PDA

View Full Version : The FO Pickle


Dedhed
04-28-2012, 09:07 AM
This year is not unlike others in that there is a bevy of OM draftniks yodeling about who would have been a better selection; nothing unexpected there. However, what I find uniquely interesting about this year is that we're getting exactly what we signed up for when we enlisted the services of Peyton Manning, but people are acting like the draft course the front office has taken is completely out of the blue and off the charts.

Signing Manning did two things: First it forced an under talented team into a "win now" philosophy. "Win now" isn't exactly the opposite of building through the draft, but for all practical purposes when you have glaring holes on your roster and you're trying to win now, you're forced to address needs. You are therefore working very differently than you would if you're "building" a team through the draft. Teams like the Steelers and Patriots who have solid players at most every position can afford to build through the draft and look to win now because they have the luxury of taking the best player available at all times.

The second thing that signing Manning did was to handicap the Broncos in the pursuit of free agents. We had to wait around for over a week politely trying to convince free agents that they were a priority while also telling them that we couldn't sign them until our real priority made a choice. People will say that didn't make a difference, but let's get real here, there's ego involved in every decision made in the NFL and if free agents don't feel wanted they're likely to go elsewhere.

However, the real way in which the Manning pursuit hobbled us in free agency was that we didn't know what our identity would be as a team until we knew who our QB was going to be. There is a very decided difference between what we will be with Manning at the helm and what we would have been were we moving forward with Tebow. After we signed Manning we immediately went after a couple offensive players who could be used in a Manning style offense, but by that time a lot of the upgrades at other positions had signed elsewhere.

Now here were are at the draft, and we've taken pretty much the exact course we've signed on for based on a "win now" approach with a roster that still needs to be built.

Pick #1- Are we really surprised that we reached for a defensive tackle? The Elway Fox tried to convince us that the position wasn't that dire, but I think most of us know better. The only guy on the roster who played anywhere approaching decently last season, walked in free agency, and they had to let another contributor go because he was looking at a suspension and wasn't any good to begin with. The rotation at DT going into the draft was a guy who hasn't played in two years and is in his very late NFL years and a guy who's always been underwhelming and missed most of last year with injury as well. That's a pitiful scenario and explains why we had to go DT early.

I like Derek Wolfe a lot. Plays strong with high intensity. My gripe with the pick is value. If Denver hadn't taken him, I doubt that Wolfe comes off the board in the next 15 picks. With Jerel Worthy, Devin Still, Kendall Reyes, and Brandon Thompson all still on the board it would be very difficult to argue that we got a lot of value by selecting Derek Wolfe at #36. I think he'll come in and contribute right away and I love that he's on the football team, but I have little doubt that we could have move down again and taken him at the back end of the 2nd while acquiring another pick.

Pick #2- Brock Osweiler. Contrary to most everyone, I like this pick a lot. I think you have to accept the fact that we have Peyton Manning on essentially a one year trial contract and that there are no guarantees at all that he'll return to his former form, or that he'll be able to survive the season and be healthy going into next year. That necessitates having his successor on the roster sooner rather than later, and there's a lot to like about Osweiler in that role.

Osweiler is an intriguing prospect and has far more talent and upside potential than most 2nd round QBs out there. He's short on experience, having only 15 starts in his college career, but he has very unique physical tools that have to interest you. He's 6'7" and 240+ pounds. There's a knock on tall QBs and their success in the NFL, but Osweiler is very athletic and moves extremely well both inside and out of the pocket. His arm motion is a little funky in a Phillip Rivers sort of way, but his delivery is compact and he delivers the ball accurately and on time with some power. The way Osweiler drives the ball with his lower body and the speed of his delivery somewhat reminds me of Tom Brady. Even if he never adjusts the arm motion, due to his height he's not likely to get a lot of balls batted at the line of scrimmage.

This pick again represents a need selection, and I think the selection is actually better value than the Wolfe pick. Osweiler is the definition of a developmental QB, but he has more than enough talent to be a very good NFL quarterback. He's a guy that could step into the starting role in 2013 if forced to, but could also take a similar path to a starting role that Aaron Rodgers took and sit for 3 years behind a Hall of Fame QB. Manning has never shown to a very willing mentor, but neither was Favre. You can learn a ton from just watching a guy, and I think that Osweiler could eventually be a steal if he reaches his potential.

Pick #3- Ronnie Hillman. Running back is another position where the Broncos had a desperate need. Moreno wasn't effective prior to tearing an ACL, he'll only be less effective now. McGahee is another year older and in a body that was clearly breaking down in the last third of the season. Some people may scratch their heads about adding a RB when you had the best ground game in football last year. However, it hardly needs to be mentioned that the #1 rushing attack was due almost entirely to Tebow and the fact that we were employing a ground game that NFL defenses never see. Without Tebow we're back to being close to the bottom of the league in rushing, with the top two RBs downgraded from a season ago; due to injury and age.

