What is a "Franchise QB"?

[CoachChaz]

Just a question of curiosity to see how each individual defines this term. Based on the last few weeks of ridiculous ****-fighting, I'm curious...if passer or QB ratings are irrelevant...exactly what numbers do define a "franchise QB"? And if numbers alone dont justify the title...what does?

Obviously, this is going to vary from person to person as it does from team to team in the NFL, but since there are threads disputing things like stats, personality, history, etc. playing into the title, I'm curious as to exactly what it is that has to happen before a QB is classified with the "Franchise" label.

[BroncoJoe]

Good luck with this, Coach!

[slim]

I've been asking this question for years.

No one has been able to answer it.

[BroncoJoe]

Good luck with this, Coach!

I will say this - stats don't mean much to me because they can be manipulated to tell multiple stories.

[Freyaka]

Just a question of curiosity to see how each individual defines this term. Based on the last few weeks of ridiculous ****-fighting, I'm curious...if passer or QB ratings are irrelevant...exactly what numbers do define a "franchise QB"? And if numbers alone dont justify the title...what does?

Obviously, this is going to vary from person to person as it does from team to team in the NFL, but since there are threads disputing things like stats, personality, history, etc. playing into the title, I'm curious as to exactly what it is that has to happen before a QB is classified with the "Franchise" label.

For most, if the QB isn't someone they like, he isn't capable of being a franchise QB. That basically sums up the majority of posters on this boards feelings, even if they won't admit it out loud.

If it isn't a QB they like, they "have a ceiling of a game manager" because that is the ultimate insult you can throw at a QB for some reason.

[CoachChaz]

I've been asking this question for years.

No one has been able to answer it.

That's kind of the hidden point I guess I'm trying to expose. We'll see how it plays out, but I think we'll see that the term is opinionated at best.

[Dapper Dan]

Just a question of curiosity to see how each individual defines this term. Based on the last few weeks of ridiculous ****-fighting, I'm curious...if passer or QB ratings are irrelevant...exactly what numbers do define a "franchise QB"? And if numbers alone dont justify the title...what does?

Obviously, this is going to vary from person to person as it does from team to team in the NFL, but since there are threads disputing things like stats, personality, history, etc. playing into the title, I'm curious as to exactly what it is that has to happen before a QB is classified with the "Franchise" label.

I think it's up to the front office. It's someone they are ready to go all in with.

[gregbroncs]

The real problem is that a guy can't be a franchise QB until he has proven himself. Everybody wants to acquire a franchise QB but they are rarely acquired while they are still that guy. You can get a young guy and hope he becomes that but half the fans won't admit he's that guy until he's proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Which is almost impossible to do. Teams shouldn't worry about finding the franchise QB, just find the most talented guy they can and hope he becomes the guy.

How many franchise QB's are in the NFL right now? That's the question I'd ask. Brady, Brees, Rothlisburger, is there anybody else? Can they be a frachise QB if they've never made the SB? Rivers a few others. Can they be a franchise QB if they are just getting started? Can they be a franchise QB if they've moved around?

[Northman]

A franchise Qb is someone who can lead, motivate, and elevate a team when needed. For me its really not that hard to see it in a player.

[CoachChaz]

A franchise Qb is someone who can lead, motivate, and elevate a team when needed. For me its really not that hard to see it in a player.

Is there a certain amount of time that he has to do it? Can he have that title before playing in an NFL game? What do his numbers have to look like? Curious because it is possible to be a great leader and motivator without being a great player.

[TXBRONC]

A franchise is quarterback you build your team around. There are several who fit in that category As mention earlier Brees, Brady, Rothlisburger, but also Flacco, Rodgers, Wilson, Rivers, Ryan, Stafford, I suppose we can put Goff and Wentz in category but they're still fledglings.

[CoachChaz]

The real problem is that a guy can't be a franchise QB until he has proven himself. Everybody wants to acquire a franchise QB but they are rarely acquired while they are still that guy. You can get a young guy and hope he becomes that but half the fans won't admit he's that guy until he's proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Which is almost impossible to do. Teams shouldn't worry about finding the franchise QB, just find the most talented guy they can and hope he becomes the guy.

How many franchise QB's are in the NFL right now? That's the question I'd ask. Brady, Brees, Rothlisburger, is there anybody else? Can they be a frachise QB if they've never made the SB? Rivers a few others. Can they be a franchise QB if they are just getting started? Can they be a franchise QB if they've moved around?

To the point...it seems the more we try to define a Franchise QB...the more questions we come up with on how to do that.

[CoachChaz]

A franchise is quarterback you build your team around. There are several who fit in that category As mention earlier Brees, Brady, Rothlisburger, but also Flacco, Rodgers, Wilson, Rivers, Ryan, Stafford, I suppose we can put Goff and Wentz in category but they still fledglings.

Fair...but what is it that makes a team decide to build their team around that player? More specifically, how did they determine that player was worthy of building a team around?

[BroncoJoe]

Simple answer:

Elway.

Struggled his first year - even got benched, but showed flashes of brilliance. Won games he probably didn't have any business winning due to his will to win alone. He wasn't surrounded by a "great" team until his final years.

He just won games. As a fan during that time, even if the Broncos were down 20 points in the 4th, I knew there was at least a chance to win with him behind center. He demanded elite play from his teammates, and could get away with it because he left everything on the field himself. Never had eye-popping stats, but retired as the winningest QB with the most 4th quarter comebacks of all time.

I fully realize I'm an Elway homer and view virtually everything through orange-colored glasses, but when you watched him play, you just knew he was something incredibly special. The face of the franchise. A franchise QB.

I'm not sure I've seen that before or since, to be honest.

[Al Wilson 4 Mayor]

A quarterback who makes the people around him better.

[TXBRONC]

Fair...but what is it that makes a team decide to build their team around that player? More specifically, how did they determine that player was worthy of building a team around?

I suppose one would have to get in the heads of gm of those particular teams to find out for sure. Looking at the list put up all but three of them were taken in the first round. So I would guess draft status generally has something to do with it certainly isn't only thing. All of them have been successful to one degree or another.

[CoachChaz]

A quarterback who makes the people around him better.

Just to play devil's advocate...Thielen and Diggs had career years with Keenum. And the Minnesota offense in general had their best overall ratings in years.

[BroncoJoe]

Just to play devil's advocate...Thielen and Diggs had career years with Keenum. And the Minnesota offense in general had their best overall ratings in years.

This point will be ignored.

[Freyaka]

A quarterback who makes the people around him better.

It could be argued that Tim Tebow made the people around him play better (how, I don't know) does that make him a franchise QB?

[Al Wilson 4 Mayor]

Just to play devil's advocate...Thielen and Diggs had career years with Keenum. And the Minnesota offense in general had their best overall ratings in years.

Personally, I’m not writing him off. My first impression is he’s a placeholder similar to what Steve DeBerg was. I don’t think you give two year deals to guys you believe in.

However, you have a valid point and it is possible for him to turn into that guy. Gannon and Garcia are two quarterbacks with similar skill sets who went from “journeyman backup” to “franchise quarterback”.

[BroncoWave]

I think it's one of those things that's not really definable, but you know it when you have it.

[HORSEPOWER 56]

A “franchise” QB is simply a QB that a team determines is their long-term answer at the QB position and is willing to invest heavily in his development/support system and in him financially.

Sometimes it is determined by draft stock and potential and sometimes by proven performance. Kirk Cousins apparently wasn’t a franchise QB to the Redskins but he apparently was to the Vikings. A guy like Elway or PFM, even when they were young and struggled, had those “flashes” of greatness so their organizations continued to invest resources in them until they became the GOAT of their franchise. Tom Brady had to prove himself and probably would’ve had a shorter leash had he played like shit after he won his first championship. NE would’ve never kept him around if he wasn’t a great QB.

A franchise QB is expected to be all the things people think he is. The leader, the face of the franchise, the locker room unifier, the coach’s best confidant, a guy who leads by example on and off the field and in the locker room/workout room. He doesn’t have to be a physical freak or even a huge rah-rah guy, but he has to be able to be an effective player who gives his team the chance to win consistently without needing a pro bowl roster around him to do it. There are franchise QBs who come in all shapes and sizes. The bottom line I think is that I may not be able to describe it well, but you know one when you see one.

[CoachChaz]

Personally, I’m not writing him off. My first impression is he’s a placeholder similar to what Steve DeBerg was. I don’t think you give two year deals to guys you believe in.

However, you have a valid point and it is possible for him to turn into that guy. Gannon and Garcia are two quarterbacks with similar skill sets who went from “journeyman backup” to “franchise quarterback”.

I'll push that to compare him to Cousins. Cousins only got 3 years, but Minnesota believes him to be enough of a franchise guy to make him the highest paid player in the NFL. So, does contract value help determine if a guy is seen as a franchise QB...or does contract length.

[CoachChaz]

It could be argued that Tim Tebow made the people around him play better (how, I don't know) does that make him a franchise QB?

Did he? The team finished 8-8 and only made the playoffs because Oakland choked in week 17. If 8-8 is making a team better, then where is the love for Siemian and his 9-7 season?

I think certain aspects of Tebow's game helped the team win more games than it should have, but I dont think he made the team better.

[BroncoWave]

Did he? The team finished 8-8 and only made the playoffs because Oakland choked in week 17. If 8-8 is making a team better, then where is the love for Siemian and his 9-7 season?

I think certain aspects of Tebow's game helped the team win more games than it should have, but I dont think he made the team better.

Well I think the argument for tebow is that he took over that 8-8 team at 1-4, thus making them better. I'm not necessarily making that argument, but one could argue that taking a 1-4 team to 8-8 is a bit more impressive than taking a roster that just won the super bowl to 9-7.

[Shazam!]

A franchise Qb is someone who can lead, motivate, and elevate a team when needed. For me its really not that hard to see it in a player.

Tim Tebow was said already.

[Freyaka]

Did he? The team finished 8-8 and only made the playoffs because Oakland choked in week 17. If 8-8 is making a team better, then where is the love for Siemian and his 9-7 season?

I think certain aspects of Tebow's game helped the team win more games than it should have, but I dont think he made the team better.

I feel like our running game and defense did step up for Tebow. I don't think he's a franchise QB, and I don't think obviously AW4M thinks that either, just playing devil's advocate a little.

As for TS love...I've been there, done that. I've been burnt too badly by supporting that guy to show any love for him after the fact.

[CoachChaz]

Well I think the argument for tebow is that he took over that 8-8 team at 1-4, thus making them better. I'm not necessarily making that argument, but one could argue that taking a 1-4 team to 8-8 is a bit more impressive than taking a roster that just won the super bowl to 9-7.

