Elway so let's just stick to mortals.

[Poet]

I love the shit out of Tebow.

You make it difficult to do so.

[Al Wilson 4 Mayor]

Do you guys remember Miller's short stint with the Broncos?

Man that dude threw a pretty ball.

[Simple Jaded]

Do you guys remember Miller's short stint with the Broncos?

Man that dude threw a pretty ball.

Was that the dude from the Falcons?

[Cugel]

or won a playoff game vs the #1 d.

Alot of things brock has not done... :)

Mainly, Brock has not washed out of the league for several seasons, and then been brought back as some kind of short-yardage specialist for a freak trial. At least Brock hasn't failed yet.

I don't think much of Brock but comparing him to Tebow is like comparing gold to an elephant turd.

[Cugel]

Matt Schaub was never any good? What round did Montana go in? Tarkenton? What about Dan Fouts?

Why does it have to be in the past fifteen years?

Here's an idea, Cugel, and this might just blow your mind - what if you can find nice and good solid QB's in the second round who might need time to develop on the bench?

Because 15 years is rather a long time. In fact it's pretty much the ENTIRE length of time in the modern era since the NFL changed the pass defense rules and prohibited defenders from even breathing on the QB in the pocket.

You might as well talk about Otto Graham and the leather helmet era as go back to Joe Montana. It's just ancient history that's totally irrelevant. Scouting and drafting is just vastly different and the NFL is a multi-billion dollar industry now with huge scouting departments. Teams whiff on fewer and fewer players because they devote massive amounts of attention to every potential player now - Especially QBs.

The entire NFL whiffed on Tom Brady. That just doesn't happen very often with QBs. In fact the first time it's happened in the last 15 years was when every team let Russell Wilson fall to the 3rd round, when he should have been a top 10 pick, probably the #1 overall pick.

And NO. Matt Shaub was not very good since he got his coach fired. Neither was Kyle Orton, a 4th round pick who was just good enough to get several coaches fired, including his last coach in Buffalo.

There simply are NO QBs taken in the late 2nd round or later during the last 15 years who've developed into anything good. 136 QBs taken - no successes. Not one.

That is statistically significant. So, no, your idea that you can just "develop" a guy does not exactly "blow my mind." Because it's just wrong. Basically, you can't. Every year teams try and they almost always fail.

I've researched this entire topic, looking at every QB taken in the draft the last 15 years at #53 or later and it's just dismal reading.

I won't bore you with the whole sorry list, but in the 2nd round you normally get guys like Kevin Kolb, John Beck or Drew Stanton (2007), Brian Brohme or Chad Henne (2008), Pat White (2009), or Jimmy Clausen (2010). Need I go on?

Does that mean that Osweiler has no shot? No. But his chances are less a LOT less than you winning big in Vegas by betting your house, the kids and the family dog on #17 red in 1 spin of the roulette wheel.

[Poet]

Because 15 years is rather a long time. In fact it's pretty much the ENTIRE length of time in the modern era since the NFL changed the pass defense rules and prohibited defenders from even breathing on the QB in the pocket.

You might as well talk about Otto Graham and the leather helmet era as go back to Joe Montana. It's just ancient history that's totally irrelevant. Scouting and drafting is just vastly different and the NFL is a multi-billion dollar industry now with huge scouting departments. Teams whiff on fewer and fewer players because they devote massive amounts of attention to every potential player now.

The entire NFL whiffed on Tom Brady. That just doesn't happen very often with QBs. In fact the first time it's happened in the last 15 years was when every team let Russell Wilson fall to the 3rd round, when he should have been a top 10 pick, probably the #1 overall pick.

And NO. Matt Shaub was not very good since he got his coach fired. Neither was Kyle Orton, a 4th round pick who was just good enough to get several coaches fired, including his last coach in Buffalo.

There simply are NO QBs taken in the late 2nd round or later during the last 15 years who've developed into anything good. 136 QBs taken - no successes. Not one.

