PDA

View Full Version : Bleacher Report...Brock Osweiler to start the rest of the season



Pages : [1] 2

GEM
12-02-2015, 12:04 PM
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2595094-insider-buzz-broncos-will-start-brock-osweiler-for-remainder-of-season

Jason Cole reporting from someone within the organization that the decision has been made to start Brock Osweiler the remainder of the season. Its a video, not a written report.

SR
12-02-2015, 12:04 PM
Color me skeptical.

Northman
12-02-2015, 12:07 PM
I actually believe it personally. Especially if Brock goes on to keep the team winning.

Ravage!!!
12-02-2015, 12:17 PM
I actually believe it personally. Especially if Brock goes on to keep the team winning.

I just don't see how we can't, considering he goes UFA next year. How can we not decide? We are going to be in a very tough spot, because we may not know if he's "it"..but may have to pay him as if he is in order to keep him. That sucks. Some in SF thought Kap was "it." Wish we had more than just 8 games to determine. But it's better than nothing.

LawDog
12-02-2015, 12:21 PM
I just don't see how we can't, considering he goes UFA next year. How can we not decide? We are going to be in a very tough spot, because we may not know if he's "it"..but may have to pay him as if he is in order to keep him. That sucks. Some in SF thought Kap was "it." Wish we had more than just 8 games to determine. But it's better than nothing.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Are you predicting that Brock goes one and done in the post-season?

BroncoWave
12-02-2015, 12:22 PM
Praying this is true.

NightTrainLayne
12-02-2015, 12:23 PM
I actually believe it personally. Especially if Brock goes on to keep the team winning.

The key will be to see how he performs against the Steelers and Bengals in a few weeks. At this point those two good defenses will have 4+ games of film to watch on Oz, and that is enough to begin to make very specific game plans against him and his tendencies.

The NFL has umpteen stories of back-up QB's who were great during their first 3-4 starts, and then fell off of a cliff never to be heard from again. Do I think Oz falls into that camp? No, but we won't really know until we see it with our own eyes.

Joel
12-02-2015, 12:23 PM
Color me skeptical.
Ditto. Too many things we don't know yet, most notably if/when Manning well be well enough to PLAY well and how well Oz will play down the stretch once teams have a full set of tapes on him. And the playoffs are a different world; there are no Browns, and the first lost is the last.


I just don't see how we can't, considering he goes UFA next year. How can we not decide? We are going to be in a very tough spot, because we may not know if he's "it"..but may have to pay him as if he is in order to keep him. That sucks. Some in SF thought Kap was "it." Wish we had more than just 8 games to determine. But it's better than nothing.
Deciding Oz is the guy NEXT season (the default position now unless he has an extended slump) isn't the same as deciding he's the guy for the rest of THIS season, in which a playoff appearance is now practically guaranteed. Experience counts even more in the playoffs; I doubt Belicheat emptied his bottomless bag of gimmicks and dirty tricks Sunday, but he would in a Conference Championship at home (and even the dirtiest ones invariably skate by unquestioned in Foxborough.)

I'll wait till "someone" in the organization wants to go on the record; a week ago "people close to Manning" supposedly said he'll play next year even if we don't want him.

Locnar
12-02-2015, 12:24 PM
Relief.. Don't see how Denver can go on a streak in the playoffs with ol flaccid noodle arm throwing 3 picks a game..

Nomad
12-02-2015, 12:24 PM
There ya go. The whining about Manning can cease, and yall can start critiquing Osweiler's first year.

VonDoom
12-02-2015, 12:25 PM
Denver Broncos ‏@Broncos 15m15 minutes ago

No decision has been made on our QB situation beyond this week, contrary to speculation from Bleacher Report based on "anonymous sources."

BroncoWave
12-02-2015, 12:25 PM
The key will be to see how he performs against the Steelers and Bengals in a few weeks. At this point those two good defenses will have 4+ games of film to watch on Oz, and that is enough to begin to make very specific game plans against him and his tendencies.

The NFL has umpteen stories of back-up QB's who were great during their first 3-4 starts, and then fell off of a cliff never to be heard from again. Do I think Oz falls into that camp? No, but we won't really know until we see it with our own eyes.

What gives me confidence is that the bears are the one team who would know every single one of his tendencies and Brock still performed well against them. Not to mention BB's track record against new QBs.

Zweems56
12-02-2015, 12:26 PM
This is entirely possible, but it's still just Jason Cole throwing shit at the wall to see if it sticks. Watch the video, he says (paraphrasing) "The Broncos have decided that Brock Osweiler is the starter for the remainder of the season, unless he plays poorly, in which case they will play Manning." Wow. Congratulations, ****tard. You just said nothing. So, the organization made this HUGE INTERNAL DECISION that Brock is the starter now, but if he stumbles, he's out? Then what, exactly, is the point of this HUGE INTERNAL DECISION? Shut up.

LawDog
12-02-2015, 12:27 PM
Denver Broncos ‏@Broncos 15m15 minutes ago

No decision has been made on our QB situation beyond this week, contrary to speculation from Bleacher Report based on "anonymous sources."

Broncos at Broncos 1 minute ago approximately

Internal memo sent out that Bleacher Report staffers are persona non grata at Dove Valley for balance of 2015 season.

VonDoom
12-02-2015, 12:28 PM
This is entirely possible, but it's still just Jason Cole throwing shit at the wall to see if it sticks. Watch the video, he says (paraphrasing) "The Broncos have decided that Brock Osweiler is the starter for the remainder of the season, unless he plays poorly, in which case they will play Manning." Wow. Congratulations, ****tard. You just said nothing. So, the organization made this HUGE INTERNAL DECISION that Brock is the starter now, but if he stumbles, he's out? Then what, exactly, is the point of this HUGE INTERNAL DECISION? Shut up.

Correct. This might indeed happen, but I don't see how there would be any announcement from the team unless Manning goes to IR. As Mason said on Twitter, why not leave the door open in case Brock struggles? Bleacher Report is not exactly the most reliable place to go for football news.

ChairmanBron
12-02-2015, 12:29 PM
Denver Broncos ‏@Broncos 15m15 minutes ago

No decision has been made on our QB situation beyond this week, contrary to speculation from Bleacher Report based on "anonymous sources."

Link..
https://mobile.twitter.com/Broncos/status/672100232990097410?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

.

Timmy!
12-02-2015, 12:30 PM
This is entirely possible, but it's still just Jason Cole throwing shit at the wall to see if it sticks. Watch the video, he says (paraphrasing) "The Broncos have decided that Brock Osweiler is the starter for the remainder of the season, unless he plays poorly, in which case they will play Manning." Wow. Congratulations, ****tard. You just said nothing. So, the organization made this HUGE INTERNAL DECISION that Brock is the starter now, but if he stumbles, he's out? Then what, exactly, is the point of this HUGE INTERNAL DECISION? Shut up.

Lol. Media.

Timmy!
12-02-2015, 12:31 PM
Obvious click bait is obvious.

Cugel
12-02-2015, 12:34 PM
This makes perfect sense. According to the report:

1. If Brock is playing well and the team is winning, then they stick with him.

2. If Brock struggles and defenses figure him out then they go back to Peyton.

3. Because of that possibility Peyton has to get healthy so he can step in if they need him.

4. However, even if Peyton is completely healthy, unless Brock struggles they will start him the rest of the season, including the playoffs.

The part that is not being reported, but is certainly in the background for all this is the continued terrible pass-protection from the OL. Peyton played out of the shot-gun the entire season, and has perhaps the fastest release in the NFL, yet he was sacked 15 times in 9 games, compared with 17 times for the entire 2014 regular season.

And obviously, it wasn't just Peyton because Brock came in and was sacked 11 times in 2 and 1/3 games. Obviously, he doesn't have as quick a release as Peyton, but he's HUGELY quicker and more athletic than Peyton, has better arm strength and mobility. And they are running a lot more stretch plays to try and roll Brock away from the rush and let him throw on the run to give him more protection.

Despite all that, he's being hit on almost every pass play.

Given this OL play, how could they believe they could keep Peyton healthy if he returns? Plus, Peyton struggles to play from under center and the OL can't just line up and run block from the pistol effectively. They depend on the QB playing from under center a lot to be at all effective.

All in all, Elway did not go out in FA and get an OL that could protect Manning and let him be effective by giving him a clean pocket to throw from and time to step up and get his body into his throws - which he needs because he throws with his legs. I suppose Elway thought the OL would be better than they are, but now they're faced with reality. Manning can't be effective in this offense unless they get better OL play than they've had.

That has happened in only 1 game this season, the Packers game, and it was not a coincidence they were coming off their bye-week. The OL had a week off to get healthy, and Peyton was at his most healthy too. Result - they ran the ball for 150 yards, and Peyton threw for 340 yards, completing 75% of his passes.

Given that the OL is not likely to improve, I wouldn't put Manning back in there unless Brock is injured or plays really terribly.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
12-02-2015, 12:35 PM
Denver Broncos ‏@Broncos 15m15 minutes ago

No decision has been made on our QB situation beyond this week, contrary to speculation from Bleacher Report based on "anonymous sources."

Is Brock the anonymous source? :laugh:

BroncoJoe
12-02-2015, 12:37 PM
Jesus, Cugel. Give it up already re: the OL.

I don't buy into the whole "they'll have more tape, so he'll fall off in his production" crap. If that was true, there isn't a QB EVER that would be able to sustain excellence.

That, plus the fact that our offense could be somewhat limited due to his limited time playing. It's only going to get more and more diverse.

Denver Native (Carol)
12-02-2015, 12:38 PM
Vic Lombardi ‏@VicLombardi 18m1

Vic Lombardi Retweeted Liz Phemister

The Broncos would never announce this, but that is indeed the prevailing theory. We'll see.

Vic Lombardi added,
Liz Phemister @amorena71
@VicLombardi Any truth to this? http://m.bleacherreport.com/articles/2595094-insider-buzz-broncos-will-start-brock-osweiler-for-remainder-of-season …

GEM
12-02-2015, 12:39 PM
Color me skeptical.

It's Bleacher Report so I am too.

Ravage!!!
12-02-2015, 12:42 PM
Ditto. Too many things we don't know yet, most notably if/when Manning well be well enough to PLAY well and how well Oz will play down the stretch once teams have a full set of tapes on him. And the playoffs are a different world; there are no Browns, and the first lost is the last.


Deciding Oz is the guy NEXT season (the default position now unless he has an extended slump) isn't the same as deciding he's the guy for the rest of THIS season, in which a playoff appearance is now practically guaranteed. Experience counts even more in the playoffs; I doubt Belicheat emptied his bottomless bag of gimmicks and dirty tricks Sunday, but he would in a Conference Championship at home (and even the dirtiest ones invariably skate by unquestioned in Foxborough.)

I'll wait till "someone" in the organization wants to go on the record; a week ago "people close to Manning" supposedly said he'll play next year even if we don't want him.

Experience is good if you can physically perform. So far, even from game 1, when Manning had all off season to get healthy... Manning wasn't physically able to perform. We can speculate alllllll day long as to how much experience is needed over pure physical abilities....however we've seen young QBs do well in the playoffs for many years in a row now. It always comes down to execution, and unfortunately, Manning hasn't been phyisically able to perform.

I know, you feel that Brock was purely drafted because he was a friend of Elway's son. But ironically, you didn't want Manning here at all over Tebow. Hell, TEBOW was able to win a friggin playoff game. If that guy can do it, anyone can.

Ravage!!!
12-02-2015, 12:44 PM
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Are you predicting that Brock goes one and done in the post-season?

Hah.. I was just thinkign of the number of starting regular season games he was playing (and miss counted)..but nice catch! :beer:

Northman
12-02-2015, 12:46 PM
The key will be to see how he performs against the Steelers and Bengals in a few weeks. At this point those two good defenses will have 4+ games of film to watch on Oz, and that is enough to begin to make very specific game plans against him and his tendencies.

The NFL has umpteen stories of back-up QB's who were great during their first 3-4 starts, and then fell off of a cliff never to be heard from again. Do I think Oz falls into that camp? No, but we won't really know until we see it with our own eyes.

All very true but at the same time there is more than likely going to be a game or games where Oz just doesnt perform well. Every QB goes through that not matter how experienced they are. The key will be to (for the coaching staff) evaluate him in those performances along with his better ones to see if he is still worth keeping beyond this year. I just hope that if Oz does struggle in a couple of games that the team doesnt jump the gun and assume he is no good. If Oz finishes the year i think that should give the team a pretty decent amount of film to determine his worth to the team going forward.

Cugel
12-02-2015, 12:46 PM
Jesus, Cugel. Give it up already re: the OL.

I don't buy into the whole "they'll have more tape, so he'll fall off in his production" crap. If that was true, there isn't a QB EVER that would be able to sustain excellence.

That, plus the fact that our offense could be somewhat limited due to his limited time playing. It's only going to get more and more diverse.

What are you talking about? "They'll have more tape?" On who? Osweiler?

Do you suppose that I'm predicting Osweiler will fail because "they will have more tape" on him? :confused:

My post had nothing to say about that, but now you mention it, I don't think that anything of the sort will happen. If Belichick couldn't find some overwhelming weakness to exploit in Brock's game what makes anybody think some other defensive coordinator will?

I'd be rather surprised if anything like that happened at all.

I was referring to the report, which you obviously didn't watch. The bullet points I mentioned were a summary of the report, which to repeat is: Brock will start the rest of the season, unless he struggles, in which case they will need to start Manning, if he's healthy. So, he needs to get healthy in case they need him. But, if Brock continues to play well, he continues to start even if Peyton is completely healthy.

What is so unlikely in all that?

BroncoJoe
12-02-2015, 12:51 PM
My first sentence referred to you. I did watch it - like probably everyone else on this site. It's nothing new, and is pure speculation. Probably accurate, but nothing new.

The rest of my post addressed some of the other posters referencing the more he plays, the better they'll be able to game plan against him.

Try to keep up.

tubby
12-02-2015, 12:52 PM
Denver Broncos Verified account 
‏@Broncos No decision has been made on our QB situation beyond this week, contrary to speculation from Bleacher Report based on "anonymous sources."

Cugel
12-02-2015, 12:52 PM
Vic Lombardi ‏@VicLombardi 18m1

Vic Lombardi Retweeted Liz Phemister

The Broncos would never announce this, but that is indeed the prevailing theory. We'll see.

Vic Lombardi added,
Liz Phemister @amorena71
@VicLombardi Any truth to this? http://m.bleacherreport.com/articles/2595094-insider-buzz-broncos-will-start-brock-osweiler-for-remainder-of-season …

Vic gets the most sensible word as usual. This is a leaked report of what someone in Dove Valley is thinking. They repudiate the report because they certainly don't want to commit to anything at this point, there's no need.

But, despite the denial, the report probably reflects their current thinking (subject to change if Brock struggles). They are just not ever going to admit it - because what advantage do they get from admitting it? None. Why embarrass Peyton AND the organization in case they need Peyton to go back in and start in a couple of weeks?

Admitting this now just would make them look foolish if they had to change their minds in a few weeks. Better to say nothing and keep their options open, regardless of whatever they think privately.

Joel
12-02-2015, 12:57 PM
Broncos at Broncos 1 minute ago approximately

Internal memo sent out that Bleacher Report staffers are persona non grata at Dove Valley for balance of 2015 season.
Oops; hope pulling stuff out of your rear for clicks was worth losing all access to ACTUAL inside info, BR. People should do this more often in general. Though I can only think of one major "news" source outside sports where it'd be necessary often, and making up absurdity out of whole cloth in defiance of fact and whoever they're covering is kind of their whole deal, so maybe it wouldn't matter.

NightTrainLayne
12-02-2015, 12:57 PM
What gives me confidence is that the bears are the one team who would know every single one of his tendencies and Brock still performed well against them. Not to mention BB's track record against new QBs.

They really don't. Seeing him in practice and pre-season vs. breaking him down from real games leave a lot of room for differences.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
12-02-2015, 12:58 PM
Vic gets the most sensible word as usual. This is a leaked report of what someone in Dove Valley is thinking. They repudiate the report because they certainly don't want to commit to anything at this point, there's no need.

But, despite the denial, the report probably reflects their current thinking (subject to change if Brock struggles). They are just not ever going to admit it - because what advantage do they get from admitting it? None. Why embarrass Peyton AND the organization in case they need Peyton to go back in and start in a couple of weeks?

Admitting this now just would make them look foolish if they had to change their minds in a few weeks. Better to say nothing and keep their options open, regardless of whatever they think privately.

This isn't Dallas or Cleveland. We don't typically say stuff like that to the media.

BroncoJoe
12-02-2015, 01:02 PM
This isn't Dallas or Cleveland. We don't typically say stuff like that to the media.

But Cugel "clearly" has inside information and contacts at the Broncos.

Based on his posting, of course. I take everything he says as gold. :elefant:

Cugel
12-02-2015, 01:03 PM
All very true but at the same time there is more than likely going to be a game or games where Oz just doesnt perform well. Every QB goes through that not matter how experienced they are. The key will be to (for the coaching staff) evaluate him in those performances along with his better ones to see if he is still worth keeping beyond this year. I just hope that if Oz does struggle in a couple of games that the team doesnt jump the gun and assume he is no good. If Oz finishes the year i think that should give the team a pretty decent amount of film to determine his worth to the team going forward.

I think it's a simpler decision than you're making out here. I think Elway has already decided that Brock is his QB of the future, starting next season.

So what if he struggles this season? He's already shown enough that it's obvious he can play, and mentally he's got the leadership and calm mental toughness that is needed. The rest they can try and work on during the off-season and next regular season.

I'd say the evaluating is pretty much done, unless he just starts playing terribly. Even then they would have to evaluate whether he could be salvaged with some more coaching.

The reason is how absurdly difficult it is to find a franchise QB in this league. Note that this season about 10 teams desperately needed a QB but couldn't find one in the draft because there were only 2 really good prospects, Mariota and Winston, and they went 1-2 and their teams weren't at all interested in trading those picks. So, if you were Cleveland or the Jets or the Bills, etc., you were just S.O.L. No QB for you.

Look at how many chances guys like Mark Sanchez keep getting despite his continual struggles. And he's hardly the only one: Nick Foles and Sam Bradford, etc., etc., etc.

So, even if Brock struggles, he's probably going to remain a better option than anybody the Broncos could hope to find in the draft or FA. So, they keep him and re-sign him and work with him to try and improve his deficiencies, and maybe get another QB later in the draft to develop just in case. But, I'd be shocked if anything that happens this season (barring a complete collapse by Brock) would induce them to go out next draft and try and get a franchise QB to replace Brock.

I think what "evaluating" they're doing is more related to how much $ they are going to offer Brock in FA.

NightTrainLayne
12-02-2015, 01:06 PM
Jesus, Cugel. Give it up already re: the OL.

I don't buy into the whole "they'll have more tape, so he'll fall off in his production" crap. If that was true, there isn't a QB EVER that would be able to sustain excellence.

That, plus the fact that our offense could be somewhat limited due to his limited time playing. It's only going to get more and more diverse.


Having more tape doesn't guarantee he will fall off or be defended better, but it could mean that if Brock has some tendencies and weaknesses that can be exploited by game planning. 3-4 games is usually considered to be enough tape to identify, and game-plan around such tendencies and weaknesses.

Great QB's either don't have glaring weaknesses or tendencies and continue to do well, even when defenses can be fully prepared for them. But there are countless stories of back-ups doing well for 3-4 games only to disappear after defenses figured them out, and could exploit their weaknesses.