Hillman is a player I like a lot but who I, again, have to question the value of the pick. He displays great vision and burst and plays stronger than his undersized frame would lead you to believe. I think the comparisons to Darren Sproles are apt, but I think that Hillman is a little more explosive in the open field (4.41 vs Sproles' 4.48 in the 40) and a little more elusive in tight spaces, though Sproles possesses a bit more power than Hillman. Hillman has game breaking ability and, unlike many people, I don't see him as a change of pace back. I think that Hillman can easily be an every down back in a Manning style offense.

In evaluating the Day 2 picks for the Broncos I have mixed emotions. I like all of the players selected, but I am rather disturbed by the lack of value that the Broncos received both from the trades they made and where they selected the players that they did. However it's difficult to be all that upset when you get exactly what you've asked for; we put ourselves in the position of having to draft for need, and we've reaped exactly what we've sewn. You always end up reaching in order to fill needs, particularly if you're looking to make a title run.

The Broncos have certainly done a lot of reaching so far in this draft, but I do think they've ended up with three players who will contribute to the franchise for a long time to come. So it's not all that bad.

DBroncos4life
04-28-2012, 09:19 AM
Good post :thumbsup::thumbsup:

OBF1
04-28-2012, 10:06 AM
Denver could not find a trading partner in round 2.

doonwise
04-28-2012, 10:10 AM
Denver could not find a trading partner in round 2.

Was this stated somewhere?

BroncoInferno
04-28-2012, 10:15 AM
Good post, but I disagree on Wolfe. I know a lot of draft sites had him going later, but I think he was being undervalued and that he would have gone shortly after #36 had we not picked him. He has everything you look for: size (6'5" 300 with long arms), uses his hands well (unusual for DTs coming out of college), good athleticism (4.94 40, 7.26 3 cone drill), non-stop motor, nasty attitude, HIGHLY productive, proven pass rusher, etc. Like I said, I think he was undervalued by some the draftniks and there is a good chance he would be gone before our next pick. I mean, seriously, compare him to Worthy. What does Worthy have over Wolfe? Not nearly as productive, not as good size, inconsistent and takes plays off. I agree with you on the value of Hillman, though. Not sure we couldn't have stayed put in the 3rd and still gotten him.

razorwire77
04-28-2012, 10:16 AM
Quality post Ded. I agree that with both the Wolfe and Hillman picks they left some value on the board. However, if Hillman explodes onto the team like I think he will, and Wolfe continues to demonstrate a high motor and disruptive presence in the trenches I think draft value will be forgotten.

I wish I could agree with your take on Osweiler, but I just don't see it. Hopefully I'm wrong and he will be able to sit for a couple of years and develop.

Gcver2ver3
04-28-2012, 10:19 AM
Pick #1- Are we really surprised that we reached for a defensive tackle?

I like Derek Wolfe a lot. Plays strong with high intensity. My gripe with the pick is value. If Denver hadn't taken him, I doubt that Wolfe comes off the board in the next 15 picks. With Jerel Worthy, Devin Still, Kendall Reyes, and Brandon Thompson all still on the board it would be very difficult to argue that we got a lot of value by selecting Derek Wolfe at #36.

good post but i think it's obvious at this point that nfl GMs see things quite differently from the pundits in the media that have their graded out mocks... there is a report i read saying at least 7 GMs had bruce irvin graded as a top 15 pick... and meanwhile fringe 1st rd to mid 2nd rd graded players by the media fall to late rounds (Lamar Miller, Bobby Massie)....

for all we know Wolfe is graded higher by many GMs and he had no chance of being there @57... Wolfe's production in college is certainly noteworthy, so who knows...

NFLBRONCO
04-28-2012, 10:42 AM
Since we have Manning I would have taken Randle at 57 to add another weapon to our offense . One injury and this corp looks weak. In 5 yrs this QB might work out but, for a team in win now mode its a head scratcher.

Dedhed
04-28-2012, 12:20 PM
Quality post Ded. I agree that with both the Wolfe and Hillman picks they left some value on the board. However, if Hillman explodes onto the team like I think he will, and Wolfe continues to demonstrate a high motor and disruptive presence in the trenches I think draft value will be forgotten. I agree. It's impossible to predict what GMs are thinking. Perhaps Denver had Wolfe rated much higher than others. The idea behind my argument was that if we'd moved back again we still would have been able to take a quality DT even if Wolfe had gone off the board. Worthy, Reyes, Still, and Thompson were all available at the end of round 2.

From my own analysis, admittedly limited and doesn't speak at all to actual value boards, one of those guys would have more value at #50 than Wolfe at #36 and we would have another pick with which to address other needs.