That is statistically significant. So, no, your idea that you can just "develop" a guy does not exactly "blow my mind." Because it's just wrong. Basically, you can't. Every year teams try and they almost always fail.

I've researched this entire topic, looking at every QB taken in the draft the last 15 years at #53 or later and it's just dismal reading.

I won't bore you with the list, but in the 2nd round you normally get guys like Kevin Kolb, John Beck or Drew Stanton (2007), Brian Brohme or Chad Henne (2008), Pat White (2009), or Jimmy Clausen (2010). Need I go on?

So when was Schaub taken? Andy Dalton is a solid, albeit frustrating QB, wasn't he a second rounder? Russel Wilson is a thing as well. I also think you might want to rethink your 'teams whiff on different numbers of players' take, as busts are still quite common, as well as players being let go from their early teams. As a matter of fact, Cugel, Brady owes his success largely to BB, who gave him the chance to flourish slowly as a game manager with few responsibilities first. In other words, I don't think you know your football history, as well as football context as you think you do. For instance, when you say "Matt Schaub wasn't good," and I post the link to his career, http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/S/SchaMa00.htm it tells a different story. Because he showed up to Houston team and did pretty damn well between 09 and 2012. He was a pretty good QB, and Kubiak got himself fired for all kinds of football sins. You must not remember him being so hot at time management, as well as missing many chances to get to the posteason with 8-8 records.

Let be also be clear, the fact that you have to qualify your stance as 'no good QB's in the late part of the second round' is just semantics bullshit. Because players slide for various reasons, and each draft class is a different and unique beast. For instance, it was two or three draft classes ago where there were a ton of tackles taken in the first round. A year later not nearly as many tackles were taken. I wonder why that might be? For a recent chunk of time RB's weren't being taken in the first round. But Lattimore was probably going to be a top ten pick, several analysts had him as a top five pick overall, but he messed up his knees, fell to SF in the fourth round, and no RB's were taken in the first round. This year Gurley went early.

Brock graded out well enough to go in the second round at any point. IIRC, Oakland just took Carr, whose draft analysis was similar to Brock's. At one point in the draft analysis Tannehill was thought to be a second rounder. You're trying to give draft analysis pinpoint precision and then use that faux precision as a means to 'upgrade' your point.

Here's another problem with your analogy - take a look at Kevin Kolb and company and tell me if their rosters are the same as Denver's. We know D.T. is sticking around now. Sanders might be retained, he has a strong shot at that, and Denver has all kinds of talent at the RB position. Do you think Clausen's Panthers were as solid? Kolb's Eagles the same? Was it Beck or Stanton that went to 'Zona, I don't recall? Were the Cards the same? Pat White was never thought to be a real QB prospect either, he was taken on athleticism. Is that a strong analogue?

You have done a cursory job. It was not a thorough job.

P.S.

Teams with a talent loaded roster and a great contemporary QB tend to go into the win now mode because SB opportunities are few and far between.

P.S. S.

#styledon

[SR]

I'm responding to every single post he's made in this thread and then forwarding them to you.

Delete my number from your phone.

[Poet]

Delete my number from your phone.

Done.

[TXBRONC]

never was born as the 2nd son of god either.

Neither was Tebow genius.

[SR]

Done.

You're a liar.

[Poet]

You're a liar.

I couldn't do it.

[Al Wilson 4 Mayor]

The man love is strong up in this piece.

[Poet]

Cugel's inane ramblings >Al.

[SR]

I couldn't do it.

It's ok. Maybe one day you'll use it. You just never know.

[Poet]

I'm scared to text you at an inappropriate time.

But if I did, it wouldn't be about Brock being an auto failure and how starting PFM is an indictment of his shittery.

[SR]

I'm scared to text you at an inappropriate time. But if I did, it wouldn't be about Brock being an auto failure and how starting PFM is an indictment of his shittery.

