PDA

View Full Version : It's not just about having a great QB


ZONA
01-17-2012, 12:27 AM
For anybody who thinks you need a great QB to win a Superbowl, here we are yet again with several elite QB's, as well as elite offenses, knocked out of the playoffs and what you have now is some very solid ALL AROUND TEAMS.

This is exactly why I hate those media losers who want to already proclaim Tebow will never win a Superbowl. I don't know how people arise to that conclusion for a player who in his 1st year of starting, while taking over an offense that was hurting bad and a team that was staring the 1st overall pick in the draft right in the face.

We all know Tebow has the leadership and intangibles. A player who's work ethic already has vets praising how hard he works. How can you possibly think he will not improve going into next season. This offense, while having some injuries and practically thrown together in week 5, still managed to knock the Steelers out of the playoffs. Did this team struggle at times, oh yeah they did. Did they play great when it mattered most, quite often I would say.

But more to the point - I think it still makes sense to give Tebow the chance next year while adding more talent around him and on the defense. You can win in this league with a good all around team. We're seeing it now. Alex Smith is no QB legend. Flacco is not considered a top 5 QB. Heck, I imagine some people barely have him in the top 10. Eli as well has had many ups and downs in his career. Again, his name hardly ever mentioned among the best in the game.

What you're seeing with these teams is great coaching, getting hot at the right time and playing mostly mistake free football. I can easily see an improved Tebow (who I don't think ever has to be considered one of the best) taking this team to the Superbowl one of these days. But the TEAM overall has to be much better. You have 2 ELITE QB's sitting at home right now (Brees, Rogers) because their teams were not great all around. If Brady and the Pats lose next week to the Ravens, you'll have the best 3 QB's in the game not going to the Superbowl.

I think that says alot about how to build your team. Yeah sure, it's nice to have an elite QB but I think it's more important to have a more well rounded and versatile team then it is to have an elite QB who can pass for 350 yards every game. Keep adding playmakers on both sides of the ball. We've got some nice pieces in place, let's hope we can hit on some good picks coming up in a few months as well as adding some nice FA's. Go from there.

myMind
01-17-2012, 12:33 AM
I like to **** without climaxing.

Agamemnon
01-17-2012, 12:39 AM
And you also don't generally develop a great QB without giving him time to learn and grow and some decent players to help him out.

ZONA
01-17-2012, 12:40 AM
I like to **** without climaxing.

okay, sounds like a personal problem to me, but whatever floats your boat. lol

ZONA
01-17-2012, 12:42 AM
And you also don't generally develop a great QB without giving him time to learn and grow and some decent players to help him out.

True. Tebow was under heat all day long. The coverage was great on alot of those plays as well as great pressure from the Pats. Hard to get anything going when you're running for your life. I don't think Brady would have played all that well if it was him under center for the Broncos that day. With a running game that was shut down and coverages so tight and with people flying at you from the left and right. You can't lay that game on Tebow alone. I'll say it again, he didn't play great but as you pointed out, how can you expect somebody to play great when the other parts are not working. It's like asking an archer to go mix it up with some swordsmen. Well damn, if all you're giving him is a bow and arrow and the rest of the guys have chainmail, shields and swords, what do you think is going to happen to your archer......hahaha.

Dexter
01-17-2012, 12:44 AM
Great post, pretty much sums up how I feel. There are a lot of holes on this team to just be obsessed over one position. We're not one player away from the Superbowl, nor do we have easy access to a top talent in the draft. Both RG3 and Luck will be gone in the top 5. After that, who do you like? Ryan Tannenhill? Even then he might go higher than 25.

Let your draft picks develop. What an interesting concept huh?

myMind
01-17-2012, 12:44 AM
okay, sounds like a personal problem to me, but whatever floats your boat. lol

bucolic buoyancy and carbonated soda...no caramel.

Archer81
01-17-2012, 12:57 AM
I do think its interesting that only one team with a high flying offense left is New England. A Ravens-49ers Superbowl might actually worry Goodell. A 17-13 score? Embarassing...

:Broncos:

Agamemnon
01-17-2012, 01:08 AM
I do think its interesting that only one team with a high flying offense left is New England. A Ravens-49ers Superbowl might actually worry Goodell. A 17-13 score? Embarassing...