Again, do I think Oz falls into that category? No. But I didn't even stay at a Holiday Inn last night, and I am definitely not an NFL DC. I don't honestly know if he has weaknesses that can be exploited via game plan.

Cugel
12-02-2015, 01:08 PM
But Cugel "clearly" has inside information and contacts at the Broncos.

Based on his posting, of course. I take everything he says as gold. :elefant:

This is just absurd. Are you trying to prove that you're completely obtuse? I'm commenting on the post by Vic Lombardi, who said exactly the same thing, that this report DOES reflect the thinking inside Dove Valley. And he IS an insider.

Cugel
12-02-2015, 01:12 PM
Having more tape doesn't guarantee he will fall off or be defended better, but it could mean that if Brock has some tendencies and weaknesses that can be exploited by game planning. 3-4 games is usually considered to be enough tape to identify, and game-plan around such tendencies and weaknesses.

Great QB's either don't have glaring weaknesses or tendencies and continue to do well, even when defenses can be fully prepared for them. But there are countless stories of back-ups doing well for 3-4 games only to disappear after defenses figured them out, and could exploit their weaknesses.

Again, do I think Oz falls into that category? No. But I didn't even stay at a Holiday Inn last night, and I am definitely not an NFL DC. I don't honestly know if he has weaknesses that can be exploited via game plan.

This is certainly possible, but as multiple NFL experts have said, Belichick's record against rookie QBs is just murderous. He normally figures out a way to expose them and beat them, yet he totally failed to do that. He's considered the best defensive mind in football, bar none.

Maybe some other DC will manage to find some serious weakness they can exploit. But, it doesn't look that way. It looks like Brock will continue to play at least reasonably well.

TXBRONC
12-02-2015, 01:18 PM
Zweem is right Jason Cole is just throwing crap at wall and seeing what sticks. If Denver is going to make that kind of momumental switch then you make it permenant so Osweiler doesn't have to be looking over his shoulder every time he makes a mistake.

BroncoJoe
12-02-2015, 01:24 PM
This is just absurd. Are you trying to prove that you're completely obtuse? I'm commenting on the post by Vic Lombardi, who said exactly the same thing, that this report DOES reflect the thinking inside Dove Valley. And he IS an insider.

Vic said "it's the prevailing theory". Did not post it as fact. Unlike you and 99.9% of your posts.

Denver Native (Carol)
12-02-2015, 01:36 PM
Vic gets the most sensible word as usual. This is a leaked report of what someone in Dove Valley is thinking. They repudiate the report because they certainly don't want to commit to anything at this point, there's no need.

But, despite the denial, the report probably reflects their current thinking (subject to change if Brock struggles). They are just not ever going to admit it - because what advantage do they get from admitting it? None. Why embarrass Peyton AND the organization in case they need Peyton to go back in and start in a couple of weeks?

Admitting this now just would make them look foolish if they had to change their minds in a few weeks. Better to say nothing and keep their options open, regardless of whatever they think privately.

We don't know if Vic meant this was the theory at Dove Valley, or the theory among Bronco fans.

TXBRONC
12-02-2015, 02:25 PM
We don't know if Vic meant this was the theory at Dove Valley, or the theory among Bronco fans.

If this is coming out of Dove Valley it's not a theory it's a fact. "Prevailing theory" means the media is cooking this up.

Joel
12-02-2015, 03:05 PM
I doubt they even HAVE a long term plan for this season yet, because too much remains uncertain. I realize people are tired of hearing Kubiak continually trot out the cliched "we're taking it day-to-day, week-to-week; right now our whole focus is on [next opponent]" lines, but that's the only reasonable course right now: We don't—can't—know where Mannings recovery nor Oz' play will be next week, let alone next MONTH. We're finding out "day-to-day, week-to-week," so that's as far as the team can firm plans.

Which is part of why it's so implausible that anyone at Dove Valley anonymously told anyone a decision it's unlikely anyone at Dove Valley's actually made yet.

TXBRONC
12-02-2015, 03:08 PM
I doubt they even HAVE a long term plan for this season yet, because too much remains uncertain. I realize people are tired of hearing Kubiak continually trot out the cliched "we're taking it day-to-day, week-to-week; right now our whole focus is on [next opponent]" lines, but that's the only reasonable course right now: We don't—can't—know where Mannings recovery nor Oz' play will be next week, let alone next MONTH. We're finding out "day-to-day, week-to-week," so that's as far as the team can firm plans.

Which is part of why it's so implausible that anyone at Dove Valley anonymously told anyone a decision it's unlikely anyone at Dove Valley's actually made yet.

Good grief. Yes they have a long term plan and none of us know exactly what it is.

wayninja
12-02-2015, 03:32 PM
I heard a bleacher report that Von Miller is going to be starting at Linebacker for the rest of the season.

Joel
12-02-2015, 03:34 PM
Good grief. Yes they have a long term plan and none of us know exactly what it is.
Good grief yourself: They surely have CONTINGENCY planS, so they're not hostage to events, but can't have a plan for who's the QB in January for the same reason they can't have a plan for our first playoff opponent: They don't and can't know WHOM that is yet.

Joel
12-02-2015, 03:35 PM
I heard a bleacher report that Von Miller is going to be starting at Linebacker for the rest of the season.
I heard a bleacher report that bleacher report is false and we're actually benching Miller for Prater. It cited an unnamed source at Dove Valley, so seems legit.

VonDoom
12-02-2015, 03:36 PM
I heard a bleacher report that Von Miller is going to be starting at Linebacker for the rest of the season.

They do occasionally get things right ... :D

TXBRONC
12-02-2015, 03:39 PM
I heard a bleacher report that Von Miller is going to be starting at Linebacker for the rest of the season.

The reporter who wrote will probably get a Pulitzer prize for that article.

tomjonesrocks
12-02-2015, 03:40 PM
I heard a bleacher report that bleacher report is false and we're actually benching Miller for Prater. It cited an unnamed source at Dove Valley, so seems legit.

Echoing that The Fan seems to be continuing to corroborate the report. Let's see what happens if Brock has a bad game. Say this weekend which no one is discussing whatsoever.

TXBRONC
12-02-2015, 03:43 PM
Echoing that The Fan seems to be continuing to corroborate the report. Let's see what happens if Brock has a bad game. Say this weekend which no one is discussing whatsoever.

Just because the media is still focusing on Denver beating the Patriots doesn't mean team has lost focus.

Joel
12-02-2015, 03:53 PM
Let's see what happens when Manning's not in a boot and we're sending upcoming opponents game tapes that don't include him. We don't even have a POTENTIAL controversy unless 1) Oz keeps playing as well or better than he has so far AND 2) Manning's healthy enough to not only play, but effectively. Absent EITHER of those two requirements, the question of who starts answers itself (unless NEITHER requirement is met, in which case we're screwed; a virtual lock to make the playoffs, we won't even get a decent draft pick.)

I'd understand if the media had nothing else to talk about, but we just ruined the defending "champs" perfect season in OT; isn't that story enough for one week?

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
12-02-2015, 04:01 PM
Echoing that The Fan seems to be continuing to corroborate the report. Let's see what happens if Brock has a bad game. Say this weekend which no one is discussing whatsoever.

The Fan corroborating a report from Bleacher Report is like Von Miller vouching for Aldon Smith.

Maybe I'm a bit synical, but imo most of those guys on the fan are simply shock jocks. I can't think of one of them I can stand for more than 3 minutes.

wayninja
12-02-2015, 05:10 PM
It's tough journalism to go out on a limb and say that the guy who is 2-0 and just helped knock of one of the only undefeated teams in the NFL is starting in favor of your injured vet. Courage. That's what that is.

Cugel
12-02-2015, 07:42 PM
Good grief yourself: They surely have CONTINGENCY planS, so they're not hostage to events, but can't have a plan for who's the QB in January for the same reason they can't have a plan for our first playoff opponent: They don't and can't know WHOM that is yet.

Basically correct. The reason Jason Cole's report is given such credence in the media is that Jason Cole is ghost-writing a book for John Elway so that people assume that he's talking to people close to Elway and the Broncos if not Elway himself.

No idea if that's true or not.

ShaneFalco
12-02-2015, 08:05 PM
http://i626.photobucket.com/albums/tt344/JHnGA09/Misc/oz.jpg
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/2e/b6/e8/2eb6e89b8831e141fcea0224432ee8b1.jpg

Elevation inc
12-02-2015, 08:20 PM
This is the right call for the future of the Denver Broncos. As a fan of Peyton however it def brings me down a bit. Dude is a legend, but let's not ignore the reality of what we saw for 9 weeks before brock

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
12-02-2015, 08:43 PM
This is the right call for the future of the Denver Broncos. As a fan of Peyton however it def brings me down a bit. Dude is a legend, but let's not ignore the reality of what we saw for 9 weeks before brock

It goes back further than 9 weeks. He was bad the last month of 14'.

Mike
12-02-2015, 08:44 PM
They really don't. Seeing him in practice and pre-season vs. breaking him down from real games leave a lot of room for differences.

I have thought a bit about the game tape side of it. Sure coaches will be able to break it down and come up with some schemes to confuse Brock.

But then I think about Manning, coaches all know what Manning can do. They know to get pressure on him to keep him from stepping in to his throws. He has to step in to those throws to get them there now...disrupt that and you get bad decisions, bad throws, and bad ints. Add cold weather to it and it's even more limiting. This will cause the defense to stack the box again and play tight on the receivers....run game shut down, no wide open receivers. We get the offense we had the last half of last year and the first part of the this year.

Game tape or not, I think I would take my chances with Brock. He can make throws Manning can't make, move around better than Manning, and make the defenses play back which opens the run game.

tripp
12-02-2015, 09:29 PM
I'm quite happy with whoever is starting QB for the Broncos. Good problem to have.

Cugel
12-02-2015, 10:41 PM
Good grief yourself: They surely have CONTINGENCY planS, so they're not hostage to events, but can't have a plan for who's the QB in January for the same reason they can't have a plan for our first playoff opponent: They don't and can't know WHOM that is yet.

Basically correct. The reason Jason Cole's report is given such credence in the media is that Jason Cole is ghost-writing a book for John Elway so that people assume that he's talking to people close to Elway and the Broncos if not Elway himself.

No idea if that's true or not.

Cugel
12-02-2015, 10:48 PM
But then I think about Manning, coaches all know what Manning can do. They know to get pressure on him to keep him from stepping in to his throws. He has to step in to those throws to get them there now...disrupt that and you get bad decisions, bad throws, and bad ints. Add cold weather to it and it's even more limiting. This will cause the defense to stack the box again and play tight on the receivers....run game shut down, no wide open receivers. We get the offense we had the last half of last year and the first part of the this year.

Game tape or not, I think I would take my chances with Brock. He can make throws Manning can't make, move around better than Manning, and make the defenses play back which opens the run game.

Everything you said is true. And it was all still true in 2012 and 2013. His arm strength never recovered from the 4 neck surgeries.

He's needed to be in the shot-gun and have a time to step into his throw and a clean pocket to throw in, in order to make accurate throws for years now. Go back and look at the Super Bowl for examples of what happens when he doesn't have those things.

Everybody just dismisses stuff like the Falcons game in 2012 where he threw 3 INTs in the first half (and threw right to the DB when there was no receiver anywhere near) or the SB (when he threw right to Kam Chancellor when there was no receiver near) or the last 6 games of 2014 when he had a torn thigh muscle and couldn't step into his throws and threw millions of picks as if those things didn't happen, and his arm suddenly became a noodle sometime this season.

But, none of that fits the "Peyton is just now washed up" theory so it didn't happen.

I Eat Staples
12-02-2015, 11:07 PM
Everything you said is true. And it was all still true in 2012 and 2013. His arm strength never recovered from the 4 neck surgeries.

He's needed to be in the shot-gun and have a time to step into his throw and a clean pocket to throw in, in order to make accurate throws for years now. Go back and look at the Super Bowl for examples of what happens when he doesn't have those things.

Everybody just dismisses stuff like the Falcons game in 2012 where he threw 3 INTs in the first half (and threw right to the DB when there was no receiver anywhere near) or the SB (when he threw right to Kam Chancellor when there was no receiver near) or the last 6 games of 2014 when he had a torn thigh muscle and couldn't step into his throws and threw millions of picks as if those things didn't happen, and his arm suddenly became a noodle sometime this season.

But, none of that fits the "Peyton is just now washed up" theory so it didn't happen.

Sigh...you and Joel don't seem to understand the difference between one bad game (Falcons game, Superbowl) and 9 bad games in a row.

Northman
12-03-2015, 07:28 AM
I'm quite happy with whoever is starting QB for the Broncos. Good problem to have.


If it was Peyton from 2 years ago i would agree with you. But given the circumstances of how Peyton is playing as late i really wouldnt be happy if Peyton came back and took over. I just think his time is done and he really hasnt done anything so far this year to give me hope he will get back to playing the way he used to. Im more confident in Brock right now.

Joel
12-03-2015, 08:06 AM
Sigh...you and Joel don't seem to understand the difference between one bad game (Falcons game, Superbowl) and 9 bad games in a row.
It wasn't just "one bad game," people taking a superficial few just REDUCED it to "one" bad game.

The first FIVE games of 2012 were terrible (notwithstanding the opening win against a collapsing Steelers team.) The Atlanta game was the worst, but the offense was a dumpster fire until something clicked trailing SD 24-0 and we fired off 35 unanswered points for the biggest comeback from 24 pts in NFL history.

2013s headlines were the records and the SB blowout, but the latter didn't surprise me because I knew suddenly and magically finding run blocking was the only way to prevent it with our awful pass blocking. The signs had been there all along, as when Clark gave up strip-sacks in THREE STRAIGHT GAMES midseason, costing us the Indy game, and nearly costing us games against SD and the 3-13 'Skins.

The explosive offense fizzled in the playoffs, as SD blitzed, covered deep balls and ran against a team incapable of a sustained drive, exactly the way they won our second regular season meeting and nearly won the first; we needed a final heroic drive to finish them in the playoffs even after jumping out to a big lead. The AFCCG actually gave me some faint hope because we FINALLY ran well on a couple long drives, but overall the offense was pretty tame, and our D was critical to reaching the SB.

So no, it wasn't "just one game," and it's frankly surprising the rest of the NFL needing a prime time globally broadcast SB "blue print" from the Seahawks despite SD hinting at how to beat us (with a far worse team) all season. But it's never been the same since, hence all the analysts and former Broncos bagging on our line all last year; Father Time didn't catch up with Manning during the week between his record-shattering season and the start of the playoffs, nor even the 6 months between then and Opening Day 2014.

Father Time's not the reason Oz has been sacked 11 times in 2 games either. Our run blocking's steadily improved (especially Sunday, after our sole GOOD pass blocker got hurt and replaced by an excellent run blocker) but the protection remains a disaster. There's a reason Manning played the whole last half of 2013 with BOTH ankles taped, the last half of 2014 with a torn thigh muscle and the last half of 2015 with a torn foot ligament. And that reason's not "old people get hurt a lot."

Joel
12-03-2015, 08:08 AM
If it was Peyton from 2 years ago i would agree with you. But given the circumstances of how Peyton is playing as late i really wouldnt be happy if Peyton came back and took over. I just think his time is done and he really hasnt done anything so far this year to give me hope he will get back to playing the way he used to. Im more confident in Brock right now.
Peyton in the SB 2 years ago looked eerily like Peyton now and Peyton at the end of last season. And not because his body just wore down each time, or rather, his body didn't just wear down due to age. The real question is why is Hasselbeck doing so much better than Luck with the same awful line, but it's not because he's so much younger. But, hey, he's the same age as Manning; maybe Matt Hasselbeck's just BETTER than Peyton Manning?

Joel
12-03-2015, 08:35 AM
I don't know if this is it, but it's a good one regardless, because it covers all contingencies:

http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=14272941

I admit thinking in terms of preferring a playoff run with a guy who's had more playoff starts than Oz has pro starts. But if he returns still hurt more than we thought, gets hurt worse (rushing Romo back last week didn't exactly save his season nor Dallas') or he's just flat out lost it for good, a full game to restore Oz' continuity is wise insurance. This, btw, is how insisting on playing KC REALLY hurt Manning and the team:

Instead of taking that week to get diagnosis and treatment, then begin recovery, Manning spent it practicing and playing nearly a full game, which almost inevitably made his injury worse: He lost MORE than a week, with the season half done. Had he sat THEN, we'd have an extra weeks real game evaluation of Oz each week for the rest of the year. Likewise, Manning would have almost a months convalescence now; as it is, he just got his cast off and may not travel with the team Sunday: NO chance he plays Oakland.

Most of the general tentative time tables I've seen say a player needs at LEAST 3-4 weeks before he can be effective again after this injury; that puts Manning right against the videos wall, with no margin for error. An extra week to heal a less damaged foot would've been huge. It is what it is, but didn't have to be.

For the record, I also agree with the final note in the video, thrown out in passing almost as if an afterthought: Franchise Oz next year, and if a full season removes all doubt he's got the goods, pay him accordingly in 2017 and for the foreseeable future. Do NOT bet the farm on ONE guy after half a dozen good games when no other teams knew him, because we've seen that blow up in GMs faces countless times.

Mike
12-03-2015, 09:00 AM
I don't know if this is it, but it's a good one regardless, because it covers all contingencies:

http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=14272941

I admit thinking in terms of preferring a playoff run with a guy who's had more playoff starts than Oz has pro starts. But if he returns still hurt more than we thought, gets hurt worse (rushing Romo back last week didn't exactly save his season nor Dallas') or he's just flat out lost it for good, a full game to restore Oz' continuity is wise insurance. This, btw, is how insisting on playing KC REALLY hurt Manning and the team:

Instead of taking that week to get diagnosis and treatment, then begin recovery, Manning spent it practicing and playing nearly a full game, which almost inevitably made his injury worse: He lost MORE than a week, with the season half done. Had he sat THEN, we'd have an extra weeks real game evaluation of Oz each week for the rest of the year. Likewise, Manning would have almost a months convalescence now; as it is, he just got his cast off and may not travel with the team Sunday: NO chance he plays Oakland.

Most of the general tentative time tables I've seen say a player needs at LEAST 3-4 weeks before he can be effective again after this injury; that puts Manning right against the videos wall, with no margin for error. An extra week to heal a less damaged foot would've been huge. It is what it is, but didn't have to be.

For the record, I also agree with the final note in the video, thrown out in passing almost as if an afterthought: Franchise Oz next year, and if a full season removes all doubt he's got the goods, pay him accordingly in 2017 and for the foreseeable future. Do NOT bet the farm on ONE guy after half a dozen good games when no other teams knew him, because we've seen that blow up in GMs faces countless times.

There is no way Denver spends franchise QB $$ on Brock. You are talking around $18 million. That would be dumb. Offer Brock a small extension for a couple years worth $7 mil/year. I don't think you go much above that given what we know about him right now.

Davii
12-03-2015, 10:09 AM
There is no way Denver spends franchise QB $$ on Brock. You are talking around $18 million. That would be dumb. Offer Brock a small extension for a couple years worth $7 mil/year. I don't think you go much above that given what we know about him right now.

If you offer him 7 million/yr he's playing elsewhere, period. He WILL get starting QB money, some team out there will offer it to him. If Denver wants to keep him they will pay him as a starting QB. Currently the 16th highest paid starter in the league is Tom Brady at 14 million per year. 7 Million simply won't get it done. 12 maybe, 7 has no chance at keeping him here.

