PDA

View Full Version : If Elway were drafting for T2, who should he target?


Armchair Bronco
11-29-2011, 08:21 PM
Let's assume for the sake of argument that Elway finally sees the light and decides to hop on the Tebow Express. I know this is a stretch, but whatever.

In this case, what kind of players should Elway target in the draft and in free agency?

Armchair Bronco
11-29-2011, 08:22 PM
Clearly, we need some backup QB's, but they have to be able to run the read-option offense. So this probably eliminates most of the pure pocket passers available in the 1st and 2nd rounds.

And we'd need to stockpile some RB's who run & think like McGahee and Peyton Hillis. Maybe we even try to get Hillis back from Cleveland (and hope that he stays healthy).

We also need to keep drafting defensive juggernauts. I'd rather see Elway spend our 1st and 2nd round picks on defensive guys.

WR is a need, but I just don't see Prima Donna WR's being very happy on this team. So WR's would be late-round picks.

RhymesayersDU
11-29-2011, 08:24 PM
The question comes down to if you think Tebow needs weapons or if you want to try and go full blown 2000 Baltimore Ravens, i.e., become the nastiest defense on the planet.

If the latter, you draft defense early and often.

OBF1
11-29-2011, 08:27 PM
T2.... really?

We need a Percey Harvin type of player. Someone that can run and catch the ball that has plenty of speed to hit a corner on an end round or reverse play.

Armchair Bronco
11-29-2011, 08:28 PM
I think Tebow's already shown that he doesn't need a bevy of world-class weapons to be successful. We need a solid, mean RB (McGahee), and we need at least one guy like Decker. But look at what Tebow has done with guys who would probably be on the Practice Squad for teams like NO or GB.

I think we should focus on drafting mean, mean defensive players in rounds 1 and 2 for several years since a dominating D is so key to making this machine work. Then Denver will become a magnet for every Free Agent defensive player on the planet.

Armchair Bronco
11-29-2011, 08:29 PM
T2.... really?

We need a Percey Harvin type of player. Someone that can run and catch the ball that has plenty of speed to hit a corner on an end round or reverse play.

I was thinking this, too. I'd trade away a 2nd round pick for Harvin.

Lestat
11-29-2011, 08:32 PM
we need a top tier RB to compliment McGahee,a Eddie Royal circa 2008 type slot WR, a mauling OG and some serious upgrades at LB & CB opposite champ.

titan
11-29-2011, 08:33 PM
There's no secret to having a successful draft. you draft the best player available, especially in the early rounds, regardless of position. While everyone was clamoring for a defensive tackle last year (Dareus), the Broncos took the best player available (Von Miller) in what didn't seem like a pressing need at the time (outside linebacker in a 4-3 scheme).

The defensive tackle position was addressed later (Bunkley), and in retrospect Miller was the best pick the Broncos could have made.

The failures in the bronco drafts over the years have been when they targeted a position of need early, rather than taking the best player available.

Wes Mantooth
11-29-2011, 08:34 PM
Nothing but top shelf D.

Broncoman13
11-29-2011, 08:34 PM
You go after players that have been successful in the NFL AND were successful in college in a similar offense. Don't think the Raiders will be letting McFadden go anywhere. Hillis is definitely an option and would be a great at the first read in the option (FB Dive type play)... plus he has the added ability to move back to HB and catches well out of the back field. He had what I thought were the best hands of any player during his years with the Broncos. Felix Jones hasn't done much with Dallas, but I don't think Jerry Jones is ready to cut him lose yet.

In the draft, Jermichael Finley would be interesting in the 2nd or 3rd round. Too small to hold up to the beatings but maybe if he were only getting 10 or so touches per game... while you're looking at Finley you might as well look at Oregon's QB as well.

Denard Robinson is an obvious fit. And, if it somehow falls into your lap, you take RGIII in the first and don't look back.

Jeff Demps from Florida has a lot of familiarity in the system and can absolutely run (like Chris Johnson type speed!).

There is a chance that the Niners cut ties with Alex Smith after this year (one year deal and Kappernick may be ready... may not), but Alex Smith would be a great back up to Tebow, especially if you do commit to the current style offense.

There are a ton of benefits of going to this offense full time. Players that aren't normally drafted until the 5th-7th rounds are now available and "reaching" on a player in the 4th round isn't exactly a big risk.

All that being said, Tebow either learns to become a more traditional QB and mixes in the Zone Option just to show a different look (4 or 5 times per game) or the Broncos go a different direction. Reminds me a lot of 2005 when Plummer was winning games but Shanny had to get a "Shiny" QB in Cutler.

I am at the point now where I'd take RGIII and know he could run both systems (Traditional and Zone Read) which would likely keep Tebow under center for next year while RGIII learns the ropes (Win win, IMO). And if we truly don't like the system, then Matt Barkley is quickly making a believer of me. I thought he was pretty sloppy last year, but he has tightened up his game a lot this year and is quietly having one of the best QB seasons in all of College Football.

epicSocialism4tw
11-29-2011, 08:35 PM
T2.... really?

We need a Percey Harvin type of player. Someone that can run and catch the ball that has plenty of speed to hit a corner on an end round or reverse play.

This.

The team needs explosive offensive players, particularly electric backs who can catch the ball.

It would also be nice to have a WR to pair with Decker who can actually catch the ball. Decker is earning a spot with his commitment to blocking and his being the only guy that Tebow can expect to make a play, but we need someone else to pair with him.

I'd carry out the whole draft like this:

Best player available at every pick out of: CB, MLB, DT, DE, RB, and WR.

Vegas_Bronco
11-29-2011, 08:36 PM
We need corners, dline and a kick azz TE regardless of who is the qb.

Turd_Ferguson
11-29-2011, 08:37 PM
T2.... really?

We need a Percey Harvin type of player. Someone that can run and catch the ball that has plenty of speed to hit a corner on an end round or reverse play.

Percy Harvin said something along the lines of if there is a God he will bring Tebow to the Vikings before the draft. I have no idea what his contract status is, but if he is still on his rookie contract they should go after him. I don't see a lot of receivers dying to come here unless they start throwing the ball a lot more, but his relationship with Tebow may give him more reason than others.

Armchair Bronco
11-29-2011, 08:40 PM
There's no secret to having a successful draft. you draft the best player available, especially in the early rounds, regardless of position. While everyone was clamoring for a defensive tackle last year (Dareus), the Broncos took the best player available (Von Miller) in what didn't seem like a pressing need at the time (outside linebacker in a 4-3 scheme).

The defensive tackle position was addressed later (Bunkley), and in retrospect Miller was the best pick the Broncos could have made.

The failures in the bronco drafts over the years have been when they targeted a position of need early, rather than taking the best player available.

But no one, not even Mel "I Know More Than You" Keiper, has the definitive book on the "Best Available Player". It's a very subjective stack ranking, especially once you get past the top 5 or 10 players in the draft.

#24 might be a DE. #25 might be a brusing RB. AFAIC, both of them are the best players available at that slot in the draft at their respective positions. So you need to make a choice based on some underlying philosophy.

I say you favor Defensive players but still try to stay reasonably close to your original stack ranking of players.

Vegas_Bronco
11-29-2011, 08:45 PM
Percy Harvin said something along the lines of if there is a God he will bring Tebow to the Vikings before the draft. I have no idea what his contract status is, but if he is still on his rookie contract they should go after him. I don't see a lot of receivers dying to come here unless they start throwing the ball a lot more, but his relationship with Tebow may give him more reason than others.

Willis was on jim Rome the other day and stated that the reason he stayed in denver was the fact that we were going to run the ball. As long as fox is here winning by running, we will continue to get decent wide receivers who are unselfish workhorses like rod smith and eddie mac. Id rather have a guy that blocks than one that wants the ball 15 times a game.

epicSocialism4tw
11-29-2011, 08:46 PM
You go after players that have been successful in the NFL AND were successful in college in a similar offense. Don't think the Raiders will be letting McFadden go anywhere. Hillis is definitely an option and would be a great at the first read in the option (FB Dive type play)... plus he has the added ability to move back to HB and catches well out of the back field. He had what I thought were the best hands of any player during his years with the Broncos. Felix Jones hasn't done much with Dallas, but I don't think Jerry Jones is ready to cut him lose yet.

Hillis would be a nice addition. He's a much more threatening player on the dive plays than Larsen. He would also be a reliable screen and wheel route player. You could even leave him in the spread to block. Having to take punishment from Hillis, Tebow, and a speed back for an entire game would be really difficult to deal with. I like the idea.

The traits that a back must have in this offense: hands, blocking ability, elusiveness, and (ideally) break-away speed. Hillis can do all but the speed stuff. Then you draft someone like Demps to fill that role.

In the draft, Jermichael Finley would be interesting in the 2nd or 3rd round. Too small to hold up to the beatings but maybe if he were only getting 10 or so touches per game... while you're looking at Finley you might as well look at Oregon's QB as well.

I dont think that Denver needs to draft another TE right now. I think that Virgil Green, Fells, Thomas, and Rosario are enough to work with. Virgil Green is getting more and more work, and has been blocking fairly well. He's supposed to be a good athlete as well, so I'd keep Fells to start and work in the youngsters.

Denard Robinson is an obvious fit. And, if it somehow falls into your lap, you take RGIII in the first and don't look back.

No need to draft a QB at all if you plan on keeping Tebow. It would be a waste of a pick when there are too many other holes on the field.

Jeff Demps from Florida has a lot of familiarity in the system and can absolutely run (like Chris Johnson type speed!).

I hope that the Broncos pick Demps...he'd be a perfect fit. An ideal second-round pick at where the Broncos will be selecting.

I am at the point now where I'd take RGIII and know he could run both systems (Traditional and Zone Read) which would likely keep Tebow under center for next year while RGIII learns the ropes (Win win, IMO). And if we truly don't like the system, then Matt Barkley is quickly making a believer of me. I thought he was pretty sloppy last year, but he has tightened up his game a lot this year and is quietly having one of the best QB seasons in all of College Football.

No need to discuss drafting QB's in a thread that asks what would be drafted if the Broncos stick with a QB.

Armchair Bronco
11-29-2011, 08:48 PM
Willis was on jim Rome the other day and stated that the reason he stayed in denver was the fact that we were going to run the ball. As long as fox is here winning by running, we will continue to get decent wide receivers who are unselfish workhorses like rod smith and eddie mac. Id rather have a guy that blocks than one that wants the ball 15 times a game.

Anyone remember Keith Burns? I always wanted him to be a hybrid Player/Coach given his awesome play on Special Teams back in the day.

Maybe we can do the same thing with Rod and Eddie. Those guys are still heroes in Denver, and I'm sure they could be effective advisors, if not junior/assistant coaches eventually.

NFLBRONCO
11-29-2011, 08:49 PM
T2.... really?

We need a Percey Harvin type of player. Someone that can run and catch the ball that has plenty of speed to hit a corner on an end round or reverse play.

Yep I was thinking the same thing. Another Harvin and McFadden type RB would be nice.

epicSocialism4tw
11-29-2011, 08:50 PM
Willis was on jim Rome the other day and stated that the reason he stayed in denver was the fact that we were going to run the ball. As long as fox is here winning by running, we will continue to get decent wide receivers who are unselfish workhorses like rod smith and eddie mac. Id rather have a guy that blocks than one that wants the ball 15 times a game.

Absolutely.

Decker is fitting into that category. We need another guy to step up next to him. I had hoped that DT would be the guy, but he's not stepping up. Maybe he's still not at full speed?

cutthemdown
11-29-2011, 08:50 PM
Nobody last yr thought a good draft would be olb, te's, ot. I hope for the draft to just yeild good starters. Doesn't really matter what position to me.

cutthemdown
11-29-2011, 08:51 PM
Broncos should just bring in option qbs as UDFA.

vonqkilla
11-29-2011, 08:52 PM
DT, CB, WR.

BPA at those positions.

cutthemdown
11-29-2011, 08:54 PM
Absolutely.

Decker is fitting into that category. We need another guy to step up next to him. I had hoped that DT would be the guy, but he's not stepping up. Maybe he's still not at full speed?