:Broncos:

When you look at the Saints and Packers on defense it really shouldn't be that much of a surprise. A great offense can cover for a mediocre defense, but it's a lot harder to hide genuinely bad defenses.

riiiiick
01-17-2012, 05:32 AM
We led the league in drops, that would be a nice place to start. One full off season/camp with tebow taking all the 1st team reps should help.

CEH
01-17-2012, 05:39 AM
IMO Houston would have destroyed BALT with Shaub at the helm. Only reason why Balt won was turnovers and a 3rd string QB,

Shaub would have made the Pro Bowl this year had he not been injured.

Manning, Shaub,Brady and Alex Smith.

Not sure I'm buying the premise. Look at the QBs of the last 6-8 Super Bowls.

Brees, Rodgers, Brady, Rotherlisberger, Manning(s)

But I believe this is a QB league and you need one to consistently be in the running. You can always have the outlier but the common theme is great QBs

After Sunday and the last 4 games, Eli is right up there.

Peoples Champ
01-17-2012, 06:41 AM
For anybody who thinks you need a great QB to win a Superbowl, here we are yet again with several elite QB's, as well as elite offenses, knocked out of the playoffs and what you have now is some very solid ALL AROUND TEAMS.

This is exactly why I hate those media losers who want to already proclaim Tebow will never win a Superbowl. I don't know how people arise to that conclusion for a player who in his 1st year of starting, while taking over an offense that was hurting bad and a team that was staring the 1st overall pick in the draft right in the face.

We all know Tebow has the leadership and intangibles. A player who's work ethic already has vets praising how hard he works. How can you possibly think he will not improve going into next season. This offense, while having some injuries and practically thrown together in week 5, still managed to knock the Steelers out of the playoffs. Did this team struggle at times, oh yeah they did. Did they play great when it mattered most, quite often I would say.

But more to the point - I think it still makes sense to give Tebow the chance next year while adding more talent around him and on the defense. You can win in this league with a good all around team. We're seeing it now. Alex Smith is no QB legend. Flacco is not considered a top 5 QB. Heck, I imagine some people barely have him in the top 10. Eli as well has had many ups and downs in his career. Again, his name hardly ever mentioned among the best in the game.

What you're seeing with these teams is great coaching, getting hot at the right time and playing mostly mistake free football. I can easily see an improved Tebow (who I don't think ever has to be considered one of the best) taking this team to the Superbowl one of these days. But the TEAM overall has to be much better. You have 2 ELITE QB's sitting at home right now (Brees, Rogers) because their teams were not great all around. If Brady and the Pats lose next week to the Ravens, you'll have the best 3 QB's in the game not going to the Superbowl.

I think that says alot about how to build your team. Yeah sure, it's nice to have an elite QB but I think it's more important to have a more well rounded and versatile team then it is to have an elite QB who can pass for 350 yards every game. Keep adding playmakers on both sides of the ball. We've got some nice pieces in place, let's hope we can hit on some good picks coming up in a few months as well as adding some nice FA's. Go from there.

I agree with you, and I am a pro Tebow guy, but i think Tebow does have to get better which I think he can. Lets stack the defense and grab another WR threat or maybe a huge TE threat, and see what the kid can do. Its not like we are in the whole for 10 years if Timmy doesnt get better in the next year or two. If he declines for the next 2 years we can scrap him with no loss, unlike the chiefs that are paying a declining cassell huge Brady type money.

oubronco
01-17-2012, 06:45 AM
We led the league in drops, that would be a nice place to start. One full off season/camp with tebow taking all the 1st team reps should help.

Where is the link?

CEH
01-17-2012, 06:56 AM
Top 5 passing team 4 were in the playoffs 58-22
SD being the outlier based on a 3 level tiebreaker

Top 5 rushing teams 36-44 2 in the playoffs. NO and DEN

LonghornBronco
01-17-2012, 07:02 AM
Can anyone explain to me why the spread option was not a major portion of the offense. IMO it would have helped Tebows passing tremendously. Fox/McCoy seemed to fall in love with the 2 TE power sets.

alkemical
01-17-2012, 07:11 AM
Can anyone explain to me why the spread option was not a major portion of the offense. IMO it would have helped Tebows passing tremendously. Fox/McCoy seemed to fall in love with the 2 TE power sets.

