Thread: Does the fact that Osweiler failed to win the backup job make him a failed pick?

I had a lengthy Twitter exchange tonight with Eric Goodman, who is the afternoon drive time host on Mile High Sports radio. He's contention was that the fact that Osweiler couldn't win the backup job, and is starting the season as the #3 QB indicates it was a bad pick, since he was a 2nd round pick. He also went on to ask if there has ever been a QB who was the #3 QB his rookie year whoever amounted to anything. While I could not come up with an example, or multiple, off the top of my head during the exchange, I find it hard to believe there haven't been QBs that turned out to be quality starters, who were #3 their rookie year.

So, I thought it would be a good discussion. Does Osweiler's performance this preseason and his failure to beat out Hanne for the backup spot mean it was a bad pick? Is it a given that a QB picked in the 2nd round should at least be able to be the team's backup year one? Can we judge the pick after one preseason?

Also, what about examples of QBs that were third string their rookie years that then "amounted to something." Is he right, that it's an indication that Brock's fate is already sealed?

What say you?

Well, when you consider 5 other rookie QBs are starting....(although on bad team), kinda i guess.....this is too much for me!

I don't believe it guarantees he will fail. But it is a bad sign that he could not beat out a guy like Hanie.

Originally Posted by gregbroncs

I don't believe it guarantees he will fail. But it is a bad sign that he could not beat out a guy like Hanie.

I agree. He has his time to develop and 'wait & see', but considering he was a second rd pick and #2 pick overall for the BRONCOS in the draft and playing against #2s and #3s of other teams, I expected him to be the #2 QB.

The fact that CALEB HANIE is our backup QB means that the front office severely botched the backup QB situation and the Tebow trade was a failure.

No.

Originally Posted by UnderArmour

The fact that CALEB HANIE is our backup QB means that the front office severely botched the backup QB situation and the Tebow trade was a failure.

uh-oh......you went there.

to early to tell with him and he was a developmental guy, but he might have been selected too early in the draft considering where he is at and how a later pick like Russell in Seattle stood out.

we will have to wait a few year to see if he is the wizard of oz, or just a guy behind the curtain

I think the team fully expected Os to be a several year project. Everyone knew he was raw with lots of upside. The only way Hanie gets any playing time is if Peyton needs a piss break. We saw what Hanie was capable of when Cutler went down last year. I suspect that if Peyton did go down, the team might adjust things so Os would get as much playing time as possible.

Although not a perfect fit to your question, Kurt Warner didn't even make his first NFL team. He also was a guy with potential but very raw. When he finally did make a roster, he was third string for the Rams. The NFL had Europe to develope guys back then. Delomme was in that same boat. It may be a bit early to compare Os to Warner, but I like the idea.

Hanie is #2 because he has NFL experience. Elway said that Oz was just fine and had a great camp.

Originally Posted by Softskull

I think the team fully expected Os to be a several year project. Everyone knew he was raw with lots of upside. The only way Hanie gets any playing time is if Peyton needs a piss break. We saw what Hanie was capable of when Cutler went down last year. I suspect that if Peyton did go down, the team might adjust things so Os would get as much playing time as possible.

Although not a perfect fit to your question, Kurt Warner didn't even make his first NFL team. He also was a guy with potential but very raw. When he finally did make a roster, he was third string for the Rams. The NFL had Europe to develope guys back then. Delomme was in that same boat. It may be a bit early to compare Os to Warner, but I like the idea.

My understanding of Osweiler, is like yours, which is that they drafted him knowing that he had upside, but wasn't NFL ready now. That they believed he fit well with the 2-3 year time horizon needed having just signed Manning.

Not at all. If you consider the fact that Hanie was mostly ineffective when he wasn't playing alongside the starters and Oz never got a chance to play with the starters, I think the evaluation of the two was a little skewed in Hanie's favor. Once again, Hanie probably won the job "in practice" due to his experience more than he did because of his skill on the field. If, God Forbid, Manning does go down at some point, I believe Hanie will play himself out of the job in the first game and Oz will get the nod until Peyton returns. Just a hunch.

I went back and read your twitter conversation with Goodman and Spano. I would say I agree with you and Spano, and I think Goodman is either A.) saying this to make a splash, or B.) Just doesn't understand why the pick was made.

There are two facets to the conversation, the pick, and the player who was taken with the pick.

I can understand the argument that the Broncos, after signing Peyton Manning, should not have drafted a quarterback as high as they did in the same year. I can understand why people would have wanted a running back, or an offensive lineman, or a wide receiver to complement Manning. Osweiler doesn't complement Manning; he is going to follow him on the field as the next starter. I can understand why drafting a quarterback with the second pick the team had is questionable this year.

I can't understand labeling Osweiler, the player taken with the picks, as an F because he's second string or third string. If a backup doesn't get on the field this year, other than in mop up situations, then there's no validity to his argument at all, because who the backup was and who the No. 3 was on paper is ultimately irrelevant. Thus, giving Osweiler an F, is shortsighted, at best.

Originally Posted by Tned

My understanding of Osweiler, is like yours, which is that they drafted him knowing that he had upside, but wasn't NFL ready now. That they believed he fit well with the 2-3 year time horizon needed having just signed Manning.

You have to put this into context. We have a GM HOF QB coming off the Tebow debacle. It's a passing QB world and the modern QB needs to have the arm/accuracy to make all the throws. Manning gave Elway two things: 1) An aging star QB to set the team straight and eliminate the Tebow issue 2) Time to set up his heir. Nothing in Os being third string changes that.

Originally Posted by MOtorboat

I went back and read your twitter conversation with Goodman and Spano. I would say I agree with you and Spano, and I think Goodman is either A.) saying this to make a splash, or B.) Just doesn't understand why the pick was made.

There are two facets to the conversation, the pick, and the player who was taken with the pick.

I can understand the argument that the Broncos, after signing Peyton Manning, should not have drafted a quarterback as high as they did in the same year. I can understand why people would have wanted a running back, or an offensive lineman, or a wide receiver to complement Manning. Osweiler doesn't complement Manning; he is going to follow him on the field as the next starter. I can understand why drafting a quarterback with the second pick the team had is questionable this year.

I can't understand labeling Osweiler, the player taken with the picks, as an F because he's second string or third string. If a backup doesn't get on the field this year, other than in mop up situations, then there's no validity to his argument at all, because who the backup was and who the No. 3 was on paper is ultimately irrelevant. Thus, giving Osweiler an F, is shortsighted, at best.

Yea, this sums up my feeling pretty well.

I know not long after the draft, maybe a few weeks, I was talking to a friend at work about the draft, and the Osweiler pick in general, and pointing out how he seemed to be looked at as a 2-3 year prospect, to take over when Manning was ready to retire. He pointed out, and I think very correctly, if that was the way he was looked at, then why didn't the team address more specific needs in this draft (as they did have a lot of holes/needs) and they could very easily gotten a similar QB with a similar pick next year.

Now, if they see something in Osweiler where they think he will be REALLY special, far better than your normal 2nd/3rd round QB, but that he just needs time to grow into it, then I guess the pick makes sense. I've been on the fence about this pick ever since they made it.