Thread: Best Case Scenario unfolding for Denver draft

A lot depends if the two QBs stay close in rating over the next couple of months. If one tanks the evaluation process from here on in, the situation will disappear. I can't see Gabbert doing that, he is a fine athlete, intelligent, and very well spoken. Newton could, if he turns off the interviewers, but you have to think he would click with at least some front offices. I don't think he is going to do much at the Combine, but there aren't any concerns about his athletic ability in any case.

All of these QBs are average at best players who jumped up draft boards because:

1-Andrew Luck stayed in school
2-A rookie wage scale will make it much less risky to draft a QB early. It will no longer set a franchise back 5-7 years if they miss because the financial investment won't be so brutal.

Originally Posted by SmilinAssasSin27

All of these QBs are average at best players who jumped up draft boards because:

1-Andrew Luck stayed in school
2-A rookie wage scale will make it much less risky to draft a QB early. It will no longer set a franchise back 5-7 years if they miss because the financial investment won't be so brutal.

Gabbert is the real deal. He would be right there with Luck in the evaluators eyes if Andrew had declared. There isn't much to seperate the two. Gabbert is a bit bigger and a better athlete with a stronger arm. Luck is more accurate, schooled in a pro style offense, and maybe a bit smarter. Overall it's a wash.

Luck was/is considered a once in a generation QB. A guy that is the absolute #1 player taken in the draft. Gabbert isn't in his class. He may be a great athlete and turn out to be a great QB, but Assassin is right. The reason his stock is rising is because of the lack of QBs in the draft and because Luck didn't declare.

But I don't think we see a rookie cap that is going to take away from the top picks making huge money. Plus, its less risky to take a QB in the upper part of the draft as opposed to other positions BECAUSE of the big money they were/are being paid. There are only so many positions that can justify that kind o money, and QB is at the top of the list. So if there is a position to spend big money on, its the QB.

Originally Posted by Ravage!!!

Plus, its less risky to take a QB in the upper part of the draft as opposed to other positions

some of the NFL network guys were debating this last night, and they brought up a pretty interesting counter-argument. . .

some of them felt that drafting a QB high is actually riskier because it's such an all-or-nothing position. . . an edge rusher who can't develop as a run stopper can still be an effective player in rotation-- all DLs can play in rotation. . . a failed left tackle can sometimes kick in to guard, or a corner can be tried at safety. . . running backs can be used in committee, LBs can play in the nickel and other sub-packages, etc etc. . . but most QBs can only play QB, unless they also happen to be a freakish athlete for the position. . .

i can see both sides of it, but i thought i was a valid point. . . it would still really suck to get a part-time player out of a high pick, but it is better than the guy busting completely. . .

But QBs can be "part timers" in a different way. As backups if necessary. At the end of last season only half the QBs who started the season as #1 were still starting. At least 6 rookies, Tebow, Bradford, Clausen, McCoy, Webb, and Skelton were starting for their team. It's a very vulnerable position from an injury point of view. Obviously if you draft a QB in the top few picks you want him as your starter, but beyond that getting a good backup can be worthwhile. The team fortunes could ride on his shoulders in the twist of an ankle.

Originally Posted by rcsodak

Same could be said for 2nd pick. Especially when nobody out there is really a stud difference maker.
I seem to remember a draft where a team didn't get their pick in in time and was 'skipped' until they were ready. Hmmmmm........
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Was that the Cards back in '93?

Originally Posted by robert ethan

Gabbert is the real deal. He would be right there with Luck in the evaluators eyes if Andrew had declared. There isn't much to seperate the two. Gabbert is a bit bigger and a better athlete with a stronger arm. Luck is more accurate, schooled in a pro style offense, and maybe a bit smarter. Overall it's a wash.

Gabbert is the flavor of he week. A spread QB who is highly overrated and won't live up to the hype in the NFL. There is a reason NOBODY mentioned his name until Luck stayed in school.

You are out of your mind if you really think NFL scouts think Gabbert can hold a candle to Luck.

Originally Posted by FanInAZ

Was that the Cards back in '93?

Dallas or minn I think
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

It was Minnesota

Originally Posted by dogfish

some of the NFL network guys were debating this last night, and they brought up a pretty interesting counter-argument. . .

some of them felt that drafting a QB high is actually riskier because it's such an all-or-nothing position. . . an edge rusher who can't develop as a run stopper can still be an effective player in rotation-- all DLs can play in rotation. . . a failed left tackle can sometimes kick in to guard, or a corner can be tried at safety. . . running backs can be used in committee, LBs can play in the nickel and other sub-packages, etc etc. . . but most QBs can only play QB, unless they also happen to be a freakish athlete for the position. . .

i can see both sides of it, but i thought i was a valid point. . . it would still really suck to get a part-time player out of a high pick, but it is better than the guy busting completely. . .

True, but none of those positions make as much of a difference to a team as a QB does. If you are going to spend big dollars on a player, then spend it on THE player that will absolutely make the biggest difference to your team...... IF one is coming out that is thta kind of athlete.

I wouldn't be shocked if carolina feels that Newton is that guy. Definitely not a polished QB, and no-where near what Bradford was coming out of college, but he has upside. Big dollars for big upside and risk on a player that could be a difference maker.


I see the other side though. Not to mention, the two other positions you mentioned, DE and LT, are both positions that garner BIG salaries as well. So again, the position that you take at that top pick could be limited purely based on the salary that is guaranteed.

The rumours are growing stronger that several teams are interested in Denver's pick to land one of the top two quarterbacks. I'm hearing Washington (#10), Tennessee (#8), and Arizona (#5) all wanting to move up.

Originally Posted by robert ethan

The rumours are growing stronger that several teams are interested in Denver's pick to land one of the top two quarterbacks. I'm hearing Washington (#10), Tennessee (#8), and Arizona (#5) all wanting to move up.

Trading back to 5 or 8 we'd still have a shot at Farley maybe even Dareus. Any farther and it's the second tear guys.
If we move back and are looking at a guy like Liuget I can get behind that idea if we manage to get another early 3rd rounder or better.

Originally Posted by SoCalImport

Trading back to 5 or 8 we'd still have a shot at Farley maybe even Dareus. Any farther and it's the second tear guys.
If we move back and are looking at a guy like Liuget I can get behind that idea if we manage to get another early 3rd rounder or better.

If there is as much interest in the two QBs as is being rumored, Denver could trade to whatever spot they wanted within the top 10. Basically they could pick their spot and offer the team a bit better deal, or auction the pick to the highest bidder and take their chances at that spot.