Ok...but then based on that scenario, it appears we can eliminate "making his teammates better" as a definitive quality of a franchise QB. Obviously, that can be done without being elite.

So far, it looks like we've crossed a few traits off of the list required to have that title...Leader, motivator, making the team better, etc. Not that you don't want these traits, just that they aren't requirements to be called a franchise QB.

I guess based on a few opinions we might also be able to eliminate stats from the qualifications, but my one argument for paying attention to stats is this...if having great stats isn't indicative of being a franchise QB, why is it that all the QB's that are considered franchise QB's always seem to have great stats??? Is 4000 yards, 30 TD's and a high rating just a by-product, or does it require having some ability as an elite QB help?

[topscribe]

Simple answer:

Elway.

Struggled his first year - even got benched, but showed flashes of brilliance. Won games he probably didn't have any business winning due to his will to win alone. He wasn't surrounded by a "great" team until his final years.

He just won games. As a fan during that time, even if the Broncos were down 20 points in the 4th, I knew there was at least a chance to win with him behind center. He demanded elite play from his teammates, and could get away with it because he left everything on the field himself. Never had eye-popping stats, but retired as the winningest QB with the most 4th quarter comebacks of all time.

I fully realize I'm an Elway homer and view virtually everything through orange-colored glasses, but when you watched him play, you just knew he was something incredibly special. The face of the franchise. A franchise QB.

I'm not sure I've seen that before or since, to be honest.
Agreed. I wanted to watch every minute Elway played because I somehow knew I was
watching history in the making, even during that time. As you suggested, Elway didn't always
have the best supporting cast around him. He just won.

One of the most profound comments about him that I ever heard from the booth -- I don't
remember who said it -- was when the Broncos were behind with one chance to go down the
field for the win. Elway took the field, and the announcer said, "Uh-oh." He was a prophet.
Elway did it again.

[Dreadnought]

Just a question of curiosity to see how each individual defines this term. Based on the last few weeks of ridiculous ****-fighting, I'm curious...if passer or QB ratings are irrelevant...exactly what numbers do define a "franchise QB"? And if numbers alone dont justify the title...what does?

Obviously, this is going to vary from person to person as it does from team to team in the NFL, but since there are threads disputing things like stats, personality, history, etc. playing into the title, I'm curious as to exactly what it is that has to happen before a QB is classified with the "Franchise" label.

I don't think there actually is such a thing, as such. Craig Morton took the Broncos to their first SB back in '77, after a decade as a backup/2nd choice elsewhere. Even when he was starting in Dallas he was keeping the seat warm for Staubach. Then, in his mid 30's, he shows up in Denver and led us to a 12-2 season, then 3 of 4 seasons as winners after that - and even there, the 8-8 1980 season was hardly his fault. He played behind a dismal offensive line, and on top of that had a pedestrian running game as well. His receiving corps was pretty good (Moses, Odoms, Dolbin), but there were probably better at the time. Was he a "Franchise QB"? A "Game Manager"? The Broncos kept trying to replace him, first with Norris Weese, then the horrible Matt Robinson experiment in 1980, but he kept being the best QB on the roster in spite of it.

Or are these terms, as such, really just silly and a bit lazy?

[BroncoWave]

Ok...but then based on that scenario, it appears we can eliminate "making his teammates better" as a definitive quality of a franchise QB. Obviously, that can be done without being elite.

So far, it looks like we've crossed a few traits off of the list required to have that title...Leader, motivator, making the team better, etc. Not that you don't want these traits, just that they aren't requirements to be called a franchise QB.

I guess based on a few opinions we might also be able to eliminate stats from the qualifications, but my one argument for paying attention to stats is this...if having great stats isn't indicative of being a franchise QB, why is it that all the QB's that are considered franchise QB's always seem to have great stats??? Is 4000 yards, 30 TD's and a high rating just a by-product, or does it require having some ability as an elite QB help?

Yeah, I don't think it's anything that's really possible to objectively quantify. Which is why I think it's more of a "I can't definite it, but I know it when I see it" type thing. I know that's not necessarily the most interesting take to have on the matter, but I think it's the most accurate.

[CoachChaz]

Yeah, I don't think it's anything that's really possible to objectively quantify. Which is why I think it's more of a "I can't definite it, but I know it when I see it" type thing. I know that's not necessarily the most interesting take to have on the matter, but I think it's the most accurate.

But can we eliminate stats or passer rating as a part of the equation? I mean, when I look at the names listed as current franchise QB's, they "just so happen" to be the same names listed at the top of the career passer rating list. Rodgers, Wilson, Brady, Rivers, Roethlisberger, Brees, etc.

[BroncoWave]

But can we eliminate stats or passer rating as a part of the equation? I mean, when I look at the names listed as current franchise QB's, they "just so happen" to be the same names listed at the top of the career passer rating list. Rodgers, Wilson, Brady, Rivers, Roethlisberger, Brees, etc.

I feel like those are the easy ones to throw in the franchise QB bucket because they put up big stats and win a bunch. The more gray area ones to define are guys like Stafford who put up big stats but don't win, or Eli who has won a bunch but not always put up the greatest stats. At that point, it's pretty much in the eye of the beholder if they are a franchise guy or not.

[BroncoJoe]

I feel like those are the easy ones to throw in the franchise QB bucket because they put up big stats and win a bunch. The more gray area ones to define are guys like Stafford who put up big stats but don't win, or Eli who has won a bunch but not always put up the greatest stats. At that point, it's pretty much in the eye of the beholder if they are a franchise guy or not.

Stats are certainly part of the equation, but most definitely not the end all be all.

This is almost like arguing who the best at anything is. Just not possible to define, with few exceptions.

[BroncoWave]

Stats are certainly part of the equation, but most definitely not the end all be all.

This is almost like arguing who the best at anything is. Just not possible to define, with few exceptions.

For sure. It's a great bar or message board argument, but it's never going to have an objective answer.

[topscribe]

Stats are certainly part of the equation, but most definitely not the end all be all.

This is almost like arguing who the best at anything is. Just not possible to define, with few exceptions.
I'm glad Coach started this thread. With all the discussion as to who is a "franchise quarterback"
or whether a given player is, or will be, without a black-and-white definition is kind of humorous
in a way, now that I think about it.

It's something we will know if and when it happens for a given individual. But it may be futile to
try to put down on paper as to why.

[underrated29]

A franchise QB is the QB that you know is going to start/win the job, every year no matter whom is brought in, drafted, etc. He is the player that will not be replaced or traded (Brady, phyllis, Big ben, etc). In a way they are a lot like your perfect wife. Once you have the perfect girl, you marry her, lock her up and do not (most of you anyway) go out looking for a better one. You have the best you can have. Eventually, she will get older and uglier and then you go through a mid life crisis (draft a new one). But that is a franchise QB.

A QB with whom you do not worry about replacing or competition or anything else.

[MOtorboat]

I don't think there's a definitive answer, but my criteria would be something like (and I'd look at these as not every single one is required every single year to make you as such):

A.) Leaves no doubt going into camp that he is the starter (this would be a requirement, not subject to above statement).
B.) Quickly learns any playbook; knows everyone's responsibility.
C.) Gives teammates, coaches, fans the belief that they can lead a scoring drive on every drive from any position on the field.
D.) Able to produce elite statistical years.
E.) Able to carry a team to a conference championship (this doesn't say Super Bowl title, because I believe flukey things happen once you reach this stage of the season.

There are some basic things too, adequate to strong arm, mental acuity, pocket presence, athletic ability, which I would say kind of falls into A. A certain level of cockiness/assurity, and presence.

Definitely subjective.

[BroncoWave]

I like the "leaves no doubt who the starter is and you aren't looking to replace him" definition.

[slim]

I don't think there's a definitive answer, but my criteria would be something like (and I'd look at these as not every single one is required every single year to make you as such):

A.) Leaves no doubt going into camp that he is the starter (this would be a requirement, not subject to above statement).
B.) Quickly learns any playbook; knows everyone's responsibility.
C.) Gives teammates, coaches, fans the belief that they can lead a scoring drive on every drive from any position on the field.
D.) Able to produce elite statistical years.
E.) Able to carry a team to a conference championship (this doesn't say Super Bowl title, because I believe flukey things happen once you reach this stage of the season.

There are some basic things too, adequate to strong arm, mental acuity, pocket presence, athletic ability, which I would say kind of falls into A. A certain level of cockiness/assurity, and presence.

Definitely subjective.

You just described MOfield to a T

[Freyaka]

I feel like those are the easy ones to throw in the franchise QB bucket because they put up big stats and win a bunch. The more gray area ones to define are guys like Stafford who put up big stats but don't win, or Eli who has won a bunch but not always put up the greatest stats. At that point, it's pretty much in the eye of the beholder if they are a franchise guy or not.

Out of curiosity. Was Marino a franchise QB? Would Manning have been minus the two rings?

[slim]

A franchise QB is the QB that you know is going to start/win the job, every year no matter whom is brought in, drafted, etc. He is the player that will not be replaced or traded (Brady, phyllis, Big ben, etc). In a way they are a lot like your perfect wife. Once you have the perfect girl, you marry her, lock her up and do not (most of you anyway) go out looking for a better one. You have the best you can have. Eventually, she will get older and uglier and then you go through a mid life crisis (draft a new one). But that is a franchise QB.

A QB with whom you do not worry about replacing or competition or anything else.

And he dives for balls!

[MOtorboat]

You just described MOfield to a T

Lol. No.

[Freyaka]

A franchise QB is the QB that you know is going to start/win the job, every year no matter whom is brought in, drafted, etc. He is the player that will not be replaced or traded (Brady, phyllis, Big ben, etc). In a way they are a lot like your perfect wife. Once you have the perfect girl, you marry her, lock her up and do not (most of you anyway) go out looking for a better one. You have the best you can have. Eventually, she will get older and uglier and then you go through a mid life crisis (draft a new one). But that is a franchise QB.

A QB with whom you do not worry about replacing or competition or anything else.

I think I like this answer best, but it's UR29, so I also hate this answer and think it's crap.

[BroncoWave]

Out of curiosity. Was Marino a franchise QB? Would Manning have been minus the two rings?

Yes and yes IMO. Super bowl wins is one of the most overrated ways to judge a QB. For example, I'd take Rivers over Eli in their primes and not think twice about it.

My threshold for how much you need to "win" as a franchise QB is just keeping your team competitive year after year. Once you get into the single elimination playoffs, things are just too fluky.

[Freyaka]

Yes and yes IMO. Super bowl wins is one of the most overrated ways to judge a QB. For example, I'd take Rivers over Eli in their primes and not think twice about it.

My threshold for how much you need to "win" as a franchise QB is just keeping your team competitive year after year. Once you get into the single elimination playoffs, things are just too fluky.