I wish I could agree with your take on Osweiler, but I just don't see it. Hopefully I'm wrong and he will be able to sit for a couple of years and develop.
We'll find out whether Osweiler can develop, but I think we had to take a developmental QB in this draft given the question marks surrounding Manning. Osweiler has better raw tools than most QBs available in the 2nd round.

DarkHorse
04-28-2012, 12:23 PM
I like the draft personally, love that we've addressed needs and added a weapon.

Dedhed
04-28-2012, 12:28 PM
Since we have Manning I would have taken Randle at 57 to add another weapon to our offense . One injury and this corp looks weak. In 5 yrs this QB might work out but, for a team in win now mode its a head scratcher.We are in a win now mode with Manning, but if something happens with Manning, which is a very realistic possibility, we need a contingency.

That is the reason why the FO is in a pickle. We're in a win now mode based on having Manning, but Manning himself is a precarious proposition; hence the "pickle". We have to draft with a win now mentality, but we can't completely ignore the worst case scenario, either.

Dedhed
04-28-2012, 12:31 PM
good post but i think it's obvious at this point that nfl GMs see things quite differently from the pundits in the media that have their graded out mocks... there is a report i read saying at least 7 GMs had bruce irvin graded as a top 15 pick... and meanwhile fringe 1st rd to mid 2nd rd graded players by the media fall to late rounds (Lamar Miller, Bobby Massie)....

for all we know Wolfe is graded higher by many GMs and he had no chance of being there @57... Wolfe's production in college is certainly noteworthy, so who knows...
Very true. No one knows what's going on inside actual war rooms, thus the reason the draft is such a crap shoot and the reason Mock drafts usually fly completely off the rails after the first 7-10 picks.

Like I said, I really like Wolfe, but as far as my own ratings were (and who cares but it's all I can speak to) we left some value on the board there.

broncolife
04-28-2012, 12:35 PM
We are in a win now mode with Manning, but if something happens with Manning, which is a very realistic possibility, we need a contingency.

That is the reason why the FO is in a pickle. We're in a win now mode based on having Manning, but Manning himself is a precarious proposition; hence the "pickle". We have to draft with a win now mentality, but we can't completely ignore the worst case scenario, either.

So if Manning goes down in the first game do you think Brock the project gets the start?

cutthemdown
04-28-2012, 12:37 PM
LOL you have no idea where Wolfe was going to go. Also If the Broncos feel he will be a good player then you snag him. All these DT people are listing, I bet over half are busts. The Broncos FO thinks Wolfe won't be one of them. Figured they could get him 2nd round, trade back and do it. What you don't do is trade to far back because you want to get your player. If that means taking him 15 spots before some other team so be it.

Kaylore
04-28-2012, 12:38 PM
None if it matters if the picks are good or bad.

The Patriots are widely regarded as getting the most value for trading down. Then they showed a graphic on ESPN that showed they are towards the top of the league in first and second round busts in the last five years. This is skewed because they have also had more than almost any other team in the last five years, but that makes it worse.

By the same token, teams have reached for players that turned out to be incredible players and it made everyone else look stupid.

We won't know for three years for sure. Should you try to get "value"? Of course. Will we know if they reached or not? Not for several years.

broncosteven
04-28-2012, 05:16 PM
We are in a win now mode with Manning, but if something happens with Manning, which is a very realistic possibility, we need a contingency.

That is the reason why the FO is in a pickle. We're in a win now mode based on having Manning, but Manning himself is a precarious proposition; hence the "pickle". We have to draft with a win now mentality, but we can't completely ignore the worst case scenario, either.

I didn't like that we had to use a pick on a QB but glad we got one.

I going through what I have been through with nerve damage I cannot believe that Manning will be ready to play and last a full system.

I like the DT we got we can call our DL "Von Wolfe Doom" now.

BroncoInferno
04-28-2012, 05:22 PM
None if it matters if the picks are good or bad.

The Patriots are widely regarded as getting the most value for trading down. Then they showed a graphic on ESPN that showed they are towards the top of the league in first and second round busts in the last five years. This is skewed because they have also had more than almost any other team in the last five years, but that makes it worse.

By the same token, teams have reached for players that turned out to be incredible players and it made everyone else look stupid.

We won't know for three years for sure. Should you try to get "value"? Of course. Will we know if they reached or not? Not for several years.

Yeah, the Pats always get fellated for how they move around the draft board, but their actual picks the last 3-5 years have been pretty crappy.

kappys
04-28-2012, 05:34 PM
So if Manning goes down in the first game do you think Brock the project gets the start?

They'll give Caleb Hanie 1-2 starts before he has to be pulled.

snowspot66
04-28-2012, 05:40 PM
I didn't like that we had to use a pick on a QB but glad we got one.

I going through what I have been through with nerve damage I cannot believe that Manning will be ready to play and last a full system.