SR
12-03-2015, 10:11 AM
If you offer him 7 million/yr he's playing elsewhere, period. He WILL get starting QB money, some team out there will offer it to him. If Denver wants to keep him they will pay him as a starting QB. Currently the 16th highest paid starter in the league is Tom Brady at 14 million per year. 7 Million simply won't get it done. 12 maybe, 7 has no chance at keeping him here.

He will be in the $12-15M/yr range.

NightTerror218
12-03-2015, 10:17 AM
If you offer him 7 million/yr he's playing elsewhere, period. He WILL get starting QB money, some team out there will offer it to him. If Denver wants to keep him they will pay him as a starting QB. Currently the 16th highest paid starter in the league is Tom Brady at 14 million per year. 7 Million simply won't get it done. 12 maybe, 7 has no chance at keeping him here.

That is his cap hit, his annual guaranteed is less then that.

Ravage!!!
12-03-2015, 10:54 AM
That is his cap hit, his annual guaranteed is less then that.

So? Because he got more money up front. so you are saying we give Brock as much money up front to make his cap down around Brady's?

The point is, there is no way we can keep Brock at 7 million for an "extension" of 2 years. That's just simply an absurd wish that won't be reality. Why would Brock do that? Teams all over the league are lookign for starting caliber QBs. He'll get starting QB money from somewhere. If it's not us, then it's them. That won't be 7 million a year.

VonDoom
12-03-2015, 11:09 AM
The real question, to me, about Brock's salary is going to be how the contract is structured, not the AAV. Will it be incentive based, like the ill fated Kaepernick contract? We're in such a weird position with a guy who has little NFL experience, but at least we're getting to see what he can do this year. Of course, if what he does this year is win, that drives up his value for us and any other potential suitors.

Davii
12-03-2015, 11:12 AM
The real question, to me, about Brock's salary is going to be how the contract is structured, not the AAV. Will it be incentive based, like the ill fated Kaepernick contract? We're in such a weird position with a guy who has little NFL experience, but at least we're getting to see what he can do this year. Of course, if what he does this year is win, that drives up his value for us and any other potential suitors.

I wouldn't mind seeing that, and I don't think Brock would mind it either. If the contract were worth up around 14/yr IF you start X games and a team escape clause after 2 years, etc. That all depends on how he performs the rest of the way. If he looks good, hell if he gets the opportunity and wins playoff games, why would he take an incentive laden contract? At that point he has already written the numbers on his check and they're pretty high.

Ravage!!!
12-03-2015, 11:15 AM
The real question, to me, about Brock's salary is going to be how the contract is structured, not the AAV. Will it be incentive based, like the ill fated Kaepernick contract? We're in such a weird position with a guy who has little NFL experience, but at least we're getting to see what he can do this year. Of course, if what he does this year is win, that drives up his value for us and any other potential suitors.

I think you answered your own question... the "ill fated" Kaepernick contract. I don't think any smart player signs an "incentive laden" contract....even though the fans seem to think that it's always the only way to sign players. We will ahve to give a comperable offer to all the other teams that will be willing to give him an offer.

VonDoom
12-03-2015, 11:16 AM
I wouldn't mind seeing that, and I don't think Brock would mind it either. If the contract were worth up around 14/yr IF you start X games and a team escape clause after 2 years, etc. That all depends on how he performs the rest of the way. If he looks good, hell if he gets the opportunity and wins playoff games, why would he take an incentive laden contract? At that point he has already written the numbers on his check and they're pretty high.

We're going to have some big decisions to make this offseason. I do think that they had hoped Manning would play out this year, then retire/leave and we could move Os into the starting role with a small contract, since he would still be an unknown. We keep talking about how Manning and Ware will probably be gone, opening up all this money to spend on our other FA. But if Manning's $21 million is changed out for Brock's $14 million (in your example), it doesn't really leave us that much room. Miller will have to be dealt with in some way. I just saw this, suggesting that he might be priced out a la Suh:

http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl-news/4670487-brock-osweiler-contract-free-agency-broncos-peyton-manning

VonDoom
12-03-2015, 11:19 AM
I think you answered your own question... the "ill fated" Kaepernick contract. I don't think any smart player signs an "incentive laden" contract....even though the fans seem to think that it's always the only way to sign players. We will ahve to give a comperable offer to all the other teams that will be willing to give him an offer.

I think SF was smart in the way they handled that deal, because at the time, it looked like Kaep was going to be their franchise QB for years, even if he wasn't elite. He flamed out quickly, though, and the way that contract was structured, it won't hurt them as much as it would have. But yes, you're right that players will look at that and stay away from that kind of contract for this very reason. I'm so curious to see how it goes with Os.

Northman
12-03-2015, 11:21 AM
Peyton in the SB 2 years ago looked eerily like Peyton now and Peyton at the end of last season. And not because his body just wore down each time, or rather, his body didn't just wear down due to age. The real question is why is Hasselbeck doing so much better than Luck with the same awful line, but it's not because he's so much younger. But, hey, he's the same age as Manning; maybe Matt Hasselbeck's just BETTER than Peyton Manning?

At this stage maybe Hasselbeck is better than Manning.

Northman
12-03-2015, 11:23 AM
If you offer him 7 million/yr he's playing elsewhere, period. He WILL get starting QB money, some team out there will offer it to him. If Denver wants to keep him they will pay him as a starting QB. Currently the 16th highest paid starter in the league is Tom Brady at 14 million per year. 7 Million simply won't get it done. 12 maybe, 7 has no chance at keeping him here.

Yea, you cant ride the fence now with Brock. If he continues to win ballgames the team will have to decide to either sink or swim with him going forward.

NightTerror218
12-03-2015, 11:31 AM
So? Because he got more money up front. so you are saying we give Brock as much money up front to make his cap down around Brady's?

The point is, there is no way we can keep Brock at 7 million for an "extension" of 2 years. That's just simply an absurd wish that won't be reality. Why would Brock do that? Teams all over the league are lookign for starting caliber QBs. He'll get starting QB money from somewhere. If it's not us, then it's them. That won't be 7 million a year.

I am talking base salry, not counting singing Bo us and incentives which all count toward cap hit. Having a $4 mill signing bonus and $8 mill salary plus another $4 mill worth of incentives for pro bowl, starts, yards, wins, whatever can get him to $14 mill cap hit a year if he hits escalators.

Elway is all about guarantees and play to earn your money.

You can't pay top money to a guy with less than a season worth of starts.

Cugel
12-03-2015, 11:42 AM
Sigh...you and Joel don't seem to understand the difference between one bad game (Falcons game, Superbowl) and 9 bad games in a row.

*Sigh* And you just dismiss the evidence of CONSISTENCY by saying "it was one bad game" or "just the super bowl" without analysing WHY Peyton played so badly in those games.

They ALL OF THEM had themes in common, and defensive coordinators understood Peyton's weaknesses and how to exploit them. As I keep stating, and as you keep ignoring, because of his weak arm and equestrian statute mobility Peyton needs some key things to be at all effective: he needs a clean pocket to throw in and time to throw. And because he throws with his lower body, he needs his legs to be healthy.

Deny him any of those things and he's flat BAD. And those games I mentioned were examples of when Peyton was hurt and couldn't step up, Peyton had pressure right in his face and couldn't step up, and Peyton didn't have time to throw.

COMMON THEME.

Peyton's limitations require the OL to protect him better. In 2012 and 2013 and even most of 2014 the OL was generally good at pass-protection. They are generally bad now.

Brock is better not because "Peyton can't play any more" but because Brock can better off-set the weakness of this OL because he's more mobile and has a stronger arm.

Well, why is the OL weak? Because of injuries and because Elway didn't get better OL.

Given that the OL is not going to suddenly improve, is there any point in putting Peyton back in this season? No.

Cugel
12-03-2015, 11:52 AM
Quote Originally Posted by Davii View Post
If you offer him 7 million/yr he's playing elsewhere, period. He WILL get starting QB money, some team out there will offer it to him. If Denver wants to keep him they will pay him as a starting QB. Currently the 16th highest paid starter in the league is Tom Brady at 14 million per year. 7 Million simply won't get it done. 12 maybe, 7 has no chance at keeping him here.


This is correct.

BEFORE the season, when Brock was totally untested in the regular season they could have signed him long-term to a $5 M a year deal (which is around what he would have gotten if he never played a snap this year, from some teams).

I said early this year that if Brock came in and started a couple of games due to Peyton Manning injury his asking price would jump to $10 M a year. And if he had to come in and play a significant part of the season, like Matt Cassel did for Brady in 2008, then his asking price could jump to around $15 M a year, assuming of course that he played generally well and the team won.

It could be more than that of course. Remember that the Pats under Cassel didn't make the playoffs at 11-5 but the Broncos will. IF Brock wins a playoff game he will get MORE than $15 M and if he takes the team to a SB it could be closer to $20 M.

WIN the SB and he could demand (and get) a salary close to what Russell Wilson got:


Russell Wilson signed a 4 year, $87,600,000 contract with the Seattle Seahawks, including a $31,000,000 signing bonus, $61,542,000 guaranteed, and an average annual salary of $21,900,000. In 2015, Wilson will earn a base salary of $700,000 and a signing bonus of $31,000,000. Wilson has a cap hit of $7,054,868 while his dead money value is $31,854,868.

We're talking about a SB winning QB in this scenario.

If that happens, the Broncos may not even have enough room under the cap to be able to re-sign such veterans as Malik Jackson and Von Miller, etc.

NightTerror218
12-03-2015, 11:55 AM
*Sigh* And you just dismiss the evidence of CONSISTENCY by saying "it was one bad game" or "just the super bowl" without analysing WHY Peyton played so badly in those games.

They ALL OF THEM had themes in common, and defensive coordinators understood Peyton's weaknesses and how to exploit them. As I keep stating, and as you keep ignoring, because of his weak arm and equestrian statute mobility Peyton needs some key things to be at all effective: he needs a clean pocket to throw in and time to throw. And because he throws with his lower body, he needs his legs to be healthy.

Deny him any of those things and he's flat BAD. And those games I mentioned were examples of when Peyton was hurt and couldn't step up, Peyton had pressure right in his face and couldn't step up, and Peyton didn't have time to throw.

COMMON THEME.

Peyton's limitations require the OL to protect him better. In 2012 and 2013 and even most of 2014 the OL was generally good at pass-protection. They are generally bad now.

Brock is better not because "Peyton can't play any more" but because Brock can better off-set the weakness of this OL because he's more mobile and has a stronger arm.

Well, why is the OL weak? Because of injuries and because Elway didn't get better OL.

Given that the OL is not going to suddenly improve, is there any point in putting Peyton back in this season? No.

Brock is better for thus offense because he can run the offense as designed. Defense play Manning my crowding middle and jumping routes, why his ints are so high. This kills the running game. But because they tell him to beat us with your arm deep he has hit more of those big passes then other QBS because that is what teams give him. But having to go deep so often has lead to so many punts because it is always third and long. 1st and 2nd down you either get imcomete pass, and take a shot deep on third down.

OL is bad in pass pro but the fact that the middle is crowded and WR are jammed at line makes it hard to get ball out fast and does not have time to wait for WR to get deep, hence why Manning as thrown it too early to sanders on routes. Brock is not limited to only throwing deep and the made is not as crowded for him. This is why he gets so many passes over the middle to RB or TE, these were just not there with Manning and having both safeties in the box.

Cugel
12-03-2015, 11:56 AM
You can't pay top money to a guy with less than a season worth of starts.

Depends on what he does. You have to pay for results.

Example: Is Russell Wilson an "elite QB" like Tom Brady, Peyton Manning (2 years ago) or Aaron Rogers? No. Yet he's getting $23 M a year. Why? Took the team to 2 SBs and won one.

NightTerror218
12-03-2015, 12:00 PM
Depends on what he does. You have to pay for results.

Example: Is Russell Wilson an "elite QB" like Tom Brady, Peyton Manning (2 years ago) or Aaron Rogers? No. Yet he's getting $23 M a year. Why? Took the team to 2 SBs and won one.

2 SB!!!!!!! Not 2 starts.

If Brock gets SB MVP and goes undefeated I say pay him I don't care how much. What are the odds of that?

Wilson has a very high win-loss ratio in the NFL. He has proven to be very clutch in games. Helped his team to 2 SB and 1 win. His resume is huge, Brock has no resume yet.

When Wilson knocked of Rodgers on the fail Mary pass on prime time, nobody was calling for him to make $12 mill plus then.

Dapper Dan
12-03-2015, 12:00 PM
There's also another report going around. It's probably true. They found out that chubby, unattractive guys give the best orgasms.

Pm me ladies.

Cugel
12-03-2015, 12:01 PM
Brock is better for thus offense because he can run the offense as designed. Defense play Manning my crowding middle and jumping routes, why his ints are so high. This kills the running game. But because they tell him to beat us with your arm deep he has hit more of those big passes then other QBS because that is what teams give him. But having to go deep so often has lead to so many punts because it is always third and long. 1st and 2nd down you either get imcomete pass, and take a shot deep on third down.

OL is bad in pass pro but the fact that the middle is crowded and WR are jammed at line makes it hard to get ball out fast and does not have time to wait for WR to get deep, hence why Manning as thrown it too early to sanders on routes. Brock is not limited to only throwing deep and the made is not as crowded for him. This is why he gets so many passes over the middle to RB or TE, these were just not there with Manning and having both safeties in the box.

I don't want to get into further argument with you on this, but basically you are making my point by saying "Brock is better for this offense because he can run the offense as designed." A more mobile QB can stretch the field by rolling out and take some pressure off the OL. Playing from under center gives the RBs a better chance to accelerate towards the line before getting the ball. Etc.

Can you run the ball and be effective in the pistol? Sure, but it takes a better OL to do it. Right now they still SUCK BAD at pass-blocking, which is why Brock got sacked 11 times in only a couple of games.

Elway should have known going into this season that he needed better OL to protect Peyton if they were going to bring him back. They didn't go get them. Result: Peyton was ineffective and inevitably got hurt.

If they don't pass block better Brock is going to get hurt too. He's getting hit way too often.

Cugel
12-03-2015, 12:09 PM
2 SB!!!!!!! Not 2 starts.

If Brock gets SB MVP and goes undefeated I say pay him I don't care how much. What are the odds of that?

Wilson has a very high win-loss ratio in the NFL. He has proven to be very clutch in games. Helped his team to 2 SB and 1 win. His resume is huge, Brock has no resume yet.

When Wilson knocked of Rodgers on the fail Mary pass on prime time, nobody was calling for him to make $12 mill plus then.

I would certainly prefer if you were right. It would mean that Brock would get less money and there would be more $ under the cap to sign other players like Von Miller and Malik Jackson and Sylvester Williams, etc.

But, how much Brock gets will depend on what other teams are willing to bid in FA. And remember that there are LOTs of teams truly desperate for a QB.

And how many SB winning QBs will be available as FAs next off-season?

I'm not saying Brock IS going to win the SB and be the SB MVP. But, Russell Wilson wasn't the SB MVP. He got a $31 M signing bonus anyway.

Sure, you can argue that Russell Wilson was worth more based on his experience, but Russell Wilson wasn't a FA. They signed him this off-season, before he could play out his contract.

The Broncos did NOT sign Brock this off-season and he IS playing out his contract and will become an UFA at season's end. That's a HUGE difference.

Russell Wilson essentially gave up (perhaps) a bit of the maximum he could (theoretically) have gotten by playing out his contract and becoming an UFA. It turned out to be a great deal for him because the Seahawks might not even make the playoffs this season. So, Wilson's value was MAX right after the SB and would decline thereafter.

But, my hypothetical CEILING amount for Osweiler would be Wilson $ - based on the hypothetical that Brock wins 2 or 3 playoff games and Denver wins the SB.

In that case he will get the max. Otherwise it should be a lot less.

Do you think Denver does not have a good chance to win the SB with this defense and Brock playing generally well? I'd say they have as good a chance as anybody other than the Patriots. Say, as good as the AZ Cardinals anyway.

Ravage!!!
12-03-2015, 01:11 PM
Here is the problem. IF (if) we put Manning back in, then when/where is the hook? Brock MAY understand that Manning is going to go back in before the playoffs start (if he doesn't start before the playoffs, then I think its Brock all the way through), but when do the coaches say "ok Manning, you just don't have it?" What's the point?

THEN.. if we do have to pull Manning, again, doesn't that just give Brock that much MORE leverage? Sure it does. Plus, does Brock feel slighted if pulled again? Maybe not, as I'm sure Brock is aware of the fact that Elway is in a pretty tight spot. John wants to give Brock all the respect he deserves, at the same time giving Peyton Manning the respect HE deserves. That may have been explained, as I'm sure Brock understands, but it still may make Brock feel like "screw this junk."

Either way.... Brock is going to demand (meaning the market is going to demand) a good amount of money for his starting services. We absolutely will HAVE to pay him. We can't simply let him go. What else we going to do...hire Kaepernick or RGIII???? Screw that.

Ravage!!!
12-03-2015, 01:22 PM
I am talking base salry, not counting singing Bo us and incentives which all count toward cap hit. Having a $4 mill signing bonus and $8 mill salary plus another $4 mill worth of incentives for pro bowl, starts, yards, wins, whatever can get him to $14 mill cap hit a year if he hits escalators.

Elway is all about guarantees and play to earn your money.

You can't pay top money to a guy with less than a season worth of starts.

You will N OT get a starting QB for this kind of contract. It's an absurd hope and dream that will NOT happen. Brock doesn't have to sign a contract like that, and he WILL NOT. It would be financially stupid.

Also, before you say " you can't pay..." you can. Teams do all the time. They do it because the QB is the most important position on the entire team and its THE absolute link between continued success and failure. Taking that financial chance is worth it. Because without that guy, you end up just wandering around hoping to find the 'gem' in the draft. Look how many teams in the NFL are still looking for that pot of gold? It's not easy. It's a crap shoot as to when you land in the draft and the guy you take, and if that guy translates to the NFL with the right coaching.

So yes... you CAN pay starting money to a guy with less than a season worth of starts.

Joel
12-03-2015, 01:30 PM
At this stage maybe Hasselbeck is better than Manning.
If so, why would that be? The sole reason that makes sense is injury, which makes all too much sense, but if that IS the sole reason, Manning should start if/when healthy.


*Sigh* And you just dismiss the evidence of CONSISTENCY by saying "it was one bad game" or "just the super bowl" without analysing WHY Peyton played so badly in those games.

They ALL OF THEM had themes in common, and defensive coordinators understood Peyton's weaknesses and how to exploit them. As I keep stating, and as you keep ignoring, because of his weak arm and equestrian statute mobility Peyton needs some key things to be at all effective: he needs a clean pocket to throw in and time to throw. And because he throws with his lower body, he needs his legs to be healthy.

Deny him any of those things and he's flat BAD. And those games I mentioned were examples of when Peyton was hurt and couldn't step up, Peyton had pressure right in his face and couldn't step up, and Peyton didn't have time to throw.

COMMON THEME.

Peyton's limitations require the OL to protect him better. In 2012 and 2013 and even most of 2014 the OL was generally good at pass-protection. They are generally bad now.
I was with you till there: We both know the line was generally POOR at protection (and everything) in 2012 and 2013: It just LOOKED better because Mannings pre-snap reads and quick throws held down the sack total and moved the chains, as they have his whole career. But that was only possible because DESIGNING the offense meant he knew it inside and out, so where everyone was at all times, without need to look or think. That's the big thing the new playbook changed, and he doesn't know his 4 new linemen well either.

