Thread: Regarding Franchise QB's

Originally Posted by MOtorboat

I wish the guy hadn't used Orton, because you cannot have a rational discussion about Orton on a Broncos message board. He's the same as Orlovsky? Really?

The thing about Orton is that he does nothing particularly well. Everything he does is either average(accuracy), below average(mobility), or woefully inept(clutch performance). The one thing we thought he did at close to an elite level was protect the ball, but even when it looked like that it was more about his unwillingness to take a chance which hurt us bad. This season he proved he could turn the ball over as much as anyone.

The even bigger problem and the thing that I believe puts him in the category of "needs to be replaced" is that he performs his worst when he is needed the most. We saw it for 2+ years.

I honestly consider Orton to be one of the bottom five starting QBs in the NFL.

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

I have to disagree here. I think there is a whole slew of 2nd tier QB's fully capable of winning a Superbowl. In the case of Eli Manning he actually did (I disagree that he is an elite QB, just very good). Jake DelHomme and Matt Hasselback came within a whisker of doing it as well, as did an old Kurt Warner. I would say the next tier down includes

Jay Cutler
Eli Manning
Tony Romo
Philip Rivers
Matt Ryan
Matt Schaub

A third tier - guys who are capable or might be capable - or who the Hell knows...anyways, they are good enough to win regularly now or have won regularly in the past. They are guys with enough upside you don't go looking to replace them just yet, or who might well move up a level or two very soon.

Maybe Stafford, Vick, Flacco, Dalton, Tebow, Newton, A. Smith, Palmer, Sanchez, Fitzpatrick

Yes there are some chump QB's and some bad situations. I rate say Colt McCoy, Kyle Orton, Dan Orlovsky, T. Jackson as just such chump QB's. These you must rid yourself of, sooner rather than later, or dedicate as short term backups

I guess it's a matter of opinion on whether Eli is 2nd tier or not. But assuming he is, I'll again ask how many QB's...other than the elite...have won a SB in the last few decades? 2?

I think the 2nd tier guys require much more talent around them than the top guys do. Again, compare the favorites this year to the bottom ranked defenses and see how many common denominators you find.

Originally Posted by chazoe60

The thing about Orton is that he does nothing particularly well. Everything he does is either average(accuracy), below average(mobility), or woefully inept(clutch performance). The one thing we thought he did at close to an elite level was protect the ball, but even when it looked like that it was more about his unwillingness to take a chance which hurt us bad. This season he proved he could turn the ball over as much as anyone.

The even bigger problem and the thing that I believe puts him in the category of "needs to be replaced" is that he performs his worst when he is needed the most. We saw it for 2+ years.

I honestly consider Orton to be one of the bottom five starting QBs in the NFL.

I'd hate to see this fan base with the types of quarterbacks that we're seeing Orton compared to here.

Originally Posted by MOtorboat

I wish the guy hadn't used Orton, because you cannot have a rational discussion about Orton on a Broncos message board. He's the same as Orlovsky? Really?

Orlovsky > Orton

Orton > Jimmy Clausen. But its close

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

Orlovsky > Orton

Orton > Jimmy Clausen. But its close

I'll drop it after this, but that is absurd.

Originally Posted by MOtorboat

I'll drop it after this, but that is absurd.

You should have changed your name to MOrton. J/K


Agree to disagree I guess.

While I agree with you coach, Eli Manning. IMO he is in no way going or playing like a HOF QB.

Originally Posted by CoachChaz

But here lies the problem.

Take Brady, Brees, Rogers, Mannings, Ben out of the equation. Who is the best of the rest? What set of QB's after that group would be considered elite?

I just think that after a handful of QB's, the rest of the league is mediocre to bad. So if the game and the rules are set up now to play to the benefit of the passing game, then these QB's realistically have to be considered the favorites to win the SB year after year.

It requires more than a Franchise QB...it requires a HoF quarterback. Look at the last 20+ years. Other than Dilfer and Johnson, show me a QB that isnt in...on their way in...or in the process of having that type of a career. If you dont have a guy with one of the names listed above...you're pretty much in a constant state of playing for next year

Originally Posted by Chef Zambini

CAM newton will get there.
Matt stafford too.
but regardless of the QB, he and his team aint going nowhere without a solid run game and capable defense.
BRONCO fans should know this better than most!
at least bronco fans over the age of 30.

Why do people keep saying this. That one drunk dude said it in his thread. What the hell does the age of 30 have to do with anything?

Its like saying all of us bronco fans should remember what its like to have a top 5 running game, unless of course you have a tatoo, then you just wouldnt understand.

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

Orlovsky > Orton

Orton > Jimmy Clausen. But its close

I think I would flip those two around. I dont have much like for orton, but I think he is better than Dano, but not ghey jimmy.

Originally Posted by underrated29

I think I would flip those two around. I dont have much like for orton, but I think he is better than Dano, but not ghey jimmy.

I wouldn't argue with you very hard. They all blow regardless. Its like ranking crabs, the clap, and penile warts in order of preference.

Originally Posted by CoachChaz

I think it use to be that way. But the Saints, Packers and Colts have proven that an opportunistic defense will help you get a title as much as a "good" defense will.

If the two favorites (Green Bay and NE) play for the title this year, there is no better proof that a good defense is merely a luxury in todays NFL

That's actually a pretty compelling argument, but I don't think 1 year is a large enough sample size. The KC game was pretty darn good proof that if you neglect defense, it only takes 1 bad game from your QB to be eliminated.

Let's be honest here... KC didn't really 'win' that game, the packers simply played terribly and Rogers/packers has no answer for pressure and good coverage.

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

I wouldn't argue with you very hard. They all blow regardless. Its like ranking crabs, the clap, and penile warts in order of preference.

I'll take crabs thanks. Easiest to get rid of and delicious when didpped in butter.

Originally Posted by chazoe60

I'll take crabs thanks. Easiest to get rid of and delicious when didpped in butter.

I think we should move any discussions about Ron Mexico to the other teams forum.

Originally Posted by CoachChaz

I think it use to be that way. But the Saints, Packers and Colts have proven that an opportunistic defense will help you get a title as much as a "good" defense will.

If the two favorites (Green Bay and NE) play for the title this year, there is no better proof that a good defense is merely a luxury in todays NFL

But last year two top five defenses played in the SB.

The NFL is always in flux. There is no longer a real blueprint anymore.

Originally Posted by wayninja

That's actually a pretty compelling argument, but I don't think 1 year is a large enough sample size. The KC game was pretty darn good proof that if you neglect defense, it only takes 1 bad game from your QB to be eliminated.

Let's be honest here... KC didn't really 'win' that game, the packers simply played terribly and Rogers/packers has no answer for pressure and good coverage.

Downside of depending so totally on an elite QB. One bad game and you have no other way to win. the exception is the Steelers, which is why Ben has multiple rings, and Peyton Manning only has one. I would also argue that Brady won his three rings prior to becoming a truly elite QB as we think of them. The 01, 03, and 04 Pats played sound defense, and in 04 they ran very well too. they haven't won it all since and I don't think that is an accident. Also, Brees won one because the '09 Saints forced crazy turnovers - another form of defense, and one the Pack is doing this year.

Originally Posted by CoachChaz

I think it use to be that way. But the Saints, Packers and Colts have proven that an opportunistic defense will help you get a title as much as a "good" defense will.

If the two favorites (Green Bay and NE) play for the title this year, there is no better proof that a good defense is merely a luxury in todays NFL

both those teams have above average scoring defenses...they give up yards, but make up for it in the redzone and with turnovers.