I like the DT we got we can call our DL "Von Wolfe Doom" now.

Wolfe is more of a first or last name.

Von Doom Wolfe.

Wolfe Von Doom.

razorwire77
04-28-2012, 05:40 PM
None if it matters if the picks are good or bad.

The Patriots are widely regarded as getting the most value for trading down. Then they showed a graphic on ESPN that showed they are towards the top of the league in first and second round busts in the last five years. This is skewed because they have also had more than almost any other team in the last five years, but that makes it worse.

By the same token, teams have reached for players that turned out to be incredible players and it made everyone else look stupid.

We won't know for three years for sure. Should you try to get "value"? Of course. Will we know if they reached or not? Not for several years.

The "value" discussion becomes less and less relevant the farther away we get from the draft. If Ronnie Hillman averages 4.7 ypc and has 9 touchdowns as a rookie, nobody is going to discuss the moving up to get him. If Wolfe hits and Worthy busts, no one will say "I don't care, we still could've had him in the 3rd."

ThirtyDegrees
04-28-2012, 06:43 PM
I have yet to hear a reasonable explanation for why the Broncos could not have signed any Free Agents at all until they signed Manning.

DBroncos4life
04-28-2012, 06:52 PM
I have yet to hear a reasonable explanation for why the Broncos could not have signed any Free Agents at all until they signed Manning.

They signed Mike Adams before Manning.

broncosteven
04-28-2012, 06:59 PM
Wolfe is more of a first or last name.

Von Doom Wolfe.

Wolfe Von Doom.

I want a jersey with this name on it

TonyR
04-28-2012, 07:02 PM
We are in a win now mode with Manning, but if something happens with Manning, which is a very realistic possibility, we need a contingency.

If Manning goes down we're f***ed whether we have Osweiler or not. People always say how Indy blew it but actually quite the contrary. Manning went down, they were f***ed, and they landed Andrew Luck because of it. No, there isn't always going to be an Andrew Luck waiting for you but I'd rather have a shot at a top tier QB after losing Manning than wasting a 2nd round pick that could have helped us win in the short term on a QB who the odds suggest will never be a quality NFL starter. I think we should have drafted a QB later, or not at all. This is a win now league and our FO seemed to have lost sight of that with this pick. They better be totally in love with him and think they have something really special to have done this.

gyldenlove
04-28-2012, 07:17 PM
None if it matters if the picks are good or bad.

The Patriots are widely regarded as getting the most value for trading down. Then they showed a graphic on ESPN that showed they are towards the top of the league in first and second round busts in the last five years. This is skewed because they have also had more than almost any other team in the last five years, but that makes it worse.

By the same token, teams have reached for players that turned out to be incredible players and it made everyone else look stupid.

We won't know for three years for sure. Should you try to get "value"? Of course. Will we know if they reached or not? Not for several years.

The Patriots have drafted like crap for many years now, the day Tom Brady retires or gets knocked out that team is going to collapse like the Tacoma Narrows bridge.

gyldenlove
04-28-2012, 07:18 PM
So if Manning goes down in the first game do you think Brock the project gets the start?

No, they will ride Caleb Hanie as far as they can.

Lestat
04-28-2012, 07:24 PM
the perception of the draft is kinda like shot selection of a NBA player. if you're falling down getting fouled and chunk the shot up and miss it "Oh my god, what in the world was he thinking." but in that same scenario if you make the shot "Oh my god, what a miraculous shot he just made. Only a great player has the stones to take that shot and make it."

ideally you want to get as much draft value as possible, but if the draft picks turn out and unfold into top tier players that help your franchise like you expect them to or better, then no one talks about it was bad value. they say it was a great pick and you had the stones to take them before everyone else.

that's the goal this franchise should have, scout em, evaluate em, draft em, develop em and win championships. if you do that then the players that people call reaches now start to become "The Broncos drafting Broncos guys".

CEH
04-28-2012, 07:30 PM
The Patriots have drafted like crap for many years now, the day Tom Brady retires or gets knocked out that team is going to collapse like the Tacoma Narrows bridge.

I hear McCourty might move to safety. That is the kiss of death for a 1t round CB and basically a failed first round pick. One year NE drafted like 9 players and only Merriweather made the team. I think it was 2007 but still not a good draft

edog24
04-28-2012, 07:33 PM
So why did we ship Tebow away for nothing, and then reaching for osweiller. Stupid move IMO.

cutthemdown
04-28-2012, 07:43 PM
The drafts problem was only about 20 players had true first round grades.

broncosteven
04-28-2012, 07:45 PM
No, they will ride Caleb Hanie as far as they can.

That should be about 2-4 games. Hanie looked great in PS for Chicago, played decent in the NFC Championship game until his INT but then **** the bed last year after Cutler went down.