Does scrambling mitigate poor protection better than quick reads and throws? Then why did we dump the guy who won our first division title and playoff game in 6 years to pay $100 million for an immoble potential quadripalegic in his mid-thirties? Will the protection improve? It usually does with freshly rebuilt lines, and could hardly get worse, but even if it doesn't we're back to the first question. The real question is if/when Manning's healthy again this year.

Ziggy
12-03-2015, 01:32 PM
Someone is going to pay Brock in the offseason. To think that it would get done with 8 mill/year is laughable.

Alex Smith is averaging 19 mill/year.
Kaepernick -19 mill/year.
Tannehill- 19 mill/year
Cutler- 18 mill/year
Bradford- 13 mill/year
Foles- 12 mill/ year

None of these guys are elite. It a QB driven league. Brock is going to get paid.

Joel
12-03-2015, 01:39 PM
Meanwhile, all the above conversation about what Oz can demand based on a handful of really impressive games, whether he'll be as good the REST of his career and particularly the part about Kaeps contract giving SF an out Oz' agent has no reason to allow us, are great examples of why the franchise tag makes sense next year: Spend an extra season to see if he's for real, and, if so, pay the man his worth; if not, move on free and clear, with NO dead money.

Currently, the average of the top five QB salaries next year is $19 million (not counting Manning, who won't remain the 3rd highest paid QB next year whether he retires or not.) We would lose the luxury of re-signing Miller and many others with what Manning's slated to get (but definitely won't,) and that would put us in a short term bind, but the very real alternative possibility of handing Oz a huge signing bonus only to eat it all at once in 2017 when he bombs and we cut him would be just as bad.

We're not talking about a huge difference between the franchise tag and his market value next year anyway, not unless he collapses down the stretch to the point we're not desperate to re-sign him and no one else is desperate to steal him anyway. If things remain as they look, how big is the difference between $14-15 million next year on a long contract we hope he continues to justify vs. $19 million to be free and clear if he's just a flash in the pan? How many key starters does that difference re-sign? MAYBE two?

Cugel
12-03-2015, 01:47 PM
I was with you till there: We both know the line was generally POOR at protection (and everything) in 2012 and 2013: It just LOOKED better because Mannings pre-snap reads and quick throws held down the sack total and moved the chains, as they have his whole career. But that was only possible because DESIGNING the offense meant he knew it inside and out, so where everyone was at all times, without need to look or think. That's the big thing the new playbook changed, and he doesn't know his 4 new linemen well either.

Does scrambling mitigate poor protection better than quick reads and throws? Then why did we dump the guy who won our first division title and playoff game in 6 years to pay $100 million for an immoble potential quadripalegic in his mid-thirties? Will the protection improve? It usually does with freshly rebuilt lines, and could hardly get worse, but even if it doesn't we're back to the first question. The real question is if/when Manning's healthy again this year.

Well, I'm not arguing that the OL was great in 2012, but they had a healthy Ryan Clady at LT then, and not Ryan Harris, a career RT. We won't rehash again the OL woes in 2013 and 2014 except to say that things got WORSE this season instead of better.

The OL did "look better" in past seasons because of Manning's offense. But, as we're seeing now with Brock, yes the running game might be better with Brock under center, but when he tries to execute a 5 step drop from under center and throw, the same crappy OL that failed to protect Manning is failing to protect him, and he's getting sacked.

A lot. As in 11 times in a little over 2 games.

I think also that Manning had a lot more weapons in 2012-14 than he does now. They miss the production of Wes Welker and Julius Thomas. Nobody has really stepped up and given the same production. They are trying to work the TEs in more, especially with Vernon Davis, but Norwood, Bennie Fowler, Andre Caldwell or Cody Latimer even taken together are no match for the production Wes Welker gave them.

So, to sum up: Manning was placed in a new offense he wasn't used to and wasn't comfortable in, not protected by his OL when he tried to run that offense, not supported with any kind of running game, and 1/2 of his weapons were taken away and not replaced so he was lacking in 3rd down targets.

Then because the Kubiak offense wasn't working because they couldn't run the ball from the pistol, they told him to go out and win games by himself at age 39. And he got failed and got hurt.

NightTrainLayne
12-03-2015, 01:49 PM
I have thought a bit about the game tape side of it. Sure coaches will be able to break it down and come up with some schemes to confuse Brock.

But then I think about Manning, coaches all know what Manning can do. They know to get pressure on him to keep him from stepping in to his throws. He has to step in to those throws to get them there now...disrupt that and you get bad decisions, bad throws, and bad ints. Add cold weather to it and it's even more limiting. This will cause the defense to stack the box again and play tight on the receivers....run game shut down, no wide open receivers. We get the offense we had the last half of last year and the first part of the this year.

Game tape or not, I think I would take my chances with Brock. He can make throws Manning can't make, move around better than Manning, and make the defenses play back which opens the run game.

I don't disagree. I'm just saying that we won't really know how good Brock can be until we go through another few games. You can't extrapolate a career out of 2 games.

Cugel
12-03-2015, 02:00 PM
Meanwhile, all the above conversation about what Oz can demand based on a handful of really impressive games, whether he'll be as good the REST of his career and particularly the part about Kaeps contract giving SF an out Oz' agent has no reason to allow us, are great examples of why the franchise tag makes sense next year: Spend an extra season to see if he's for real, and, if so, pay the man his worth; if not, move on free and clear, with NO dead money.

Currently, the average of the top five QB salaries next year is $19 million (not counting Manning, who won't remain the 3rd highest paid QB next year whether he retires or not.) We would lose the luxury of re-signing Miller and many others with what Manning's slated to get (but definitely won't,) and that would put us in a short term bind, but the very real alternative possibility of handing Oz a huge signing bonus only to eat it all at once in 2017 when he bombs and we cut him would be just as bad.

We're not talking about a huge difference between the franchise tag and his market value next year anyway, not unless he collapses down the stretch to the point we're not desperate to re-sign him and no one else is desperate to steal him anyway. If things remain as they look, how big is the difference between $14-15 million next year on a long contract we hope he continues to justify vs. $19 million to be free and clear if he's just a flash in the pan? How many key starters does that difference re-sign? MAYBE two?

I don't think any NFL teams use the tag on their future franchise QB.

And I think that while the jury certainly is still out on how good Brock will be in this league (we can't tell from a couple of games or even 1 season - how good did RGIII look his rookie season and what is he now?) the Broncos are going to have to re-sign Brock for next season.

They lack any other sensible choice. They didn't want to commit to Brock by giving him a big signing bonus now because they had no idea at the start of the season whether Peyton Manning would come back and play the last year on his contract. And they didn't want to commit $5+ M a year to Osweiler if Manning would play in 2016.

Now we know that Manning won't be back with the Broncos next season, baring a January miracle.

So, let's assume that Brock struggles the rest of this season. Do they give up on him? No. They look at FA and the draft and realize that they ain't getting a better QB with the 25th-32nd pick of the draft anyway, and sticking with Brock.

As for how much money he will get, that depends on how he and the team performs. But, we have previous benchmarks like the contract Matt Cassel got from the Chiefs ($15 M a year). That's not totally out of line with what Brock would command in FA if he wins 1 playoff game and plays generally well the remainder of this season.

I just look around the NFL and ask "what would Brock Osweiler be worth to a team like the Cleveland Browns, the Jets, the Bills, etc., etc., etc.?"

They would over-pay him based solely on what we've seen so far. There's a desperate shortage of decent QBs coming into the league and lots of teams that need a new QB.

As for using the franchise tag on Brock, the Broncos might do that if they couldn't agree on a contract, but remember that you can't alienate your future franchise QB. And it wouldn't save them much $ if any $ at all.

Plus they need the tag for Von Miller, just as they needed the tag this year for D.T. because it's much easier to get the contract done AFTER the FA sees what other comparable FAs are getting in FA. But, that means you need to use the tag on Miller and they only have 1.

I think after this season, re-signing Brock becomes job #1.

TXBRONC
12-03-2015, 02:03 PM
Basically correct. The reason Jason Cole's report is given such credence in the media is that Jason Cole is ghost-writing a book for John Elway so that people assume that he's talking to people close to Elway and the Broncos if not Elway himself.

No idea if that's true or not.

I could careless that he's ghost-writing a book for Elway. It doesn't mean he knows jack about the day to day operation of the team.

Cugel
12-03-2015, 02:07 PM
I could careless that he's ghost-writing a book for Elway. It doesn't mean he knows jack about the day to day operation of the team.

I don't insist that it does. I'm saying why all the media sources took the report seriously. Remember that Bleacher Report is a very mixed bag. Some guys are little more than scruffy off-the-street bloggers, and some are serious writers with inside connections.

Cole is one of the latter. Doesn't mean this report is accurate. It sounds reasonable and I suspect it's true, sort of, but there's no proof and the team has denied it.

So anybody can either choose to believe it or choose to ignore it and you'd be equally right in doing so.

Joel
12-03-2015, 02:18 PM
The franchise tag's less about saving money (hard to do that paying the average of the top 5 salaries, after all) than buying time with zero liability. I doubt Oz (or his agent) would be too mad about getting $19 million next year. Regardless, the painful costly histories of countless guys like Matts Flynn and Cassel (or Nick Foles?) demonstrate why we can't afford to go all in on Oz based on (maybe) half a dozen games. Miller's a known and large quantity; I'd rather pay him and wait and see if Oz is truly WORTH paying.

What would Oz be worth to a team like the Browns, Jets or Bills? Well, there's a reason they're the Browns, Jets and Bills and we've all but clinched our 5th straight division crown. Lots of great QBs have come out of the bottom of the drafts 1st round; as many as came from the top, actually. We're not married to Oz, and shouldn't be yet: Long engagements make for long marriages; short ones make for short ones, followed by painful costly divorces.

Cugel
12-03-2015, 03:28 PM
The franchise tag's less about saving money (hard to do that paying the average of the top 5 salaries, after all) than buying time with zero liability. I doubt Oz (or his agent) would be too mad about getting $19 million next year. Regardless, the painful costly histories of countless guys like Matts Flynn and Cassel (or Nick Foles?) demonstrate why we can't afford to go all in on Oz based on (maybe) half a dozen games. Miller's a known and large quantity; I'd rather pay him and wait and see if Oz is truly WORTH paying.

Using the franchise tag on either Miller or Brock amounts to the same thing. Buying time for negotiations.

The Broncos have zero intention losing either. But, both will want to wait before signing anything to see what other FAs are getting so that they don't get low-balled in the market.

Your argument that they should make Osweiler play for a year under the tag contract is just not going to happen. No chance at all. They might do that to Von Miller (probably not but possible) but they are not going to force their future franchise QB to play under a 1 year contract.

That's what happened with D.T. this year. He was waiting for Dez Bryant to sign and Dez was waiting for him to sign. It came down to the wire before they could work out the terms of a new deal.

The same thing will happen with both Brock and Von. Both will want to wait until other FAs have signed so they can "establish the market" and there's only 1 franchise tag to go around.

The Broncos want Brock locked up long term because there's no better options out there. Can they go out in the draft at #25 or later of the first round and expect to find a Franchise QB who would be capable of stepping in and leading the team next season, like Mariota or Winston? No chance in Hell. At best they get a guy like Brock in the 2nd round to develop for a few years.

But, develop behind who? Some re-tread veteran who's failed with another team? Like, say, Jimmy Clausen? *urf*

They've invested 4 years in this kid and now it looks like he can play - at least well enough to continue to develop for a year or two regardless of what happens the rest of this season. They can put a buy-out clause in his contract for 2018 and have done with it if they want an out.

If they could sign Von Miller in February, fine, you could use the franchise tag on Osweiler pending further negotiations. But, signing either of them before the FA signing period commences will be extremely difficult.

They might have to accept that they are going to have Von Miller become an unrestricted FA and just try and out bid everybody else. They might well lose him. But, they will try and re-sign Brock starting immediately after the season.

Cugel
12-03-2015, 03:39 PM
What would Oz be worth to a team like the Browns, Jets or Bills? Well, there's a reason they're the Browns, Jets and Bills and we've all but clinched our 5th straight division crown. Lots of great QBs have come out of the bottom of the drafts 1st round; as many as came from the top, actually. We're not married to Oz, and shouldn't be yet: Long engagements make for long marriages; short ones make for short ones, followed by painful costly divorces.

Basically, your argument is that they shouldn't be too eager to lock up Osweiler. Well, they will be desperate to do it IF he continues to perform well, and more relaxed about it if he struggles.

But, either way they are going to much prefer to continue to develop the guy they have worked with for 4 years rather than going out and getting a rookie, especially when there's an almost total lack of QB talent coming out of college these days.

In the 2015 draft there were NO QBs taken between #2 Mariota to the Titans, and the Jets taking Bryce Petty with the 103rd pick of the 4th round.

If you go to the high school dance and all the girls are 4th round uglies, except the homecoming Queen and the Prom-Queen and they are already going steady with other guys and you have no shot there, you are going to look at your date and say "you know, compared with what else is out there you don't look bad at all! I'm sticking with you!" :lol:

Joel
12-03-2015, 04:13 PM
If it comes to a choice between a former #2 overall pick, DRoY and perennial All Pro vs. a former #57 pick and career benchwarmer who's merely been OK in 4-6 starts, that's no choice. Miller's the kind of elite young player whole teams are built around for a whole decade; Oz may or may not be, but we can't even begin to know till NEXT December.

Using the franchise tag to delay Oz' negotiation until we're more certain what we're negotiating FOR makes far more sense than using it on Miller when we know he deserves and we'll thus eventually be forced to pay top dollar: It's a question of when, not if. For Oz, it's very much a question of if, and delaying that negotation till we have an answer makes sense. We can survive a season with a retread QB if necessary; it's not the end of the world, and it's unlikely there'll be two straight draft classes with zero decent QB prospects.

What we can't afford—what would hurt and cost a lot more than a single season without a top QB—is losing one of the few top 3 overall picks who actually vindicated his draft grade, when he's in his prime. Elway doesn't want his GM career remembered for blowing off a 26-year-old first ballot HoFer just to give the next Matt Cassel $14 million/yr for 5 years with another $30 million up front (i.e. $100 million) then the $24 million cap hit for cutting a one-year wonder in 2017 and having neither a QB NOR HoF OLB.

I'm not buying ANYONE a corsage till I've had a close and long enough look to know whether she's ACTUALLY a girl or just a pig in a dress. And no matter how hot she looks, I'm sure as Hell not booking an expensive wedding chapel and Maui honeymoon suite after just 4-6 songs.

SR
12-03-2015, 04:15 PM
What?

Timmy!
12-03-2015, 04:19 PM
What?

#joelisdaydrinkingagain

Joel
12-03-2015, 04:41 PM
Sorry, not reading Cugels posts makes understanding my unread replies impossible. But they're obvious if you read the posts and remember what happened; no need to explain. ;)

SR
12-03-2015, 07:45 PM
Sorry, not reading Cugels posts makes understanding my unread replies impossible. But they're obvious if you read the posts and remember what happened; no need to explain. ;)

Ridiculous.

Cugel
12-03-2015, 10:58 PM
Short version: Joel is saying that he would franchise Brock and sign Von Miller to a long-term deal.

How he would do this before the FA signing period starts, when Miller and Osweiler will both want to test the FA market so that they can see what the top offers are, and they can only franchise one of them he leaves unexplained. If I'm the agent for either one, I'm not having my client sign anything until at least I can see what other offers are on the table. If the Broncos wanted to lock up my client without allowing him to become a FA, they should have made a long-term offer before this season. Now that my client has taken the risk of injury by playing out his contract, they can pay top $.

Shorter version: Elway is not going to do what Joel wants. He's going to choose to keep his future franchise QB at all costs.

He'll try and re-sign Brock before the FA signing period, and failing that, franchise him.

Meanwhile Von Miller is projected to cost $16 million a year or more and yet he's on pace to get 10 sacks this year (has 7 now). Yes, he's a great player, but he's frankly underachieving this year. DeMarcus Ware was the guy who was defensive player of the month, not Von.

It would hurt to lose Von, but I don't think they want to pay $1.6 million per sack or more.

Joel
12-04-2015, 07:57 AM
We don't yet know Oz IS Elways franchise QB, but DO know what Miller is. I doubt Elway passes up a 26-year-old potential HoFer just to re-sign a POSSIBLE franchise QB based on half a dozen (or less) starts. I'm sure he'll do all he can to keep both, but equally sure Von Miller's the higher priority. And saying, "[Elway will] try and re-sign Brock before the FA signing period, and failing that, franchise him," suggests you agree. And if Oz has a great 2016, THEN we'll pay the man the franchise QB cash he'll THEN have earned.

I doubt we take a chance on losing an LT clone just because we want the next Matt Cassel so badly though.

Mike
12-04-2015, 08:50 AM
Someone is going to pay Brock in the offseason. To think that it would get done with 8 mill/year is laughable.

Alex Smith is averaging 19 mill/year.
Kaepernick -19 mill/year.
Tannehill- 19 mill/year
Cutler- 18 mill/year
Bradford- 13 mill/year
Foles- 12 mill/ year

None of these guys are elite. It a QB driven league. Brock is going to get paid.

Jeez...I didn't realize those bums got paid that much. The NFL is flat out lost it's damn mind. Are those guaranteed numbers or what they could earn with incentives?

Joel
12-04-2015, 09:13 AM
The two most overvalued things in the NFL are QBs and midseason draft picks. A smart GM could build a dynasty overnight just by shopping all his draft picks annually in mid-October: So many teams are so scared if getting the same treatment Dallas gave the Vikings 20 years ago that they've gone to the OTHER extreme instead, and the rookie cap only further inflated the value of picks. But QBs are just as bad; what other position is so highly prized that even AVERAGE players command 15% of team payroll?

Maybe the best argument for giving Oz vaults full of cash now is that we'll end up giving it to SOMEONE no matter what, and at least Oz looks likely to earn more of it than most.

7DnBrnc53
12-04-2015, 10:41 AM
Jeez...I didn't realize those bums got paid that much. The NFL is flat out lost it's damn mind. Are those guaranteed numbers or what they could earn with incentives?

That is why the "QB driven league" stuff is nonsense for the most part. Teams win games. The 11 QB's picked #1 overall between 1999 and 2012 only have two rings between them (and Eli has both of them) so far.

Ravage!!!
12-04-2015, 10:47 AM
That is why the "QB driven league" stuff is nonsense for the most part. Teams win games. The 11 QB's picked #1 overall between 1999 and 2012 only have two rings between them (and Eli has both of them) so far.

No.. its a QB driven league, period. There is no doubting that the best chance to win a Super Bowl is to have a top QB. There are always exceptions to that rule, but its MUCH harder to build a team around a 'mediocre' or 'bad' QB than it is to build around a very good one. MUCH harder. So the money spent on a top QB is SOOOOOOOOOOOOO worth the money.

7DnBrnc53
12-04-2015, 11:27 AM
No.. its a QB driven league, period. There is no doubting that the best chance to win a Super Bowl is to have a top QB. There are always exceptions to that rule, but its MUCH harder to build a team around a 'mediocre' or 'bad' QB than it is to build around a very good one. MUCH harder. So the money spent on a top QB is SOOOOOOOOOOOOO worth the money.