A really athletic WR that is tall and big, that could win 1 on 1 jump ball situations would be ideal also. Stupid to say a Larry Fitz type, because every team wants that, but just an athletic leaper with hands that snatch the ball from the air etc etc.

This offense, if it had WR that teams were afraid to single cover, would be even harder to stop. If we had really killer WR who could burn and get deep, it almost makes them keep at least one safety back, and probably the other one not quite as far in the box. Otherwise Broncos could end up getting a ton of long passes. The chances are there we have just only hit 1 or 2 of them.

cutthemdown
11-29-2011, 08:56 PM
DT, CB, WR.

BPA at those positions.

I still say you take whoever you think the biggest stud is.

Last yr I was saying Peterson, Green, Miller, Dareus. I think this yr Broncos do same thing. Make a list of the guys you think are sure fire studs then grab one of them. Even if it was Dend and he was better the Ayers we still improve.

I agree though a stud inside at DT, or some help at CB would be great.

Dr. Broncenstein
11-29-2011, 08:59 PM
Kirkpatrick

Broncoman13
11-29-2011, 09:03 PM
Hillis would be a nice addition. He's a much more threatening player on the dive plays than Larsen. He would also be a reliable screen and wheel route player. You could even leave him in the spread to block. Having to take punishment from Hillis, Tebow, and a speed back for an entire game would be really difficult to deal with. I like the idea.

The traits that a back must have in this offense: hands, blocking ability, elusiveness, and (ideally) break-away speed. Hillis can do all but the speed stuff. Then you draft someone like Demps to fill that role.



I dont think that Denver needs to draft another TE right now. I think that Virgil Green, Fells, Thomas, and Rosario are enough to work with. Virgil Green is getting more and more work, and has been blocking fairly well. He's supposed to be a good athlete as well, so I'd keep Fells to start and work in the youngsters.



No need to draft a QB at all if you plan on keeping Tebow. It would be a waste of a pick when there are too many other holes on the field.



I hope that the Broncos pick Demps...he'd be a perfect fit. An ideal second-round pick at where the Broncos will be selecting.



No need to discuss drafting QB's in a thread that asks what would be drafted if the Broncos stick with a QB.

My bad, I said Jermichael Finley... meant to stay LaMichael James. I always get those names confused!

Agamemnon
11-29-2011, 09:08 PM
The question comes down to if you think Tebow needs weapons or if you want to try and go full blown 2000 Baltimore Ravens, i.e., become the nastiest defense on the planet.

If the latter, you draft defense early and often.

A defense like that is nearly impossible to build and extremely hard to maintain. I'd much prefer we focus on becoming good in all three phases, rather than all-time great in one.

To the original question, the answer is highly dependent on what offense we plan on running with him. Assuming we follow the natural progression of what we are doing now, and begin implementing more spread due to that being Tebow's best passing formation, we'll ultimately end up with a spread option/foxball type scheme. At that point you have to start looking at players that fit either scheme well, or one of those schemes perfectly.

One of the players that really stands out from the spread option angle would be LaMichael James. We could use him as a RB/WR hybrid and design mismatches in the passing game and using him in the option. He'd be a great safety valve for Tebow as well, and that's something the kid has been sorely missing.

The player that best fits Foxball would be Trent Richardson but he's likely going to be out of reach so they might go with the next best thing in terms of a bell cow back with a great speed/size combo. While this might not help Tebow directly in the passing game that much (depending on how good a receiver the guy is), a great running back (as good as McGahee has been for us, he's aging and nowhere near elite) in this offense would make Tebow's life much easier and would give us a deep stable of backs which we really need with how much we run.

As far as receivers go, we need more, and we need better ones. I would expect us to focus on big strong receivers that can block well so they can help Tebow in the passing game and continue to serve a purpose when playing Foxball. Dwight Jones out of North Carolina seems like the kind of guy I would expect them to target if they go receiver in the first two rounds, while Marvin McNutt fits the mold a couple rounds later.

Finally, a great Tight End could really be just what the doctor ordered for Tebow, as it often feels like he's lacking that security blanket that every young QB needs. That said, to get on the field consistently in this offense the guy also needs to be a great blocker. Getting Dwayne Allen in the 2nd or Coby Fleener in the 3rd would be moves that would really help Tebow. In all honesty, I tend to think this might be the biggest positive move they could make to help Tebow if they go defense in the 1st round. (LaMichael James might be better. Hard to say.)

Broncoman13
11-29-2011, 09:09 PM
Hillis would be a nice addition. He's a much more threatening player on the dive plays than Larsen. He would also be a reliable screen and wheel route player. You could even leave him in the spread to block. Having to take punishment from Hillis, Tebow, and a speed back for an entire game would be really difficult to deal with. I like the idea.

The traits that a back must have in this offense: hands, blocking ability, elusiveness, and (ideally) break-away speed. Hillis can do all but the speed stuff. Then you draft someone like Demps to fill that role.



I dont think that Denver needs to draft another TE right now. I think that Virgil Green, Fells, Thomas, and Rosario are enough to work with. Virgil Green is getting more and more work, and has been blocking fairly well. He's supposed to be a good athlete as well, so I'd keep Fells to start and work in the youngsters.



No need to draft a QB at all if you plan on keeping Tebow. It would be a waste of a pick when there are too many other holes on the field.



I hope that the Broncos pick Demps...he'd be a perfect fit. An ideal second-round pick at where the Broncos will be selecting.



No need to discuss drafting QB's in a thread that asks what would be drafted if the Broncos stick with a QB.

My bad, I said Jermichael Finley... meant to stay LaMichael James. I always get those names confused!

Also, if you're going to continue with Tebow and this current style you need to have another QB ready in the wings. While he has shown the ability to take the hits, there is a very real possibility that he takes a cheap shot to the head or gets hit out of bounds and has to miss some time. If you get a guy like RGIII you can run the same offense with him. PLUS he projects to be a more accurate passer. No brainer IMO

epicSocialism4tw
11-29-2011, 09:13 PM
My bad, I said Jermichael Finley... meant to stay LaMichael James. I always get those names confused!

Also, if you're going to continue with Tebow and this current style you need to have another QB ready in the wings. While he has shown the ability to take the hits, there is a very real possibility that he takes a cheap shot to the head or gets hit out of bounds and has to miss some time. If you get a guy like RGIII you can run the same offense with him. PLUS he projects to be a more accurate passer. No brainer IMO

You don't need to take a backup for Tebow. You pick one up in free agency and sign Adam Weber. No need to waste a first round draft pick on a backup. I believe that Tebow was more accurate in college than Griffin is anyway...but this isn't a thread about drafting a quarterback.

The whole "he wont be able to do this all year" stuff is just conjecture by people trying to make excuses for why Tebow wont be successful. No reason to heed it or take it into consideration. Will the Steelers be able to replace Benburger? Probably not.

Agamemnon
11-29-2011, 09:14 PM
Hillis would be a nice addition. He's a much more threatening player on the dive plays than Larsen. He would also be a reliable screen and wheel route player. You could even leave him in the spread to block. Having to take punishment from Hillis, Tebow, and a speed back for an entire game would be really difficult to deal with. I like the idea.

Acquiring Hillis and drafting LaMichael James would be pure awesome for this offense. With McGahee in there too, that would be the kind of stable you need for this 40-50 runs per game style of offense to really shine.

Broncoman13
11-29-2011, 09:14 PM
A defense like that is nearly impossible to build and extremely hard to maintain. I'd much prefer we focus on becoming good in all three phases, rather than all-time great in one.

To the original question, the answer is highly dependent on what offense we plan on running with him. Assuming we follow the natural progression of what we are doing now, and begin implementing more spread due to that being Tebow's best passing formation, we'll ultimately end up with a spread option/foxball type scheme. At that point you have to start looking at players that fit either scheme well, or one of those schemes perfectly.

One of the players that really stands out from the spread option angle would be LaMichael James. We could use him as a RB/WR hybrid and design mismatches in the passing game and using him in the option. He'd be a great safety valve for Tebow as well, and that's something the kid has been sorely missing.

The player that best fits Foxball would be Trent Richardson but he's likely going to be out of reach so they might go with the next best thing in terms of a bell cow back with a great speed/size combo. While this might not help Tebow directly in the passing game that much (depending on how good a receiver the guy is), a great running back (as good as McGahee has been for us, he's aging and nowhere near elite) in this offense would make Tebow's life much easier and would give us a deep stable of backs which we really need with how much we run.

As far as receivers go, we need more, and we need better ones. I would expect us to focus on big strong receivers that can block well so they can help Tebow in the passing game and continue to serve a purpose when playing Foxball. Dwight Jones out of North Carolina seems like the kind of guy I would expect them to target if they go receiver in the first two rounds, while Marvin McNutt fits the mold a couple rounds later.

Finally, a great Tight End could really be just what the doctor ordered for Tebow, as it often feels like he's lacking that security blanket that every young QB needs. That said, to get on the field consistently in this offense the guy also needs to be a great blocker. Getting Dwayne Allen in the 2nd or Coby Fleener in the 3rd would be moves that would really help Tebow. In all honesty, I tend to think this might be the biggest positive move they could make to help Tebow if they go defense in the 1st round. (LaMichael James might be better. Hard to say.)

I like the TE solution b/c of the catch radius a TE usually offers. I dislike the idea b/c the separation a TE normally gets would force Tebow to be much more accurate than he has been half the time.

And keep in mind completion % is a factor of accurate passing, but the more valuable measure is in the yards after the catch. If he throws an accurate ball, in stride, he gets the completion and the extra yards. I think he can get the completion % up, but not sure about the accuracy that would lead to extra yards.

Agamemnon
11-29-2011, 09:16 PM
You don't need to take a backup for Tebow. You pick one up in free agency and sign Adam Weber. No need to waste a first round draft pick on a backup. I believe that Tebow was more accurate in college than Griffin is anyway...but this isn't a thread about drafting a quarterback.

Drafting another developmental QB makes absolutely zero sense. Personally I wouldn't mind David Garrard. He's probably the best fit as Tebow's backup of the available players that I can think of honestly.

OrangeSe7en
11-29-2011, 09:18 PM
Trent Richardson or David DeCastro

Broncoman13
11-29-2011, 09:19 PM
You don't need to take a backup for Tebow. You pick one up in free agency and sign Adam Weber. No need to waste a first round draft pick on a backup. I believe that Tebow was more accurate in college than Griffin is anyway...but this isn't a thread about drafting a quarterback.

The whole "he wont be able to do this all year" stuff is just conjecture by people trying to make excuses for why Tebow wont be successful. No reason to heed it or take it into consideration. Will the Steelers be able to replace Benburger? Probably not.

Speaking of the Steelers, where is Dixon at now? He would be an excellent back up to Tebow. And no, its not just the talking heads that fear Tebow can't last. It's fans, coaches and everyone else. I don't think he'll get hurt running into anyone or taking a dive for extra yards in the middle of the field, I think he'll get cheap shotted in the earhole or blasted out of bounds.

You mentioned Weber. Do you think Weber can come in a run the same offense? You take Tebow out of the equation and our run game is just average again. Not just b/c you lose the yards from Tebow, sure that hurts... but the respect and responsibliities that can be discarded with Tebow out causes the run game to be suspect at best. Think pre-Tebow. Nobody really thinks the OL just became dominant overnight after the Lions game...do they?

Agamemnon
11-29-2011, 09:19 PM
I like the TE solution b/c of the catch radius a TE usually offers. I dislike the idea b/c the separation a TE normally gets would force Tebow to be much more accurate than he has been half the time.

And keep in mind completion % is a factor of accurate passing, but the more valuable measure is in the yards after the catch. If he throws an accurate ball, in stride, he gets the completion and the extra yards. I think he can get the completion % up, but not sure about the accuracy that would lead to extra yards.

Tebow's accuracy is improving and will continue to improve, and good TEs often require the least accuracy honestly because they are usually a mismatch for whatever defender is on them. There's a reason they are seen as safety nets by QBs, and they wouldn't be if throwing to them required more accuracy than wide receivers.

Ratboy
11-29-2011, 09:21 PM
Runningback, Receiver, Tight End to help Tebow Directly.

Defensive Tackle, Middle Linebacker, Cornerback to help Tebow indirectly.