So (and again, this is just devil's advocate) If Case Keenum won 11 to 12 games with us the next two years, combined with his 11 wins last year. Would you be in favor of bringing him back and consider him "franchise"?

I'm not suggesting he can win 11+ games and I'm not suggesting he's franchise material, just throwing it out there for conversation.

[topscribe]

Out of curiosity. Was Marino a franchise QB? Would Manning have been minus the two rings?
Yes and yes, IMO. The thing is, a "franchise" QB isn't alone in the league Others exist who can
lay claim to the same accolade. So winning a SB or championship is a criterion but not a
necessary one.

For instance, when the Elway-led Broncos beat the Browns, they beat a better team than
they were, but the Broncos had Elway. When the Broncos lost to the 49ers, they lost to
the better team. But why didn't Elway make a difference? Because the 49ers had Montana.
The QBs were a wash. So it was down to the teams. So if, say, the Packers meet the
Patriots, the QBs are both "franchise," which is a wash. The game is won or lost by the
remainder of the two teams.

FWIW.

[BroncoWave]

So (and again, this is just devil's advocate) If Case Keenum won 11 to 12 games with us the next two years, combined with his 11 wins last year. Would you be in favor of bringing him back and consider him "franchise"?

I'm not suggesting he can win 11+ games and I'm not suggesting he's franchise material, just throwing it out there for conversation.

If we won 11+ games each of the next two years, I'd be totally in favor of keeping him as the guy unless it was just totally clear we we're winning in spite of him.

[topscribe]

So (and again, this is just devil's advocate) If Case Keenum won 11 to 12 games with us the next two years, combined with his 11 wins last year. Would you be in favor of bringing him back and consider him "franchise"?

I'm not suggesting he can win 11+ games and I'm not suggesting he's franchise material, just throwing it out there for conversation.
I'm just going to take a seat, open a beer, and watch this one. :lol:

[Freyaka]

If we won 11+ games each of the next two years, I'd be totally in favor of keeping him as the guy unless it was just totally clear we we're winning in spite of him.

Fair enough. I agree, if we're winning in spite of him, find someone in draft or FA to replace him, but if he's playing like he did last year and we're winning with his assistance, I don't see the need to rush to replace him as some around here do.

I am eager for the season to get here so we can have an idea of which Keenum we have. 2017 Keenum, or a regression back to his pre-Minny days.

[Freyaka]

I'm just going to take a seat, open a beer, and watch this one. :lol:

I mean, it's a simple conversation point not meant to imply anything, granted if a specific poster (we all know which one) sees it, the responses will turn into a crapstorm of mockery, but I genuinely wanted to know wave's thoughts here, not suggest anything about CK.

[slim]

I'm just going to take a seat, open a beer, and watch this one. :lol:

A little early for beer. I recommend scotch instead.

[Hawgdriver]

Two pro bowls.

[Freyaka]

A little early for beer. I recommend scotch instead.

Never too early for vodka either comrade.

[topscribe]

I mean, it's a simple conversation point not meant to imply anything, granted if a specific poster (we all know which one) sees it, the responses will turn into a crapstorm of mockery, but I genuinely wanted to know wave's thoughts here, not suggest anything about CK.
Nah, I wasn't referencing you. I was alluding to the "Keenum wars" that have been taking
place, of which I obviously have been part. It's more of a dig on me than on you. :)

[topscribe]

A little early for beer. I recommend scotch instead.
Never too early for a beer. Sometimes, I will have one with my breakfast.

If I go harder, it's usually brandy. But not for breakfast. :D

[BroncoJoe]

I like the "leaves no doubt who the starter is and you aren't looking to replace him" definition.

Me too, but I don't care for:

D.) Able to produce elite statistical years.

[BroncoWave]

Fair enough. I agree, if we're winning in spite of him, find someone in draft or FA to replace him, but if he's playing like he did last year and we're winning with his assistance, I don't see the need to rush to replace him as some around here do.

I am eager for the season to get here so we can have an idea of which Keenum we have. 2017 Keenum, or a regression back to his pre-Minny days.

Yeah, I'm always going to give a guy a chance to prove me wrong. I don't love the keenum signing personally, but if he plays well and we're winning the next 2 years, I'm not going to stay married to that opinion just to dig my heels in the sand. I'd love for him to prove me wrong.

[MOtorboat]

Me too, but I don't care for:

D.) Able to produce elite statistical years.

You don't care for quarterbacks who are able to produce elite statistical years?

;)

[BroncoJoe]

You don't care for quarterbacks who are able to produce elite statistical years?

;)

Don't get me wrong - it's important, but not the most important IMO.

If you look at Elway's stats, they're rather pedestrian. It was all the other stuff he brought to the table that made him elite.

Love Marino, but if Elway played for the Dolphins, they'd probably have a couple recent championships.

[BroncoWave]

Don't get me wrong - it's important, but not the most important IMO.

If you look at Elway's stats, they're rather pedestrian. It was all the other stuff he brought to the table that made him elite.

Love Marino, but if Elway played for the Dolphins, they'd probably have a couple recent championships.

Were Elways stats pedestrian for that era? I feel like he retired towards the top of a lot of passing categories.

[BroncoJoe]

Were Elways stats pedestrian for that era? I feel like he retired towards the top of a lot of passing categories.

He definitely threw too many interceptions. His completion percentage was below 57. Career rating below 80.

I don't know how that compared to others in that era, but I know a lot of people would bash him on his stats.

[MOtorboat]

Don't get me wrong - it's important, but not the most important IMO.

If you look at Elway's stats, they're rather pedestrian. It was all the other stuff he brought to the table that made him elite.

Love Marino, but if Elway played for the Dolphins, they'd probably have a couple recent championships.

I think the ability to put up elite stats speaks to a quarterback's ability to say "get on my back, we're doing this." Which is a phrase I should have put in my original post. The ability to put a team on his back and go win, both in any game, and any season, though not specifically every game and every season.

[MOtorboat]

Were Elways stats pedestrian for that era? I feel like he retired towards the top of a lot of passing categories.

No. He was top 10 in yards in 11 seasons, led the league once, and top 10 in TDs in 8 seasons. His passer rating was top 10 in five seasons (speaks to his interceptions, i.e., gunslinging). He was not pedestrian statwise by any means.

[BroncoJoe]

I think the ability to put up elite stats speaks to a quarterback's ability to say "get on my back, we're doing this." Which is a phrase I should have put in my original post. The ability to put a team on his back and go win, both in any game, and any season, though not specifically every game and every season.

I get ya. I just believe actual stats are further down the list.

Granted, you did have that at level D, so I'm guessing it's not the end-all-be-all in your eyes either.

[Freyaka]

Yeah, I'm always going to give a guy a chance to prove me wrong. I don't love the keenum signing personally, but if he plays well and we're winning the next 2 years, I'm not going to stay married to that opinion just to dig my heels in the sand. I'd love for him to prove me wrong.

That's kinda where I'm at currently. Granted if we draft MOfield or Rosen, I'll probably migrate over there rather quickly lol.

[BroncoJoe]

No. He was top 10 in yards in 11 seasons, led the league once, and top 10 in TDs in 8 seasons. His passer rating was top 10 in five seasons (speaks to his interceptions, i.e., gunslinging). He was not pedestrian statwise by any means.

Remember in the 80's the top QB's' were Montana, Marino, Kelly, Moon and Young. Even Fouts and Cunningham put up huge numbers.

In the 90's, you add in Favre, Aikman and Warner who all put up pretty good stats.

I'm not dissing on Elway - just stating my point that stats aren't the primary qualifier. He was incredibly consistent and a winner.

[topscribe]

He definitely threw too many interceptions. His completion percentage was below 57. Career rating below 80.

I don't know how that compared to others in that era, but I know a lot of people would bash him on his stats.
Well, once again, we get down to the "why's." Time and again, Elway had to bail the team out
with a come-from-behind win in the fourth quarter. Looking back, as I watched the game
(often in frustration, wondering whether we were going to see a complete game from the
team), Elway was forced to play within Dan Reeves' offense: run, run, pass, punt. Then, when
it came desperation time in the waning minutes, Elway was turned loose, and he proceeded to
make defenses look silly.

If one would look at Elway's career stats, they went up significantly beginning in 1993. If he
had Shanahan as a HC all his career, his stats would have been far more sparkling, IMO. But
even at that, keep in mind that stats weren't near back then what they are today. For instance,
it's commonplace that the top QBs today will register passer ratings in the 90s and 100s. Back
then, a Unitas or Marino might register one year or so in the 90s, but most of the time in the
70s and 80s. But then, the league started to limit what defenses can do, so now Elway's stats
don't look as good as they likely did back then. (I didn't pay too much attention to such stats
back then, and I don't think anybody did, at least as much.)

[Freyaka]

Remember in the 80's the top QB's' were Montana, Marino, Kelly, Moon and Young. Even Fouts and Cunningham put up huge numbers.

In the 90's, you add in Favre, Aikman and Warner who all put up pretty good stats.

I'm not dissing on Elway - just stating my point that stats aren't the primary qualifier. He was incredibly consistent and a winner.

Yea, but if the guys you mentioned were the Peyton Manning's of their era, Elway was the Aaron Rodgers of that era. He was still solid statistically when compared amongst his peers. It's only when you take him out of his own era that his numbers seem pedestrian.

[Poet]

Someone who can carry the load with a flawed team. Someone who is productive more than most, and isn't reliant upon great players around them to do well. Someone who can carry a team. Someone who can mask the deficiencies of others. Can you do more with less? Can you make others overachieve?

Someone who clearly passes the eye test. Someone who you know that because you have them, you always have a shot.

[BroncoJoe]

Someone who can carry the load with a flawed team. Someone who is productive more than most, and isn't reliant upon great players around them to do well. Someone who can carry a team. Someone who can mask the deficiencies of others. Can you do more with less? Can you make others overachieve?

Someone who clearly passes the eye test. Someone who you know that because you have them, you always have a shot.

So, Keenum?

:couch:

[Poet]

So, Keenum?

:couch:

It is possible that he is this guy and routinely had bad luck and variance against him.

[BroncoJoe]

Yea, but if the guys you mentioned were the Peyton Manning's of their era, Elway was the Aaron Rodgers of that era. He was still solid statistically when compared amongst his peers. It's only when you take him out of his own era that his numbers seem pedestrian.

I just want to be 100% clear: I think Elway is the GOAT. Period.

His statistics prove the point that it takes a hell of a lot more than great stats to be a franchise QB.

[MOtorboat]

Remember in the 80's the top QB's' were Montana, Marino, Kelly, Moon and Young. Even Fouts and Cunningham put up huge numbers.

In the 90's, you add in Favre, Aikman and Warner who all put up pretty good stats.