Then why does Peyton Manning only have one ring? Why did Elway have no rings until he got a great team around him? It takes a team to win titles. QB's can be over valued.

Look at Jeff George. Ron Meyer thought that he needed a QB badly. So, he gives up Andre Rison, Chris Hinton, and a few premium picks to Atlanta to get him. What did they win in Indy? Jack squat!!

Over the last decade and a half, you saw guys like Trent Dilfer, a young Tom Brady (he was basically carried to those first three SB wins), Brad Johnson, and Russell Wilson win Super Bowls. And, the Steelers won SB 40 despite the bad game that Big Ben was playing. "QB Driven League" is propaganda that the NFL Network feeds people.

Ravage!!!
12-04-2015, 11:57 AM
Then why does Peyton Manning only have one ring? Why did Elway have no rings until he got a great team around him? It takes a team to win titles. QB's can be over valued.

Look at Jeff George. Ron Meyer thought that he needed a QB badly. So, he gives up Andre Rison, Chris Hinton, and a few premium picks to Atlanta to get him. What did they win in Indy? Jack squat!!

Over the last decade and a half, you saw guys like Trent Dilfer, a young Tom Brady (he was basically carried to those first three SB wins), Brad Johnson, and Russell Wilson win Super Bowls. And, the Steelers won SB 40 despite the bad game that Big Ben was playing. "QB Driven League" is propaganda that the NFL Network feeds people.

But you just pointed out teams that needed top QBs to actually win it. The Ravens are the exception to the rule. The Bucs, exception to the rule. How many times have they been a CONTENDER (to actually have a chance to win the Super Bowl) before or after that 1 win? Same with the Seahawks. How many times have they gone to the Super Bowl before Wilson? How many have they gone to since he's been on the roster? Manning may only have 1 ring, but how many times did he get his team into the playoffs and to the AFC CHampionship? He's been there 3 times, how many 'bad or average" QBs can say the same thing?

Having a good QB doesn't GUARANTEE you anything, but it certainly gives you a HUGE HUGE advantage and headstart. You won't be the consistant and constant contenders with "average" QBs. Sure, you'll have that "one year" where you are contenders, but that's not the point.

I have ZERO idea as to what point you are trying to make with Jeff George.

over the last 15 years, you mention 2 teams that don't have top QBs.... Dilfer and Johnson. You can say all you want about a "young Brady".. but just because we witnessed the infantcy of a HoF career doesn't mean he wasn't something special. They did just beat the "Greatest show on earth." Don't take away from him in an attempt to try and make your point.

The Steeler 'won' despite a bad game from Big Ben. So what? What point does that make? They MADE it to the Super Bowl because of Ben. They are obviously HUGE contenders when he's in the roster, and are absolutely NOT contenders when he is NOT in the starting lineup.

The "QB Driven League" is not NFL propoganda :lol: IT's observations made by those actually watching the games. The Chiefs have a pretty good team. Why are they NOT considered to be 'real' Super Bowl contenders? Because of their lack of QB. Why are people skeptical of the Bengals in the playoffs? Because of the QB play. WHat teams do you consider to be Super Bowl contenders in the AFC and NFC and give me a list of their QBs, and we'll see if its n't a QB driven league.

You don't have a good QB, your chances of getting to the Super Bowl are nearly nil, but there are always exceptions to the rule. I personally don't want to try and be an "exception" considering the odds.

Joel
12-04-2015, 01:45 PM
It's easier and often cheaper to find a QB and a couple good WRs than half a dozen linemen and a couple good RBs: That's why the AFL was a passers league when competing with the older, better and more respected NFL for players and ratings. But which approach succeeds most consistently?

Well, the Raiders were the sole AFL team with consistent post-merger success vs. the NFL, managing 3 SB wins; the only other AFL teams who won a SB were one lucky Jets team, the Chiefs "matriculating the ball down the field" on the ground and Miamis repeat running champs. 7 championships in 31 seasons; the rest were NFL teams given to the AFL to even out the conferences, and even 3 of those 7 were run-first teams, not mad bombers like the Raiders.

That's how it was until we won back-to-back by RUNNING Terrell Davis rather than expecting Elway to do it all the same way that got us killed in 3 SBs in the '80s against far better NFL teams, as was the norm in EVERY SB before our repeat. Sure, recent rule changes heavily favor the pass at the expense of the run, but even recent SB champs do better with run-heavy defensive approaches like the Ravens, Steelers and Seahawks than hoping a Brees or Manning can light up teams for 45 pts/gm/wk through February.

It's a passers league for the same reasons the AFL featured mad bombers and started stitching names on jerseys for the cameras. But the QB is grossly overrated; he's the single most important PLAYER, but only because the more important offensive line consists of five players, not just one. That's not to say elite QBs aren't worth their salaries, only that average to good QBs aren't worth 75% as much. Elite pass rushers are worth their pay, too, but that doesn't mean an average pass rusher's worth $5-6 million/yr.

Ravage!!!
12-04-2015, 02:14 PM
he's not grossly overrated. That's an opinion that the FAR few feel, and don't lay it out there as if it's fact. I personally find it pretty foolish to think the QB is overrated.

Lets not also note that the Broncos won those Super Bowls with a passing game. It's absurd, and blind, to not note that Davis was more effective because we had Elway throwing to Smith, McCaffrey, and Sharp...not to mention hitting the back out of the backfield to both Davis and Griffith. Lets not diminish the fact that Elway, the QB, had just as much to do with that offense being as prolific and powerful as the RB did. We don't win those Super Bowls with just any QB, nor on the running game alone.... despite some ridiculous points made about the NFL 60 years ago.

I Eat Staples
12-04-2015, 02:22 PM
The QB position is not overrated. Many QBs in the NFL are overrated BECAUSE of how important the QB position is.

The mistake GMs make is throwing big money at the first guy they have who is even serviceable at the position, when in reality, you should either have an elite QB or be putting your team in position to draft one. Hence why QBs like Alex Smith are pure cancer to an organization.

Joel
12-04-2015, 02:24 PM
We won those SBs with BALANCE, but Elway had the kind of '97 season and SB one would expect of a 37-year-old QB; Davis, on the other hand, became the first and ONLY person to score 3 RUSHING TDs in a SB, then followed that up with a 2000 yd season. Dilfer, Flacco and Wilson didn't win their SBs 60 years ago (I'd throw in Big Ben, but....)

Like I say, name another position in ANY sport where a merely average player can get 15% of the teams payroll for a .500 (or worse) record. But that $17 million couldn't be better spent elsewhere: Even a BAD franchise QB gives EVERY team its BEST shot at a championship. :rolleyes:

Ravage!!!
12-04-2015, 02:29 PM
We won those SBs with BALANCE, but Elway had the kind of '97 season and SB one would expect of a 37-year-old QB; Davis, on the other hand, became the first and ONLY person to score 3 RUSHING TDs in a SB, then followed that up with a 2000 yd season. Dilfer, Flacco and Wilson didn't win their SBs 60 years ago (I'd throw in Big Ben, but....)

So what's your point? That the Broncos go to and win the Super Bowls with any QB..or that it's purely a coincidence that the Seahawks go to two straight SUper Bowls when Wilson is at QB as well as Rothlesburger? If you think for a moment that Roth is just some 'average' QB then I'm LAUGHING in your face. But then, you have proved to have some pretty weird evaluations of QB play.

I also find it funny that you use Flacco as another example of soemthing, when he OBVIOUSLY didn't have the defense that Dilfer had, and HIS PLAY was an OBVIOUS reason for their success. Dilfer is an exception to the rule. There is always an exception.

But then, you thought we should have just built around Tebow, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised taht you think any QB will do.

Ravage!!!
12-04-2015, 02:31 PM
The QB position is not overrated. Many QBs in the NFL are overrated BECAUSE of how important the QB position is.

The mistake GMs make is throwing big money at the first guy they have who is even serviceable at the position, when in reality, you should either have an elite QB or be putting your team in position to draft one. Hence why QBs like Alex Smith are pure cancer to an organization.

Very well put. GMs gamble on QBs because of how important the position is. It's where teams get into a dilemma of choosing between paying the guy, or trying the crap shoot of finding another. Which is what brings us back to the discussion from which this started.

Cugel
12-04-2015, 03:30 PM
We don't yet know Oz IS Elways franchise QB, but DO know what Miller is. I doubt Elway passes up a 26-year-old potential HoFer just to re-sign a POSSIBLE franchise QB based on half a dozen (or less) starts. I'm sure he'll do all he can to keep both, but equally sure Von Miller's the higher priority. And saying, "[Elway will] try and re-sign Brock before the FA signing period, and failing that, franchise him," suggests you agree. And if Oz has a great 2016, THEN we'll pay the man the franchise QB cash he'll THEN have earned.

I doubt we take a chance on losing an LT clone just because we want the next Matt Cassel so badly though.

Well, I've been wrong before, but I just don't think Elway thinks the same way you do Joel. Of course he doesn't want to lose either player. He drafted both and he's notoriously loyal to his own draft picks. Nate Irving is one of the few he's let go and he was a 3rd rounder, not the #2 pick of the draft.

I suppose it really comes down to worst case scenarios. Can the Broncos manage to outbid everybody for both players?

Can they franchise Miller and leave Brock as an un-restricted FA, then hope to re-sign him in FA?

Probably they will know long before March whether Brock is already a SB caliber QB or whether he's not or whether (most likely) the jury is still out on that question.

But, assume they don't re-sign him. Then what? With this defense the Broncos, like the Seahawks of 2012-2014 are a team that could possibly win the SB any year. They have the hardest ingredient to obtain - a great defense. And we know that great offenses don't win SBs - only 1 out of the top 10 scoring offenses of all time won a SB - the 1999 Rams, and they were #8 on the list.

Brock might never be worthy of holding Manning's jock, but he's now a 4th year veteran, and he's not psychologically overwhelmed by the job. Even if he struggles now, there's a chance he could improve next season with a year to get used to starting in the NFL.

If he's simply GOOD, not great, then the Broncos are probably in the same class as the Bengals or Colts, among the conference favorites and perhaps a bit behind the Pats as future prospects.

If he can BECOME good, even if he's not that good this year he'd be worth keeping.

The alternative is that you try and find a new rookie and train him for 3 years? Pick up some FA who has already failed with some other team and hope to redeem him, like so many teams are forced to do?

Those are not very good options! Far better to keep Brock and work on fixing whatever limitations he might show this season. But to do that they need to re-sign him, and that means committing to paying him this off-season, so they're going to have to do that.

Cugel
12-04-2015, 03:48 PM
Quote Originally Posted by I Eat Staples View Post
The QB position is not overrated. Many QBs in the NFL are overrated BECAUSE of how important the QB position is.

The mistake GMs make is throwing big money at the first guy they have who is even serviceable at the position, when in reality, you should either have an elite QB or be putting your team in position to draft one. Hence why QBs like Alex Smith are pure cancer to an organization.

This is true, but think of the problem. Suppose you are the Jets and you had a disastrous year. You went 4-12 and fired Rex Ryan, but now despite having the same record that netted the 2012 Broncos the #2 pick of the draft, you are drafting at #6 behind the Bucs, Titans, Jaguars, Raiders and Redskins. What are your chances of drafting a QB? None. There are only two good QB prospects in the entire draft, and neither the Bucs nor the Titans had any interest whatever in entertaining offers for their picks. None.

So, you're totally screwed (unless you think Ryan Fitzpatrick is going to be their franchise QB of the future. Just no.)

So were the 49ers, the Redskins, the Bills and other teams that desperately needed a franchise QB but didn't get one. That is what happens MOST years, 2015 wasn't unusual.

In 2006, your choices were: Vince Young, Matt Leinart or Jay Cutler. In 2007: Jamarcus Russell, Brady Quinn or Kevin Kolb. In 2009: After Matt Stafford went #1, Mark Sanchez or Josh Freeman. In 2010: After Sam Bradford went #1, Tim Tebow or Jimmy Clausen.

Lots of years there's just nobody worth drafting at all. Most years, and even if there is someone like in 2008, when Matt Ryan and Joe Flacco were drafted, Ryan went #1 and Flacco was gone by #18.

Teams wait for years and years to draft someone and half the time (or all the time if you're the Browns), they get someone, and get all excited about his potential, only he turns out to be Mark Sanchez or Christian Ponder, or Johnny Manziel.

Stick with Brock.

VonDoom
12-04-2015, 03:56 PM
Going back to the issue of how Os will be compensated in the future, Barnwell has a piece up today that addresses this (among other things):


The jury's still out on Brock Osweiler, but you can certainly say that he has managed to pass through his first two professional starts without seeming overwhelmed by the job. He has thrown only one interception during those two starts, which is a nice change of pace after Peyton Manning threw 17 in nine games. The Denver rushing attack certainly looks better with Osweiler operating from under center (as coach Gary Kubiak believes nature intended) versus what Manning was doing in the pistol, but some of that is likely opponent-related. The Broncos gashed the Bears, who have the league's second-worst run defense, and only found a spark against the Patriots after Dont'a Hightower went down with a knee injury.

Under any circumstances, Osweiler's been impressive enough to justify holding onto the starting role for the remainder of the season. What he does over that stretch has the potential to be very lucrative. The Broncos decided against signing Osweiler to a contract extension before the season, meaning that Osweiler will finish up his rookie contract and become an unrestricted free agent after the year. Denver could give Osweiler a massive raise of more than $20 million and stick him with the franchise tag, but that would preclude them from applying the tag to Von Miller, who also needs a new deal. The Broncos can clear $19 million off of their 2016 cap by moving on from Manning, but a one-year deal probably won't be enough if Osweiler plays well. If he looks like a viable starting quarterback into and through the postseason, Osweiler is going to have as much leverage as any player in football. And make no mistake: the most important factor in determining how much a player is going to make is not talent. It's leverage.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/14285129/johnny-manziel-brock-osweiler-bill-barnwell-december-team-nfl

Northman
12-04-2015, 04:46 PM
QB's certainly do matter. While you can get to a SB and sometimes win one with a average QB the opportunities (what Ravage pointed out) are far and few between. Looking below you can see that Elite QB's have made it to 14 of the last 15 SB's (win or lose) compared to QB's who are simply average or journeyman. Out of the elite QB's they have managed to lead teams to 10 championships vs 6 for the average QB's.

Elite-
Tom Brady - Won 4, Lost 2
Kurt Warner - Won 1, Lost 2
Peyton Manning- Won 1, Lost 2
Big Ben- Won 2, Lost 1
Aaron Rodgers- Won 1
Drew Brees- Won 1




Average/Journeyman-
Trent Dilfer - Won 1
Brad Johnson - Won
Eli Manning- Won 2
Joe Flacco- Won 1
Russel Wilson- Won 1, Lost 1
Kerry Collins - Lost
Rich Gannon - Lost
Donovan McNabb- Lost
Jake Delhomme- Lost
Matt Hassleback- Lost
Rex Grossman- Lost
Colin Kaepernick- Lost

TimHippo
12-04-2015, 05:05 PM
QB's certainly do matter. While you can get to a SB and sometimes win one with a average QB the opportunities (what Ravage pointed out) are far and few between. Looking below you can see that Elite QB's have made it to 14 of the last 15 SB's (win or lose) compared to QB's who are simply average or journeyman. Out of the elite QB's they have managed to lead teams to 10 championships vs 6 for the average QB's.

Elite-
Tom Brady - Won 4, Lost 2
Kurt Warner - Won 1, Lost 2
Peyton Manning- Won 1, Lost 2
Big Ben- Won 2, Lost 1
Aaron Rodgers- Won 1
Drew Brees- Won 1




Average/Journeyman-
Trent Dilfer - Won 1
Brad Johnson - Won
Eli Manning- Won 2
Joe Flacco- Won 1
Russel Wilson- Won 1, Lost 1
Kerry Collins - Lost
Rich Gannon - Lost
Donovan McNabb- Lost
Jake Delhomme- Lost
Matt Hassleback- Lost
Rex Grossman- Lost
Colin Kaepernick- Lost

Eli in the average/journeyman category seems a little arbitrary. They don't win either Super Bowl without his clutch play. I would say Eli has been elite in the playoffs and super bowl, just not a good regular season qb.

Peyton is kind of the opposite. One of the greatest regular season QBs ever but is average at best in the postseason even dating back to Tennessee.

The only criteria I can discern from your list is that a pass happy heavily pass orineted regular season QB is considered "Elite", save for Rothelesburger.

And how is Eli a journeyman when Big Ben is considered elite?

Under your criteria where do you put Bradshaw? Elite or journeyman/average? Bart Star? Roger Staubach? Joe Montana? John Elway?

SR
12-04-2015, 05:09 PM
Eli in the average/journeyman category seems a little arbitrary. They don't win either Super Bowl without his clutch play. I would say Eli has been elite in the playoffs and super bowl, just not a good regular season qb. Peyton is kind of the opposite. One of the greatest regular season QBs ever but is average at best in the postseason even dating back to Tennessee. The only criteria I can discern from your list is that a pass happy heavily pass orineted regular season QB is considered "Elite", save for Rothelesburger. And how is Eli a journeyman when Big Ben is considered elite? Under your criteria where do you put Bradshaw? Elite or journeyman/average? Bart Star? Roger Staubach? Joe Montana? John Elway?

He said in the last 10 years. Also, about Eli, he isn't an elite QB in my book. He's right there with guys like Rivers.

Northman
12-04-2015, 05:16 PM
Eli in the average/journeyman category seems a little arbitrary. They don't win either Super Bowl without his clutch play. I would say Eli has been elite in the playoffs and super bowl, just not a good regular season qb.

Peyton is kind of the opposite. One of the greatest regular season QBs ever but is average at best in the postseason even dating back to Tennessee.

Certainly fair points, i think Eli, Flacco, and Wilson could still be on the bubble in terms of whether they can be seen as elite QB's. Flacco and Wilson are still pretty young so their games (overall) could improve them to the point where they will be viewed differently by the time their careers are over. The reason why i dont put Eli in that category just yet is because in both SB's that they managed to win it basically took a very lucky play (Eli not being sacked and then having Tyree make a catch that he most certainly could never do again} and then in the second meeting Welker dropped a sure pass that would of kept a game winning drive going for NE at the end of the game. So to me the circumstances of those SB's had a lot more to it rather than Eli just destroying the Patriots in any kind of way.


And how is Eli a journeyman when Big Ben is considered elite?

I think Ben brings a lot more to the table than Eli does and have seen Ben play out of his mind at times when his line breaks down vs what Eli does when his line breaks down. For me, the kind of drives that happened at the end of the Cardinals SB vs the first Patriots SB are vastly different in comparison. I just think Eli has been extremely lucky in the 2 SB's he has managed to win rather than actual talent.


Under your criteria where do you put Bradshaw? Elite or journeyman/average? Bart Star? Roger Staubach? Joe Montana? John Elway?

I cant comment on Bradshaw, Star, or Staubauch. Montana and Elway are clearly elite to me but the other 3 played well before i even watched football and they played in a totally different era of football.

TimHippo
12-04-2015, 05:17 PM
He said in the last 10 years. Also, about Eli, he isn't an elite QB in my book. He's right there with guys like Rivers.

Yes, but I'd like to see where he rates guys like Stuabach, Starr, Bradshaw, Elway, Montana, Young.

Because his criteria for elite seems to be based off guys who are in pass happy offenses who throw the ball a ton.