The OL play probably had some to do with that.

cutthemdown
01-17-2012, 07:48 AM
What we have left is solid all around teams huh? Nope the Pats would go south in a hurry right now without Brady. They would win 0 playoff games. Gronk and Hernandez are great players, but Brady makes them gods of the TE spot. Those RBS? give me a break in Denver they would be crushed into the turf just like Moreno.

Those WR? DT better then any WR on NE. Sure the oline is solid but the defense only has 4 or so players on it that are good NFL players. Our defense probably better, just we don't have Brady scoring 30 points a game.

Ravens are all running game and defense. The passing attack stinks. If they had a great QB they would win it easy. The Texans were probably the best team, they lost the QB and couldn't get it done, QB is the most important spot on the field.

cutthemdown
01-17-2012, 07:52 AM
Can anyone explain to me why the spread option was not a major portion of the offense. IMO it would have helped Tebows passing tremendously. Fox/McCoy seemed to fall in love with the 2 TE power sets.

I'll give it a shot.

1-Broncos coaches didn't really think 8-8 or 7-9 would get them into playoffs. So when they went to Tebow they traded the one top line proven WR because he wasn't going to resign, and wasn't happy, and was in last yr of deal. Lloyd gone.

2-Gaffney gone

3-Marshall gone

4- So we have DT coming off a bad injury, and Eric Decker, Willis, Royal, then a bunch of scrubs.

Coaches want the best football players on the field and most likely felt Fells, Rosario, Mcgahee, Ball were better then the 3rd 4th 5th wr.

If you spread the field with scrubs you don't get a whole lot out of it and you lose the blocking you need to run your ground game. Plus without TE it opens Tebow up to more hits.

They were trying to make it workable in the NFL, it burns me out the fans around here aren't more in tune to that.

Chris
01-17-2012, 08:16 AM
I would say you need to be great at OL, DL, QB, WR and good everywhere else but one or two positions.

ZONA
01-17-2012, 12:13 PM
What we have left is solid all around teams huh? Nope the Pats would go south in a hurry right now without Brady. They would win 0 playoff games. Gronk and Hernandez are great players, but Brady makes them gods of the TE spot. Those RBS? give me a break in Denver they would be crushed into the turf just like Moreno.

Those WR? DT better then any WR on NE. Sure the oline is solid but the defense only has 4 or so players on it that are good NFL players. Our defense probably better, just we don't have Brady scoring 30 points a game.

Ravens are all running game and defense. The passing attack stinks. If they had a great QB they would win it easy. The Texans were probably the best team, they lost the QB and couldn't get it done, QB is the most important spot on the field.

Well a few things come to mind. 1st, Brady was barely even breathed on in that game. I can think of quite a few QB's who if they had pockets like he had and the time he had, could have carved up the Broncos D that day. So yes, obviously a great QB is a luxury but if you don't have Oline integrity I say that great QB now becomes closer to average. If you look at the Giants, them getting excellent pressure with only 4 rushers is what makes them go. They can put the extra guys into coverage (flats, middle, deep) and it really does take away some things these great QB's like to do. They have to get rid of the ball earlier then they want and it's not always in that perfect spot, such was the case with Rogers that last game. The Giants and Eli scored well but some of that was due to them getting some turnover and having excellent field position. In my opinion, your chances of out scoring a Rogers, Brees, Peyton or Brady is going to be very hard to do unless your defense, and in particular, your front 4, is really good. Much easier to find a few good DL then it is to find the next Brees or Brady. I think the Broncos see this and that's really the only way we can move forward right now. Build a better team around Tebow and hopefully Tebow himself can improve with this offense in the offseason. We're not going to get us a Brady or Rogers anytime soon.

TheReverend
01-17-2012, 12:19 PM
here we are yet again

"Yet again"?

How many non-elite QBs have won the superbowl over the last 20 years...?