I'm not dissing on Elway - just stating my point that stats aren't the primary qualifier. He was incredibly consistent and a winner.

I'm not sure what you're arguing. I get that stats aren't the be all, end all, but all of these quarterbacks are franchise quarterbacks. You're listing off Hall of Famers.

[BroncoJoe]

It is possible that he is this guy and routinely had bad luck and variance against him.

We can certainly all hope that is the Case. Keenum.

:drum:

[BroncoJoe]

I'm not sure what you're arguing. I get that stats aren't the be all, end all, but all of these quarterbacks are franchise quarterbacks. You're listing off Hall of Famers.

We agree. I'm not arguing, other than stating that stats aren't the primary factor in determining what a franchise QB is.

[chazoe60]

I always thought of an Elite franchise QB as a guy that if all things were equal you would either not trade away for any other QB or it would at least be a very painful decision to have to make. By "all things being equal" I am mostly referring to age and contract status. In other words I would probably not trade a 25 year old Tom Brady for a 25 year old Peyton Manning if one was already on my team and familiar with my system.

Elite franchise QBs are pretty rare. Right now there are, per my definition of the term, 3.

Tom Brady
Aaron Rodgers
Drew Brees

Franchise QBs in the next tier are guys that you would trade straight up for the above guys but not for anyone else. And some of these guys may very well end up in the above list but aren't there yet

Carson Wentz
Big Ben
Russell Wilson
Matt Ryan
Andrew Luck (if healthy)
Phillip Rivers


The Next tier is my last tier of Franchise QBs and these are guys that you would trade for any of the above as well as a 1st and some change. These guys can win you a SB with help but they all have some flaws in their game or personality(Cam Newton)

Newton
Carr
Cousins
Alex Smith
Prescott (maybe. He could move drastically up this list or completely fall off of it, it's still too early to know but I'm going to put him here for now.)

The rest of the guys in the league are just guys. Some of the young guys will eventually move up the list but for now that's how I stack it.

[MOtorboat]

I always thought of an Elite franchise QB as a guy that if all things were equal you would either not trade away for any other QB or it would at least be a very painful decision to have to make. By "all things being equal" I am mostly referring to age and contract status. In other words I would probably not trade a 25 year old Tom Brady for a 25 year old Peyton Manning if one was already on my team and familiar with my system.

Elite franchise QBs are pretty rare. Right now there are, per my definition of the term, 3.

Tom Brady
Aaron Rodgers
Drew Brees

Franchise QBs in the next tier are guys that you would trade straight up for the above guys but not for anyone else. And some of these guys may very well end up in the above list but aren't there yet

Carson Wentz
Big Ben
Russell Wilson
Matt Ryan
Andrew Luck (if healthy)
Phillip Rivers


The Next tier is my last tier of Franchise QBs and these are guys that you would trade for any of the above as well as a 1st and some change. These guys can win you a SB with help but they all have some flaws in their game or personality(Cam Newton)

Newton
Carr
Cousins
Alex Smith
Prescott (maybe. He could move drastically up this list or completely fall off of it, it's still too early to know but I'm going to put him here for now.)

The rest of the guys in the league are just guys. Some of the young guys will eventually move up the list but for now that's how I stack it.

I think that's a pretty fair list. I think Garopollo and Goff could play their way onto that list.

[Magnificent Seven]

We need a franchise QB at this time. Elway was the last franchise QB in Broncos Organization. I think Jake Plummer and Peyton Manning were temporary franchise QBs.

[CoachChaz]

So, in summary, it appears everyone has their own opinion of what makes a franchise QB. Which means that no one and everyone are right at the same time. So, when someone says Mayfield WILL bust or Rosen WILL be the best or Keenum WILL suck...they have a decent idea based mostly on opinion, but in the end...they really don't know shit.

[MOtorboat]

So, in summary, it appears everyone has their own opinion of what makes a franchise QB. Which means that no one and everyone are right at the same time. So, when someone says Mayfield WILL bust or Rosen WILL be the best or Keenum WILL suck...they have a decent idea based mostly on opinion, but in the end...they really don't know shit.

Well, the management for teams don't even know, so I guess I'm not going to take any shame in having an opinion on the subject.

[Freyaka]

So, in summary, it appears everyone has their own opinion of what makes a franchise QB. Which means that no one and everyone are right at the same time. So, when someone says Mayfield WILL bust or Rosen WILL be the best or Keenum WILL suck...they have a decent idea based mostly on opinion, but in the end...they really don't know shit.

Anyone can say they know the right information at this time of year, but it's a giant crapshoot. We form opinions based on best information available to us.

We can use past history, personality, statistics, ect... to reduce the uncertainty, but no one can every be 100 percent certain on a player (unless they drive a flying delorean)

[CoachChaz]

Well, the management for teams don't even know, so I guess I'm not going to take any shame in having an opinion on the subject.

And you shouldn't. In the same regard why you shouldn't be shamed by others or shame them for their opinion.

[CoachChaz]

Anyone can say they know the right information at this time of year, but it's a giant crapshoot. We form opinions based on best information available to us.

We can use past history, personality, statistics, ect... to reduce the uncertainty, but no one can every be 100 percent certain on a player (unless they drive a flying delorean)

True. but there are those that are convinced that Keenum WILL suck this year...or that Rosen or Mayfield or insert name here is the second coming of Christ. And if you disagree with them, they will quickly tell you why you're an idiot for not believing the same thing.

[Freyaka]

True. but there are those that are convinced that Keenum WILL suck this year...or that Rosen or Mayfield or insert name here is the second coming of Christ. And if you disagree with them, they will quickly tell you why you're an idiot for not believing the same thing.

Well, but those people (the biggest offender knows who he is) are often trying to goad you into responding poorly to them by being as over the top in their responses as possible. They post with intent of causing as much polarization as they can, because people getting butt hurt is fun to them.

They have no soul and like to watch the world burn.

[Simple Jaded]

6’-0 5/8”, about 200lbs, Sally-armed, from Texas ... preferably from a Run and Shit/Air-Gayed offense. And most importantly, he’s gotta have the “It” factor.

If you have to ask if So-and-So is a franchise QB, he’s not. Maybe ... not.

[chazoe60]

6’-0 5/8”, about 200lbs, Sally-armed, from Texas ... preferably from a Run and Shit/Air-Gayed offense. And most importantly, he’s gotta have the “It” factor.

If you have to ask if So-and-So is a franchise QB, he’s not. Maybe ... not.

So Drew Brees? I would agree.

[Simple Jaded]

So, in summary, it appears everyone has their own opinion of what makes a franchise QB. Which means that no one and everyone are right at the same time. So, when someone says Mayfield WILL bust or Rosen WILL be the best or Keenum WILL suck...they have a decent idea based mostly on opinion, but in the end...they really don't know shit.
Just like the people that say Keenum WON’T suck.

[Simple Jaded]

So Drew Brees? I would agree.

Brees doesn’t have a popgun, bite your tongue.

[Poet]

FWIW, there have been plenty of facts used by both sides. Also, just because there's a disagreement doesn't mean that all the dissent is valid.

[Jsteve01]

FWIW, there have been plenty of facts used by both sides. Also, just because there's a disagreement doesn't mean that all the dissent is valid.

I agree but coach as usual is the level head. What he's saying is there is no unbiased side of this argument. There is no purely objective status in this debate. Everyone is allowing bias and preference to influence their opinion on someone that literally we don't know one way or the other what he will be this year. You can use stats from last year to support the case that he all the sudden developed into Rich Gannon. Or you can make the case that the guy has bounced around the league and never started for anybody for a very good reason and that was that he was mediocre at best. The only way this thing plays out is it plays out on the field. Everybody is certain that they know what's going to happen coaches point is that no one truly knows

[Poet]

I agree but coach as usual is the level head. What he's saying is there is no unbiased side of this argument. There is no purely objective status in this debate. Everyone is allowing bias and preference to influence their opinion on someone that literally we don't know one way or the other what he will be this year. You can use stats from last year to support the case that he all the sudden developed into Rich Gannon. Or you can make the case that the guy has bounced around the league and never started for anybody for a very good reason and that was that he was mediocre at best. The only way this thing plays out is it plays out on the field. Everybody is certain that they know what's going to happen coaches point is that no one truly knows

When talking about a franchise QB, we can list all the things that we want and don't want. But, to be completely honest, no one can honestly think that 22 TDs and 3,500 yards is franchise production. And that's the problem, acting like because there is some ambiguity that opinions aren't more or less informed doesn't make sense. It's a gigantic example of false equivalency.

Is anyone going to dispute Brady, Rodgers, Big Ben, or Wentz? No. Is anyone going to dispute Matt Ryan? I hope not. What about Stafford and what he's done with his career? There's only so much valid dispute one can have with the guys in the league before you start getting silly. And that's the point - it's pretty clear when you have one. So when you start looking at production, and accomplishments, and actual talent and ability, the whole notion of "well, it's just an opinion and no one knows shit," really starts to go out the window.

[topscribe]

When talking about a franchise QB, we can list all the things that we want and don't want. But, to be completely honest, no one can honestly think that 22 TDs and 3,500 yards is franchise production. And that's the problem, acting like because there is some ambiguity that opinions aren't more or less informed doesn't make sense. It's a gigantic example of false equivalency.

Is anyone going to dispute Brady, Rodgers, Big Ben, or Wentz? No. Is anyone going to dispute Matt Ryan? I hope not. What about Stafford and what he's done with his career? There's only so much valid dispute one can have with the guys in the league before you start getting silly. And that's the point - it's pretty clear when you have one. So when you start looking at production, and accomplishments, and actual talent and ability, the whole notion of "well, it's just an opinion and no one knows shit," really starts to go out the window.
Well, that's your opinion. But, while you have criticized for "stats dump," you just used
stats to tell us why a given player cannot be "franchise." Of course, you are referencing
Keenum, and, to be honest, I'm not ready to declare him "franchise," either. But you
know the old saying: You can't have it both ways.

By the way, I've seen that 3,500 yard stat from you before, as if that is coming up short
for Keenum. You fail to mention that he started 14 games, not 16. So, the 3,547 yards
he passed for, averaged out to 16 games, comes to 4,054 yards. Just saying . . .

[topscribe]

6’-0 5/8”, about 200lbs, Sally-armed, from Texas ... preferably from a Run and Shit/Air-Gayed offense. And most importantly, he’s gotta have the “It” factor.

If you have to ask if So-and-So is a franchise QB, he’s not. Maybe ... not.
Pro Football Reference has Keenum at 6'2", 209 lbs.

"Sally-armed"? I suppose you mean weak? Well, maybe, but he did break most of the passing
records in college, many that still stand, and his stats (yes, stats) from last year revealed at
least a good enough arm to make all the throws, as I've heard more than once about him.