I mean look at Brady/Manning/Warner/Rodgers/Brees. All those guys played in pass first offenses that put up big regular season numbers and didn't have stud running back or dominant running games.

Northman
12-04-2015, 05:23 PM
I would also point out that even if you were someone who considers Eli Elite that it would only strengthen the point that you need an Elite QB to have a realistic chance (or more opportunities) to get to one.

TimHippo
12-04-2015, 05:25 PM
Certainly fair points, i think Eli, Flacco, and Wilson could still be on the bubble in terms of whether they can be seen as elite QB's. Flacco and Wilson are still pretty young so their games (overall) could improve them to the point where they will be viewed differently by the time their careers are over. The reason why i dont put Eli in that category just yet is because in both SB's that they managed to win it basically took a very lucky play (Eli not being sacked and then having Tyree make a catch that he most certainly could never do again} and then in the second meeting Welker dropped a sure pass that would of kept a game winning drive going for NE at the end of the game. So to me the circumstances of those SB's had a lot more to it rather than Eli just destroying the Patriots in any kind of way.



I think Ben brings a lot more to the table than Eli does and have seen Ben play out of his mind at times when his line breaks down vs what Eli does when his line breaks down. For me, the kind of drives that happened at the end of the Cardinals SB vs the first Patriots SB are vastly different in comparison. I just think Eli has been extremely lucky in the 2 SB's he has managed to win rather than actual talent.



I cant comment on Bradshaw, Star, or Staubauch. Montana and Elway are clearly elite to me but the other 3 played well before i even watched football and they played in a totally different era of football.

In Rothlesburger's first superbowl he was petrified and basically couldn't function and the Steelers won despite him. He said so himself. He had 123 yards 2 int 0 TDs. Then they also lost to Green Bay. So he's only performed well and won in one super bowl.

If you look at Eli's Super Bowl's they do not win without him. It's not just the Tyree play or some other play, it's about being locked on the entire series or two when it counts. That's what being clutch is.

If you compare that to Peyton Manning's Super Bowls you can see where Peyton messes up. Because when it comes to clutch time he didn't complete the pass or had it intercepted vs New Orleans. Obviously vs Seattle they were just creamed.

So while of course there's some luck involved, you have to look at the entire game and if a guy can play mistake free and attack style offensive football at the same time. Which is actually quiet rare at the super bowl level besides maybe Joe Montana Tom Brady, and Eli Manning. Usually all you have to do play mistake free and game manage and let your defense and run game dominate into a lopsided Super Bowl victory.

Northman
12-04-2015, 05:29 PM
In Rothlesburger's first superbowl he was petrified and basically couldn't function and the Steelers won despite him. He said so himself. He had 123 yards 2 int 0 TDs. Then they also lost to Green Bay. So he's only performed well and won in one super bowl.

If you look at Eli's Super Bowl's they do not win without him. It's not just the Tyree play or some other play, it's about being locked on the entire series or two when it counts. That's what being clutch is.

If you compare that to Peyton Manning's Super Bowls you can see where Peyton messes up. Because when it comes to clutch time he didn't complete the pass or had it intercepted vs New Orleans. Obviously vs Seattle they were just creamed.

So while of course there's some luck involved, you have to look at the entire game and if a guy can play mistake free and attack style offensive football at the same time. Which is actually quiet rare at the super bowl level besides maybe Joe Montana Tom Brady, and Eli Manning. Usually all you have to do play mistake free and game manage and let your defense and run game dominate into a lopsided Super Bowl victory.


But in the case of Ben you also have to understand that he was only in his 2nd year when they played the Hawks. Much like Brady early on youth played a role of how the played and fared in those SB's. I just dont think Eli is quite there yet but if you feel differently thats ok. Again, to add Eli into the elite category would only prove that it does take a quality QB to be a consistent contender.

Joel
12-04-2015, 05:31 PM
Well, I've been wrong before, but I just don't think Elway thinks the same way you do Joel. Of course he doesn't want to lose either player. He drafted both and he's notoriously loyal to his own draft picks. Nate Irving is one of the few he's let go and he was a 3rd rounder, not the #2 pick of the draft.

I suppose it really comes down to worst case scenarios. Can the Broncos manage to outbid everybody for both players?

Can they franchise Miller and leave Brock as an un-restricted FA, then hope to re-sign him in FA?

Probably they will know long before March whether Brock is already a SB caliber QB or whether he's not or whether (most likely) the jury is still out on that question.
This is the problem in a nutshell: They'll probably know long before March that they CAN'T know ANYTHING for sure by March—about OZ; they already know plenty about MILLER. Guess whom that makes the higher priority. Especially when a franchise tag gives them time to find out for sure about Oz.


But, assume they don't re-sign him. Then what? With this defense the Broncos, like the Seahawks of 2012-2014 are a team that could possibly win the SB any year. They have the hardest ingredient to obtain - a great defense. And we know that great offenses don't win SBs - only 1 out of the top 10 scoring offenses of all time won a SB - the 1999 Rams, and they were #8 on the list.

Brock might never be worthy of holding Manning's jock, but he's now a 4th year veteran, and he's not psychologically overwhelmed by the job. Even if he struggles now, there's a chance he could improve next season with a year to get used to starting in the NFL.

If he's simply GOOD, not great, then the Broncos are probably in the same class as the Bengals or Colts, among the conference favorites and perhaps a bit behind the Pats as future prospects.

If he can BECOME good, even if he's not that good this year he'd be worth keeping.

The alternative is that you try and find a new rookie and train him for 3 years? Pick up some FA who has already failed with some other team and hope to redeem him, like so many teams are forced to do?

Those are not very good options! Far better to keep Brock and work on fixing whatever limitations he might show this season. But to do that they need to re-sign him, and that means committing to paying him this off-season, so they're going to have to do that.
Those other options aren't terrible and have worked out for teams in the past; Steve Young and Brett Favre turned out OK, and Plunkett won a couple SBs with his THIRD team. It's where we'd be if Oz bombs, and let's not pretend that looking good against an awful Bears team and merely OK against the Pats prove he won't crash and burn like countless one-year wonders before him. You repeatedly insisted his chances were nil before now; 2 games got you to do a 180°?

Regardless, they DON'T have to commit to a big Oz payday to keep him, at least not a long term payday: They can franchise him, which will still be a huge payday, and may leave most of the league laughing in its sleeve this time next year, when we're paying a 6-10 QB $19 million. But it leaves us an out for 2017, while preserving the ability to give him a big LONG payday then if he plays well throughout 2016.

We'll still re-sign Von Miller either way, because we don't NEED to wait to know what we've got there, which in turn means we KNOW we'll ALWAYS have to either pay top dollar or let him walk; a franchise tag can't change THAT choice, only delay it a year. That year makes little difference for a proven All Pro like Miller, but could make all the difference in the world for Oz, who's NOT a "four year vet," but a four year benchwarmer who's had all of TWO starts.

TimHippo
12-04-2015, 05:32 PM
I would also point out that even if you were someone who considers Eli Elite that it would only strengthen the point that you need an Elite QB to have a realistic chance (or more opportunities) to get to one.

In the last 10 years I would agree with that. If you include Eli as elite and leave an opening for Flacco/Russell Wilson depending on how their career playout basically the only two guys who won a super bowl as journeyman are Brad Johnson and Trent Dilfer.

Of course alot of it can be monday morning quarterbacking. Donovan McNabb, who I've never liked, for example was considered elite at one time and was certainly drafted high as a franchise guy. But since he lost a super bowl we can simply call him a journeyman which I'm not sure is accurate. I mean a average/journeyman guy to me seems like a guy nobody wants, who was a free agent or drafted low 1st or later and is on his 2nd or 3rd team.

Northman
12-04-2015, 05:36 PM
In the last 10 years I would agree with that. If you include Eli as elite and leave an opening for Flacco/Russell Wilson depending on how their career playout basically the only two guys who won a super bowl as journeyman are Brad Johnson and Trent Dilfer.

Of course alot of it can be monday morning quarterbacking. Donovan McNabb, who I've never liked, for example was considered elite at one time and was certainly drafted high as a franchise guy. But since he lost a super bowl we can simply call him a journeyman which I'm not sure is accurate. I mean a average/journeyman guy to me seems like a guy nobody wants, who was a free agent or drafted low 1st or later and is on his 2nd or 3rd team.

I always saw McNabb as a above average QB but never quite elite. Pretty much where i have Eli, Flacco, and Wilson but i will always credit Donovan for actually learning to pass first, run second when he came into the league. He took the guidance from Reid and learned how to be a very good passing QB. Never saw him as elite but he was decent which is fine, he managed to lead his team to at least one SB appearance so that says something.

TimHippo
12-04-2015, 05:36 PM
This is the problem in a nutshell: They'll probably know long before March that they CAN'T know ANYTHING for sure by March—about OZ; they already know plenty about MILLER. Guess whom that makes the higher priority. Especially when a franchise tag gives them time to find out for sure about Oz.


Those other options aren't terrible and have worked out for teams in the past; Steve Young and Brett Favre turned out OK, and Plunkett won a couple SBs with his THIRD team. It's where we'd be if Oz bombs, and let's not pretend that looking good against an awful Bears team and merely OK against the Pats prove he won't crash and burn like countless one-year wonders before him. You repeatedly insisted his chances were nil before now; 2 games got you to do a 180°?

Regardless, they DON'T have to commit to a big Oz payday to keep him, at least not a long term payday: They can franchise him, which will still be a huge payday, and may leave most of the league laughing in its sleeve this time next year, when we're paying a 6-10 QB $19 million. But it leaves us an out for 2017, while preserving the ability to give him a big LONG payday then if he plays well throughout 2016.

We'll still re-sign Von Miller either way, because we don't NEED to wait to know what we've got there, which in turn means we KNOW we'll ALWAYS have to either pay top dollar or let him walk; a franchise tag can't change THAT choice, only delay it a year. That year makes little difference for a proven All Pro like Miller, but could make all the difference in the world for Oz, who's NOT a "four year vet," but a four year benchwarmer who's had all of TWO starts.

I think Oz will resign for something reasonable. Broncos and Elway have treated him well and Oz isn't a greedy guy, just a down to earth Montana kid. Also he's Elways' son's best friend and former roommate so I can't see him leaving unless some team decided to pay him an insane amount.

Joel
12-04-2015, 05:42 PM
This is true, but think of the problem. Suppose you are the Jets and you had a disastrous year. You went 4-12 and fired Rex Ryan, but now despite having the same record that netted the 2012 Broncos the #2 pick of the draft, you are drafting at #6 behind the Bucs, Titans, Jaguars, Raiders and Redskins. What are your chances of drafting a QB? None. There are only two good QB prospects in the entire draft, and neither the Bucs nor the Titans had any interest whatever in entertaining offers for their picks. None.

So, you're totally screwed (unless you think Ryan Fitzpatrick is going to be their franchise QB of the future. Just no.)

So were the 49ers, the Redskins, the Bills and other teams that desperately needed a franchise QB but didn't get one. That is what happens MOST years, 2015 wasn't unusual.

In 2006, your choices were: Vince Young, Matt Leinart or Jay Cutler. In 2007: Jamarcus Russell, Brady Quinn or Kevin Kolb. In 2009: After Matt Stafford went #1, Mark Sanchez or Josh Freeman. In 2010: After Sam Bradford went #1, Tim Tebow or Jimmy Clausen.

Lots of years there's just nobody worth drafting at all. Most years, and even if there is someone like in 2008, when Matt Ryan and Joe Flacco were drafted, Ryan went #1 and Flacco was gone by #18.

Teams wait for years and years to draft someone and half the time (or all the time if you're the Browns), they get someone, and get all excited about his potential, only he turns out to be Mark Sanchez or Christian Ponder, or Johnny Manziel.

Stick with Brock.
It's not as simple as saying, "all the QBs in multiple drafts bombed, therefore there are a maximum of one or two good QBs in most drafts."

It takes more than a high draft grade to make a good QB or any other position player; even with talent, drive and character, they need coaching to develop to an NFL level, weapons to take advantage of it and protection to survive long enough for both. Fortunately, ANY QB we get will have all three (I really can't imagine Kubiak and Dennison would run a re-tread line for a full two seasons when the one they inherited was so terrible.)

Just because lots of top draft picks bombed doesn't mean drafts rarely have more than one or two good QBs, it just means that CONSISTENTLY drafting high denotes problems far broader and deeper than any one player can solve. It didn't take a genius to know Cutlers career ended the day we traded him, and debating whether he or Tebow ever HAD the talent to succeed is mooted by the fact that playing for Lovies Bears or Ryans Jets set ANY QB up to fail. Again, is Derek Carr REALLY that much better than David?

There's a reason Elway told the pathetic Colts he'd rather play on a Yankees farm team than start for them.

TimHippo
12-04-2015, 05:42 PM
I always saw McNabb as a above average QB but never quite elite. Pretty much where i have Eli, Flacco, and Wilson but i will always credit Donovan for actually learning to pass first, run second when he came into the league. He took the guidance from Reid and learned how to be a very good passing QB. Never saw him as elite but he was decent which is fine, he managed to lead his team to at least one SB appearance so that says something.

The hardest thing though is to know who is going to be elite. In retrospect it can be all clear but unless you get a veteran free agent signing like Peyton or Drew Brees the only way you can really evaluate that is by drafting someone with #1 overall pick.
And even then it doesn't always work out.

Joel
12-04-2015, 05:49 PM
I think Oz will resign for something reasonable. Broncos and Elway have treated him well and Oz isn't a greedy guy, just a down to earth Montana kid. Also he's Elways' son's best friend and former roommate so I can't see him leaving unless some team decided to pay him an insane amount.
The problem is "reasonable" franchise QB money these days is close to $20 million/yr, with a commensurate pro-rated signing bonus, and we still have no idea if Oz is actually WORTH that, or if we'll still be LOOKING for that guy in 2017, with Oz back on the bench. If that's the case, having a 5 yr, $100 million deal with Oz on our cap will really tie our hands, and if we cutting him would just mean that huge pro-rated signing bonus all accelerates to 2017: Whom can we sign THEN?

Franchise him and see what we've got; if it's a franchise QB, pay him accordingly from 2017 into the next decade, if not, re-sign him for backup money and find our guy.

TimHippo
12-04-2015, 05:52 PM
The problem is "reasonable" franchise QB money these days is close to $20 million/yr, with a commensurate pro-rated signing bonus, and we still have no idea if Oz is actually WORTH that, or if we'll still be LOOKING for that guy in 2017, with Oz back on the bench. If that's the case, having a 5 yr, $100 million deal with Oz on our cap will really tie our hands, and if we cutting him would just mean that huge pro-rated signing bonus all accelerates to 2017: Whom can we sign THEN?

Franchise him and see what we've got; if it's a franchise QB, pay him accordingly from 2017 into the next decade, if not, re-sign him for backup money and find our guy.

Things can change in the next couple games but as of right now I'd still be in favor of getting a Drew Brees or Matt Stafford and having Oz as a backup.
You have someone like Brees at the helm and you know what you are getting.

Valar Morghulis
12-04-2015, 05:59 PM
I would give him a three year deal. 8 mil a year fully guaranteed.

If he is worth it reward him with a new deal after 18 months.

TimHippo
12-04-2015, 06:05 PM
I would give him a three year deal. 8 mil a year fully guaranteed.

If he is worth it reward him with a new deal after 18 months.

Seems fair.

Timmy!
12-04-2015, 06:53 PM
You guys are smoking crack. Seriously. Oz is going to get AT LEAST 10 mil a year, and will likely be offered more. The one thing the Broncos have going is Oz is a Rocky Mountain kid, he wants to stay in this area. The reason he went to ASU instead of other places (had several scholarships to major east coast schools, including FSU I believe) is because there was a regular nonstop flight between Kalispell and Phoenix. However, the young man isn't dumb and will not play for peanuts, especially after sitting for so long. Thinking otherwise is pure delusional fantasy.

gregbroncs
12-04-2015, 07:18 PM
Things can change in the next couple games but as of right now I'd still be in favor of getting a Drew Brees or Matt Stafford and having Oz as a backup.
You have someone like Brees at the helm and you know what you are getting.Oz is not signing if Brees does. Also Brees is on the verge of becoming this years Manning. He can't last that much longer. As much as I like and respect what Brees has done in the league this team does not need him now. Especially when Oz is playing well.

Stafford sucks. I'm would rather go with Oz than ever try and get Stafford.

gregbroncs
12-04-2015, 07:20 PM
I would give him a three year deal. 8 mil a year fully guaranteed.

If he is worth it reward him with a new deal after 18 months.Who are you signing when he says no and signs elsewhere? I don't know much about NFL contract but generally speaking starting QB seem to make more than 8M a year.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
12-04-2015, 07:28 PM
You guys are smoking crack. Seriously. Oz is going to get AT LEAST 10 mil a year, and will likely be offered more. The one thing the Broncos have going is Oz is a Rocky Mountain kid, he wants to stay in this area. The reason he went to ASU instead of other places (had several scholarships to major east coast schools, including FSU I believe) is because there was a regular nonstop flight between Kalispell and Phoenix. However, the young man isn't dumb and will not play for peanuts, especially after sitting for so long. Thinking otherwise is pure delusional fantasy.

You're probably right, except the crack part. I don't smoke crack.

TXBRONC
12-04-2015, 07:31 PM
You're probably right, except the crack part. I don't smoke crack.

I don't smoke at all.

LawDog
12-04-2015, 07:34 PM
You guys are smoking crack. Seriously. Oz is going to get AT LEAST 10 mil a year, and will likely be offered more. The one thing the Broncos have going is Oz is a Rocky Mountain kid, he wants to stay in this area. The reason he went to ASU instead of other places (had several scholarships to major east coast schools, including FSU I believe) is because there was a regular nonstop flight between Kalispell and Phoenix. However, the young man isn't dumb and will not play for peanuts, especially after sitting for so long. Thinking otherwise is pure delusional fantasy.

The only way he goes somewhere else is if he gets drunk, trips over his dog and tears and ACL. I would be very surprised if he is not the starter next year. I don't get why people are still considering that there is some great mystery about how he will be as an NFL QB. Will he continue to have growing pains? Sure, but he didn't just fall off an NCAA charter bus last week, he's been practicing and preparing for three and a half years in one of the top organizations in the league, behind one of the best ever at the position, being observed closely by the absolute best to play it. They know what he can do, and the confidence they are placing in him now tells you all you need to know. Having said that, they will work out a contract that pays him what he is worth, the contract will protect the player and the team as much as possible, and we will all look back at this silly conversation in a few years and wonder what the hubbub was all about. My guess is it will be in the 12-15 range with realistic guarantees and performance escalators.

Joel
12-04-2015, 08:16 PM
Things can change in the next couple games but as of right now I'd still be in favor of getting a Drew Brees or Matt Stafford and having Oz as a backup.
You have someone like Brees at the helm and you know what you are getting.
Yeah: A new starter a year later. Stafford's a lot more intriguing, but becoming less so as Oz progresses. If he keeps playing as he has, he'd be my starter next year; I just wouldn't go on the hook for a big long term deal until I'd seen a full season to verify he wasn't just benefiting from flying under the leagues defensive radar.

Tag him and bag him. If he'll take 3 for 60 with 20 up front and the same on the back, that's fine; next years hit would be a lot less than the tag, though we'd still lose a little in the long run if he bombed and we ate $13 million in dead money for cutting him in 2017.