I think he gives us TC depth and can run a scout team but don't expect more fro him. I like the potential Os gives but if Manning goes down early I would like to see him play late in the season for the experience.

I had this weird thought that maybe EFX brought Manning in just to get rid of Tebow, if Manning can play then clearly a big WIN but if he can't they now have their guy in house. Either way they got their guy.

Lestat
04-28-2012, 07:54 PM
So why did we ship Tebow away for nothing, and then reaching for osweiller. Stupid move IMO.

we traded away Tebow, that allowed us to draft Osweiler and stash him as the QBOTF, we drafted Blake and Trevathan with the picks we got for Tebow.
having those extra picks allowed us to maneuver well in the draft.

so we went from having Tebow to Manning as the starter, Osweiler as the back up, Blake to improve the OL and likely start at G, then netted a potential special teams ace who also plays LB.
so we used a former starter to give us two future starters with higher upside overall.

nothing stupid about that IMO. that's being a good GM.

Mediator12
04-28-2012, 07:55 PM
The Patriots have drafted like crap for many years now, the day Tom Brady retires or gets knocked out that team is going to collapse like the Tacoma Narrows bridge.

You do remember Matt Cassel going 10-6 Right? People say this about NE all the time, but INDY went 2-14 without Manning. Cassel ended up being the bane of KC as well ;D NE has NOT drafted well for years, but they have drafted 9 probowlers on their own roster to date. Tied for the best in the NFL. They just have struggled without Thomas Dimitroff IMHO.

gyldenlove
04-28-2012, 08:08 PM
You do remember Matt Cassel going 10-6 Right? People say this about NE all the time, but INDY went 2-14 without Manning. Cassel ended up being the bane of KC as well ;D NE has NOT drafted well for years, but they have drafted 9 probowlers on their own roster to date. Tied for the best in the NFL. They just have struggled without Thomas Dimitroff IMHO.

Since 2005 when they got Mankins, they have added Mayo and 2 TEs as true difference makers. Their drafts in 2006 and 2007 netted them a total of 0 players, 2008 netted them 1, 2009 netted them 1 and 2010 gave them 2, maybe 3.

They have a pitiful secondary that would be exposed if they weren't in a division with Mark Sanchez, whatever unfortunate soul happens to be behind center for the dolphins and Fitzpatrick, they have no pass rush at all. They have no running game to speak of, they have a 200 year old RG and no center to speak of, their WR group consists of Wes Welker, some has-beens, some probably-never-will-bes and a convicted murderer.

Cassel went 10-6 with a team that Richard Seymour, Ty Warren in their prime, a good run game and solid defense - none of which is the case today.

pricejj
04-28-2012, 08:09 PM
Good post, but I disagree on Wolfe. I know a lot of draft sites had him going later, but I think he was being undervalued and that he would have gone shortly after #36 had we not picked him. He has everything you look for: size (6'5" 300 with long arms), uses his hands well (unusual for DTs coming out of college), good athleticism (4.94 40, 7.26 3 cone drill), non-stop motor, nasty attitude, HIGHLY productive, proven pass rusher, etc. Like I said, I think he was undervalued by some the draftniks and there is a good chance he would be gone before our next pick. I mean, seriously, compare him to Worthy. What does Worthy have over Wolfe? Not nearly as productive, not as good size, inconsistent and takes plays off. I agree with you on the value of Hillman, though. Not sure we couldn't have stayed put in the 3rd and still gotten him.

Exaclty. Both New England and Pittsburgh worked out Wolfe...and somebody told him that he would be drafted in the late 1st or early 2nd....It wasn't the Broncos. Wolfe is the REAL DEAL.

DarkHorse
04-28-2012, 08:13 PM
They'll give Caleb Hanie 1-2 starts before he has to be pulled.

I honestly don't think Hanie is going to make the final roster, if he does it will be 3rd string. Weber is better so wouldn't surprise me to see Hanie on a bus outta town.

Rohirrim
04-28-2012, 09:11 PM
Since we have Manning I would have taken Randle at 57 to add another weapon to our offense . One injury and this corp looks weak. In 5 yrs this QB might work out but, for a team in win now mode its a head scratcher.

Bingo! There's no logic to the Osweiler pick. If something happens to Manning, Brock isn't going to do squat. So regardless, his first year is a wash. If the Broncos truly think he's a long term franchise QB, then he doesn't fit the criteria of a Plan A, immediate impact player, but you traded picks to get him in the second round. At best, Osweiler makes a difference two or three years down the road, so I guess he's Manning's replacement? I suppose that makes sense given Manning's possible neck issues, but those two picks (a 3rd and a 4th) could have been more "impact" players (or you use the 57 for a guy who gets right on the field from day one, like Randle). The fact that Brock is best friends with the team CEO's son makes the whole deal kind of awkward, as well.

razorwire77
04-28-2012, 09:14 PM
I honestly don't think Hanie is going to make the final roster, if he does it will be 3rd string. Weber is better so wouldn't surprise me to see Hanie on a bus outta town.