Who exactly? Beats me.

Agamemnon
11-29-2011, 09:22 PM
Speaking of the Steelers, where is Dixon at now? He would be an excellent back up to Tebow. And no, its not just the talking heads that fear Tebow can't last. It's fans, coaches and everyone else. I don't think he'll get hurt running into anyone or taking a dive for extra yards in the middle of the field, I think he'll get cheap shotted in the earhole or blasted out of bounds.

You mentioned Weber. Do you think Weber can come in a run the same offense? You take Tebow out of the equation and our run game is just average again. Not just b/c you lose the yards from Tebow, sure that hurts... but the respect and responsibliities that can be discarded with Tebow out causes the run game to be suspect at best. Think pre-Tebow. Nobody really thinks the OL just became dominant overnight after the Lions game...do they?

Our run game is average at best without the Tebow factor. No doubt about it. We definitely need to consider athletic backup QBs, I agree.

epicSocialism4tw
11-29-2011, 09:27 PM
Speaking of the Steelers, where is Dixon at now? He would be an excellent back up to Tebow. And no, its not just the talking heads that fear Tebow can't last. It's fans, coaches and everyone else. I don't think he'll get hurt running into anyone or taking a dive for extra yards in the middle of the field, I think he'll get cheap shotted in the earhole or blasted out of bounds.

The read option isn't the only play that Denver runs. I don't think that they'd have too much trouble transitioning to a traditional offense if Tebow got hurt. Its much harder to do what they have done this season with Tebow taking over.

You mentioned Weber. Do you think Weber can come in a run the same offense? You take Tebow out of the equation and our run game is just average again. Not just b/c you lose the yards from Tebow, sure that hurts... but the respect and responsibliities that can be discarded with Tebow out causes the run game to be suspect at best. Think pre-Tebow. Nobody really thinks the OL just became dominant overnight after the Lions game...do they?

If a team loses its biggest playmaker (Tebow in our case) you can't expect anyone to pick up the slack. I just think that its a false premise to assume that this is a legitimate problem that should be addressed with a high draft pick.

When has Tebow ever shown a propensity for injury?

You can't waste resources on that. You address that problem if it arises.

Agamemnon
11-29-2011, 09:27 PM
T2.... really?

We need a Percey Harvin type of player. Someone that can run and catch the ball that has plenty of speed to hit a corner on an end round or reverse play.

Unfortunately that type of receiver doesn't fit the run-heavy philosophy of Fox and McCoy. I'll really be surprised if they draft a receiver that can't physically dominate corners and safeties in the running game. If we went with a true spread option offense I would agree with you 100%, but I don't see that happening.

ward63
11-29-2011, 09:36 PM
Defensive tackle to help the rotation. A solid rookie or two to add in with Bunkley and HAM(assuming we resign both). Unrein is a gap filler, but definitely nothing more than that. For McBean...Idk where it came from.
Middle linebacker, but I would like to see what happens with Irving. Maybe he turns into a Keith Burns.
Corner for Champ to mentor.
You can never have enough pass rushers.
Basically...DEFENSE, DEFENSE, DEFENSE!

A speed back for offense would be nice.

OrangeSe7en
11-29-2011, 09:41 PM
Defensive tackle to help the rotation. A solid rookie or two to add in with Bunkley and HAM(assuming we resign both). Unrein is a gap filler, but definitely nothing more than that. For McBean...Idk where it came from.
Middle linebacker, but I would like to see what happens with Irving. Maybe he turns into a Keith Burns.
Corner for Champ to mentor.
You can never have enough pass rushers.
Basically...DEFENSE, DEFENSE, DEFENSE!

A speed back for offense would be nice.

Willis McGahee is 30 and has a big work load this year. RB is a big need as well.

Armchair Bronco
11-29-2011, 10:05 PM
I think we should trade picks (or players?) for Hillis and Harvin. They're known quantities and would fit in well with Fox's system. No need to use high picks for RB and WR if we can trade picks.

I think we need some athletic backup QB's who can run the option read, but they don't need to be anything more than 4th or 5th rounders. We'll just assume that Tebow will be able to stay healthy.

So that leaves the majority of the higher picks for the defense.

uplink
11-29-2011, 10:34 PM
A WR burner, a guy who is close to or is the fastest guy in the NFL.

Tebow throws a decent long ball and a deep threat would make teams worry about bringing in their safeties to stop the run.

Agamemnon
11-29-2011, 10:38 PM
A WR burner, a guy who is close to or is the fastest guy in the NFL.

Tebow throws a decent long ball and a deep threat would make teams worry about bringing in their safeties to stop the run.

Ah, the Al Davis approach. Because that's worked so well in the past...

Wes Mantooth
11-29-2011, 10:41 PM
Oregon Ducks seem to be working well for us offensively.

extralife
11-29-2011, 10:43 PM
If we're going to stick with some form of this offense, or even build something a bit more normal-ish off of it, we need two, or possibly three things:

1. A true deep threat receiver. A guy that has speed and, more importantly, the ability to adjust to balls and to go up and get them even while covered. I like Decker, but this role doesn't particularly suit him.

2. A speed back. 1 stretches the field vertically, 2 stretches it horizontally. He has to be a guy that feels comfortable running from the read option, and he has to be able to catch swing routes and screens and so forth.

3. A gimmick guy. A guy that can run, that can split wide, that can take end arounds, that can maybe even throw it or pretend to throw it on occasion. Ideally 2 and 3 are the same guy.

But what this team needs most is a corner. It is extremely important that this team not allow teams to throw with impunity, or we're going to start falling behind by too much to make our offense work. We've played two elite offenses this season and they've both pasted the hell out of us by slinging the ball around. Our corner depth is suspect at best, and our starters are old. I'd also like to see another pass rusher if there's a guy in the first or second round that we can fit in.

Agamemnon
11-29-2011, 10:58 PM
If we're going to stick with some form of this offense, or even build something a bit more normal-ish off of it, we need two, or possibly three things:

1. A true deep threat receiver. A guy that has speed and, more importantly, the ability to adjust to balls and to go up and get them even while covered. I like Decker, but this role doesn't particularly suit him.

2. A speed back. 1 stretches the field vertically, 2 stretches it horizontally. He has to be a guy that feels comfortable running from the read option, and he has to be able to catch swing routes and screens and so forth.

3. A gimmick guy. A guy that can run, that can split wide, that can take end arounds, that can maybe even throw it or pretend to throw it on occasion. Ideally 2 and 3 are the same guy.

But what this team needs most is a corner. It is extremely important that this team not allow teams to throw with impunity, or we're going to start falling behind by too much to make our offense work. We've played two elite offenses this season and they've both pasted the hell out of us by slinging the ball around. Our corner depth is suspect at best, and our starters are old. I'd also like to see another pass rusher if there's a guy in the first or second round that we can fit in.

2 & 3 could both be filled by LaMichael James.

1 sounds like A.J. Jenkins out of Illinois unless you spend a 1st rounder on a guy.

BroncoMan4ever
11-29-2011, 10:59 PM
Clearly, we need some backup QB's, but they have to be able to run the read-option offense. So this probably eliminates most of the pure pocket passers available in the 1st and 2nd rounds.

And we'd need to stockpile some RB's who run & think like McGahee and Peyton Hillis. Maybe we even try to get Hillis back from Cleveland (and hope that he stays healthy).

We also need to keep drafting defensive juggernauts. I'd rather see Elway spend our 1st and 2nd round picks on defensive guys.

WR is a need, but I just don't see Prima Donna WR's being very happy on this team. So WR's would be late-round picks.

Hillis is a FA after the season, and after his troubles it is possible we can get him back on the cheap.

backup QB would not be a rough thing to acquire. with basically almost all of college football running the same offense we do now, we can find an athlete for the backup position in the middle rounds.

OL/DL depth is a definite need

CB is a major need. Goodman has looked better the last few weeks but still needs to be upgraded from

more talent in our LB corps. DJ has been at the top of his game forr the last few weeks, but has always been an underwhelming player to me. i believe if given a shot Woodyard would outperform him. MLB needs an upgrade, i like Mays and when he is on target his hits are fun to watch but his lack of speed and all his misses needs are definite strikes against the defense outside of Miller the LB corps could easily be upgraded and should be.

not too worried about the WR. we have Decker, DT, Willis under contract for next season and can always bring in average receivers for depth. the passing game right now isn't a big concern seeing as we don't chuck the ball around a lot. so until Tim rounds out his game, WR is not a major need position.

Agamemnon
11-29-2011, 11:02 PM
not too worried about the WR. we have Decker, DT, Willis under contract for next season and can always bring in average receivers for depth. the passing game right now isn't a big concern seeing as we don't chuck the ball around a lot. so until Tim rounds out his game, WR is not a major need position.

So you want him to become a better passer, but don't want to give him any weapons. Okay...

cutthemdown
11-29-2011, 11:04 PM
I don't see Denver being interested in Hillis. I'd rather have Micheal Bush.

FRISKY_DINGO
11-29-2011, 11:12 PM
a RB to compliment McGahee

A CB to eventually replace Goodman/Bailey

more depth in the trenches

a break out, Sproles/Harvin type player to open up the offense.

and yes... more depth at QB.


With this OP asking this question with the assumption that we stick with Tebow, then you have to find other QB's with a similar skill set. Having Quinn/Weber/etc as Tebow's back up makes no sense, whatsoever. If we commit to this offensive scheme, then you need more QB's like Tebow.

Fortunately for us, we won't need to spend higher than a late round pick on a QB with a similar skill set to Tebow that can back him up and efficiently operate the offense, if Tebow were to go down.

Agamemnon
11-29-2011, 11:16 PM
I don't see Denver being interested in Hillis. I'd rather have Micheal Bush.

I'll be surprised if we don't address RB in the draft myself...

BroncoMan4ever
11-29-2011, 11:18 PM
So you want him to become a better passer, but don't want to give him any weapons. Okay...

what i am saying is we have Decker and DT who are believed to become extremely good receivers in this league under contract. We have Willis who is a decent depth receiver. we have Green, and Thomas at the TE position which is where i believe Tim will be making the majority of his attempts. these guys at the TE spot will be his safety valve while he is learning to pass in the NFL. add in if Moreno returns healthy he is a good receiver out of the backfield.

we have more than enough talent from potential pass catchers under contract right now and next season to get by for another season while Tim improves his passing. in my opinion, it makes no sense breaking the bank on a receiver next season when the offensive scheme doesn't call for one. once Tim improves his passing game, then i am all for bringing in more receiving talent, but for now while he is working on his game and we are running the ball at a 60%+ rate it is not cost efficient to spend money on that position when there are in need of talent infusion almost everywhere else on the roster

Armchair Bronco
11-29-2011, 11:22 PM
I don't see Denver being interested in Hillis. I'd rather have Michael Bush.

Is Bush a FA at the end of this year? Or do you think the Raiders would trade him? I picked him up for my fantasy team when McFadden went down, and he's been money. I love his style and power and think he would be a good fit.

EDIT: Bush signed a 1-year, $2.6 million deal in 2011. So we'd just have to win a bidding war.



With this OP asking this question with the assumption that we stick with Tebow, then you have to find other QB's with a similar skill set. Having Quinn/Weber/etc as Tebow's back up makes no sense, whatsoever. If we commit to this offensive scheme, then you need more QB's like Tebow.

Fortunately for us, we won't need to spend higher than a late round pick on a QB with a similar skill set to Tebow that can back him up and efficiently operate the offense, if Tebow were to go down.

Yeah, my assumption is that if Elway goes All-In with Tebow, then what we need are 2 QB's who can keep running our unique offense similar to the way Trent Dilfer became a "game manager" for the Ravens in 2000. Nuttin' fancy, just keep it simple while Tebow heals up from whatever is ailing him.

Agamemnon
11-29-2011, 11:44 PM
what i am saying is we have Decker and DT who are believed to become extremely good receivers in this league under contract.

Who the hell believes DT is a good receiver right now? He has all the physical ability to be one, it's true, but the dude just doesn't look like he gives a ****. And with Royal leaving, receiver is a pretty big need next season. I really don't see how anyone could think otherwise.