TXBRONC
12-04-2015, 08:19 PM
Things can change in the next couple games but as of right now I'd still be in favor of getting a Drew Brees or Matt Stafford and having Oz as a backup.
You have someone like Brees at the helm and you know what you are getting.

What you're suggesting isn't realistic.

Northman
12-04-2015, 09:00 PM
The only way he goes somewhere else is if he gets drunk, trips over his dog and tears and ACL. I would be very surprised if he is not the starter next year. I don't get why people are still considering that there is some great mystery about how he will be as an NFL QB. Will he continue to have growing pains? Sure, but he didn't just fall off an NCAA charter bus last week, he's been practicing and preparing for three and a half years in one of the top organizations in the league, behind one of the best ever at the position, being observed closely by the absolute best to play it. They know what he can do, and the confidence they are placing in him now tells you all you need to know. Having said that, they will work out a contract that pays him what he is worth, the contract will protect the player and the team as much as possible, and we will all look back at this silly conversation in a few years and wonder what the hubbub was all about. My guess is it will be in the 12-15 range with realistic guarantees and performance escalators.

Probably the same reason it is every time Denver gets a new QB. Its not "their" guy they want to have behind center so they tend to immediately write them off. Its been a while since G Money has posted but im curious how he feels about Oz after a couple of games. He was a pretty big Oz detractor so i wonder if he maybe feels a little differently at all.

TimHippo
12-04-2015, 09:58 PM
You guys are smoking crack. Seriously. Oz is going to get AT LEAST 10 mil a year, and will likely be offered more. The one thing the Broncos have going is Oz is a Rocky Mountain kid, he wants to stay in this area. The reason he went to ASU instead of other places (had several scholarships to major east coast schools, including FSU I believe) is because there was a regular nonstop flight between Kalispell and Phoenix. However, the young man isn't dumb and will not play for peanuts, especially after sitting for so long. Thinking otherwise is pure delusional fantasy.

Sounds like you are on crack. Osweiler and elways son lived in the same dorm and are best friends. So that's more than "one thing"

Yashahla17
12-04-2015, 11:51 PM
Lol @ Brock getting 5-7 million. He will get franchise quarterback money' about 13-14 million per year. You don't play games with elite franchise quarterback whose only 25.

gregbroncs
12-05-2015, 12:43 AM
Lol @ Brock getting 5-7 million. He will get franchise quarterback money' about 13-14 million per year. You don't play games with elite franchise quarterback whose only 25.Jesus Christ dude. 2 games don't make close to an elite franchise quarterback. ****, you have me defending the other side and I'm mostly on your side. Your just so ******* far off the chart on Brocks side nothing you say can be taken with a grain of ******* salt. Back of Oz's pole a bit and try and be semi realistic.

7DnBrnc53
12-05-2015, 02:46 AM
But you just pointed out teams that needed top QBs to actually win it. The Ravens are the exception to the rule. The Bucs, exception to the rule. How many times have they been a CONTENDER (to actually have a chance to win the Super Bowl) before or after that 1 win? Same with the Seahawks. How many times have they gone to the Super Bowl before Wilson? How many have they gone to since he's been on the roster? Manning may only have 1 ring, but how many times did he get his team into the playoffs and to the AFC CHampionship? He's been there 3 times, how many 'bad or average" QBs can say the same thing?

That's not the point. My point is that they should win more if it's all about the QB, but Manning has only won one, and Elway didn't win anything with Dan Reeves' untalented and antiquated offense and Collier's undersized, smoke and mirror defense. He needed TD, a great O-line, and other great teammates (along with a D that forced turnovers in the Big Dance. That's something that the late-80's Bronco defenses never did).


over the last 15 years, you mention 2 teams that don't have top QBs.... Dilfer and Johnson. You can say all you want about a "young Brady".. but just because we witnessed the infantcy of a HoF career doesn't mean he wasn't something special. They did just beat the "Greatest show on earth." Don't take away from him in an attempt to try and make your point.

Brady really didn't do much in that game. He made passes that Neil O'Donnell could have made. The defenses were a bigger factor in those SB wins than Tom was. Brady wouldn't be anywhere near what he is today without going to the Patriots.

It takes a team to win titles. QB's help, but pinning it all in the QB isn't a magic potion. That's why the "QB driven league" statement is a fallacy.

Yashahla17
12-05-2015, 03:15 AM
Jesus Christ dude. 2 games don't make close to an elite franchise quarterback. ****, you have me defending the other side and I'm mostly on your side. Your just so ******* far off the chart on Brocks side nothing you say can be taken with a grain of ******* salt. Back of Oz's pole a bit and try and be semi realistic.

Whether you like it or not I know what I'm talking about. Did you not see the list of guys like tannenhil making all that dough? Brock is ten times better than them average guys. In my mind he is elite. All he has to do is keep playing to prove it.

Why do you hate that I know these things? just let me live.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
12-05-2015, 03:17 AM
"Just let me live."

Dude, that's rich.

Yashahla17
12-05-2015, 03:26 AM
What?

SR
12-05-2015, 08:53 AM
Whether you like it or not I know what I'm talking about. Did you not see the list of guys like tannenhil making all that dough? Brock is ten times better than them average guys. In my mind he is elite. All he has to do is keep playing to prove it. Why do you hate that I know these things? just let me live.

I love it when people say they know what they're talking about then post some nonsensical bullshit like that. ******* gold!

TXBRONC
12-05-2015, 09:30 AM
Whether you like it or not I know what I'm talking about. Did you not see the list of guys like tannenhil making all that dough? Brock is ten times better than them average guys. In my mind he is elite. All he has to do is keep playing to prove it.

Why do you hate that I know these things? just let me live.


:lol:

Ravage!!!
12-05-2015, 10:54 AM
Whether you like it or not I know what I'm talking about. Did you not see the list of guys like tannenhil making all that dough? Brock is ten times better than them average guys. In my mind he is elite. All he has to do is keep playing to prove it.

Why do you hate that I know these things? just let me live.

You should change your name to Brock-bch. We've had one of those before, and you sound just like him.

Timmy!
12-05-2015, 02:51 PM
Sounds like you are on crack. Osweiler and elways son lived in the same dorm and are best friends. So that's more than "one thing"

I'm failing to see your point. Ya, they were buddies, they were also teammates as well. Clearly this is totally relevant to how much money Oz gets offered *fart*

Yashahla17
12-05-2015, 02:57 PM
I love it when people say they know what they're talking about then post some nonsensical bullshit like that. ******* gold!

When you were busy defending manning i was busy being right about manning being the reason the offense is garbage and also being right about brock being the truth. That would make your words bullshit, not mine.

Timmy!
12-05-2015, 02:57 PM
You should change your name to Brock-bch. We've had one of those before, and you sound just like him.

I texted my buddy Cody. He said Brock would likely be uncomfortable with Yoshi's affections.

Valar Morghulis
12-05-2015, 03:15 PM
I texted my buddy Cody. He said Brock would likely be uncomfortable with Yoshi's affections.

I imagine yash would like to hold and snuggle Brock but just want to straight up penetrate him.

Could you please ask Cody if that is more Brocks's scene

Tned
12-05-2015, 03:17 PM
How much did Flynn get a few years ago? How about Cassel? I would think right now he would be looking at similar, inflation adjusted, numbers.

That said, his value could go way up or way down in the next one to nine games he starts this year.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
12-05-2015, 03:19 PM
How much did Flynn get a few years ago? How about Cassel? I would think right now he would be looking at similar, inflation adjusted, numbers.

That said, his value could go way up or way down in the next one to nine games he starts this year.

He also has a lot more upside than Cassel or Flynn did.

Ravage!!!
12-05-2015, 03:20 PM
He also has a lot more upside than Cassel or Flynn did.

Maybe. People didn't seem to think that at the time. McDoosh sure thought Cassle was teh bomb.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
12-05-2015, 03:22 PM
Maybe. People didn't seem to think that at the time. McDoosh sure thought Cassle was teh bomb.

Cassel has similar mobility, but neither of them have the physical strength or arm strength of Brockweiler, not even close.

LawDog
12-05-2015, 03:25 PM
Maybe. People didn't seem to think that at the time. McDoosh sure thought Cassle was teh bomb.
Not sure McDoosh is the standard you want to use for comparison.

Tned
12-05-2015, 03:29 PM
He also has a lot more upside than Cassel or Flynn did.

Maybe (and personally I think he does). But remember at the time, one game for Flynn and one season for Cassel had people thinking they were great talents hidden/stuck behind Brady and Rodgers.

SR
12-05-2015, 03:30 PM
When you were busy defending manning i was busy being right about manning being the reason the offense is garbage and also being right about brock being the truth. That would make your words bullshit, not mine.

Go ahead and show me where I've said the things you claim?

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
12-05-2015, 03:31 PM
Maybe (and personally I think he does). But remember at the time, one game for Flynn and one season for Cassel had people thinking they were great talents hidden/stuck behind Brady and Rodgers.

I agree that productivity is paralleled so far, but Brock has a cannon.

Cugel
12-05-2015, 03:31 PM
Quote Originally Posted by Tned View Post
How much did Flynn get a few years ago? How about Cassel? I would think right now he would be looking at similar, inflation adjusted, numbers.

That said, his value could go way up or way down in the next one to nine games he starts this year.

According to Rotoworld: Matt Cassel signed a one-year, $2 M contract with the Cowboys in September after being traded by the Bills in exchange for a 7th round pick. He was cut, then re-signed by the Bills so they could vacate his previous contract which called for him to make $4 M a year.

That's what QBs get AFTER they utterly fail after a team (the Chiefs) hand them the starting job.

So, he went from $15 M a year with the Chiefs, to $2M with Dallas.

Cassel is not remotely comparable to Brock, because Brock hasn't failed yet. He's not a career backup (not yet anyway). He's a promising young QB who has 2 career starts.

If he fails with Denver, and then is released and signed by Buffalo, and then fails with the Bills and then traded, THEN we can compare Matt Cassel with Brock Osweiler!

As for Matt Flynn, he had also already FAILED with multiple teams. Flynn got $5.5 M from the Seahawks to be their starter after failing with his original team, the Packers. Then Russell Wilson immediately beat him out. He was traded to the Raiders, was given the starting job, failed there, was cut and re-signed by the Packers as a backup, cut, and signed by the Saints as a backup to Brees for some nominal amount. The team didn't even bother to announce the contract amount - which means it was the league minimum or something close to that. Not even any incentives.

NONE of these guys is indicative of what Osweiler will command as a FA.

Ravage!!!
12-05-2015, 03:32 PM
Cassel has similar mobility, but neither of them have the physical strength or arm strength of Brockweiler, not even close.

Well, that's our opinions. But that doesn't represent the all the opinions of those that were looking at the talent at that time. People felt Cassle had "all the teaching" behind Brady....and had a year leading the 16-0 Patriots the following year to 11 wins. So they felt he was certainly capable. They had more to look at than we do, at his time, from Brock.

Ravage!!!
12-05-2015, 03:33 PM
According to Rotoworld: Matt Cassel signed a one-year, $2 M contract with the Cowboys in September after being traded by the Bills in exchange for a 7th round pick. He was cut, then re-signed by the Bills so they could vacate his previous contract which called for him to make $4 M a year.

That's what QBs get AFTER they utterly fail after a team (the Chiefs) hand them the starting job.

So, he went from $15 M a year, to $2M.

Cassel is not remotely comparable to Brock, because Brock hasn't failed yet.
I"m pretty sure he was referring to the contract that Cassle signed after leaving NE and starting for the 1 season during Brady's injury. What did he sign with for the Chiefs. THAT is the contract to look at as comparable.

Tned
12-05-2015, 03:46 PM
I"m pretty sure he was referring to the contract that Cassle signed after leaving NE and starting for the 1 season during Brady's injury. What did he sign with for the Chiefs. THAT is the contract to look at as comparable.

He knows that and that where we stand today, after two starts, the three are very similar in terms of what people thought of them after their break outs.

I Eat Staples
12-05-2015, 04:20 PM
I never understood Cassel or Flynn being desired commodities. Flynn had one good game in which Rodgers was calling the plays for him, against a bad Lions defense...Cassel was a game manager that was just decent on a team loaded with talent.

I think for the most part, teams have learned from those mistakes. Brock was a 2nd round pick and has the physical tools that those guys never had.

Joel
12-05-2015, 05:44 PM
I never understood Cassel or Flynn being desired commodities. Flynn had one good game in which Rodgers was calling the plays for him, against a bad Lions defense...Cassel was a game manager that was just decent on a team loaded with talent.

I think for the most part, teams have learned from those mistakes. Brock was a 2nd round pick and has the physical tools that those guys never had.
Leaf was #2 OVERALL and had the physical tools those guys never had; potential and promise mean jack until/unless fulfilled on the field. And let's keep a little perspective here: Oz has had TWO games, a good one against a crappy Bears team and a strictly OK one at home vs. NE*. 23/42 for 270, 1 TD and 1 Int aren't exactly All Pro numbers; people say Brady had the same stat line, but that's only true until we get to TD:Int ratio (where Oz was 1:1 and Brady was 3:0, a pretty big difference.)

Oz has earned himself a nice 2016 paycheck unless he collapses in the near future, but what he's earned for 2017 and beyond remains to be seen. Hence I like the franchise tag.

DenBronx
12-05-2015, 06:48 PM
Nah we need to steer clear of using the franchise tag on Brock. Just give the kid a new deal and move forward with the future. We would actually save money of we did the deal now.

SR
12-05-2015, 06:59 PM
Leaf was #2 OVERALL and had the physical tools those guys never had; potential and promise mean jack until/unless fulfilled on the field. And let's keep a little perspective here: Oz has had TWO games, a good one against a crappy Bears team and a strictly OK one at home vs. NE*. 23/42 for 270, 1 TD and 1 Int aren't exactly All Pro numbers; people say Brady had the same stat line, but that's only true until we get to TD:Int ratio (where Oz was 1:1 and Brady was 3:0, a pretty big difference.) Oz has earned himself a nice 2016 paycheck unless he collapses in the near future, but what he's earned for 2017 and beyond remains to be seen. Hence I like the franchise tag.

Tom Brady was also 23/42.

Joel
12-05-2015, 08:53 PM
Tom Brady was also 23/42.
Um, I said that: Bradys 23/42 produced 3 TDs and 0 Ints; Oz' produced 1 TD and 1 Int. Brocks 23/42 was good for one DRIVE; Bradys was the Cheats WHOLE OFFENSE.

Joel
12-05-2015, 08:56 PM
Nah we need to steer clear of using the franchise tag on Brock. Just give the kid a new deal and move forward with the future. We would actually save money of we did the deal now.
Sure—as long as he didn't bust, which remains a very real possibility after just one good game against a bad team followed by a decent one against a good team. If we ASSUME Oz is or will become a franchise QB, HELL, yes, we need to lock him up for the long term now, because the price will only go up, and never be cheap. But we CAN'T assume that, and if we're still SEEKING a franchise QB in 2017, having $15-20 million in dead money for Oz will really tie our hands, and "save" nothing.

The tag would keep him on the team, get him a very nice paycheck next year, and give us time to find out once and for all whether to drop that $100 million contract on him.

SR
12-05-2015, 09:32 PM
Um, I said that: Bradys 23/42 produced 3 TDs and 0 Ints; Oz' produced 1 TD and 1 Int. Brocks 23/42 was good for one DRIVE; Bradys was the Cheats WHOLE OFFENSE.

The INT was a tipped pass.
And Brady lost the game with the same completion percentage as Os.

Joel
12-05-2015, 09:50 PM
The INT was a tipped pass.
True.

And Brady lost the game with the same completion percentage as Os.
And three times more TDs. The difference was that Oz had lots of help but Brady virtually none: Bradys RBs gained just 39 yds on just 16 carries (barely 2 yds/att) while ours averaged almost 5½ yds/att, with 3 long TDs—but we STILL trailed by two scores most of the game, and needed OT to win. Oz had a nice clutch drive in the 4th, but CJ, Hillman and the D kept us in that game, and Brady would've murdered us if he'd had all that plus Sanders, DT, Davis and Daniels.

End of the day, end of the game,
people say Brady had the same stat line, but that's only true until we get to TD:Int ratio (where Oz was 1:1 and Brady was 3:0, a pretty big difference.)

SR
12-05-2015, 09:53 PM
True. And three times more TDs. The difference was that Oz had lots of help but Brady virtually none: Bradys RBs gained just 39 yds on just 16 carries (barely 2 yds/att) while ours averaged almost 5½ yds/att, with 3 long TDs—but we STILL trailed by two scores most of the game, and needed OT to win. Oz had a nice clutch drive in the 4th, but CJ, Hillman and the D kept us in that game, and Brady would've murdered us if he'd had all that plus Sanders, DT, Davis and Daniels. End of the day, end of the game,

Which QB performed when it mattered and led their team on a game winning drive? I may have missed the game.

Northman
12-05-2015, 10:01 PM
So wait? Joel is trying to blast Oz in his second start to a guy who has played for years? Really? Goddamn that guy must really hate the Broncos.

Joel
12-05-2015, 10:03 PM
Which QB performed when it mattered and led their team on a game winning drive? I may have missed the game.
Brady performed ALL game; Oz peformed ONCE. As I recall, the game winning drive was a short run, a short pass, and a 48 yd TD RUN on 3rd and 1; Oz handed off well, so game ball to him, right? Just as on Andersons OTHER TD run, and Hillmans. Let's be real, if the Cheats had had HALF as good a running game Oz' ONE Hail Mary drive, clutch though it was, wouldn't even have covered the spread. But hey, if we ignore the GAME and just check stats, 23/42=23/42 (and never mind the 3 TDs to 1.)

Joel
12-05-2015, 10:07 PM
So wait? Joel is trying to blast Oz in his second start to a guy who has played for years? Really? Goddamn that guy must really hate the Broncos.
Yes, that's EXACTLY what I said. :rolleyes: If you want to stipulate that Oz outplayed Brady, I admit that'd be entertaining, given the source. All I SAID was ONE good game against the awful Bears and one more DECENT one against the Cheats doesn't prove Oz a franchise QB we need to pay $15-20 million/yr for the next 5 seasons: Tag him and let's see what we've got; if he's as good or better all next year, THEN give him the big long contract to lead the team for a decade.

Northman
12-05-2015, 10:16 PM
The Patriots had been short handed before they even came into the game with Denver and were still undefeated. They lost Lewis and Edelman weeks ago, Amendola was gone for a couple of weeks as well. Taking away credit from Oz (whether you think he is franchise material or not) is ******* pathetic and clearly not objective at all to what happened in that game.

Joel
12-05-2015, 10:23 PM
The Patriots had been short handed before they even came into the game with Denver and were still undefeated. They lost Lewis and Edelman weeks ago, Amendola was gone for a couple of weeks as well. Taking away credit from Oz (whether you think he is franchise material or not) is ******* pathetic and clearly not objective at all to what happened in that game.
I'm not taking credit away from Oz, I'm placing it where it belongs: Oz had a great 4th quarter with a truly clutch drive, but the running game CARRIED the team TO the 4th quarter. Or do you think Oz' lone TD drive, great though it was, would've gotten us to OT by tying the score at 21-7? "Taking away credit" indeed; RBs combine for >150 yds and 3 TDs, QB throws for <300 yds and 1 TD: Gameball to the franchise QB! 'Cause, if we're "objective," it's a passers league even when it ISN'T.