I seriously doubt Denver is only going to keep two backup quarterbacks with no NFL snaps, to back up a 36-year-old QB coming off a serious injury.

Does Weber even have any preseason snaps other than that one drive last year?

Drunken.Broncoholic
04-28-2012, 09:23 PM
Well thought out post Dedhed. We clash all the time but you make some good points

broncosteven
04-28-2012, 09:25 PM
Bingo! There's no logic to the Osweiler pick. If something happens to Manning, Brock isn't going to do squat. So regardless, his first year is a wash. If the Broncos truly think he's a long term franchise QB, then he doesn't fit the criteria of a Plan A, immediate impact player, but you traded picks to get him in the second round. At best, Osweiler makes a difference two or three years down the road, so I guess he's Manning's replacement? I suppose that makes sense given Manning's possible neck issues, but those two picks (a 3rd and a 4th) could have been more "impact" players (or you use the 57 for a guy who gets right on the field from day one, like Randle). The fact that Brock is best friends with the team CEO's son makes the whole deal kind of awkward, as well.

Pollian was talking about Washington picking a QB with their 3rd round pick and he thought that it was a good idea to have QB's with different strengths and then the other guys went off on a tangent about Kubiak being drafted to be John's backup.

I like the fact that Denver got a kid in the draft and was not content with Haine should Manning go down.

Rohirrim
04-28-2012, 09:33 PM
Pollian was talking about Washington picking a QB with their 3rd round pick and he thought that it was a good idea to have QB's with different strengths and then the other guys went off on a tangent about Kubiak being drafted to be John's backup.

I like the fact that Denver got a kid in the draft and was not content with Haine should Manning go down.

Yeah, but Elway was going to be the long term QB for the Broncos, just like Griffin is for the Skins, so it made sense to bring in Kubes to back him up. Manning is here for two, or at best, three years. I doubt Osweiler makes much difference in that time frame. I guess that's where I don't see the logic. If you're going to go for it right now, Plan A, get the players that get on the field in year one.

baja
04-28-2012, 09:39 PM
Bingo! There's no logic to the Osweiler pick. If something happens to Manning, Brock isn't going to do squat. So regardless, his first year is a wash. If the Broncos truly think he's a long term franchise QB, then he doesn't fit the criteria of a Plan A, immediate impact player, but you traded picks to get him in the second round. At best, Osweiler makes a difference two or three years down the road, so I guess he's Manning's replacement? I suppose that makes sense given Manning's possible neck issues, but those two picks (a 3rd and a 4th) could have been more "impact" players (or you use the 57 for a guy who gets right on the field from day one, like Randle). The fact that Brock is best friends with the team CEO's son makes the whole deal kind of awkward, as well.

Clearly EFX see Osweller at their super stud QBOTF who needs 2 or 3 seasons to get up to speed. No other logical explanation.

broncosteven
04-28-2012, 09:39 PM
Yeah, but Elway was going to be the long term QB for the Broncos, just like Griffin is for the Skins, so it made sense to bring in Kubes to back him up. Manning is here for two, or at best, three years. I doubt Osweiler makes much difference in that time frame. I guess that's where I don't see the logic. If you're going to go for it right now, Plan A, get the players that get on the field in year one.

Still need a guy to develop if Manning is not healthy, has a setback, or is struggling with his arm strength or just plain can't go.

At least we have a plan B in Osweiler and keep 2012 from being a lost season with Haine at the helm.

razorwire77
04-28-2012, 09:42 PM
Yeah, but Elway was going to be the long term QB for the Broncos, just like Griffin is for the Skins, so it made sense to bring in Kubes to back him up. Manning is here for two, or at best, three years. I doubt Osweiler makes much difference in that time frame. I guess that's where I don't see the logic. If you're going to go for it right now, Plan A, get the players that get on the field in year one.

Yeah, that confused me too. Once you signed Peyton Manning, surrounding him with as many weapons as possible and upgrading the line should have been priority number two after addressing UT and or nose.

I mean you have Kuper coming off of a gruesome injury, you have Walton and Beadles who by most accounts are below average NFL starters and you have two young receivers with decent potential, but neither one elite NFL stars yet. And you have virtually no quality depth after that. How does drafting a QB in the 2nd round fit into that matrix? Now year two of the Manning experience, after you've put some pieces in place I could understand.

Lestat
04-28-2012, 09:48 PM
Yeah, that confused me too. Once you signed Peyton Manning, surrounding him with as many weapons as possible and upgrading the line should have been priority number two after addressing UT and or nose.