[CoachChaz]

When talking about a franchise QB, we can list all the things that we want and don't want. But, to be completely honest, no one can honestly think that 22 TDs and 3,500 yards is franchise production. And that's the problem, acting like because there is some ambiguity that opinions aren't more or less informed doesn't make sense. It's a gigantic example of false equivalency.

Is anyone going to dispute Brady, Rodgers, Big Ben, or Wentz? No. Is anyone going to dispute Matt Ryan? I hope not. What about Stafford and what he's done with his career? There's only so much valid dispute one can have with the guys in the league before you start getting silly. And that's the point - it's pretty clear when you have one. So when you start looking at production, and accomplishments, and actual talent and ability, the whole notion of "well, it's just an opinion and no one knows shit," really starts to go out the window.

Not sure I'd put Wentz on that list just yet, but that's another discussion. I really don't think anyone is saying or has ever said that Keenum is a franchise QB, either. In fact there are probably only 7 or 8 of those in the entire NFL...depending on your standards of the definition. But we do know that history dictates that you need one of those guys...or at least someone close to that status...if you want to win a championship. Sure, there are the rare cases when a defense can hide QB deficiencies, but for the most part, an elite QB is almost a requirement. So, with a top 10 defense and improved OL play, is Keenum good enough to get us there? Maybe. We don't really know, so we'll have to let it play out. The other option that is thrown out is "we need to get our franchise QB of the future in this draft." Fine, but who is that guy? Depending on who you ask, there are 4, 5, 6 top QB prospects in this draft, but which one or two will be franchise level? Even in the great QB class of 83, by which this class is compared to...only two of them really ever amounted to elite status. And only one of them ever won a championship...but not until he was 37 years old.

How often do truly elite QB's come around? Even in good QB classes. Maybe Wentz and Goff get that title, but before that was Luck 3 years prior. Before that? Newton? Ryan? The point is, not every class has one and while it seems like this class has the most options, we have to look at the red flags all of them bring to the table and be realistic. Drew Brees was an undersized QB who lit up the Big 10, but went in the 2nd round. But somehow, Mayfield is top 5 material? There is a laundry list of big, strong armed QB's that have failed as 1st round picks...if they were even picked in the first, but suddenly Josh Allen is top 5 material? How about all of the USC QB's that ran high school offenses in college and failed? Is Darnold suddenly the exception? How about the QB's with durability concerns that bombed out? Rosen? Dual threat QB's that had success? Jackson?

If you took these 5 and put them in a class with either Wentz or Goff or Luck or Newton or Ryan...most of them would be considered 2nd or 3rd round material. But we buy into the hype and now we're in a scenario where history dictates that most of them will amount to nothing. Are the Broncos in a position to get that wrong? I know the notion is that we rarely get a pick this high and we need to take advantage of it, but taking a "top rated" QB just because you can is dangerous. Mostly because...in my opinion...none of them reek of "franchise QB" material.

[Freyaka]

When talking about a franchise QB, we can list all the things that we want and don't want. But, to be completely honest, no one can honestly think that 22 TDs and 3,500 yards is franchise production.

I'm not going to argue that he is a franchise QB, but you have to take into account that that's not for a full 16 games. Expanded out to 16 it's 4,053 yards 25 TD's 8 INT's (hypothetically obviously, you can't guarantee he'd hit that, but based on his production through 14 games, by continuing the existing production for 2 additional games, that's the number's you'd be looking at)

That would have put him 8th in the league in yards ahead of Alex Smith and only very slightly (less than 50 yards) behind Kirk Cousins and 10th in the league in TD's

Those are top 10 numbers. Now again, I'm not saying he's franchise material, I'm not saying we shouldn't go find our QB in the draft, I'm just pointing out that you are looking at those numbers as if they represent a full season's body of work, they don't. When extrapolated to a full season, those numbers are pretty good, in fact if he could put up those numbers this year (with the addition of a solid running back in the draft) we'd be a 12-14 win team this year IMO. But we don't know if he can repeat last years numbers, last year could have been a one off on a strong team.

The bottom line is, no one knows what Case is going to do with us. Odds aren't great he's going to do well, but neither of us can state with 100 percent certainty that we have the answer. The anti-Case side loves to state emphatically that he's crap and he sucks and we're doomed if he is our long term option, that side could be right, but he's numbers last year if they could be duplicated are good numbers. We could do well as a team with those numbers.

I'm not confident in Keenum, but until he takes a snap in Denver, due to what he accomplished last year, I'm willing to wait and see if he can duplicate it. Hopefully we can draft a QB to replace him in a year or so in this years draft, otherwise if he proves the doubters right, we're going to have to get creative to replace him.

[BroncoJoe]

Yeah, Coach - it seemed like the talk about these QB's early on was more from the standpoint that it's not a great QB class. Then, all of the sudden, it's being compared to '83.

I don't watch much college football outside of following CU, so I can only parrot what I've heard both here and elsewhere. I'm not sure when or how it got turned into a great QB class.

[Freyaka]

Yeah, Coach - it seemed like the talk about these QB's early on was more from the standpoint that it's not a great QB class. Then, all of the sudden, it's being compared to '83.

I don't watch much college football outside of following CU, so I can only parrot what I've heard both here and elsewhere. I'm not sure when or how it got turned into a great QB class.

We won't know how great of a QB class it is until a year or two down the line when these guys start showing their worth. I feel like it's stronger than some originally thought, but there is a lot of hype surrounding these QB's that wouldn't be there if there wasn't so many teams desperately hungry for a solid QB.

In my opinion only 2 of the top 5 are first round QBs. There are a few of the later round QB's that will be solid options, but need time to develop.

We'll probably see 3-4 QBs come out of this draft on top when all is said and done.

[CoachChaz]

Yeah, Coach - it seemed like the talk about these QB's early on was more from the standpoint that it's not a great QB class. Then, all of the sudden, it's being compared to '83.

I don't watch much college football outside of following CU, so I can only parrot what I've heard both here and elsewhere. I'm not sure when or how it got turned into a great QB class.

It was interesting to watch it spiral like it did.

[CoachChaz]

I'm not going to argue that he is a franchise QB, but you have to take into account that that's not for a full 16 games. Expanded out to 16 it's 4,053 yards 25 TD's 8 INT's (hypothetically obviously, you can't guarantee he'd hit that, but based on his production through 14 games, by continuing the existing production for 2 additional games, that's the number's you'd be looking at)

That would have put him 8th in the league in yards ahead of Alex Smith and only very slightly (less than 50 yards) behind Kirk Cousins and 10th in the league in TD's

Those are top 10 numbers. Now again, I'm not saying he's franchise material, I'm not saying we shouldn't go find our QB in the draft, I'm just pointing out that you are looking at those numbers as if they represent a full season's body of work, they don't. When extrapolated to a full season, those numbers are pretty good, in fact if he could put up those numbers this year (with the addition of a solid running back in the draft) we'd be a 12-14 win team this year IMO. But we don't know if he can repeat last years numbers, last year could have been a one off on a strong team.

The bottom line is, no one knows what Case is going to do with us. Odds aren't great he's going to do well, but neither of us can state with 100 percent certainty that we have the answer. The anti-Case side loves to state emphatically that he's crap and he sucks and we're doomed if he is our long term option, that side could be right, but he's numbers last year if they could be duplicated are good numbers. We could do well as a team with those numbers.

I'm not confident in Keenum, but until he takes a snap in Denver, due to what he accomplished last year, I'm willing to wait and see if he can duplicate it. Hopefully we can draft a QB to replace him in a year or so in this years draft, otherwise if he proves the doubters right, we're going to have to get creative to replace him.

Another thing to take into consideration that could have and still could aide his success even more...is a good running game. He accomplished what he did last year with Latavius Murrray as his primary back. If Denver is able to improve OL play and acquire another back to complement Booker, it could have an even greater impact on Keenum's success.

[Freyaka]

Another thing to take into consideration that could have and still could aide his success even more...is a good running game. He accomplished what he did last year with Latavius Murrray as his primary back. If Denver is able to improve OL play and acquire another back to complement Booker, it could have an even greater impact on Keenum's success.

That's one argument the pro case side keeps throwing out there I actually have zero agreement with. Murray or not, they still had almost 2,000 rushing yards as a team.

Murray and McKinnon combined for 1412 yards on 366 carries. That's still decent production once Dalvin Cook went down.

[CoachChaz]

That's one argument the pro case side keeps throwing out there I actually have zero agreement with. Murray or not, they still had almost 2,000 rushing yards as a team.

Murray and McKinnon combined for 1412 yards on 366 carries. That's still decent production once Dalvin Cook went down.

But other than Cook...none of them rushed for over 4 yards per carry. 3.9 as a team. In comparison...Denver only had 400 fewer rushing yards and a 4.1 team average.

So, best case scenario, the Vikings running game was slightly better than the vaunted Denver rushing attack. #7 and #12

[Freyaka]

But other than Cook...none of them rushed for over 4 yards per carry. 3.9 as a team. In comparison...Denver only had 400 fewer rushing yards and a 4.1 team average.

So, best case scenario, the Vikings running game was slightly better than the vaunted Denver rushing attack. #7 and #12

I guess then point I'm making, people want to diminish their running game by saying they had Murray, they had a top 10 attack and only a small portion of that belonged to Cook prior to his injury. Our running game needs to step up this year to provide him with at least as much rushing support as he got last year.

[topscribe]

But other than Cook...none of them rushed for over 4 yards per carry. 3.9 as a team. In comparison...Denver only had 400 fewer rushing yards and a 4.1 team average.

So, best case scenario, the Vikings running game was slightly better than the vaunted Denver rushing attack. #7 and #12


I guess then point I'm making, people want to diminish their running game by saying they had Murray, they had a top 10 attack and only a small portion of that belonged to Cook prior to his injury. Our running game needs to step up this year to provide him with at least as much rushing support as he got last year.
Well actually, I'm guilty of diminishing the Vikings running game a bit more than I should have.
I think it was recoil from the hyperbole from the other side.

I might, however, make one little point of correction. While the Vikings were indeed #7 in yards
gained, they were #23 in Y/A. I think the yards per attempt is the more important stat because
it essentially dictates how long second and third downs are. Denver wasn't a whole lot better
there at #18. So both put greater loads on their respective QBs than they otherwise should have.

Denver's O-line looks to be a little stronger this year, and Elway has indicated he is going to draft
one of the RBs in a very deep class this year. So we can hope that Keenum may get a little better
support from the running game this year.

A big concern of mine is whether Keenum will have good TEs to support him. He had a couple
decent ones last year. We just don't know yet what the Broncos are going to have there.