NightTerror218
12-05-2015, 10:26 PM
The Patriots had been short handed before they even came into the game with Denver and were still undefeated. They lost Lewis and Edelman weeks ago, Amendola was gone for a couple of weeks as well. Taking away credit from Oz (whether you think he is franchise material or not) is ******* pathetic and clearly not objective at all to what happened in that game.

Denver was the better team, Brady ad to pass and be offense because he had to ground game due to stout defense. Oz played great, 2nd start and protected the ball. He did not have to wing it all over the place since ground game worked. If the RBS did not run in like they did, Oz might have passed it in. Point is the Kubiak offense scored enough to win.

I Eat Staples
12-05-2015, 11:08 PM
Leaf was #2 OVERALL and had the physical tools those guys never had; potential and promise mean jack until/unless fulfilled on the field. And let's keep a little perspective here: Oz has had TWO games, a good one against a crappy Bears team and a strictly OK one at home vs. NE*. 23/42 for 270, 1 TD and 1 Int aren't exactly All Pro numbers; people say Brady had the same stat line, but that's only true until we get to TD:Int ratio (where Oz was 1:1 and Brady was 3:0, a pretty big difference.)

Oz has earned himself a nice 2016 paycheck unless he collapses in the near future, but what he's earned for 2017 and beyond remains to be seen. Hence I like the franchise tag.

I'm not saying Osweiler is elite or even a lock to succeed, I'm just saying that he at least has potential, and Flynn and Cassel had literally no redeeming qualities.

Yashahla17
12-06-2015, 12:04 AM
So wait? Joel is trying to blast Oz in his second start to a guy who has played for years? Really? Goddamn that guy must really hate the Broncos.

That guy really despise oz because of his love for manning.

BroncoWave
12-06-2015, 12:09 AM
That guy really despise oz because of his love for manning.

Remember when you were done talking about Manning? And remember when you said you only kept talking about him because you were "forced" to by other posters? I'm failing to see where another poster goaded you into talking about him here.

Simple Jaded
12-06-2015, 12:10 AM
The Broncos outscored the Cheats on the strength of the running game, ST's, defense and some ******* nice throws by Osweiler. This is what a team is supposed to look like, enjoy it, nitpicking his performance just makes ya look butthurt.

BroncoWave
12-06-2015, 12:13 AM
The Broncos outscored the Cheats on the strength of the running game, ST's, defense and some ******* nice throws by Osweiler. This is what a team is supposed to look like, enjoy it, nitpicking his performance just makes ya look butthurt.

Anyone who has anything negative to say about anything that happened during that Pats game can go suck on a wet fart for all I'm concerned. No one who is really a Broncos fan would be anything but 100% through the roof jubilant about that game. Yeah there were things we struggled with in that game (DT's drops, the punting) but to nitpick the QB who led us on the go ahead and then game winning drive in his second career start is a special level of moron status.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
12-06-2015, 12:15 AM
Jaded, your wet fart lingo is spreading. Please consider the reach of your influence when giving out visuals of moist flatulence.

Tned
12-06-2015, 12:21 AM
Anyone who has anything negative to say about anything that happened during that Pats game can go suck on a wet fart for all I'm concerned. No one who is really a Broncos fan would be anything but 100% through the roof jubilant about that game. Yeah there were things we struggled with in that game (DT's drops, the punting) but to nitpick the QB who led us on the go ahead and then game winning drive in his second career start is a special level of moron status.

What did DT have something like one catch on fourteen targets? Granted, some were less than perfect throws, but from what I remember, two thirds or more of those DT should have caught.

Simple Jaded
12-06-2015, 12:21 AM
It really drives the point home, imo, that is worth it's weight in gold sometimes.

BroncoWave
12-06-2015, 12:24 AM
What did DT have something like one catch on fourteen targets? Granted, some were less than perfect throws, but from what I remember, two thirds or more of those DT should have caught.

Yeah, DT played like shit in that game for sure and I get being critical of him still, but to dwell on the negatives of Os from that game just absolutely blows my mind. Given the situation he was in down 14 in the 4th to the undefeated Pats in his second career start and to lead us to a win is one of the most legendary regular season performances in Broncos history IMO. To nitpick him after the game the way Joel has is just mindblowing. To be that miserable that you can't enjoy THAT win just blows my mind to a level I can't even explain.

DenBronx
12-06-2015, 02:24 AM
Nah we need to steer clear of using the franchise tag on Brock. Just give the kid a new deal and move forward with the future. We would actually save money of we did the deal now.
Sure—as long as he didn't bust, which remains a very real possibility after just one good game against a bad team followed by a decent one against a good team. If we ASSUME Oz is or will become a franchise QB, HELL, yes, we need to lock him up for the long term now, because the price will only go up, and never be cheap. But we CAN'T assume that, and if we're still SEEKING a franchise QB in 2017, having $15-20 million in dead money for Oz will really tie our hands, and "save" nothing.

The tag would keep him on the team, get him a very nice paycheck next year, and give us time to find out once and for all whether to drop that $100 million contract on him.


OR...











we could save 100 mill contract and give him a 70 mill contract by signing him now.

underrated29
12-06-2015, 04:09 AM
Yeah, DT played like shit in that game for sure and I get being critical of him still, but to dwell on the negatives of Os from that game just absolutely blows my mind. Given the situation he was in down 14 in the 4th to the undefeated Pats in his second career start and to lead us to a win is one of the most legendary regular season performances in Broncos history IMO. To nitpick him after the game the way Joel has is just mindblowing. To be that miserable that you can't enjoy THAT win just blows my mind to a level I can't even explain.


Well my friend, I'm pretty sure you have some somewhat similar with manning this year. But I do get your point and agree. I haven't read anything other then this last page of the thread so I may be missing some stuff.

MOtorboat
12-06-2015, 05:02 AM
That guy really despise oz because of his love for manning.

You a liar, bro.

MOtorboat
12-06-2015, 05:05 AM
So, let me get this straight.

The Broncos are doing exactly what Joel has been bitching about for four ******* years in the exact offense he wanted them to run with the exact coach he wanted them to have and he's still a whiny little bitch?

Color me surprised. **** that gets old.

Northman
12-06-2015, 08:28 AM
I'm not taking credit away from Oz, I'm placing it where it belongs: Oz had a great 4th quarter with a truly clutch drive, but the running game CARRIED the team TO the 4th quarter. Or do you think Oz' lone TD drive, great though it was, would've gotten us to OT by tying the score at 21-7? "Taking away credit" indeed; RBs combine for >150 yds and 3 TDs, QB throws for <300 yds and 1 TD: Gameball to the franchise QB! 'Cause, if we're "objective," it's a passers league even when it ISN'T.

Jesus Christ Joel, you are being a troll for the sake of being a troll. It was his second start and you are pissed because they gave him the game ball? Really? WTF dude. :lol:

Northman
12-06-2015, 08:30 AM
Denver was the better team, Brady ad to pass and be offense because he had to ground game due to stout defense. Oz played great, 2nd start and protected the ball. He did not have to wing it all over the place since ground game worked. If the RBS did not run in like they did, Oz might have passed it in. Point is the Kubiak offense scored enough to win.

So what your saying is this is the NFL and Denver has a history of winning at home vs the Pats and the Broncos came out running the ball like they have been trying to do all year and had success and then also relied on their defense which has been the crutch throughout the entire year? Yes, i agree. The Broncos did what they had to no matter who the QB was and won the game. You are 100% correct.

BroncoWave
12-06-2015, 08:31 AM
Well my friend, I'm pretty sure you have some somewhat similar with manning this year. But I do get your point and agree. I haven't read anything other then this last page of the thread so I may be missing some stuff.

Yeah because we won those games totally in spite of Manning and most of them were against bad teams. After the GB game I was nothing but positive about him and the team. I just don't see how there can be anything negative to say about Oz after that game this week.

Northman
12-06-2015, 08:36 AM
Well my friend, I'm pretty sure you have some somewhat similar with manning this year. But I do get your point and agree. I haven't read anything other then this last page of the thread so I may be missing some stuff.

Well, lets be fair here. One guy has a thousand years under his belt while the other guy is in his second start. The older guy has also been playing like crap and turning the ball over like crazy. There was good reason to criticize the QB play of Manning as he has the experience and legacy, criticizing a QB starting only his second game is petty and ridiculous to me.

BroncoWave
12-06-2015, 08:39 AM
Well, lets be fair here. One guy has a thousand years under his belt while the other guy is in his second start. The older guy has also been playing like crap and turning the ball over like crazy. There was good reason to criticize the QB play of Manning as he has the experience and legacy, criticizing a QB starting only his second game is petty and ridiculous to me.

Exactly. Apples and oranges comparing those two situations.

underrated29
12-06-2015, 12:59 PM
I'm just playing devils advocate.

BroncoWave
12-06-2015, 01:08 PM
I'm just playing devils advocate.

Hey why don't you go watch some more of Von Miller's college game tape and figure out if he's good! :D

wayninja
12-06-2015, 01:45 PM
I'm just playing devils advocate.

http://i.imgur.com/LWYdocV.jpg

underrated29
12-06-2015, 02:34 PM
Hey why don't you go watch some more of Von Miller's college game tape and figure out if he's good! :D



SR you thought the same way. Your high5 to wave saddens me.

SR
12-06-2015, 03:06 PM
SR you thought the same way. Your high5 to wave saddens me.

I don't remember what I thought about Miller.

underrated29
12-06-2015, 03:48 PM
I don't remember what I thought about Miller.



Someone posted a video of him and you said something along the lines of if thats von miller I dont want him....I agreed. He didnt look that good. It was when we first were looking at him. I dont remember whom it was that posted the video of him. Tx? Or someone from texas...Maybe I think texas cuz your in texas...I feel like there is a texas in there somehow.

SR
12-06-2015, 03:54 PM
Someone posted a video of him and you said something along the lines of if thats von miller I dont want him....I agreed. He didnt look that good. It was when we first were looking at him. I dont remember whom it was that posted the video of him. Tx? Or someone from texas...Maybe I think texas cuz your in texas...I feel like there is a texas in there somehow.

Well I don't remember. I may not have been excited about the pick initially. I'm ok with it now ;)

underrated29
12-06-2015, 03:56 PM
Well I don't remember. I may not have been excited about the pick initially. I'm ok with it now ;)


Once again we are in agreement

VonDoom
12-06-2015, 04:21 PM
Well I don't remember. I may not have been excited about the pick initially. I'm ok with it now ;)

Bold

Simple Jaded
12-06-2015, 04:58 PM
Don't feel bad about whatever you thought about Von Miller at the time, I wanted them to draft Blaine Gabbert or Jake Locker.

Don't judge, desperate time/desperate measures.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
12-06-2015, 06:31 PM
Don't feel bad about whatever you thought about Von Miller at the time, I wanted them to draft Blaine Gabbert or Jake Locker.

Don't judge, desperate time/desperate measures.

You went full Al Davis on us.

SR
12-06-2015, 07:02 PM
You went full Al Davis on us.

No. Al Davis would've drafted a WR.

Ravage!!!
12-06-2015, 08:06 PM
No. Al Davis would've drafted a WR.

the fastest in the draft.

Simple Jaded
12-06-2015, 08:18 PM
You went full Al Davis on us.

Damn you! Nobody makes me bleed my own blood.

TimHippo
12-06-2015, 09:03 PM
Someone posted a video of him and you said something along the lines of if thats von miller I dont want him....I agreed. He didnt look that good. It was when we first were looking at him. I dont remember whom it was that posted the video of him. Tx? Or someone from texas...Maybe I think texas cuz your in texas...I feel like there is a texas in there somehow.

4.53 40 speed (fastest at lb in draft), 6.7 3 cone. How can you dismiss that.

Simple Jaded
12-06-2015, 09:10 PM
4.53 40 speed (fastest at lb in draft), 6.7 3 cone. How can you dismiss that.

Ran a 4.42 hand held, consistent 4.4's before Jr season.

Cugel
12-07-2015, 12:06 AM
Don't feel bad about whatever you thought about Von Miller at the time, I wanted them to draft Blaine Gabbert or Jake Locker.

Don't judge, desperate time/desperate measures.

OMG! I wanted them to draft Marcel Dareus, since DL was a crying need at that time, and Darius has played well, although he's had his share of off-field issues, as has Von too. Von seems to have straightened himself out and is starting to realize his talent level.

Simple Jaded
12-07-2015, 12:28 AM
Darius would be nice between Wolfe and Jackson.

Cugel
12-07-2015, 12:34 AM
Darius would be nice between Wolfe and Jackson.

But, not at the price of losing Von! His career has been spotty at best. Great talent, but off-field problems, worse than Von's.

Simple Jaded
12-07-2015, 12:39 AM
But, not at the price of losing Von! His career has been spotty at best. Great talent, but off-field problems, worse than Von's.

I wouldn't trade now.

Ravage!!!
12-07-2015, 02:27 PM
Darius would be nice between Wolfe and Jackson.

we probably wouldn't have Wolfe and Jackson had we drafted Dareus.


**I'm really glad we didn't draft Dareus.

TXBRONC
12-07-2015, 07:19 PM
I was hoping Denver was going to draft Dareus but once it was done and started learning more about Miller I was sure Denver made the right decision. Man remember a lot of people on the board were upset because we didn't take Dareus of course a lot probably a lot of people would have been pacified if Denver had traded back into the first round to get Fairley. Looking back if Denver had done that it would have been a huge cluster ______.

TXBRONC
12-07-2015, 07:20 PM
we probably wouldn't have Wolfe and Jackson had we drafted Dareus.


**I'm really glad we didn't draft Dareus.

I also glad Denver didn't trade back to the first round to draft Nick Fairley.

Pudge
01-26-2016, 06:30 PM
When you were busy defending manning i was busy being right about manning being the reason the offense is garbage and also being right about brock being the truth. That would make your words bullshit, not mine.

Anybody remember this guy? Good times

Bronco4ever
01-26-2016, 07:46 PM
Anybody remember this guy? Good times

I thought about him the other day. I miss him a little tbh. It'd be fun to see his posts here once Manning replaced Brock and subsequently lead us to SB50. :headexplodes:

ShaneFalco
01-26-2016, 07:47 PM
damn where did yash go

Davii
01-26-2016, 07:52 PM
damn where did yash go

To the scrap heap of broken dreams and bad trolls.

Dreadnought
01-26-2016, 07:52 PM
damn where did yash go

He is in the cornfield...

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
01-26-2016, 07:54 PM
He was exposed for being a racist fraud.

Cugel
01-26-2016, 08:02 PM
He is in the cornfield...

Proper place for that troll:
8352

8351

VonDoom
01-26-2016, 10:31 PM
Anybody remember this guy? Good times

I blocked him pretty early on, so it seems like he's been gone a while to me

BroncoWave
01-26-2016, 10:47 PM
#yashistrash

Cugel
01-27-2016, 11:40 AM
#yashistrash

He'll be back like a super-virus if the Broncos lose the SB to tell everybody they would have won if they'd only played Brock. Or Tebow!

The Tebowites will never get over their unrequited man-crush on that loser. It's just an incurable disease.

weazel
01-27-2016, 12:19 PM
I think the result would be the same with either of them in there.

Yashahla17
02-01-2016, 04:43 AM
I thought about him the other day. I miss him a little tbh. It'd be fun to see his posts here once Manning replaced Brock and subsequently lead us to SB50. :headexplodes:

Manning replaced brock and still playing mediocre which is an upgrade from piss poor. Manning hasnt (led) the broncos to the superbowl. The defense has. But either way im stoked and hope we win the big game. Doesn't matter whose in there now, manning just cant lose us the game because the better qb is on the bench. Rooting for the fairy tale ending. Its going to cost us an extra 3-4 million in contract negotiations with brock but it is what it is.

Simple Jaded
02-01-2016, 04:57 AM
Manning replaced brock and still playing mediocre which is an upgrade from piss poor. Manning hasnt (led) the broncos to the superbowl. The defense has. But either way im stoked and hope we win the big game. Doesn't matter whose in there now, manning just cant lose us the game because the better qb is on the bench. Rooting for the fairy tale ending. Its going to cost us an extra 3-4 million in contract negotiations with brock but it is what it is.

Be honest, you've gotta be furious that Denver is about to play a team in the SB with a QB that is exactly what you Tebow fans thought Tebow would be (if only he were a QB)? And to top it off the Broncos are going with the QB that made your guy expendable?

It's ok, your tears are a tad salty but win or lose I will wash them down with tequila.

Yashahla17
02-01-2016, 05:44 AM
Be honest, you've gotta be furious that Denver is about to play a team in the SB with a QB that is exactly what you Tebow fans thought Tebow would be (if only he were a QB)? And to top it off the Broncos are going with the QB that made your guy expendable?

It's ok, your tears are a tad salty but win or lose I will wash them down with tequila.

You need to lay off the tequila my friend. I am not a Tebow fanboy. Tebow was fun to watch, but thats it.

The broncos are who im rooting for. Like i said manning just has to show up and play well. The defense will give cam newton nightmares he hasnt seen all season. Offense got to put up atleast 27 though. The old man must execute, because while i think oir defense will give cam nightmares its still cam fricking newton whose an amazing young star.

Lets focus on the game. All the which qb shit doesn't matter, the decision is made and manning is starting the biggest game of the year. It is on him to show up and put points up. It is on kubiak to have a gameplan, an aggressive gameplan thats about getting into the end zone.

Im pumped up though.

pnbronco
02-01-2016, 11:56 AM
Manning replaced brock and still playing mediocre which is an upgrade from piss poor. Manning hasnt (led) the broncos to the superbowl. The defense has. But either way im stoked and hope we win the big game. Doesn't matter whose in there now, manning just cant lose us the game because the better qb is on the bench. Rooting for the fairy tale ending. Its going to cost us an extra 3-4 million in contract negotiations with brock but it is what it is.

Once Brock started playing it was going to cost us that much anyway. There are only 2 QB's that are really being looked at in free agency, Kirk Cousins and Brock. Brock is going to go to what ever team offers him the most money, that's business side of this game. Chris Harris Jr. is the last Bronco that I can think of that really gave the team a home town discount and he still got a really good contract. The second contract is the one that can change the life of a player and their family, that's the one that Brock is getting ready for.

Yashahla17
02-01-2016, 02:58 PM
If it was going to cost us an extra 3-4 million then tack on another 3 million for benching him and giving his team back to the old man. Brocks not leaving denver, he is about to cash in from elway. Probably about 13 a year when it could have been 10 had we not pulled him is what im saying. It is what it is though.

Cheers to the old man having a good game.

TXBRONC
02-01-2016, 06:20 PM
Manning replaced brock and still playing mediocre which is an upgrade from piss poor. Manning hasnt (led) the broncos to the superbowl. The defense has. But either way im stoked and hope we win the big game. Doesn't matter whose in there now, manning just cant lose us the game because the better qb is on the bench. Rooting for the fairy tale ending. Its going to cost us an extra 3-4 million in contract negotiations with brock but it is what it is.

Anyone with just slight amount of honesty knows that Manning played a big role in Denver getting to Super Bowl.

Joel
02-01-2016, 10:19 PM
The second contract is the one that can change the life of a player and their family, that's the one that Brock is getting ready for.
People don't seem to appreciate this enough. Draftees don't get huge pay days and neither do guys pushing 30 (usually with a few serious injuries under their belt,) so everyone who wants to be able to pay the huge longterm medical bills that go with an NFL career better get paid on their second contract, because that's the ONLY time they can. It's a little different for low-contact positions like QBs and kickers, but not THAT much.