If it's an inappropriate time I wouldn't answer

[ShaneFalco]

brock has yet to even win a game. you guys crack me up

[SR]

brock has yet to even win a game. you guys crack me up

Skill is based on games won? Please take the bait.

[Poet]

Tebow disapproves of smoking pot.

[TXBRONC]

Cugel's inane ramblings >Al.

Cugel's ramblings are infinitely > Shane's ramblings.

[Simple Jaded]

Cugel's ramblings are infinitely > Shane's ramblings.

Yeah Chron's posts make you glad words don't bleed.

[ShaneFalco]

i prefer to ramble about qbs that never even played a game yet.

When will tubby qbs get a shot?

https://nesncom.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/jared-lorenzen.jpg

King will never be able to play for the Bengals.

[Poet]

To be fair, my passing mechanics superior in regards to Tim Tebow. Then again, many high school quarterbacks could boast the same.

All you post about is weed, shitty quarterbacks, dumb politicians and the federal reserve.

#banfalco

[ShaneFalco]

:lol:

[ShaneFalco]

https://31.media.tumblr.com/26cf53af08eea8f816d528c0fc87dd39/tumblr_inline_naiw66eK6Z1rssoy1.gif

[ShaneFalco]

http://cdn1.theodysseyonline.com/files/2015/07/22/6357318841506624561531761042_tumblr_naixr4uCdC1srn 7oro1_500.gif

[Poet]

#banfalco
#noshanenopain

[Valar Morghulis]

#teamfalco

#buttebowsucksass

[Poet]

#teamfalco

#buttebowsucksass

Prepare to be styled on by the styledon

#niceredcoatdouchebag
#smokingfag
#austinpowerssucks
#bigbenisashittyclock
#yourfoodisawful
#yoursocializedmedicineclearlydoesntpayfordentists
#youdriveonthewrongsideoftheroad
#winstonchurchillwasoverrated
#margaretthatchergotcreampiedalot
#reagandidit
#styledon

[ShaneFalco]

https://31.media.tumblr.com/d4b43650c9d1ad36fd46f0494fd99ec5/tumblr_naiw6lqzKF1r0xwbpo1_500.gif

Think i am going to express myself through taylor swift gifs from now on.

[Poet]

All you're doing is giving Dave a boner.

[Valar Morghulis]

Prepare to be styled on by the styledon

#niceredcoatdouchebag
#smokingfag
#austinpowerssucks
#bigbenisashittyclock
#yourfoodisawful
#yoursocializedmedicineclearlydoesntpayfordentists
#youdriveonthewrongsideoftheroad
#winstonchurchillwasoverrated
#margaretthatchergotcreampiedalot
#reagandidit
#styledon

#gladyoulikemycoatyoubloodycolonialupstart
#idontunderstandsmokingfag
#youlooklikefatbastard
#yourversionofbigbenisarapist-'murica
#ilikeourfood!
#myteetharehealthierthanyurwaistline
#yeswedo-thatisstupidiconcede
#yeshewasandadrunk
#margeretthatcherownedreaganfact
#reganwasaukpuppetpresident
#shatonyourstyle

[Valar Morghulis]

All you're doing is giving Dave a boner.

true

[ShaneFalco]

or maybe nick cage. Notice the contrasting colors to keep Cages good side. While using the blue to make him mysterious and sexy.

http://www.underthegunreview.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/rock4.gif

[Valar Morghulis]

i just lost my boner

[ShaneFalco]

its okay you will get it back.