[CoachChaz]

Well actually, I'm guilty of diminishing the Vikings running game a bit more than I should have.
I think it was recoil from the hyperbole from the other side.

I might, however, make one little point of correction. While the Vikings were indeed #7 in yards
gained, they were #23 in Y/A. I think the yards per attempt is the more important stat because
it essentially dictates how long second and third downs are. Denver wasn't a whole lot better
there at #18. So both put greater loads on their respective QBs than they otherwise should have.

Denver's O-line looks to be a little stronger this year, and Elway has indicated he is going to draft
one of the RBs in a very deep class this year. So we can hope that Keenum may get a little better
support from the running game this year.

A big concern of mine is whether Keenum will have good TEs to support him. He had a couple
decent ones last year. We just don't know yet what the Broncos are going to have there.

However...Rudolph was only targeted 81 times last year, so he wasn't as heavily relied upon as he was in the past. Interesting because Shurmur was the TE coach one year before becoming the OC last year....and Rudolph was targeted 132 times the previous year. Probably reading too much into it, but I'm guessing it all just comes down to the type of approach Musgrave decides to take and how important a top level TE is to it.

[Northman]

Everybody is certain that they know what's going to happen coaches point is that no one truly knows

Sooooo than the thread was pointless? :lol:

[Northman]

depending on your standards of the definition.

I think this is really all it boils down to and that is an individual's perception. People can go back and forth all day on this subject but it wont change anyone's mind about what actually makes a franchise QB. I mean, the discussion here is basically the same one we have been having regarding Bronco QB's for years now.

[CoachChaz]

Sooooo than the thread was pointless? :lol:

Actually, helping people realize that not one knows what a franchise QB is until he legitimately becomes a franchise QB (regardless of what we think), was the absolute point of the thread.

Mission accomplished.

[Northman]

Actually, helping people realize that not one knows what a franchise QB is until he legitimately becomes a franchise QB (regardless of what we think), was the absolute point of the thread.

Mission accomplished.

I dont know if you actually helped anyone realize anything to be honest. If its all about one's perception than i think it was already realized a long time ago. In other words, my perception is i knew pretty early that John Elway was special and knew he would be a franchise kind of guy. With Keenum, my perception right now is he is Trevor Siemian at worst and Rich Gannon at best. But its all about perception.

[turftoad]

As we know football is a team sport.

A Franchise QB in my opinion is a guy that wins the games he should and puts the team on his back to win some he shouldn't.

[Freyaka]

Sooooo than the thread was pointless? :lol:

If that's all you got out of it, it was pointless for your sake anyway.

I thought it was a good discussion.

[Northman]

If that's all you got out of it, it was pointless for your sake anyway.

I thought it was a good discussion.

The discussions are always good on here as when it comes to QB's we have quite a few of them. Im just not sure i think it really enlightened anyone in any particular way. If at the end the consensus was that its just subjective and opinionated i can only say. Um ok. I think we all pretty much knew that right ?

[Simple Jaded]

Pro Football Reference has Keenum at 6'2", 209 lbs.

"Sally-armed"? I suppose you mean weak? Well, maybe, but he did break most of the passing
records in college, many that still stand, and his stats (yes, stats) from last year revealed at
least a good enough arm to make all the throws, as I've heard more than once about him.

Top, what you don’t know about CK is staggering.

[topscribe]

Top, what you don’t know about CK is staggering.
So tell me, what did I say about Keenum's college record that you disagree with? That
he broke all kinds of passing records? Check it out!

What did I say about anything that you can rebut? I personally have heard and read that
Keenum "can make all the throws" from Elway, Kubiak, VJ, Peyton Manning, Emmanuel
Sanders, Stefon Diggs, and Mike Zimmer himself.

Your saying I don't know Keenum is not any kind of rebuttal. It's just something you felt
you had to post, apparently, because you have no argument. In fact, I'm still looking for
an argument from either you or King.

As a bonus, here is a video that demonstrates Keenum's rag arm (http://www.denverbroncos.com/multimedia/videos/Case-Keenums-top-10-throws-in-2017/2f955061-8939-4704-8e49-dcbf67479740).

This video (http://www.denverbroncos.com/multimedia/videos/Film_Review_Evaluating_QB_Case_Keenum/08d24c2e-4920-411f-8530-9ca68b1f154b) demonstrates the dramatic upgrade the Broncos incurred by signing Keenum
(Be sure to check out 2:35 where the narrator says, "It's these kinds of throws from Case
Keenum . . . that have the Broncos excited about their future.")
.

[Simple Jaded]

A, he’s nowhere near 6’-2”
B, college stats from a horizontal offense is in no/way/shape/form a measure of arm strength.
C, dude is a rag arm, easily the weakest of any starter in the NFL. We can go through any scouting report you want and you won’t find a single one that says he can make every NFL throw. Besides that, watch the ******* games. Seriously people, go watch the games.
D, anyone saying he has anything remotely close to average arm strength is spitting lip service like a fire hose.

What the **** ever. :D

[Simple Jaded]

“Limited arm strength. Small, competitive system QB with a popgun arm whose production will earn him a look” — Nolan Nawrocki

“Average (at best) arm strength”— NFL Draft Scout

“Borderline measurables, arm strength and pro physical skills”— Ourlads

“Below average arm strength, Ball tends to hang on deeper throws and can get into trouble when tries to thread the needle”— Scouts Inc (ESPN)

[topscribe]

A, he’s nowhere near 6’-2”
Doesn't make any difference. The point is, can he play football? He has shown he can, and then some.


B, college stats from a horizontal offense is in no/way/shape/form a measure of arm strength.
Doesn't make any difference. It does show he can complete passes and break records doing it. And last
year's performance shows that he can pass with the best of them. I have proof behind me. You have words.


C, dude is a rag arm, easily the weakest of any starter in the NFL. We can go through any scouting report you want and you won’t find a single one that says he can make every NFL throw. Besides that, watch the ******* games. Seriously people, go watch the games.

I saw at least a half dozen of his games last year. Full games. And I have studied everything
else about him that is available. Everything. You want to say he has a rag arm. Fine. So scouting
reports don't say he can make every throw? Fine. Does one of them say he can't? I didn't read
that from scouting reports. I have personally heard and read it from people who know him, who
have spent every day with him, in games and in practices, for full seasons and from others who
have played quarterback and wide receiver . . . you know, people who know quarterbacks.


D, anyone saying he has anything remotely close to average arm strength is spitting lip service like a fire hose.
Doesn't make any difference. As I said, he broke all kinds of passing records in college. And
last year, he completed 67% of his passes for 3,547 yards (over 14 games, not 16) and lodged a
3:1 TD/INT ratio. He had a 98.3 passer rating and the #2 QBR in the league. All this says he can
really pass the ball, much more credibly than your testimony, borne of . . . what?

Watch the vids I provided in my last post, just for kicks . . .
.

[Simple Jaded]

I’ve watched every game he played for Vikings Top, he’s a scrub, he went undrafted for a reason.

“Doesn’t make a difference” ... you’re the one posting stats and suggesting that proves ANYTHING. Doesn’t make a difference is a good way of summarizing my responses you, you stole my response. Thief ... sinner!

“He threw for a bagillion Miles in college, he couldn’t do that if he didn’t have the strongest arm in the history of ever”— Top

“Stats in a college spread doesn’t measure arm strength” — Jaded

“Makes no difference” — Top

Top, those “People who know QB’s” are flat out lying to you.

[Simple Jaded]

http://www.nfl.com/combine/profiles/case-keenum?id=2532888

[topscribe]

I’ve watched every game he played for Vikings Top, he’s a scrub, he went undrafted for a reason.

“Doesn’t make a difference” ... you’re the one posting stats and suggesting that proves ANYTHING. Doesn’t make a difference is a good way of summarizing my responses you, you stole my response. Thief ... sinner!

“He threw for a bagillion Miles in college, he couldn’t do that if he didn’t have the strongest arm in the history of ever”— Top

“Stats in a college spread doesn’t measure arm strength” — Jaded

“Makes no difference” — Top

Top, those “People who know QB’s” are flat out lying to you.
Right. Elway, Kubiak, VJ, Emmanuel, Diggs, and Zimmer are liars. Simply because they
don't want me to know the truth.

It doesn't make any difference how you spin it. Keenum has already proven it. You can argue
until you're blue in the face. It doesn't alter the history. You know, you said I don't know
anything about Keenum, Yet I wrote a 750 word article about him that you refused to read.
How ironic. Go figure. Keep on spinning, Jaded.

And if you are going to put quotation marks around words you attribute to me, try to be
honest and quote me as I said it. It's bad enough that you tore it out of context. Don't try to
make me look like a fool. You're only making a fool of yourself. You only weaken your
argument when you're already at a disadvantage.
.

[CoachChaz]

The discussions are always good on here as when it comes to QB's we have quite a few of them. Im just not sure i think it really enlightened anyone in any particular way. If at the end the consensus was that its just subjective and opinionated i can only say. Um ok. I think we all pretty much knew that right ?

But that's the point. The way phrases like, "we need to draft a franchise QB", "Case Keenum isn't a franchise QB", etc. are thrown around here on a regular basis...I dont think I'd be so quick to say we ALL pretty much knew that the definition was as opinionated as you want to make it. The point of the thread was to create a reflective discussion to explore how varied the definition can be from person to person, team to team, etc. and how players can earn and lose that title through proof. If that's not your cup of tea...that's cool too.

[Freyaka]

A, he’s nowhere near 6’-2”
B, college stats from a horizontal offense is in no/way/shape/form a measure of arm strength.
C, dude is a rag arm, easily the weakest of any starter in the NFL. We can go through any scouting report you want and you won’t find a single one that says he can make every NFL throw. Besides that, watch the ******* games. Seriously people, go watch the games.
D, anyone saying he has anything remotely close to average arm strength is spitting lip service like a fire hose.

What the **** ever. :D

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/936973-2012-nfl-draft-is-houstons-case-keenum-really-a-top-quarterback-prospect


As the NFL scouts like to say, Keenum’s got a hose, and there’s no doubt that he has the arm strength to make all of the throws required of an NFL quarterback.

Oops...That's embarrassing for you Jaded.

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/players/archive/1137118


showed capable arm strength and displayed his athleticism with a 4.31-second time in the 20-yard shuttle and 6.89 seconds in the three-cone drill.

https://nflmocks.com/2011/12/03/2012-scouting-report-case-keenum-qb-houston/


Pros:

Has solid arm strength

:welcome::coffee::coffee:

[HORSEPOWER 56]

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/936973-2012-nfl-draft-is-houstons-case-keenum-really-a-top-quarterback-prospect



Oops...That's embarrassing for you Jaded.