Popps
11-29-2011, 11:47 PM
Wouldn't mind a top OT prospect so we could move Franklin over.
A lot also rides on whether we can get deals done for guys like Bunkley and Thomas.
CB is deep this year in draft and FA. Obviously QB depth. DL depth. An ILB prospect if Irving isn't the guy.

Agamemnon
11-30-2011, 12:04 AM
Wouldn't mind a top OT prospect so we could move Franklin over.
A lot also rides on whether we can get deals done for guys like Bunkley and Thomas.
CB is deep this year in draft and FA. Obviously QB depth. DL depth. An ILB prospect if Irving isn't the guy.

Our o-line has progressed enough across the board that all I want now is to see our OL depth improve. I don't see any massively glaring holes on our line right now. Not in the face of our lack of good skill players anyway. If we go offense early, we pretty much have to go RB, WR, or TE (possibly more than one).

Agamemnon
11-30-2011, 12:10 AM
As I'm thinking about it, I really have to say that I'd rather them go BPA across the board than focus on offense or defense. Right now we just need lots of good players on both sides of the ball. There might be a few exceptions that could come up, but generally that's the best way for us to go right now.

Crushaholic
11-30-2011, 01:08 AM
If we are set on running the option, we need to find the best available option quarterbacks to back Tebow...

BroncoMan4ever
11-30-2011, 02:10 AM
Who the hell believes DT is a good receiver right now? He has all the physical ability to be one, it's true, but the dude just doesn't look like he gives a ****. And with Royal leaving, receiver is a pretty big need next season. I really don't see how anyone could think otherwise.

truthfully, right now DT should be on IR. he shouldn't have even been kept on the roster this season. we are seeing a guy who worked back from injury, is still not anywhere near football shape and playing in a new offense for a new coaching staff. the deck was stacked agains the guy this season.

however you ask who believes in DT. answer is simple, Elway, Xanders and Fox. no way in hell do they trade Lloyd with DT coming back if they didn't believe the kid had talent.

Jay3
11-30-2011, 02:29 AM
I would like an Anquon Boldin type receiver -- physical, slot, gets open, fights off physical coverage, catches it if it's anywhere in his zip code.

I would like an elite tight end like the new wave -- Graham and Gronk. Maybe Thomas or Green is that. But the good teams are starting to stockpile the new breed of tight end. Tebow's game is obviously suited to having a strong tight end that can block and go out for passes.

I think one more offensive lineman is needed. Perhaps a RT, and move Franklin to guard.

I think the other receiver could be a more one-dimensional speed merchant like Jacoby Ford. (I think the ideal WR corps for Tebow would be Jacoby Ford, Anquon Boldin, and a run threat like Harvin or Hester).

Jay3
11-30-2011, 02:31 AM
I would probably go defense early again this year. Even the defense is good, there are more holes opening up (areas of need) on the D. They need another CB, another DT, another LB. (Basically, all three levels of the defense). The defense is thin and lacks depth.

robbieopperude
11-30-2011, 03:04 AM
The BPA when we pick will like be an ILB or DB. Kirkpatrick seems to be slipping. I like Jenkins (formerly of UF) but I'm not sure Elway will take a guy with character concerns. Worthy, DT from Mich St., makes sense if we are picking in the 20's.

Still can't believe Tebow took us from talking about Andrew Luck to talking about picking in the 20's. Von Miller, Tebow, and Doom are doing wonders for this team right now.

I would also consider trading a 4th or 5th for a veteran TE like Carolina did last year for Greg Olson. Not sure who will be on the market but you can usually find a vet out there for trade.

epicSocialism4tw
11-30-2011, 03:08 AM
Still can't believe Tebow took us from talking about Andrew Luck to talking about picking in the 20's. Von Miller, Tebow, and Doom are doing wonders for this team right now.

Dont forget Champ. He has been playing very well, and has taken a lot of responsibility for leading the charge in taking the defense to the next level. Champ needs more credit.

Goodman, DJ Williams, Chris Harris, Quinton Carter, Marcus Thomas, McBean...all of these guys are making plays.

cmhargrove
11-30-2011, 06:17 AM
I would definitely go defense in the first round, if a solid starting CB is one the board, he is the best pick. Next poriority would be DT/LB, or an outstanding offensive player that dropped for some reason.

The one I would really like in the lower second round / upper third round? Coby Fleener from Stanford. A 6'6" Tight End that has turned into a very good pass catching threat for Andrew Luck. As I said before in previous threads, he reminds me of a Jay Novacek type of impact player. I think he would be a real difference maker, and i'm not sold on any of our Tight Ends right now.

http://www2.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Coby+Fleener+Wake+Forest+v+Stanford+zg_73r3fDmHl.j pg

jhns
11-30-2011, 06:29 AM
What I would like to see:

CB
#1 Receiver
MLB
DT
DE
OL
RB

Other than the receiver, the other positions could be depth/future starter projects. We are old at corner and will need to replace both starters in the next few years. I would love a stud MLB as we haven't had one since Wilson. I do like what I am seeing from Mays right now though, so this isn't as important. Both lines are up and down. They both have a lot of younger players though. I would love to see a couple guys brought in on both lines for competition. I would love to get another stud RB, but I would take a decent backup for now. If we still feature the option in two years, we will need another stud guy.

I think we need a #1 receiver again. Maybe DT or Decker will become that guy, but they aren't there yet. We have a few good second/third receivers, so I don't really care for just adding depth. I would add receiver only if I found a guy I thought was a true number one guy.

I don't follow college enough to have specifics. The few guys I know will be going far too high for us now.

BowlenBall
11-30-2011, 06:33 AM
A premier MLB would push this defense to another level, so I'm rooting for one of the following:

ILB Luke Kuechly, BC -- this guys a 10-year pro bowler, if he comes out and is there when we pick in the first, this is who I'll be rooting for.

ILB Manti Te'o, Notre Dame -- A stud-daddy linebacker if we're picking in the late 1st or early 2nd.

ILB Vontaze Burfict, Arizona St -- has some glaring flaws in his game, but would definitely bring the pain on running downs. Wouldn't like him as a first round, would love him in the 2nd, though.

ILB Dont'a Hightower, Alabama -- like Burfict, he doesn't have a complete skill set, but would definitely be an upgrade over what we currently have in the middle. Would also be a great 2nd-round pick for us.

BMarsh615
11-30-2011, 06:40 AM
We need a back with lots of speed. If we are gonna be running the ball constantly we need a guy who can hit the home run and also catch a screen pass and take it to the house. A guy like that would help our offense immensely. McGahee is a good, tough runner but we need a Darren Sproles/Chris Johnson type back to compliment him.

AlphaSeirra
11-30-2011, 06:52 AM
Clearly, we need some backup QB's, but they have to be able to run the read-option offense.
So this probably eliminates most of the pure pocket passers available in the 1st and 2nd rounds.

And we'd need to stockpile some RB's who run & think like McGahee and Peyton Hillis. Maybe we even try
to get Hillis back from Cleveland (and hope that he stays healthy).

We also need to keep drafting defensive juggernauts. I'd rather see Elway spend our 1st and 2nd round
picks on defensive guys.

WR is a need, but I just don't see Prima Donna WR's being very happy on this team. So WR's would be
late-round picks.

The read/option offense HAS NOT been installed, only a few plays have been added to overcome some
Bronco 'team' weaknesses. Those select plays force several things on the opponents defense that works
to the Broncos advantage. It was great of McCoy to listen when Tebow showed them and explained
them to McCoy. And nice of Fox to step out of the way, letting the two of them install some additions
to McCoy's other offense.

Any backup QB with some talent could run 95% of McCoys offense as it stands, few can run the
read/spread/option like Tebow can. (sCam Newton also learned it while at UF)

Tebow's WR's and TE in college were pretty happy to be on the end of Tebow throws,
9,200+ yds with 88 TD's to just 16 Ints.
Why?
Cause it got them NC Rings at UF, then on to the NFL where they all seem to be doing just fine.

Andre Caldwell - Louis Murphy - Percy Harvin - Riley Cooper - David Nelson - Aaron Hernandez
(psst, trade for any of those guys if they are ever available --- unlikely)

WR Justin Blackmon OkSt is a Tebow/Miller type of person with EXACTLY the kind of skills that the Broncos/Tebow
needs to be a more effective passer, (3rd Dn & comp%).
Having Blackmon would also give the Broncos other receivers a real break on ever being double covered.

RB Trent Richardson would be a MONSTER replacement for ole injury prone No-Show and the old man.

CB Janoris Jenkins would be my first grab for the defense, a shut-down cover corner and solid tackler
to help them against the pass-happy teams.

After that, OL & DL trades and pick-ups are a pretty much constant need for any team. :welcome:

OrangeSe7en
11-30-2011, 07:00 AM
We need a back with lots of speed. If we are gonna be running the ball constantly we need a guy who can hit the home run and also catch a screen pass and take it to the house. A guy like that would help our offense immensely. McGahee is a good, tough runner but we need a Darren Sproles/Chris Johnson type back to compliment him.

I see a lot of talk about getting a change of pace to McGahee. They actually need someone who McGahee can be the change of pace to. McGahee's 30 and has had a big workload this year.

Play2win
11-30-2011, 07:01 AM
We need a back with lots of speed. If we are gonna be running the ball constantly we need a guy who can hit the home run and also catch a screen pass and take it to the house. A guy like that would help our offense immensely. McGahee is a good, tough runner but we need a Darren Sproles/Chris Johnson type back to compliment him.

That sounds like James from Oregon to a tee. Would be all for it! :thumbsup:

goldengopher1976
11-30-2011, 07:17 AM
You go after players that have been successful in the NFL AND were successful in college in a similar offense. Don't think the Raiders will be letting McFadden go anywhere. Hillis is definitely an option and would be a great at the first read in the option (FB Dive type play)... plus he has the added ability to move back to HB and catches well out of the back field. He had what I thought were the best hands of any player during his years with the Broncos. Felix Jones hasn't done much with Dallas, but I don't think Jerry Jones is ready to cut him lose yet.

In the draft, Jermichael Finley would be interesting in the 2nd or 3rd round. Too small to hold up to the beatings but maybe if he were only getting 10 or so touches per game... while you're looking at Finley you might as well look at Oregon's QB as well.

Denard Robinson is an obvious fit. And, if it somehow falls into your lap, you take RGIII in the first and don't look back.

Jeff Demps from Florida has a lot of familiarity in the system and can absolutely run (like Chris Johnson type speed!).

There is a chance that the Niners cut ties with Alex Smith after this year (one year deal and Kappernick may be ready... may not), but Alex Smith would be a great back up to Tebow, especially if you do commit to the current style offense.

There are a ton of benefits of going to this offense full time. Players that aren't normally drafted until the 5th-7th rounds are now available and "reaching" on a player in the 4th round isn't exactly a big risk.

All that being said, Tebow either learns to become a more traditional QB and mixes in the Zone Option just to show a different look (4 or 5 times per game) or the Broncos go a different direction. Reminds me a lot of 2005 when Plummer was winning games but Shanny had to get a "Shiny" QB in Cutler.

I am at the point now where I'd take RGIII and know he could run both systems (Traditional and Zone Read) which would likely keep Tebow under center for next year while RGIII learns the ropes (Win win, IMO). And if we truly don't like the system, then Matt Barkley is quickly making a believer of me. I thought he was pretty sloppy last year, but he has tightened up his game a lot this year and is quietly having one of the best QB seasons in all of College Football.

I haven't read through all 3 pages yet, but I'm assuming that you or someone else already realized that you meant LeMichael James here, and not Jermichael Finley.

Dedhed
11-30-2011, 07:50 AM
This.

The team needs explosive offensive players, particularly electric backs who can catch the ball.


LaMichael James in the 3rd or Chris Rainey in the 4th would be interesting.