The man himself is here.

http://i.imgur.com/QkXKS4V.gif

[Poet]

#gladyoulikemycoatyoubloodycolonialupstart
#idontunderstandsmokingfag
#youlooklikefatbastard
#yourversionofbigbenisarapist-'murica
#ilikeourfood!
#myteetharehealthierthanyurwaistline
#yeswedo-thatisstupidiconcede
#yeshewasandadrunk
#margeretthatcherownedreaganfact
#reganwasaukpuppetpresident
#shatonyourstyle

#thansformakingwhippingyourasseasier
#britscallcigsfags
#bitchyouknowimdeadsexxxy
#atleastourbigbengetslaid
#yourfoodisshittyandsoisyourbeer
#mywaistlinewilloutlastyourteeth
#thatcher'snatcherwasfilledwithamericanjizz
#thatsuckpuppetscaredhalftheworldintosubmission
#thestyledoncannotbestyledupon

[Valar Morghulis]

#thansformakingwhippingyourasseasier
#britscallcigsfags
#bitchyouknowimdeadsexxxy
#atleastourbigbengetslaid
#yourfoodisshittyandsoisyourbeer
#mywaistlinewilloutlastyourteeth
#thatcher'snatcherwasfilledwithamericanjizz
#thatsuckpuppetscaredhalftheworldintosubmission
#thestyledoncannotbestyledupon

#yourwelcome-ihatelargeoppressivecountrieswithanoverinflatedego anyway-gladyoubeatus
#yeswedoandyousirareafagintheamerricansenseofthewo rd
#lmao
#kinglovespittsburghrapist-whodhavethunkit
#fairenoughpassmeaburgerandabudlime
#lol
#theironladywasasaintjustlikedorothymantooth
#onlybecausehedoneastheironladytoldhimtodo
#shatonfromagreatheight

[ShaneFalco]

#budlimeisgreat

[Poet]

#yourwelcome-ihatelargeoppressivecountrieswithanoverinflatedego anyway-gladyoubeatus
#yeswedoandyousirareafagintheamerricansenseofthewo rd
#lmao
#kinglovespittsburghrapist-whodhavethunkit
#fairenoughpassmeaburgerandabudlime
#lol
#theironladywasasaintjustlikedorothymantooth
#onlybecausehedoneastheironladytoldhimtodo
#shatonfromagreatheight

#itmakesmehappythatyouareokaywithlosing

#theonlythingmorefluidthanyoursexualityisthepissyo udrink
#figuredyouwouldlikethatone
#mericanssticktogether
#whybudlime
#remix
#iwouldhavefilledthatcherinhersnatcher
#hetrickleddownherthroat
#somuchstyle

[Valar Morghulis]

#itmakesmehappythatyouareokaywithlosing

#theonlythingmorefluidthanyoursexualityisthepissyo udrink
#figuredyouwouldlikethatone
#mericanssticktogether
#whybudlime
#remix
#iwouldhavefilledthatcherinhersnatcher
#hetrickleddownherthroat
#somuchstyle

I think you have bested me king. Well played.

But if anything - The Iron Lady was the giver in that relationship!!

In all seriousness though - that was back in the days when America and the UK had a comparatively equal relationship. Then after Gulf War One - we just became this subservient little lap dog. Maybe Cameron just needs to give Barrack a good fisting #thatcherstyle

[Simple Jaded]

This thread reminds me of when Lady Gaga was the foremost authority on NFL QB's.

[Cugel]

Here's another problem with your analogy - take a look at Kevin Kolb and company and tell me if their rosters are the same as Denver's. We know D.T. is sticking around now. Sanders might be retained, he has a strong shot at that, and Denver has all kinds of talent at the RB position. Do you think Clausen's Panthers were as solid? Kolb's Eagles the same? Was it Beck or Stanton that went to 'Zona, I don't recall? Were the Cards the same? Pat White was never thought to be a real QB prospect either, he was taken on athleticism. Is that a strong analogue?

You have done a cursory job. It was not a thorough job.

P.S.

Teams with a talent loaded roster and a great contemporary QB tend to go into the win now mode because SB opportunities are few and far between.

P.S. S.