I mean you have Kuper coming off of a gruesome injury, you have Walton and Beadles who by most accounts are below average NFL starters and you have two young receivers with decent potential, but neither one elite NFL stars yet. And you have virtually no quality depth after that. How does drafting a QB in the 2nd round fit into that matrix? Now year two of the Manning experience, after you've put some pieces in place I could understand.

simple, Osweiler is a potential franchise QB in their minds. you're not likely to get a QB with that much talent and potential to be a franchise guy while you have Manning as the QB once the record starts improving and you're picking #31 or #32.

if Osweiler goes back to school and develops he's likely a top 15 selection next year like Tannehill. and then you have to find a QB later on in the draft and potentially reach for a guy you don't believe in. Elway himself said Peyton kept asking him who the back up was, that means even Manning was concerned with the depth.

Br0nc0Buster
04-28-2012, 09:53 PM
Osweiler was my favorite pick, he has everything you look for in a franchise qb
just lacks experience

the Broncos saw a potential franchise guy they could get in the 2nd and pulled the trigger

Probably the best thing about having Elway as the VP of personnel or whatever his title is, is that when it comes to the qb position he is not gonna screw around

Osweiler reminds me of Philip Rivers

Agamemnon
04-28-2012, 10:02 PM
You lost me when you said you like the Osweiler pick...

Dedhed
04-28-2012, 10:13 PM
So if Manning goes down in the first game do you think Brock the project gets the start?
No. If Manning were to go down we'd take our lumps with Hanie, ditch Manning in the off season, and look to build around Brock in 2013.

Dedhed
04-28-2012, 10:15 PM
LOL you have no idea where Wolfe was going to go. Also If the Broncos feel he will be a good player then you snag him. All these DT people are listing, I bet over half are busts. The Broncos FO thinks Wolfe won't be one of them. Figured they could get him 2nd round, trade back and do it. What you don't do is trade to far back because you want to get your player. If that means taking him 15 spots before some other team so be it.

Please read posts that you're responding to.

BroncoBeavis
04-28-2012, 10:17 PM
No. If Manning were to go down we'd take our lumps with Hanie, ditch Manning in the off season, and look to build around Brock in 2013.

I'd rather spend whatever 1st we have when that day comes than forgo talent on the field in win now mode.

Nothing, absolutely nothing about Osweiler you won't find available in every draft. Other than maybe height. But no current Elite QB seems to need that kind of height.

Dedhed
04-28-2012, 10:18 PM
None if it matters if the picks are good or bad.

The Patriots are widely regarded as getting the most value for trading down. Then they showed a graphic on ESPN that showed they are towards the top of the league in first and second round busts in the last five years. This is skewed because they have also had more than almost any other team in the last five years, but that makes it worse.

By the same token, teams have reached for players that turned out to be incredible players and it made everyone else look stupid.

We won't know for three years for sure. Should you try to get "value"? Of course. Will we know if they reached or not? Not for several years.
Which is what I've said in every post. You have to go to every length possible to maximize value, but in the end it doesn't matter where you take players as long as they become solid contributors to your football team.

Dedhed
04-28-2012, 10:21 PM
I didn't like that we had to use a pick on a QB but glad we got one.

I going through what I have been through with nerve damage I cannot believe that Manning will be ready to play and last a full system.

I like the DT we got we can call our DL "Von Wolfe Doom" now.
I don't like that we were in that position either, but, regardless of liking it or not we were in a position where we had to address the position.

I think Osweiler addresses that need aptly.

Dedhed
04-28-2012, 10:23 PM
I have yet to hear a reasonable explanation for why the Broncos could not have signed any Free Agents at all until they signed Manning.

You didn't read the OP. The entire makeup of the team changes based on whether you have Manning or not. You cannot appropriately address need in FA if you don't know whether Manning is our QB or not.

Dedhed
04-28-2012, 10:26 PM
The "value" discussion becomes less and less relevant the farther away we get from the draft. If Ronnie Hillman averages 4.7 ypc and has 9 touchdowns as a rookie, nobody is going to discuss the moving up to get him. If Wolfe hits and Worthy busts, no one will say "I don't care, we still could've had him in the 3rd."
This is absolutely true, but it doesn't change the fact that, in the moment, you have to be focused on maximizing the value you're getting during the draft.

RaiderH8r
04-28-2012, 10:27 PM
Clearly EFX see Osweller at their super stud QBOTF who needs 2 or 3 seasons to get up to speed. No other logical explanation.

Had one of those. Shipped him.

Osweiler has no business on this club. There are going to be two dozen just like him coming out in the next draft and FA. Osweiler ismthatmbig of a talent that the win now club can shelf,that strategy just for Brock? Weak. Whatever. This either yields a Super Bowl or the whole endeavor is a failure. Good luck boys.

DBroncos4life
04-28-2012, 10:28 PM
Had one of those. Shipped him.