Rohirrim
11-30-2011, 08:05 AM
I'm guessing the Broncos will be picking around 17 to 20. I'd like to see the team speed cranked up a bit. Kendall Wright from Baylor would be a good pick. He would always pull a safety with him going deep. First pick should be BPA. I would stay away from Burfict. He occasionally makes a big, circus hit, but he's not the tackler that Manti Te'O of Notre Dame is. Manti is the fastest of the ILB available and a top tier tackler. I assume Keuchley will be out of reach. CB is also a big need. I'm still hoping that Sydquan can make a strong comeback next season but best CB available wouldn't hurt. A good, first day pick would be Casey Hayward of Vanderbilt. He is a solid, all around CB and a good tackler. In later rounds, Rodney Stewart would make a good Sproles-like complement to McGahee. He's small, durable and has 4.4 speed. As the pitch out man with McGahee on the inside, he could be devastating. Seems to me that bringing in RGIII just undermines Tebow. There are always option QBs available in the later rounds for backup.

Rolandftw
11-30-2011, 08:08 AM
If Elway goes all in on Tebow, then we obviously need to target great blocking WR's that don't care too much about their overall numbers. Need to target RB's that are north to south runners, that do not fumble the ball (looking at you Hillis!!)

On the defensive side, we need to take the best player available. DT, CB, MLB seem to be team needs.

Mountain Bronco
11-30-2011, 08:12 AM
CB, MLB DL and OG and I would take best available out of that group.

It was posted on an LSU board that I read about Jordan Jefferson being a quality backup for Tebow because he is familiar with the read option and has the size to deal with it. If a QB like that is around as an un-drafted free agent or late round would that be something to consider?

AlphaSeirra
11-30-2011, 08:30 AM
Pats/OLB (44 Tkls this season so far) Brandon Spikes 6-2 250 Gators/MLB. When he was on a recruiting visit coming out of HS, he was with a large group of other recruits when a reporter asked him where he was going for college. He looked over at Tebow and pointed to him and said; "I'm going wherever he's going."
The rest is Gator history.

When Von Miller was drafted by Denver, he said; "I can't wait to get to Denver and play on a team with a player that works as hard as Tim Tebow does." Tebow had started the final 3 games for Denver before the NFL Draft, so Von (like most others) thought that Tim would be the 2011 starter.

But Tebow has zero affect on what a TEAM'S defense does or doesn't do.....:thumbsup:
=============

The the RG-3 advocates that think/claim that he projects to be a better passer, (whatever projects means), what data are you using for that?
And remember, IF you can use RG3's college stats, then I can use Tebow's college stats for my projections.

RG3:
Passing - 761 of 1,137, 66.9% for 9,751 yds, 75 TD's to 16 Ints. for a Career 155.05 PER

Tebow
Passing - 661 of 995, 66.4% for 9,285 yds, 88 TD's to 16 Ints, for a Career 170.79 PER

RG3 had 142 more pass attempts to get 13 less TD's. (note the pass EFFICIENCY ratings)

Plus Baylor ain't Florida and the Big 12/? defenses sure as heck ain't the 5x BCS-NC SEC's defenses.

When it comes to running the ball, I very much doubt that RG3 can be as effective/durable as Superman is.

Keep and use McCoy's normal/regular offense if the backup QB has to play, because there is little to
NO HOPE of ever getting another Tebow.
(LSU's JJ has been a bit of a head case in college, so ???)

Crushaholic
11-30-2011, 09:23 AM
I'm not saying we should draft RG3 to REPLACE Tebow, but we should think about him as a backup. He can run a similar offense, without much drop off...

BroncoInferno
11-30-2011, 09:27 AM
I'm not saying we should draft RG3 to REPLACE Tebow, but we should think about him as a backup. He can run a similar offense, without much drop off...

You don't draft a QB in the 1st round to be a backup. That would be retarded.

alkemical
11-30-2011, 09:30 AM
You don't draft a QB in the 1st round to be a backup. That would be retarded.

Tebow, Rogers?

Dedhed
11-30-2011, 09:33 AM
You don't draft a QB in the 1st round to be a backup. That would be retarded.

This. And you especially don't mortgage an entire draft to move into the top 5 to draft a backup QB.

jhns
11-30-2011, 09:33 AM
Tebow, Rogers?

Neither drafted to be a backup...

Dedhed
11-30-2011, 09:34 AM
Tebow, Rogers?

Not at all comparable.

alkemical
11-30-2011, 09:38 AM
Not at all comparable.

They were drafted as developmental prospects, and not intended to start "right away". Each team had their own situations as to why they waited, but these guys weren't drafted to start day 1.

Those are the parallels that i see.

jhns
11-30-2011, 09:39 AM
They were drafted as developmental prospects, and not intended to start "right away". Each team had their own situations as to why they waited, but these guys weren't drafted to start day 1.

Those are the parallels that i see.

You see us wanting to draft a developmental guy to start in a couple seasons?

alkemical
11-30-2011, 09:42 AM
You see us wanting to draft a developmental guy to start in a couple seasons?

There are worse problems in life than having talent you groom and trade for increased value.

jhns
11-30-2011, 09:45 AM
There are worse problems in life than having talent you groom and trade for increased value.

So you think it is smart to give up a first so that we can hopefully get picks in the future? I would say a team with tons of holes should use the first on one of those holes. It would be extremely stupid to draft a first round QB if we plan on playing Tebow next season. Especially one of these guys we would have to trade up for.

BroncoInferno
11-30-2011, 09:51 AM
They were drafted as developmental prospects, and not intended to start "right away". Each team had their own situations as to why they waited, but these guys weren't drafted to start day 1.

Those are the parallels that i see.

Both were drafted with the expectation that they would be the starter eventually. Rodgers was playing behind an old man, so they were lining up his replacement. Tebow was playing behind a stop-gap.

If you've settled on a 24 year old Tebow as the QB you are going to build around (which is the premise of this thread), then any QB you draft is strictly a backup. That's why it would be retarded to take one in the 1st round.

alkemical
11-30-2011, 09:51 AM
So you think it is smart to give up a first so that we can hopefully get picks in the future? I would say a team with tons of holes should use the first on one of those holes. It would be extremely stupid to draft a first round QB if we plan on playing Tebow next season. Especially one of these guys we would have to trade up for.

For example:

Since you are playing hypothetical's:

Say RGIII lands in the Bronco's lap, and they snatch him. Now they have a talented prospect that they can use to not only back up Tebow & the current offense - but also have a guy that say, come contract time - they could flip for value. In essence, they'd be hedging bets - filling a hole with BPA - even if it is not a need. if it works out, you flip 'em for the best increase in value you can get.

I'm not saying to overreach and burn a pick "just because", i'm looking at it in terms of "if this situation presents itself, do it".

Look at how SD managed the drafting of Eli Manning (Which of course turned into Rivers) - but if an opportunity plops in your lap - take it!

alkemical
11-30-2011, 09:52 AM
Both were drafted with the expectation that they would be the starter eventually. Rodgers was playing behind an old man, so they were lining up his replacement. Tebow was playing behind a stop-gap.

If you've settled on a 24 year old Tebow as the QB you are going to build around (which is the premise of this thread), then any QB you draft is strictly a backup. That's why it would be retarded to take one in the 1st round.


If one falls in your lap, take it and leverage it to an organization that wants the talent more than you do.

BroncoInferno
11-30-2011, 09:54 AM
If one falls in your lap, take it and leverage it to an organization that wants the talent more than you do.

In a trade down, sure. But you can't justify paying 1st round money to a permanent backup/bargaining chip.

ZONA
11-30-2011, 09:55 AM
Anybody on this board that says you take RGIII with our first pick should be shot for their extreme lack of knowing how to draft.

You DON'T give up picks to move up and take Tebow in 1st round and then 3 years later give up more picks to move up and draft his back up.....in the 1st round.

OMG, some of you people are seriously retarded.

If this Tebow thing doesn't work, I can tell you honestly the Broncos will not stay with this option offense. Tebow is the 1 chance for this to work. If he doesn't work long term, we will lose the option and go conventional. You honestly think Elway will want to stay with the option offense if Tebow isn't the answer? Get real. No chance in hell does Elway and company draft RGIII. I'd put up serious cash on a bet.


So here's my thoughts:

I agree you go with BPA 1st round, no doubt about it. If that guy is very much the consensus next best player. And even that always doesn't work out but neither does drafting for need. I would love if that 1st round pick was either OL (move franklin inside to guard), or just about anywhere on defense.

Then starting in the 2nd, go BPA defense and keep it there. Look, the offense isn't pretty right now and this defense is keeping them in the games so they have a chance to win in the end. I think if you don't have an offense that looks like NO or GB, you're best chance is to have a defense that will slow those teams down big time and then have an offense that is built on low risk ball control. Chew that clock. Limit the amount of times the other teams offense gets the ball.

In addition, I think this team needs a great great blocking TE. Get rid of that extra linemen set (I think it was Clark coming in on those sets) and get a true threat in there at TE that is a beast of a blocker (a young Graham would be ideal). And yes, a shifty blazing fast RB/WR guy who will just kill it in the open field.

alkemical
11-30-2011, 09:57 AM
In a trade down, sure. But you can't justify paying 1st round money to a permanent backup/bargaining chip.

Again, SD played it pretty damn well.

alkemical
11-30-2011, 09:57 AM
Anybody on this board that says you take RGIII with our first pick should be shot for their extreme lack of knowing how to draft.

You DON'T give up picks to move up and take Tebow in 1st round and then 3 years later give up more picks to move up and draft his back up.....in the 1st round.

OMG, some of you people are seriously retarded.

If this Tebow thing doesn't work, I can tell you honestly the Broncos will not stay with this option thing and definitely not waste a 1s rounder on RGIII to be a backup.


So here's my thoughts:

I agree you go with BPA 1st round, no doubt about it. If that guy is very much the consensus next best player. And even that always doesn't work out but neither does drafting for need. I would love if that 1st round pick was either OL (move franklin inside to guard), or just about anywhere on defense.

Then starting in the 2nd, go BPA defense and keep it there. Look, the offense isn't pretty right now and this defense is keeping them in the games so they have a chance to win in the end. I think if you don't have an offense that looks like NO or GB, you're best chance is to have a defense that will slow those teams down big time and then have an offense that is built on low risk ball control. Chew that clock. Limit the amount of times the other teams offense gets the ball.

In addition, I think this team needs a great great blocking TE. Get rid of that extra linemen set (I think it was Clark coming in on those sets) and get a true threat in there at TE that is a beast of a blocker (a young Graham would be ideal). And yes, a shifty blazing fast RB/WR guy who will just kill it in the open field.


I never said about giving picks to move UP to select any talent. Just, that if a gift falls in your lap - TAKE IT. Exchange it later.

jhns
11-30-2011, 09:58 AM
Again, SD played it pretty damn well.

SD was drafting a replacement because they sucked and didn't like Brees. Not even close to the same situation...

ScottXray
11-30-2011, 10:02 AM
If we are set on running the option, we need to find the best available option quarterbacks to back Tebow...

True, but since the NFL does not place high value on Option QBs we don't need to spend high in the draft to pick one up. There will be a lot of UDFAs and even previous college players that are going to want to try out for Denver if we stick to this offense. The value here is that we aren't competing for the talent that other teams want. Sort of like the O linemen that we were able to pick up in later rounds when we were one of the only teams running the zone block scheme. If we win the superbowl then other teams are going to start using the same offense..( imitation is sincere flattery) .but if not then we have this specific talent pool pretty much alone.

ZONA
11-30-2011, 10:02 AM
I never said about giving picks to move UP to select any talent. Just, that if a gift falls in your lap - TAKE IT. Exchange it later.

I know - there have been others who have said we should trade up because they think that cat is going in the top 5.

Still - I don't think it's wise to use two 1st round draft picks in 3 years on QB when the 1st guy is winning some 80% of the games he's starting. I think if he was not winning, you could look at that, but then I highly doubt it would be RG3 they're looking at. They would cut this option thing right away and go tradition and get a traditional QB. They're staying with this option thing only because Tebow was already here before they got here.

alkemical
11-30-2011, 10:05 AM
SD was drafting a replacement because they sucked and didn't like Brees. Not even close to the same situation...

Early career

Brees played in his first professional game on November 4, 2001 against the Kansas City Chiefs. He had won the starting job over Doug Flutie during training camp before the start of the 2002 season. Brees started all 16 games for the Chargers during the 2002 season, leading the team to an 8-8 record. After a disappointing start to the 2003 season he was replaced by Flutie.