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/players/archive/1137118



https://nflmocks.com/2011/12/03/2012-scouting-report-case-keenum-qb-houston/



:welcome::coffee::coffee:

Nice job! You scoured the web for quotes and were able to find some from guys no better qualified to make them than you or me or Jaded... bleacher report you say? NFLmocks.com? No shit?! You might as well be quoting topscribe or joe.

You picked a bunch of fan sites to quote on CK’s ability. While you’re at it, you can quote this:
Case Keenum will not be our or any other team’s long term starter or answer at QB. He’s a placeholder. -HP56

[Freyaka]

Nice job! You scoured the web for quotes and were able to find some from guys no better qualified to make them than you or me or Jaded... bleacher report you say? NFLmocks.com? No shit?! You might as well be quoting topscribe or joe.

You picked a bunch of fan sites to quote on CK’s ability. While you’re at it, you can quote this:
Case Keenum will not be our or any other team’s long term starter or answer at QB. He’s a placeholder. -HP56

blah blah blah....He said it couldn't be done, I did it. It doesn't prove anything, but it sure as hell felt good...

[BroncoWave]

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/936973-2012-nfl-draft-is-houstons-case-keenum-really-a-top-quarterback-prospect



Oops...That's embarrassing for you Jaded.

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/players/archive/1137118



https://nflmocks.com/2011/12/03/2012-scouting-report-case-keenum-qb-houston/



:welcome::coffee::coffee:

So when is the funeral for jaded?

[topscribe]

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/936973-2012-nfl-draft-is-houstons-case-keenum-really-a-top-quarterback-prospect



Oops...That's embarrassing for you Jaded.

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/players/archive/1137118



https://nflmocks.com/2011/12/03/2012-scouting-report-case-keenum-qb-houston/



:welcome::coffee::coffee:

This is interesting: "I had one scout tell me that he felt Keenum had 'above average' arm strength."
https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/players/archive/1137118

[topscribe]

You might as well be quoting topscribe or joe.
What the hell is that supposed to mean?

Would you kindly go back to alllllll my posts and find something where my documentation was not good?
If you are going to denigrate my posts, BACK IT UP!

I'm getting tired of arguing with FACTS, then people such as you coming back with nothing but words
out of nothing but your own imaginations and think you have posed an argument.

[Northman]

These threads are becoming more and more comical everyday.

[BroncoWave]

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

Would you kindly go back to alllllll my posts and find something where my documentation was not good?
If you are going to denigrate my posts, BACK IT UP!

I'm getting tired of arguing with FACTS, then people such as you coming back with nothing but words
out of nothing but your own imaginations and think you have posed an argument.

I don't think he was calling you or Joe out personally. I think his point was that those sources are no better or worse than if any poster here said the same thing. I think you and Joe were just the first two names that came to mind when just trying to name any two posters to make his point. I could be wrong, but that's how I read it.

[topscribe]

I don't think he was calling you or Joe out personally. I think his point was that those sources are no better or worse than if any poster here said the same thing. I think you and Joe were just the first two names that came to mind when just trying to name any two posters to make his point. I could be wrong, but that's how I read it.
I'm going by the context of his remark.

I just have put too much time into this board. :tsk:

[BroncoWave]

Besides, we all know anything Joe says is WAY less credible than any fan blog. :D

[HORSEPOWER 56]

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

Would you kindly go back to alllllll my posts and find something where my documentation was not good?
If you are going to denigrate my posts, BACK IT UP!

I'm getting tired of arguing with FACTS, then people such as you coming back with nothing but words
out of nothing but your own imaginations and think you have posed an argument.

Like Wave said. Simply I could pick “supporters” of CK for Broncos QB for life and quote them and it would hold the same weight as any poster on a message board’s opinion. These aren’t actual draft scouts or Coaches or GMs. These or just everyday folks and pundits who write this shit based on nothing more than opinion.

[topscribe]

Like Wave said. Simply I could pick “supporters” of CK for Broncos QB for life and quote them and it would hold the same weight as any poster on a message board’s opinion. These aren’t actual draft scouts or Coaches or GMs. These or just everyday folks and pundits who write this shit based on nothing more than opinion.
The point is, I did not base my arguments on other posters' opinions. If you go back to my
posts, I show a lot of research, and not from Bleacher's Report. It is solid documentation,
regardless of how Jaded and King like to denigrate it and then think that their baseless
words form some kind of argument.

Anyway, this meltdown was coming. It could have been predicted. :shots:

[HORSEPOWER 56]

The point is, I did not base my arguments on other posters' opinions. If you go back to my
posts, I show a lot of research, and not from Bleacher's Report. It is solid documentation,
regardless of how Jaded and King like to denigrate it and then think that their baseless
words form some kind of argument.

Anyway, this meltdown was coming. It could have been predicted. :shots:

That’s okay, I’m predicting tons of meltdowns after this draft weekend... including my own.

[Freyaka]

That’s okay, I’m predicting tons of meltdowns after this draft weekend... including my own.

I think I'm going to be really happy. lol

The way I see things going down tomorrow.

1. Mayfield
2. Allen
3. Rosen
4. Chubb
5. Barkley

Then if he's there in the second, I see us taking Mason Rudolph to solve our QB woes.

[Poet]

I'd be happy with Barkley. I'd prefer someone who actually can be a franchise QB, but I'd be happy with Barkley.

[BroncoWave]

I think I'm going to be really happy. lol

The way I see things going down tomorrow.

1. Mayfield
2. Allen
3. Rosen
4. Chubb
5. Barkley

Then if he's there in the second, I see us taking Mason Rudolph to solve our QB woes.

If both Nelson and Barkley are still on the board for our pick that would be incredible.

[Poet]

If both Nelson and Barkley are still on the board for our pick that would be incredible.

Would you be down with the guard, Wave?

[CoachChaz]

Unless it's Darnold, I dont see NYG taking a QB. Even then it's a slim chance.

1. Darnold
2. Chubb
3. Mayfield
4. Barkley
5. Trade back

[Poet]

I think the Browns are taking Allen.
I think the Giants will take Chubb.
I think Jets take Rosen.
I think the Browns take Barkley.
I think we take Nelson.

[Freyaka]

Unless it's Darnold, I dont see NYG taking a QB. Even then it's a slim chance.

1. Darnold
2. Chubb
3. Mayfield
4. Barkley
5. Trade back

From what I understand, the Giants like Allen a lot. So I could see him going there if the Browns don't take him #1 overall.

[CoachChaz]

From what I understand, the Giants like Allen a lot. So I could see him going there if the Browns don't take him #1 overall.

It's possible, but the Giants are the one team I can usually get a good read on based on having a good friend in their scouting department. No, he doesn't make the decision and no, he cant speak for what other internal scouts are doing...but he does have a pretty good "vibe" on what's happening. Obviously, he isn't going to give me details, but last I spoke to him I got the idea that they like Davis Webb A LOT and didn't see the need to get a QB early yet.

But anything can happen.

[PatriotsGuy]

Actually, helping people realize that not one knows what a franchise QB is until he legitimately becomes a franchise QB (regardless of what we think), was the absolute point of the thread.

Mission accomplished.

This thread reminds me of this

https://ftw.usatoday.com/2017/04/aaron-rodgers-2005-nfl-draft-scouting-reports

[MOtorboat]

This thread reminds me of this

https://ftw.usatoday.com/2017/04/aaron-rodgers-2005-nfl-draft-scouting-reports

Evaluating quarterbacks is hard.

Also, I have a hard time believing Barkley gets past the Browns.

[PatriotsGuy]

Evaluating quarterbacks is hard.

Also, I have a hard time believing Barkley gets past the Browns.

It is a crap shoot many times

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/04/25/2012-quarterback-class-a-cautionary-tale-for-2018/

[Poet]

Coach, in your opinion, how important of a factor is hand size for a QB? It sames to be quite the rage to talk about it in relation to Darnold.

[BroncoWave]

Would you be down with the guard, Wave?

Yes. O-line play is getting worse and worse in the NFL. Elite players there are harder and harder to find in the draft because schools don't develop then anymore. So if you can find an elite one, then that's never a bad pick.

I still think I'd prefer a QB, but I certainly wouldn't hate it if we took Nelson.

[turftoad]

Evaluating quarterbacks is hard.

Also, I have a hard time believing Barkley gets past the Browns.

They did sign Carlos Hyde. He's no scrub plus they could still get a good back in the second or third.

[CoachChaz]

Coach, in your opinion, how important of a factor is hand size for a QB? It sames to be quite the rage to talk about it in relation to Darnold.

I think it matters more if a QB is the type to drop back and sit in the pocket with only one hand on the ball. That being said, it's a very coachable thing to fix. Another area where people have a concern is having "smaller" hands in a typically cold weather city. In the world of gloves and heated balls, I just don't know how much of a factor that really is, but I'm sure there is someone somewhere that has probably broken it down.

Even more specific to Darnold...I wouldn't say he has small or large hands. Somewhere in the middle. So, I don't think his hand size is the reason for his fumbles. I think it has more to do with a very coachable technique and it wouldn't stop me from drafting him #1 overall.

[turftoad]

Unless it's Darnold, I dont see NYG taking a QB. Even then it's a slim chance.

1. Darnold
2. Chubb
3. Mayfield
4. Barkley
5. Trade back
Agreed. They just got rid of JPP so Chubb would fill a major need for them.

[Poet]

I think it matters more if a QB is the type to drop back and sit in the pocket with only one hand on the ball. That being said, it's a very coachable thing to fix. Another area where people have a concern is having "smaller" hands in a typically cold weather city. In the world of gloves and heated balls, I just don't know how much of a factor that really is, but I'm sure there is someone somewhere that has probably broken it down.

Even more specific to Darnold...I wouldn't say he has small or large hands. Somewhere in the middle. So, I don't think his hand size is the reason for his fumbles. I think it has more to do with a very coachable technique and it wouldn't stop me from drafting him #1 overall.

I'll always love you. Well said.

[MOtorboat]

They did sign Carlos Hyde. He's no scrub plus they could still get a good back in the second or third.

It has to do more with the other options, than it does with who they already have at running back. So, they're almost undoubtedly taking quarterback at 1. They question is who, and there seems to be four legitimate options: Darnold, Rosen, Mayfield and Allen (I'm not saying I think all four deserve consideration at 1, I'm saying I've seen reports that all could go 1). So, when No. 4 comes around, they're looking at Chubb, Barkley, Nelson, Ward. They already took a rush end at No. 1 a year ago, so I think that might rule out Chubb. That, in my mind leaves, Barkley, Nelson and Ward and I think Barkley makes the most sense.

Obviously, pure conjecture on my part, but it seems like I've reached that position logically. I am interested in what they do there and whether or not we can infer anything from that choice based on DePodesta likely having more say in the war room this year than previously (or not). I'm interested in that aspect of it in a pure philosophical, team-building sense.