Oh and fyi, despite having dramatically the worst defense left in the playoffs, the Patriots (the only team left with an elite QB) are heavy Vegas favorites to win it all. It's almost even money taking them.

cutthemdown
01-17-2012, 12:21 PM
Well a few things come to mind. 1st, Brady was barely even breathed on in that game. I can think of quite a few QB's who if they had pockets like he had and the time he had, could have carved up the Broncos D that day. So yes, obviously a great QB is a luxury but if you don't have Oline integrity I say that great QB now becomes closer to average. If you look at the Giants, them getting excellent pressure with only 4 rushers is what makes them go. They can put the extra guys into coverage (flats, middle, deep) and it really does take away some things these great QB's like to do. They have to get rid of the ball earlier then they want and it's not always in that perfect spot, such was the case with Rogers that last game. The Giants and Eli scored well but some of that was due to them getting some turnover and having excellent field position. In my opinion, your chances of out scoring a Rogers, Brees, Peyton or Brady is going to be very hard to do unless your defense, and in particular, your front 4, is really good. Much easier to find a few good DL then it is to find the next Brees or Brady. I think the Broncos see this and that's really the only way we can move forward right now. Build a better team around Tebow and hopefully Tebow himself can improve with this offense in the offseason. We're not going to get us a Brady or Rogers anytime soon.

Tebow had plenty of time to throw the ball.

KO5K
01-17-2012, 12:23 PM
Tebow had plenty of time to throw the ball.

Hilarious!

BroncoBen
01-17-2012, 12:23 PM
Can anyone explain to me why the spread option was not a major portion of the offense. IMO it would have helped Tebows passing tremendously. Fox/McCoy seemed to fall in love with the 2 TE power sets.

Well it worked against the Steelers.. the Broncos wanted to get bigger along the line and push the ball. Now running a spread works if Tebow can get rid of ball in under 2 seconds when the Defense comes with a blitz. That right now is Tebow's achilles heal.

ZONA
01-17-2012, 12:26 PM
Tebow had plenty of time to throw the ball.

Um, I remember the dude was running for his life on MANY plays. And most of the plays where he did have some time were because the pocket collapsed and he got outside to buy him more time. Then there weren't really many times when our WR's were open. A few times he may have missed an open guy but it wasn't a consistent theme in the game. Don't try and spin this like we had great pocket integrity and he had all day back there. That simply was not the case.

BroncoBeavis
01-17-2012, 12:29 PM
I'll give it a shot.

1-Broncos coaches didn't really think 8-8 or 7-9 would get them into playoffs. So when they went to Tebow they traded the one top line proven WR because he wasn't going to resign, and wasn't happy, and was in last yr of deal. Lloyd gone.

This is the most coherent argument for why we got rid of Lloyd. And in that context I can kinda understand it (although still not for the half PB&J sandwich we traded him for)

The Broncos probably decided at 1-4 and bringing in a rook QB that the season was a loss and it was time to develop the new players and rebuild.

But then you've got everyone saying that McFox masterminded this whole turnaround and gameplanned around 'just win baby' and were trying to sneak the team into the playoffs, so they had no time for Tebow to throw the ball.

The reality's probably somewhere in between. I think Fox had honestly packed it in, but some improbable 4th quarter play by Tebow and the lackluster play of the rest of the division made them switch plans midstream. Either way, in my mind, the offensive gameplans have been incoherent throughout.

I can possibly see the thinking that we don't have the wideouts for 4 WR sets to be that effective. But I'd still probably opt for lining up scrubs wide vs stacking everyone in the middle. Even if they're scrubs, someone has to cover them. With a rushing QB, the more guys you can force outside the box, the better. Plus that's how Tebow was used to playing.

And it's not like 4WR sets are an NFL abomination. Other very successful teams run 3 and 4 wide all the time. It's only a problem for Fox because he has a hard on for forcing the run down teams' throats.

Unfortunately he doesn't seem to realize you need to build a line to do that.

cutthemdown
01-17-2012, 01:54 PM
This is the most coherent argument for why we got rid of Lloyd. And in that context I can kinda understand it (although still not for the half PB&J sandwich we traded him for)

The Broncos probably decided at 1-4 and bringing in a rook QB that the season was a loss and it was time to develop the new players and rebuild.

But then you've got everyone saying that McFox masterminded this whole turnaround and gameplanned around 'just win baby' and were trying to sneak the team into the playoffs, so they had no time for Tebow to throw the ball.

The reality's probably somewhere in between. I think Fox had honestly packed it in, but some improbable 4th quarter play by Tebow and the lackluster play of the rest of the division made them switch plans midstream. Either way, in my mind, the offensive gameplans have been incoherent throughout.