Brees' career with the Chargers was put in jeopardy after San Diego acquired NC State's Philip Rivers. After the trade, it was almost certain Brees' days as the Chargers' starting QB were over. However, Rivers held out nearly all of training camp. Brees therefore remained the starter throughout the 2004 season, where he started every game and led the team to a 12-4 regular season record. The Chargers won the AFC West and Brees was selected to the 2004 NFL Pro Bowl. He was named 2004 NFL Comeback Player of the Year.

The business decision that the SD front office used - was outstanding. They drafted Manning - got the QB they wanted - had a great year - and flipped brees for outstanding returns.

I'm an advocate at winning: I'm not advocating drafting a QB in the 1st - "Just Because". My position is that if a player like RGIII were to fall into the Broncos laps, you jump on that.

alkemical
11-30-2011, 10:12 AM
I know - there have been others who have said we should trade up because they think that cat is going in the top 5.

Still - I don't think it's wise to use two 1st round draft picks in 3 years on QB when the 1st guy is winning some 80% of the games he's starting. I think if he was not winning, you could look at that, but then I highly doubt it would be RG3 they're looking at. They would cut this option thing right away and go tradition and get a traditional QB. They're staying with this option thing only because Tebow was already here before they got here.

Well, if Tebow's the starter - and this is the direction we're going - you are going to need to stockpile some RB's, QB's and some OL Depth.

Again, my position is BPA. When you draft BPA & not for need - i think it removes some of the false value attributed to projecting talent.

I cited the SD handling of drafting Manning, flipping for rivers - then flipping Brees for some picks. To me that is a great business move. Can it be done all the time, no - of course not. But nothing wrong with opportunity and capitalizing on it.

I'm not disagreeing with you that other positions might be of more "need", but I don't always like drafting for need. I prefer to draft for depth as a philosophy. That way when the talent sifts through - you have a solid system in place and can move the pieces for better returns when you find good opportunities.

Dedhed
11-30-2011, 10:12 AM
They were drafted as developmental prospects, and not intended to start "right away". Each team had their own situations as to why they waited, but these guys weren't drafted to start day 1.

Those are the parallels that i see.
You can't really believe that drafting a QB to replace a near dead Brett Favre, who was threatening retirement and drafting a QB to replace Orton are comparable to drafting a first round QB to back up a 2nd year pro, can you?

razorwire77
11-30-2011, 10:22 AM
I would draft a complimentary speed back to Willis. A back with the speed to catch an edge on the outside. A back that could catch the ball on slip screens and make people miss, a back that could be an SB in a flexbone formation or halfback in a spread option formation. Ronnie Hillman early in 3rd round would be ideal.

I would draft or acquire an athletic power back and strong blocker with decent hands that could serve as a FB. If we continue to go down the option hybrid rabbit hole, you still have to be able to hit that quick FB dive for 2 or 3 yards a few times per game.

I would draft a legit 4.3 burner WR. He could be tiny, or a small school guy as long as he has the speed to get behind the defense when Tebow gets outside of the pocket.

I'd also draft O-line depth. Franklin, Walton and Zane Beadles have improved enough, to where I don't think we have to draft replacements (unless it's a bpa RT situation where you could move Franklin inside.)

Armchair Bronco
11-30-2011, 10:41 AM
True, but since the NFL does not place high value on Option QBs we don't need to spend high in the draft to pick one up. There will be a lot of UDFAs and even previous college players that are going to want to try out for Denver if we stick to this offense. The value here is that we aren't competing for the talent that other teams want. Sort of like the O linemen that we were able to pick up in later rounds when we were one of the only teams running the zone block scheme. If we win the superbowl then other teams are going to start using the same offense..( imitation is sincere flattery) .but if not then we have this specific talent pool pretty much alone.

This is an unintended (and positive) side effect of committing to the read option offense. We'll suddenly become attractive to lots of players who don't fit in to the conventional mold (especially QB's and RB's). There will be an untapped talent pool out there with "Denver" written all over it.

alkemical
11-30-2011, 10:42 AM
You can't really believe that drafting a QB to replace a near dead Brett Favre, who was threatening retirement and drafting a QB to replace Orton are comparable to drafting a first round QB to back up a 2nd year pro, can you?

See my position on the way SD handled it.

alkemical
11-30-2011, 10:42 AM
This is an unintended (and positive) side effect of committing to the read option offense. We'll suddenly become attractive to lots of players who don't fit in to the conventional mold (especially QB's and RB's). There will be an untapped talent pool out there with "Denver" written all over it.

Ala what we saw when few teams ran the 3-4 D.

Carmelo15
11-30-2011, 10:45 AM
One guy who I think we could get later who would be a great value to our team is Denard Robinson. Not just because he can run this offense but this guy is a straight playmaker with elite speed. The guy ran a 10.28 100 yard dash. Not only could he be a backup QB, he could essentially be our Randall Cobb/Josh Cribbs playmaker as well. He could play slot WR, replacing Eddie Royal's role in the offense. But when you add the element of his threat to throw the ball you add on a whole new set of wrinkles that we could utilize him in this offense. He could also be our Punt/Kick Returner. When you factor all of this into his value to our team I think he is worth a 4th round pick to the Denver Broncos. I would even be willing to spend our late 3rd on a Slot WR/PR/KR/Backup QB.

As far as the first 2 rounds I think our weakest starter right now on defense is MLB. Joe Mays is just too slow for a 4-3. I'm not a big believer in Nate Irving either as he was my least favorite pick of the draft last year (Besides Mohammed). Luke Kuechly, Manti T'eo and Vontaze Burfict would all be upgrades to Mays and Irving. We also need youth at CB and RB. I hope to get two starters at these positions. We will likely be picking too late for Morris Claiborne and Trent Richardson. Unless Dre Kirkpatrick falls to us (unlikely) I think the best pick would be one of those 3 MLB's, an upgrade at OL such as David DeCastro, or more youth/speed at RB such as Lamar Miller. The nice thing about MLB and RB is there often impact players as rookies as well.

Scenario 1:
Manti Te'o
LaMichael James
Ray Ray Armstrong
Denard Robinson

Scenario 2:
Lamar Miller
Vontaze Burfict
Ray Ray Armstrong
Denard Robinson

Scenario 3:
David DeCastro
Vontaze Burfict
Ray Ray Armstrong
Denard Robinson

Carmelo15
11-30-2011, 10:48 AM
A premier MLB would push this defense to another level, so I'm rooting for one of the following:

ILB Luke Kuechly, BC -- this guys a 10-year pro bowler, if he comes out and is there when we pick in the first, this is who I'll be rooting for.

ILB Manti Te'o, Notre Dame -- A stud-daddy linebacker if we're picking in the late 1st or early 2nd.

ILB Vontaze Burfict, Arizona St -- has some glaring flaws in his game, but would definitely bring the pain on running downs. Wouldn't like him as a first round, would love him in the 2nd, though.

ILB Dont'a Hightower, Alabama -- like Burfict, he doesn't have a complete skill set, but would definitely be an upgrade over what we currently have in the middle. Would also be a great 2nd-round pick for us.

This.

jhns
11-30-2011, 10:51 AM
The business decision that the SD front office used - was outstanding. They drafted Manning - got the QB they wanted - had a great year - and flipped brees for outstanding returns.

I'm an advocate at winning: I'm not advocating drafting a QB in the 1st - "Just Because". My position is that if a player like RGIII were to fall into the Broncos laps, you jump on that.

You just showed that they took a QB because Brees wasn't playing well. They drafted a QB to replace their starter with. Every example you give is of teams drafting starters. You use this to show it is a good idea to draft a backup in the first, to get future value. You should try looking for a similar situation to the one you are suggesting as you aren't making sense.

jhns
11-30-2011, 10:54 AM
See my position on the way SD handled it.

What did SD get for Brees?

orangenblue
11-30-2011, 10:56 AM
Let's assume for the sake of argument that Elway finally sees the light and decides to hop on the Tebow Express. I know this is a stretch, but whatever.

In this case, what kind of players should Elway target in the draft and in free agency?

Trent Richardson

alkemical
11-30-2011, 10:57 AM
What did SD get for Brees?

2005

Brees became a free agent after the season and was not expected to return to San Diego, which had already committed a large sum of money to Rivers. The team eventually designated Brees a franchise player, giving him a one-year contract that quadrupled his pay to $8 million for 2005.

Under the terms of the franchise player contract, Brees was eligible to be traded or sign with another team, but the Chargers would receive two future first round draft choices in return. He was not traded and continued as starting quarterback for the remainder of the 2005 season.


as you can see, not a bad problem to have.

Carmelo15
11-30-2011, 10:59 AM
Trent Richardson

Unfortunately we would likely need to trade up a bit

jhns
11-30-2011, 10:59 AM
the wiki entry gave you all the evidence needed, go reread the post.

Evidence of what? They drafted a QB to replace their starter. They got nothing for their old starter. This is not even close to what you are suggesting.

OrangeSe7en
11-30-2011, 11:04 AM
Unfortunately we would likely need to trade up a bit

Possibly, but it's not a given.

alkemical
11-30-2011, 11:06 AM
Evidence of what? They drafted a QB to replace their starter. They got nothing for their old starter. This is not even close to what you are suggesting.


No, they got Rivers for Eli Manning - and played the situation with Drew Brees excellent. In doing so - the Chargers really set themselves apart in the AFCW for a while. - Meanwhile they grabbed talent in the rivers/manning trade.

Having talent to trade isn't a bad problem to have.

making bad deals, and not drafting for the future has put them in a spot they are in now.

If this team is going to run the option - and a talented QB falls in the lap, and you can use it - take it. If a RB has a short life span - what's a running QB going to have? you know someone's going to get dinged - why hedge your bets on "one egg"?

You seem to think that i'm advocating trading up - when i'm advocating that if someone like RGIII were to fall into the Broncos lap - and i'm pulling the trigger - i pull the trigger and roll with it looking towards the future - and not drafting for need.

You don't pass on BPA for "need", it's short term thinking

AlphaSeirra
11-30-2011, 11:07 AM
Criminney dudes!!!! There is NO HYBRID RABBIT HOLE for anyone to go down.

Adding a FEW READ/OPTION PLAYS does NOT mean that you've installed a Spread/Option offense.

Any decent backup QB will do for McCoys normal/regular offense.

Because 95% of the McCoy Offense HAS NOT CHANGED!

The backup QB would simply run the 95% of the plays that don't include the options.

(my wet-dream first draft pick would be WR Justin Blackmon from OkSt,
#2 RB Trent Richardson, #3 CB Janoris Jenkins)

jhns
11-30-2011, 11:07 AM
No, they got Rivers for Eli Manning - and played the situation with Drew Brees excellent. In doing so - the Chargers really set themselves apart in the AFCW for a while.

making bad deals, and not drafting for the future has put them in a spot they are in now.

So in doing things the same, you want us to draft a QB that refuses to play here and get nothing for Tebow, who we are sold on in this scenerio?

FRISKY_DINGO
11-30-2011, 11:08 AM
Well, if Tebow's the starter - and this is the direction we're going - you are going to need to stockpile some RB's, QB's and some OL Depth.

Again, my position is BPA. When you draft BPA & not for need - i think it removes some of the false value attributed to projecting talent.

I cited the SD handling of drafting Manning, flipping for rivers - then flipping Brees for some picks. To me that is a great business move. Can it be done all the time, no - of course not. But nothing wrong with opportunity and capitalizing on it.

I'm not disagreeing with you that other positions might be of more "need", but I don't always like drafting for need. I prefer to draft for depth as a philosophy. That way when the talent sifts through - you have a solid system in place and can move the pieces for better returns when you find good opportunities.

I agree with what you're saying, alkemical. I wouldn't trade up for any players, but if Barkley or RGIII did somehow manage to fall to our pick, we'd be crazy to pass on them. By that point, they would be the BPA and by not taking them, we'd be going against our current draft philosophy.

Agamemnon
11-30-2011, 11:11 AM
I would definitely go defense in the first round, if a solid starting CB is one the board, he is the best pick. Next poriority would be DT/LB, or an outstanding offensive player that dropped for some reason.