[CoachChaz]

Yes. O-line play is getting worse and worse in the NFL. Elite players there are harder and harder to find in the draft because schools don't develop then anymore. So if you can find an elite one, then that's never a bad pick.

I still think I'd prefer a QB, but I certainly wouldn't hate it if we took Nelson.

This is why I am excited to see more and more young coaches getting jobs in the NFL. I know the subject of colleges adequately preparing athletes for the NFL has been talked about in many threads, but I think as coaches get younger, NFL teams start to adapt to the talent available. Eventually Spread and RPO QBs are going to be embraced and mediocre OL will be glorified. I believe it was Bill Parcells that said, "The NFL is only as good as what the NCAA gives us."

May as well get use to the product that is coming and adapt to it. It's not going to revert to the days of old any time soon.

[Poet]

I think the Browns would take Chubb at four if he's there. Having bookend pass rushers is huge. But, your point plays out logically. IDK. AHH!

[BroncoWave]

The only seemingly surefire thing right now seems to be Chubb at 2. I think Mayfield doesn't make it past the Jets and Barkley goes 4. That leaves us to pick from the 2 leftover QBs and Nelson. Will be an interesting decision.

[CoachChaz]

I think the Browns would take Chubb at four if he's there. Having bookend pass rushers is huge. But, your point plays out logically. IDK. AHH!

That's my thought. We sit here from time to time and discuss how nice it would be to get back to the Miller/Ware bookend days. I have to imagine other teams would like that as well. Cleveland does have Ogbah...who is a solid player...but he's no Chubb.

[BroncoWave]

The only way I see Chubb falling to 4 is if the Giants trade back, which is definitely a possibility.

[TXBRONC]

That’s okay, I’m predicting tons of meltdowns after this draft weekend... including my own.

The meltdown is going to start long before the weekend is over. It will start the second the 5th overall pick is announced. :yell:

[Poet]

The meltdown is going to start long before the weekend is over. It will start the second the 5th overall pick is announced. :yell:

I, for one, am already melting down.

[BroncoWave]

If we traded up to 2 for Mayfield do you guys think Mo's head would actually explode?

[Poet]

That's my thought. We sit here from time to time and discuss how nice it would be to get back to the Miller/Ware bookend days. I have to imagine other teams would like that as well. Cleveland does have Ogbah...who is a solid player...but he's no Chubb.

Especially since both guys are good against the run, so it's not like the drawback of having two pass rushers is as bad. Not quite the same thing, but I remember watching Indy get smashed for (numerous reasons, that defense sucked almost categorically) having two pass rushers on the field and neither one was good against the run.

[MOtorboat]

If we traded up to 2 for Mayfield do you guys think Mo's head would actually explode?

Let's remember that I'm the one expecting them to take Mayfield and the one who's been saying so since February.

[BroncoWave]

Let's remember that I'm the one expecting them to take Mayfield and the one who's been saying so since February.

Yeah but I feel like trading up to do so might actually send you over the edge. :lol:

[Poet]

If we traded up to 2 for Mayfield do you guys think Mo's head would actually explode?

I think alcoholism would occur.

[MOtorboat]

I think alcoholism would occur.

This is correct. Many Broncos fans will be drinking to get through the Mayfield era.

[Poet]

Okay. I'm ready to get this off my chest - I am now okay with, and would happily react, to Nelson.

[CoachChaz]

The only way I see Chubb falling to 4 is if the Giants trade back, which is definitely a possibility.

Based on rumors of the asking price...I'm not so sure it happens. Heard a rumor Buffalo offer 12, 22, 53, 56...and NYG declined.

[CoachChaz]

Especially since both guys are good against the run, so it's not like the drawback of having two pass rushers is as bad. Not quite the same thing, but I remember watching Indy get smashed for (numerous reasons, that defense sucked almost categorically) having two pass rushers on the field and neither one was good against the run.

I wouldnt call Garrett "good" against the run. Not horrible would be a better description.

[Poet]

I wouldnt call Garrett "good" against the run. Not horrible would be a better description.

I was mistaken, then. I thought he graded out pretty well against the run as a rookie and in college?

[TXBRONC]

Based on rumors of the asking price...I'm not so sure it happens. Heard a rumor Buffalo offer 12, 22, 53, 56...and NYG declined.

Wow. :shocked:

Now if the Bills offered something like that to Denver I expect this would be Dog's reaction and that many other for that matter:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvKxXNE2TnU

[BroncoJoe]

You might as well be quoting topscribe or joe.

What the hell did I do other than be the voice of reason?

[Nomad]

This is correct. Many Broncos fans will be drinking to get through the Mayfield era.

Yes. An influx of Mayfield crazed fans may drive me over the edge, especially already dealing with these Alaskan winters.

[topscribe]

Yes. An influx of Mayfield crazed fans may drive me over the edge, especially already dealing with these Alaskan winters.
I can see it now. The Broncos draft Mayfield. The outcry begins to bench Keenum and play
Mayfield, no matter how Keenum is doing. The Broncos FO eventually folds to public demand
and starts Mayfield. The season tanks.

And so history repeats itself: Plummer/Cutler, Orton/Tebow, Keenum/Mayfield.

Next.

[BroncoWave]

I can see it now. The Broncos draft Mayfield. The outcry begins to bench Keenum and play
Mayfield, no matter how Keenum is doing. The Broncos FO eventually folds to public demand
and starts Mayfield. The season tanks.

And so history repeats itself: Plummer/Cutler, Orton/Tebow, Keenum/Mayfield.

Next.

This is disingenuous at best. Plummer and Orton were both playing poorly during those seasons in which "the outcry to bench them would begin no matter how they are playing".

[topscribe]

This is disingenuous at best. Plummer and Orton were both playing poorly during those seasons in which "the outcry to bench them would begin no matter how they are playing".
Orton was in a funk, for sure. Plummer, however, was not playing especially poorly. And the
team was 7-4 when they dumped Plummer. A horrible decision. But I wasn't trying to prove
a point. Just commenting on the fan base vs. the front office. Nothing to see here.

(I feel another useless debate coming on. I'm staying out of this one. :coffee: )

[Northman]

I'd be happy with Barkley. I'd prefer someone who actually can be a franchise QB, but I'd be happy with Barkley.

Denver wont be taking a QB at 5, it just wouldnt make any logical sense at this juncture.

[Northman]

I can see it now. The Broncos draft Mayfield. The outcry begins to bench Keenum and play
Mayfield, no matter how Keenum is doing. The Broncos FO eventually folds to public demand
and starts Mayfield. The season tanks.

And so history repeats itself: Plummer/Cutler, Orton/Tebow, Keenum/Mayfield.

Next.

You can argue the Plummer/Cutler scenario (even though i was fine with Plummer being benched) but Orton and Tebow? Orton was stinking up the joint and while Timmy wasnt the 2nd coming like many of his fangirls thought he did manage to help lead the team to the playoffs and a playoff win. And sure, if Keenum starts to stink it up as well im sure the call for Mayfield/Lynch/Kelly will begin. If the Broncos start the season 1-4 and Keenum is a big part of that than i think making a move to another player makes perfect sense.

[topscribe]

You can argue the Plummer/Cutler scenario (even though i was fine with Plummer being benched) but Orton and Tebow? Orton was stinking up the joint and while Timmy wasnt the 2nd coming like many of his fangirls thought he did manage to help lead the team to the playoffs and a playoff win. And sure, if Keenum starts to stink it up as well im sure the call for Mayfield/Lynch/Kelly will begin. If the Broncos start the season 1-4 and Keenum is a big part of that than i think making a move to another player makes perfect sense.
Please refer to Post #175.

[ShaneFalco]

Just a question of curiosity to see how each individual defines this term. Based on the last few weeks of ridiculous ****-fighting, I'm curious...if passer or QB ratings are irrelevant...exactly what numbers do define a "franchise QB"? And if numbers alone dont justify the title...what does?

Obviously, this is going to vary from person to person as it does from team to team in the NFL, but since there are threads disputing things like stats, personality, history, etc. playing into the title, I'm curious as to exactly what it is that has to happen before a QB is classified with the "Franchise" label.

http://grfx.cstv.com/schools/ole/graphics/kelly-info.jpg

[topscribe]

Just a question of curiosity to see how each individual defines this term. Based on the last few weeks of ridiculous ****-fighting, I'm curious...if passer or QB ratings are irrelevant...exactly what numbers do define a "franchise QB"? And if numbers alone dont justify the title...what does?

Obviously, this is going to vary from person to person as it does from team to team in the NFL, but since there are threads disputing things like stats, personality, history, etc. playing into the title, I'm curious as to exactly what it is that has to happen before a QB is classified with the "Franchise" label.
Well, first of all, you have to not be Jaded or Kinger. :lol:

[MOtorboat]

http://grfx.cstv.com/schools/ole/graphics/kelly-info.jpg

You should love Case Keenum, then, Shane. His college numbers are even better.

[Jsteve01]

I can see it now. The Broncos draft Mayfield. The outcry begins to bench Keenum and play
Mayfield, no matter how Keenum is doing. The Broncos FO eventually folds to public demand
and starts Mayfield. The season tanks.

And so history repeats itself: Plummer/Cutler, Orton/Tebow, Keenum/Mayfield.

Next.

This is disingenuous at best. Plummer and Orton were both playing poorly during those seasons in which "the outcry to bench them would begin no matter how they are playing".

The difference is Dinger scrapped all of the rollout and motion and play action stuff that really benefited plumber in his previous year. They essentially set him up to fail

[MOtorboat]

The difference is Dinger scrapped all of the rollout and motion and play action stuff that really benefited plumber in his previous year. They essentially set him up to fail

They put an emphasis on dropback passing, five and seven step drops specifically, if memory serves. Completely changed the dynamic of the offense and was designed for Cutler. Cue: missing the playoffs for three years...

[BroncoWave]

The difference is Dinger scrapped all of the rollout and motion and play action stuff that really benefited plumber in his previous year. They essentially set him up to fail

No doubt. I think Plummer got a raw deal. But I still think top was being disingenuous in suggesting that our fans would clamor for the rookie no matter how well the starter is playing.

[topscribe]

No doubt. I think Plummer got a raw deal. But I still think top was being disingenuous in suggesting that our fans would clamor for the rookie no matter how well the starter is playing.
And I was only trying to add a little dry humor. Or maybe it's just a failed post on my part.

But it wasn't disingenuous. That's defined as lacking or having a false appearance of honesty.
I can, and have been, dead wrong on some issues, but I don't recall ever being dishonest in
the process.
.

[BroncoWave]

And I was only trying to add a little dry humor.

But then you have to have a sense of humor to pick that up. :rolleyes:

Ok.