I can possibly see the thinking that we don't have the wideouts for 4 WR sets to be that effective. But I'd still probably opt for lining up scrubs wide vs stacking everyone in the middle. Even if they're scrubs, someone has to cover them. With a rushing QB, the more guys you can force outside the box, the better. Plus that's how Tebow was used to playing.

And it's not like 4WR sets are an NFL abomination. Other very successful teams run 3 and 4 wide all the time. It's only a problem for Fox because he has a hard on for forcing the run down teams' throats.

Unfortunately he doesn't seem to realize you need to build a line to do that.

It will be interesting and fun to see what Broncos do this offseason. It will answer a lot of these questions. If they don't look for WR we know they have now devalued that position big time in Denver.

I'd like to see real lead blocking FB and Nicks from NO at guard. I think an addition like that to our interior oline blocking could really get our running game on another level.

cutthemdown
01-17-2012, 01:56 PM
Um, I remember the dude was running for his life on MANY plays. And most of the plays where he did have some time were because the pocket collapsed and he got outside to buy him more time. Then there weren't really many times when our WR's were open. A few times he may have missed an open guy but it wasn't a consistent theme in the game. Don't try and spin this like we had great pocket integrity and he had all day back there. That simply was not the case.

Tebow had time to throw the football this yr. Sure he gets pressured but he hold the ball forever. I would count 4 5 6 seconds sometimes. I don't think it was a real problem for our oline this yr. They did a good job there. I think their biggest weakness is still short yardage and big huge DT. The guy from the Jets really gave them trouble etc.

But its just not the case QB pressure made Tebow have a crappy yr.

Blart
01-17-2012, 02:00 PM
I'd take Tebow over Joe Flacco.

Pick Six
01-17-2012, 02:04 PM
Tebow had plenty of time to throw the ball.

Gerard Warren HUMBLY disagrees...:P

Did it ever occur to Dennis Allen to block that guy?

Archer81
01-17-2012, 02:30 PM
You need a few great players. A few good ones. Good coaching and a **** ton of luck to avoid injuries and bad officials.

Even then its iffy.

:Broncos:

Archer81
01-17-2012, 02:31 PM
Gerard Warren HUMBLY disagrees...:P

Did it ever occur to Dennis Allen to block that guy?


Wouldnt it be McCoy?


:Broncos:

HAT
01-17-2012, 02:48 PM
As much as it pains me to say it....I think Eli has made himself into an elite QB.

cmhargrove
01-17-2012, 02:51 PM
Tebow had plenty of time to throw the ball.

That's BS. I don't remember our line playing as poorly all year. It was a free for all in the backfield, and a brilliant strategy for defeating our offense. Tebow isn't generally going to quick release, and the Pats had great coverage on our WR's.

We got smoked dude, and it was a team beat down. Tebow was running for his life on way too many plays to be effective.

Mountain Bronco
01-17-2012, 02:59 PM
But Colin Cowherd said you need a franchise QB????????

No seriously, a great team trumps all, but I bet NE or NYG win the superbowl and I would call both of those QB's great. Yes, the younger manning is great.

gunns
01-17-2012, 03:48 PM
SF and Baltimore, top defenses in pts and t/g. NE ranked 32nd in defense but 3 in t/g. NY had numerous injuries throughout the year but their D is now healthy and it showed in how they handled GB perfectly. Give me a great D any day.

I don't believe Flacco or Smith can yet be considered great QB's. The one thing Smith has done this year is keep his turnovers in check and that's what you need from your QB.

BroncoBeavis
01-17-2012, 03:53 PM
That's BS. I don't remember our line playing as poorly all year. It was a free for all in the backfield, and a brilliant strategy for defeating our offense. Tebow isn't generally going to quick release, and the Pats had great coverage on our WR's.

We got smoked dude, and it was a team beat down. Tebow was running for his life on way too many plays to be effective.

This is right. Other than I'd add that the O-Line looked about the same during the Detroit game. Jailbreak almost every play.

WolfpackGuy
01-17-2012, 04:04 PM
The league is so QB driven, if you don't have one of those franchise guys, you have to be solid/great in other areas.

That chit that happened the Broncos pulled the other night was too much for any QB to overcome.

Once they fell behind by a couple scores, it was "Release the hounds!"

epicSocialism4tw
01-17-2012, 07:49 PM
Tebow had plenty of time to throw the ball.

Against some teams, yes (Steelers especially), but not against the Pats at all.