The one I would really like in the lower second round / upper third round? Coby Fleener from Stanford. A 6'6" Tight End that has turned into a very good pass catching threat for Andrew Luck. As I said before in previous threads, he reminds me of a Jay Novacek type of impact player. I think he would be a real difference maker, and i'm not sold on any of our Tight Ends right now.

http://www2.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Coby+Fleener+Wake+Forest+v+Stanford+zg_73r3fDmHl.j pg

Fleener would be a nice pick up, no doubt about it.

alkemical
11-30-2011, 11:11 AM
I agree with what you're saying, alkemical. I wouldn't trade up for any players, but if Barkley or RGIII did somehow manage to fall to our pick, we'd be crazy to pass on them. By that point, they would be the BPA and by not taking them, we'd be going against our current draft philosophy.

Right, this is exactly the message i'm trying to convey. It's not an "anti-tebow" thing - as it is me looking at the business side of rosters, talent, injuries, etc etc.

With the new salary cap structure - it's not such a big deal $ wise anymore.

alkemical
11-30-2011, 11:12 AM
So in doing things the same, you want us to draft a QB that refuses to play here and get nothing for Tebow, who we are sold on in this scenerio?

Other people understand the point, I am sorry you do not.

Agamemnon
11-30-2011, 11:13 AM
Trent Richardson

If the season ended right now, we would be drafting 19th overall. Assuming we don't collapse from here on out, I just don't like our chances to get him. But if he somehow falls to us, absolutely.

jhns
11-30-2011, 11:13 AM
Other people understand the point, I am sorry you do not.

No team drafts first round QBs that they don't intend to start. You aren't smarter than everyone in the NFL.

If we are sold on Tebow starting next season, we aren't taking a first round QB. We have far too many needs right now.

How many players do you see traded for more than what it cost to draft them? Drafting for future trade value is a horrible move.

Play2win
11-30-2011, 11:16 AM
I agree with what you're saying, alkemical. I wouldn't trade up for any players, but if Barkley or RGIII did somehow manage to fall to our pick, we'd be crazy to pass on them. By that point, they would be the BPA and by not taking them, we'd be going against our current draft philosophy.

I definitely would trade up for Barkley (not sell the farm).

razorwire77
11-30-2011, 11:45 AM
Adding a FEW READ/OPTION PLAYS does NOT mean that you've installed a Spread/Option offense.

Because 95% of the McCoy Offense HAS NOT CHANGED!


http://www.brianchalfin.com/images/jokerserious.jpg

Agamemnon
11-30-2011, 11:46 AM
One guy who I think we could get later who would be a great value to our team is Denard Robinson. Not just because he can run this offense but this guy is a straight playmaker with elite speed. The guy ran a 10.28 100 yard dash. Not only could he be a backup QB, he could essentially be our Randall Cobb/Josh Cribbs playmaker as well. He could play slot WR, replacing Eddie Royal's role in the offense. But when you add the element of his threat to throw the ball you add on a whole new set of wrinkles that we could utilize him in this offense. He could also be our Punt/Kick Returner. When you factor all of this into his value to our team I think he is worth a 4th round pick to the Denver Broncos. I would even be willing to spend our late 3rd on a Slot WR/PR/KR/Backup QB.

As far as the first 2 rounds I think our weakest starter right now on defense is MLB. Joe Mays is just too slow for a 4-3. I'm not a big believer in Nate Irving either as he was my least favorite pick of the draft last year (Besides Mohammed). Luke Kuechly, Manti T'eo and Vontaze Burfict would all be upgrades to Mays and Irving. We also need youth at CB and RB. I hope to get two starters at these positions. We will likely be picking too late for Morris Claiborne and Trent Richardson. Unless Dre Kirkpatrick falls to us (unlikely) I think the best pick would be one of those 3 MLB's, an upgrade at OL such as David DeCastro, or more youth/speed at RB such as Lamar Miller. The nice thing about MLB and RB is there often impact players as rookies as well.

Scenario 1:
Manti Te'o
LaMichael James
Ray Ray Armstrong
Denard Robinson

Scenario 2:
Lamar Miller
Vontaze Burfict
Ray Ray Armstrong
Denard Robinson

Scenario 3:
David DeCastro
Vontaze Burfict
Ray Ray Armstrong
Denard Robinson

Hell no to Burflict. Hell ****ing no...

Agamemnon
11-30-2011, 11:47 AM
http://www.brianchalfin.com/images/jokerserious.jpg

He's right about us not running a spread option. He's smoking crack when it comes to the 95% hasn't changed part.

Peoples Champ
11-30-2011, 11:54 AM
Nothing but top shelf D.


thats what I say.

Popps
11-30-2011, 12:04 PM
I'm actually pretty good with the BPA route this year, as long as it's not at a position where we've already got some solidity.

But, if we go that route, we'll have to have a good FA period and we'll need to lock up a few of our own key players.

razorwire77
11-30-2011, 12:28 PM
He's right about us not running a spread option. He's smoking crack when it comes to the 95% hasn't changed part.

Yeah, it's not a spread option offense, but at times they have run option out of a spread formation and they have run option out of a flex formation. They have also showed a flex formation and motioned players into a spread formation. They ran a ton of read option 2nd half against Oakland and against KC.

Getting back to the original question, if the team is drafting to accommodate Tim Tebow's strengths, I'd bet almost anything that they are going to implement a lot of Meyer spread formation offense next year and draft players that fit the scheme. Not just zone read, but counters motion, traps, any thing that incorporates principles of constraint which causes the safeties to cheat up to stop the run. Once that happens, you attack the team deep.

For example If a team's goes cover 0 with no deep safety help to try and stop the run, than you have the potential to exploit the matchups through the vertical passing game.

If you want to see what a 2012 Bronco Tim Tebow offense will probably look like, I guarantee you McCoy is going to run a variation of this.

http://smartfootball.blogspot.com/2008/12/florida-gatorurban-meyer-offense.html

BroncoMan4ever
11-30-2011, 01:12 PM
Hell no to Burflict. Hell ****ing no...

dude, our LB corps outside of Miller needs an upgrade. and can you imagine the ferocity of a LB corps with Miller and Burfict, that would bone jarringly awesome

edog24
11-30-2011, 01:15 PM
dude, our LB corps outside of Miller needs an upgrade. and can you imagine the ferocity of a LB corps with Miller and Burfict, that would bone jarringly awesome

I say target LB/DL/CB early, if good talent drops for WR later we take it.

uplink
11-30-2011, 02:49 PM
Ah, the Al Davis approach. Because that's worked so well in the past...

I used to laugh at the raiders drafting, but they have hit it big drafting the mid-round speed receivers over the last few years.

Vine
11-30-2011, 03:12 PM
Haven't read through all of this thread, and I'll take the flaming that will surely come my way with this question, but can someone inform me what is meant by "T2"?

jhns
11-30-2011, 03:32 PM
Haven't read through all of this thread, and I'll take the flaming that will surely come my way with this question, but can someone inform me what is meant by "T2"?

T2 came from TT. TT = Tim Tebow

Vine
11-30-2011, 03:46 PM
T2 came from TT. TT = Tim Tebow


Thanks. Some people are just more clever than my simple brain may want to process at times.

OrangeSe7en
11-30-2011, 04:00 PM
Thanks. Some people are just more clever than my simple brain may want to process at times.

Would it have helped if it was "T^2"? Or would that have been more confusing?

MajorGCG
11-30-2011, 04:10 PM
IMO - the biggest need is on offense. IMO - In order of need not draft position, WR (big blockers with good hands like a Fitzgerald or if you go cheaper - Riley Cooper), OL - sorry but Im just not impressed with the OTs, and TEs - a LBer mismatch more than a blocker like Hernandez was for Tim at UF. I don't know about RB just yet. I think Willis has a year or two left in him and I want to see what Johnson can turn into. I think his skill set could be interesting. On D, I think the current DL crew is strong, but would agree about LBer. I doubt Hightower or Upshaw will be around but if they are, these are two bad MFers. I've seen both up close and they are awesome. DBs are next to learn for a year or two under Champ and Dawk. But the D is way ahead of the O so I think you have to go there with priority, but not necessarily soonest in the draft - you still always take the best player you can get.

extralife
11-30-2011, 05:32 PM
No, they got Rivers for Eli Manning - and played the situation with Drew Brees excellent. In doing so - the Chargers really set themselves apart in the AFCW for a while. - Meanwhile they grabbed talent in the rivers/manning trade.

Having talent to trade isn't a bad problem to have.

making bad deals, and not drafting for the future has put them in a spot they are in now.

If this team is going to run the option - and a talented QB falls in the lap, and you can use it - take it. If a RB has a short life span - what's a running QB going to have? you know someone's going to get dinged - why hedge your bets on "one egg"?

You seem to think that i'm advocating trading up - when i'm advocating that if someone like RGIII were to fall into the Broncos lap - and i'm pulling the trigger - i pull the trigger and roll with it looking towards the future - and not drafting for need.

You don't pass on BPA for "need", it's short term thinking

The Chargers drafted Rivers/Manning because they thought they needed a QB, not because they "fell into their lap." Drew Brees was **** his first few years in the NFL. **** enough for the Chargers to have the first pick in the draft. They did not plan on having Rivers ride the pine, they planned on kicking Brees to the curb. If you draft a QB in the first round, there's a reason. If you draft a QB in the first round when your current QB just completed his second year in the NFL, your current QB is going to be on someone else's roster before training camp opens.

alkemical
11-30-2011, 09:01 PM
I disagree, the new cap structure for rookie contracts changes the rules.

BroncoMan4ever
11-30-2011, 10:20 PM
I say target LB/DL/CB early, if good talent drops for WR later we take it.

i agree completely.

i also want us to bring in depth on the OL and a RB or 2. if we are going to run the ball 60% or more of the time, we need some solid backups. right now behind our starters we are pretty weak.

i'd look at WR in the middle rounds, sort of a combination WR/Return man. Decker is a good returner but seeing as he is the only WR on the team under contract beyond this year who has shown he has any ability at all as a pass catcher, he is too important to the offense to risk on a punt return.

Armchair Bronco
12-01-2011, 07:37 AM
T2 came from TT. TT = Tim Tebow

Yep. It could also include "Tebow Time" as well as "Terminator 2".

Very versatile way to refer to Tebow...AND make your thread title stand out from the crowd! :thumbsup:

~Crash~
12-01-2011, 08:28 AM
I want a wrecking ball RB.

Dedhed
12-01-2011, 08:30 AM
2005

Brees became a free agent after the season and was not expected to return to San Diego, which had already committed a large sum of money to Rivers. The team eventually designated Brees a franchise player, giving him a one-year contract that quadrupled his pay to $8 million for 2005.

Under the terms of the franchise player contract, Brees was eligible to be traded or sign with another team, but the Chargers would receive two future first round draft choices in return. He was not traded and continued as starting quarterback for the remainder of the 2005 season.


as you can see, not a bad problem to have.Yeah. Having Rivers is much better than having Brees and Larry Fitzgerald.

BroncoBeavis
12-01-2011, 08:34 AM
Would it have helped if it was "T^2"? Or would that have been more confusing?

One could already question the wisdom of 'abbreviating' something that's the same length as your abbreviation. Especially considering it already forces me to stretch for another key when before, double tapping one key was all I needed.

Now you're clearly taking it too far. :)

bendog
12-01-2011, 08:58 AM
Don't infer anything negative from this because its not intended that way, but this team has plenty of holes and due to the inspired football they've played, we'll be drafting too low to do much better than pba. and not a qb.

AlphaSeirra
12-01-2011, 09:06 AM
http://www.brianchalfin.com/images/jokerserious.jpg

As serious as a heartattack.

There is a VAST difference here between:

~ The total number of plays that are involved in a specific offensive playbook.
AND
~ The times that any certain play, or group of plays, is called in a game.

With a different (backup) QB in the game, McCoy could just use the other 95% of his 'normal' playbook
without calling the 5% of the new/added read/option plays.

IF you call 5% of your playbook plays 50% of the time, it DOES NOT mean that you have a 50% read/option playbook.

Get It? 8')

Armchair Bronco
12-01-2011, 09:14 AM
As serious as a heartattack.