#styledon

Sigh. If that pitiful argument is "styled on" I give up. :coffee:

When you're pointing to Matt Schaub as "success" when he played his way out of a starting job and got his coach fired, and making excuses for Kevin Kolb and Patrick White that's the very definition of FAIL! Hard. I notice you didn't mention the other late round "success" of the last 15 years - Kyle Orton (4th round). That argument might not go down well in Denver.

I say "Success" is becoming the franchise QB for a team, leading a team to the SB, not failing to keep your job and getting run out of town. Matt Schaub is a loser who is currently going to sit on the bench for 16 games unless a really GOOD QB, Joe Flacco is hurt. It's not an accident. He got his coach fired, then lost his starting job. Ask them in Detroit if Drew Stanton is a "success." But he's irrelevant anyway, since he was the 43rd draft pick, not #57 or later. I said #57 because that was where Brock Osweiler was drafted.

But, I said around 118 QBs taken at #57 in the second round (which is the 25th pick in the 2nd round) or later in the last 15 years since Tom Brady, and only Russell Wilson was any good. That means late 2nd through 7th round.

Fifteen years is significant. 118 or so QBs is significant. Teams tried to develop every one of those guys and failed.

The rest of that crew you mentioned is out of the league. So, no. "Success" is not defined by "I maybe coulda been a contenda except my team sucked and now I sell insurance."

[Poet]

You don't get to rewrite history and tell us Schaub was a bad QB. Heading into last year the consensus on him was that he was a good player. You also don't get to point to White and try to use him as an analogy when he's clearly not. I'm sorry that I actually hold your argument to some scrutiny; difficulty can often arise when that occurs.

Schaub was a franchise QB for about four or five years in Houston, and they sought him out and traded for him. Ironically Kubiak got canned not just for the play of a QB who was often very good, but for all kinds of different woes. I know, I know, it's much easier to just blame Schaub for everything and ignore his success.

Cugel, in case you didn't know, facts are stubborn things.

I already picked apart your arbitrary and meaningless selection of which part of the second round matters most. If I were you, I'd ignore that as well.

Next time you address, show some class when you type my name. In some states right now you're technically my wife.

#styledonremix

[Cugel]

I already picked apart your arbitrary and meaningless selection of which part of the second round matters most. If I were you, I'd ignore that as well.

Brock Osweiler was drafted #57. THAT's what makes it relevant. How many QBs were drafted where Brock was, or later in the last 15 years and were any good.

Answer: 1 - Russell Wilson.

You're making idiotic arguments about Matt Schaub, about how he was "a franchise QB for 4 years", blah, blah, blah.

Well, so was Kyle Boller. And just like Kyle Boller, Schaub got his coach fired. So, no, that's not "good." Kubiak is not the coach in Houston any more. He got fired because he didn't win. And he didn't win because he had a crappy QB. And the proof he's a crappy QB is that he doesn't have a starting job anywhere in the NFL right now, and never will again because he's subbing behind a real SB winning Qb.

All of you who like to make arguments merely for the sake of talking nonsense should ask a simple question:

"Would you be happy at all if Matt Schaub came to Denver to become the Broncos 'Franchise QB' and Elway was predicting that Schaub would lead the team to the SB?"

Answer: No. So, if Osweiler becomes as good as Schaub was, and Denver struggles to make the playoffs, and Elway has to fire Kubiak, would that be a "success?"

Case closed. :coffee:

[Timmy!]

The Montana Giraffe is going to be a solid starting qb. The end.

#nostratimmybitches

[Poet]

Please compare the stats of Kyle Boller to Schaub, who was a legitimate pro bowl QB and lead the league in passing one season. That is not analogous to a first round draft pick who struggled his entire career despite being surrounded by a good offensive line, a great TE, and solid wideouts. Please stop trying to compare those two players with the 'they got their coaches fired' as if Kubiak didn't have major failings in Houston. I can't tell if you're proffering up a strange form of homerism or just being basking in obtuseness.