There is a VAST difference here between:

~ The total number of plays that are involved in a specific offensive playbook.
AND
~ The times that any certain play, or group of plays, is called in a game.

With a different (backup) QB in the game, McCoy could just use the other 95% of his 'normal' playbook
without calling the 5% of the new/added read/option plays.

IF you call 5% of your playbook plays 50% of the time, it DOES NOT mean that you have a 50% read/option playbook.

Get It? 8')

Well, based on Denver's pathetic 1-4 record before Tebow took over, I think McCoy needs to ditch the 95% of his playbook that he's not using (wasn't working anyway) and focus on the 5% of the playbook that *IS* working.

maven
12-01-2011, 09:18 AM
The question comes down to if you think Tebow needs weapons or if you want to try and go full blown 2000 Baltimore Ravens, i.e., become the nastiest defense on the planet.

If the latter, you draft defense early and often.

I agree with this. I think this is the best scenario right now and in the future if Tebow is the starting QB.

Armchair Bronco
12-01-2011, 09:23 AM
I agree with this. I think this is the best scenario right now and in the future if Tebow is the starting QB.

Now all we have to do is convince Elway that Tebow *should* be the starting QB next year. And, that we should try a 1-year experiment and build an offense that suits his unique skills.

I think the only way this happens is if we end up: A) making the playoffs; and B) winning a playoff game.

It's ridiculous that Elway has set the bar so high for someone who is essentially a rookie, but it is what it is. If Tebow just keeps winning, Elway's options will be severely limited.

AlphaSeirra
12-01-2011, 09:24 AM
Well, based on Denver's pathetic 1-4 record before Tebow took over,
I think McCoy needs to ditch the 95% of his playbook that he's not using (wasn't working anyway)
and focus on the 5% of the playbook that *IS* working.

I'm okay with whatever they want to run on offense, and given time and the right teammates,
Tim can run whatever they want to run.

However, Meyer's Spread/Read/Option playbook is about 3" thick and quite involved to learn and install.
You need GREAT overall speed on the entire offense (OL To WR's) to get the most out of it.
It would take a 2-4 year plan to even see if McCoy/Broncos could be effective using it.
If you really want to run the Meyer offense, then you'd really have to hire Urban to do it. (highly unlikely)

I'm more for just using a 'normal' current NFL type of offense with a portion of the read/option
plays added in to screw the opposing defenses. Keeping the opposing D's off-balance is the key,
not any one particular type of play.

maven
12-01-2011, 09:26 AM
Now all we have to do is convince Elway that Tebow *should* be the starting QB next year. And, that we should try a 1-year experiment and build an offense that suits his unique skills.

I think the only way this happens is if we end up: A) making the playoffs; and B) winning a playoff game.

It's ridiculous that Elway has set the bar so high for someone who is essentially a rookie, but it is what it is. If Tebow just keeps winning, Elway's options will be severely limited.

Crazy part no sane person would expect a young QB to come in with no reps/practice time, after the team is 1-4, make the playoffs and win a playoff game. Elway's expectations are not realistic.

Armchair Bronco
12-01-2011, 09:32 AM
Crazy part no sane person would expect a young QB to come in with no reps/practice time, after the team is 1-4, make the playoffs and win a playoff game. Elway's expectations are not realistic.

Apparently, this means Elway is delusional.

Mike and Mike said this morning: "When Elway gets up in the morning and looks in the mirror, he says: 'I want someone who looks like you taking snaps.' Then he goes to work, looks at Tebow, and says: 'You don't look like me!'"

It's mind boggling, really.

bendog
12-01-2011, 09:36 AM
Elway's said that there's no way Tebow can show he'll be able to consistently pass from the pocket during the season, because during the season they practice a weekly game plan ... not throwing mechanics. Elway also says REPEATEDLY that each week he sees some improvement with Tebow. It's unbelievable you guys seem to deny this is the truth. IF by some miracle (-: there's a guy sitting in Den's draft slot that Fox and Elway both think can execute an NFL passing attack, they'd be nuts not to draft him. However, in all likihood, we'll be picking in the latter half of the first round, and there aren't gonna be many qbs on the board.

Armchair Bronco
12-01-2011, 09:42 AM
Elway's said that there's no way Tebow can show he'll be able to consistently pass from the pocket during the season, because during the season they practice a weekly game plan ... not throwing mechanics. Elway also says REPEATEDLY that each week he sees some improvement with Tebow. It's unbelievable you guys seem to deny this is the truth. IF by some miracle (-: there's a guy sitting in Den's draft slot that Fox and Elway both think can execute an NFL passing attack, they'd be nuts not to draft him. However, in all likihood, we'll be picking in the latter half of the first round, and there aren't gonna be many qbs on the board.

I'm actually assuming that Elway is fully prepared to mortage the farm (up to and including TRADING Tim Tebow) to move up in the draft to find his "mirror image".

And even if he picks a QB in a lower round, it's unlikely he'll get someone in the Tebow mold. I think it's much more likely that he'll draft a pure pocket passer and then state that it's an open competition for the starting spot in 2012.

bendog
12-01-2011, 10:10 AM
I'm actually assuming that Elway is fully prepared to mortage the farm (up to and including TRADING Tim Tebow) to move up in the draft to find his "mirror image".

And even if he picks a QB in a lower round, it's unlikely he'll get someone in the Tebow mold. I think it's much more likely that he'll draft a pure pocket passer and then state that it's an open competition for the starting spot in 2012.

assume on then. But I think this is a more likely case.

http://walterfootball.com/draft2012.php

the names will change, but we'll probably pick where its deep in Mike's

Armchair Bronco
12-01-2011, 10:29 AM
assume on then. But I think this is a more likely case.

http://walterfootball.com/draft2012.php

the names will change, but we'll probably pick where its deep in Mike's

These mock drafts are just pie in the sky. No one ever gets them right. Anything past #10 (if that) is just hand waving.

bendog
12-01-2011, 10:35 AM
The qbs, all 4 of them, go in the first half except maybe Jones and I doubt very much Elway wants anything to do with him. Besides, your logic is really just projecting your own desires/prejudices.

Armchair Bronco
12-01-2011, 10:40 AM
The qbs, all 4 of them, go in the first half except maybe Jones and I doubt very much Elway wants anything to do with him. Besides, your logic is really just projecting your own desires/prejudices.

You're ignoring my assertion that Elway will try to trade UP. Trying to pick who the Broncos will draft in Round #3 is just dumb (although as a game, it can be fun).

But Elway clearly wants his own Teacher's Pet QB, and the only way to do that is to trade up. And to trade up far enough, he'll need to give away a lot.

No projecting here; just interpreting what Elway is doing while assuming that he wants to ditch Tebow.

Rohirrim
12-01-2011, 10:57 AM
You're ignoring my assertion that Elway will try to trade UP. Trying to pick who the Broncos will draft in Round #3 is just dumb (although as a game, it can be fun).

But Elway clearly wants his own Teacher's Pet QB, and the only way to do that is to trade up. And to trade up far enough, he'll need to give away a lot.

No projecting here; just interpreting what Elway is doing while assuming that he wants to ditch Tebow.

I think if we win out (which is what I predict), the team will go with Tebow and draft to make the team stronger in whatever areas Fox recommends, which I imagine will be defense in the first round (Manti Te'o). A solid option QB will be available in the later rounds for backup. Elway is not the lord god almighty high executioner of the Broncos. At the end of the season, everybody will sit down, including Bowlen, and discuss the future. I don't get it when people argue that everything is already decided. That just makes no sense.

Armchair Bronco
12-01-2011, 11:21 AM
I think if we win out (which is what I predict), the team will go with Tebow and draft to make the team stronger in whatever areas Fox recommends, which I imagine will be defense in the first round (Manti Te'o). A solid option QB will be available in the later rounds for backup. Elway is not the lord god almighty high executioner of the Broncos. At the end of the season, everybody will sit down, including Bowlen, and discuss the future. I don't get it when people argue that everything is already decided. That just makes no sense.

Well, I shooore hope you're right. I'll be the first to admit my bad prediction if the Broncos run with Tebow next year. I do think that Fox is now solidly in the Tebow camp along with Xanders and McCoy.

Maybe I'm assuming that Elway has too much power (even though Fox was his hand-picked Head Coach).

FWIW, I think we have a good chance to win out as well.

bendog
12-01-2011, 11:31 AM
I think if we win out (which is what I predict), the team will go with Tebow and draft to make the team stronger in whatever areas Fox recommends, which I imagine will be defense in the first round (Manti Te'o). A solid option QB will be available in the later rounds for backup. Elway is not the lord god almighty high executioner of the Broncos. At the end of the season, everybody will sit down, including Bowlen, and discuss the future. I don't get it when people argue that everything is already decided. That just makes no sense.

Even if they finish the rest of the year 3-2, the fans would be loudly disappointed if they went in a different direction than Tebow. And, I don't think Elway is really leaning against Tebow. He's said Tebow has to improve passing, and mechanics are an off-season issue. I do think Dove Valley seriously questions whether a team can win a championship with Tebow, which seems reasonable since the only people with definite answers to that are bayless, magruder, jhns, and alpha sierra.

jhns
12-01-2011, 11:35 AM
Even if they finish the rest of the year 3-2, the fans would be loudly disappointed if they went in a different direction than Tebow. And, I don't think Elway is really leaning against Tebow. He's said Tebow has to improve passing, and mechanics are an off-season issue. I do think Dove Valley seriously questions whether a team can win a championship with Tebow, which seems reasonable since the only people with definite answers to that are bayless, magruder, jhns, and alpha sierra.

I have an answer for that? Interesting.

Maybe Elway should listen to me since it is pretty obvious that I can judge QB talent much better than he does.

Rohirrim
12-01-2011, 11:43 AM
Even if they finish the rest of the year 3-2, the fans would be loudly disappointed if they went in a different direction than Tebow. And, I don't think Elway is really leaning against Tebow. He's said Tebow has to improve passing, and mechanics are an off-season issue. I do think Dove Valley seriously questions whether a team can win a championship with Tebow, which seems reasonable since the only people with definite answers to that are bayless, magruder, jhns, and alpha sierra.

Yeah. I think Tebow has already shown enough to get another year. Fox has already shown he can work with the game that Tebow brings, even if the route tree is limited. Besides helping Tebow develop his passing skills in the offseason, they're also going to have to coach up the receivers into the new scheme. Imagine how hard it is to switch over to this kind of football in mid-season? For the time being, they should just be focusing on becoming much more aggressive in going after whatever Tebow gives them. I've always preferred receivers who play with the attitude that any ball in the sky belongs to them, rather than the prima donnas who think if it's not perfect, they're not going for it (Bowe, cough). Catching a hard thrown ball with a reverse spin probably takes some getting used to also. For just jumping into a new scheme in the middle of a season, with no offseason work, this team has done amazingly well.

bendog
12-01-2011, 11:57 AM
Yeah. I think Tebow has already shown enough to get another year. Fox has already shown he can work with the game that Tebow brings, even if the route tree is limited. Besides helping Tebow develop his passing skills in the offseason, they're also going to have to coach up the receivers into the new scheme. Imagine how hard it is to switch over to this kind of football in mid-season? For the time being, they should just be focusing on becoming much more aggressive in going after whatever Tebow gives them. I've always preferred receivers who play with the attitude that any ball in the sky belongs to them, rather than the prima donnas who think if it's not perfect, they're not going for it (Bowe, cough). Catching a hard thrown ball with a reverse spin probably takes some getting used to also. For just jumping into a new scheme in the middle of a season, with no offseason work, this team has done amazingly well.

I get the feeling that Fox is having a lot of fun ... except having to second guess every single word he utters for fear of upsetting the tebowites with any minor acknowlegment of the kid's weaknesses.

BroncoBen
12-01-2011, 12:03 PM
Let's assume for the sake of argument that Elway finally sees the light and decides to hop on the Tebow Express. I know this is a stretch, but whatever.

In this case, what kind of players should Elway target in the draft and in free agency?

If the Broncos go with Tebow.. I can see them picking up a free agent RB to team with McGahee. The draft.. cornerback and linebacker would be top needs.