Osweiler has no business on this club. There are going to be two dozen just like him coming out in the next draft and FA. Osweiler ismthatmbig of a talent that the win now club can shelf,that strategy just for Brock? Weak. Whatever. This either yields a Super Bowl or the whole endeavor is a failure. Good luck boys.

In your eyes only so..,

Agamemnon
04-28-2012, 10:32 PM
Had one of those. Shipped him.

Osweiler has no business on this club. There are going to be two dozen just like him coming out in the next draft and FA. Osweiler ismthatmbig of a talent that the win now club can shelf,that strategy just for Brock? Weak. Whatever. This either yields a Super Bowl or the whole endeavor is a failure. Good luck boys.

And drafting a project QB in the 2nd round is the opposite of what teams do when trying to win now, but let's all just stick our heads in the sand...

Dedhed
04-28-2012, 10:33 PM
the perception of the draft is kinda like shot selection of a NBA player. if you're falling down getting fouled and chunk the shot up and miss it "Oh my god, what in the world was he thinking." but in that same scenario if you make the shot "Oh my god, what a miraculous shot he just made. Only a great player has the stones to take that shot and make it."

ideally you want to get as much draft value as possible, but if the draft picks turn out and unfold into top tier players that help your franchise like you expect them to or better, then no one talks about it was bad value. they say it was a great pick and you had the stones to take them before everyone else.

that's the goal this franchise should have, scout em, evaluate em, draft em, develop em and win championships. if you do that then the players that people call reaches now start to become "The Broncos drafting Broncos guys".I like that analogy quite a bit. You should always be working for the best possible shot, but if you hit the off balance fade-away after ignoring the play call, in the end it doesn't matter.

That said, I think the game plan for this draft (rounds 2-3) could be classified as, "let's throw up bombs all night and see what happens". We played the first two days like desperate underdogs. We still may end up winning in the end, but it doesn't mean we had a great game plan in place.

Dedhed
04-28-2012, 10:37 PM
And drafting a project QB in the 2nd round is the opposite of what teams do when trying to win now, but let's all just stick our heads in the sand...

You've missed, or ignored, the entire premise of the thread. That's the "pickle" that we entered into when we signed Manning. Yes, we're trying to win now, but ignoring the possible down side of the situation, and thus not addressing the QB position at all, is also "sticking your head in the sand".

Agamemnon
04-28-2012, 10:43 PM
You've missed, or ignored, the entire premise of the thread. That's the "pickle" that we entered into when we signed Manning. Yes, we're trying to win now, but ignoring the possible down side of the situation, and thus not addressing the QB position at all, is also "sticking your head in the sand".

No, it's committing to a course of action fully. What EFX appear to be doing is trying to ride the fence without picking one side or the other. QB's like Osweiler can be had every year well after the 1st round. Picking him does not assure any better future for the QB position post-Manning than if we had actually gone with a player who could have had an immediate impact, but it does hurt our chances of winning a Super Bowl before Manning calls it quits.

DBroncos4life
04-28-2012, 10:44 PM
You've missed, or ignored, the entire premise of the thread. That's the "pickle" that we entered into when we signed Manning. Yes, we're trying to win now, but ignoring the possible down side of the situation, and thus not addressing the QB position at all, is also "sticking your head in the sand".

When you plan on winning you have to plan on drafting later. Might as well take the flyer on a guy this year while you still have a lower draft pick.

Dedhed
04-28-2012, 10:44 PM
Yeah, but Elway was going to be the long term QB for the Broncos, just like Griffin is for the Skins, so it made sense to bring in Kubes to back him up. Manning is here for two, or at best, three years. I doubt Osweiler makes much difference in that time frame. I guess that's where I don't see the logic. If you're going to go for it right now, Plan A, get the players that get on the field in year one.
You've also hit on the crux of the issue. "Manning is here for....at best, three years." However, he's really on a one year contract. The FO was clearly high on Osweiler, and you can't be completely blind to the possibility of having to resort to Plan B. Given that they liked Osweiler and that plan B is a distinct possibility, the pick makes perfect sense.

I don't love that we're in that position, but that's exactly what we signed up for when we went to Manning.

baja
04-28-2012, 10:47 PM
It comes down to if you think osweller is something special that needs two years to be ready than you like and understand the reason you needed to take him.

On the other hand if you think osweller is a dime a dozen type than you hate the pick and justifiably so.

I'm gonna trust Elway on this one.

At any rate it will take us 2 to 3 years to find out who is right.

Agamemnon
04-28-2012, 10:48 PM
You've also hit on the crux of the issue. "Manning is here for....at best, three years." However, he's really on a one year contract. The FO was clearly high on Osweiler, and you can't be completely blind to the possibility of having to resort to Plan B. Given that they liked Osweiler and that plan B is a distinct possibility, the pick makes perfect sense.

I don't love that we're in that position, but that's exactly what we signed up for when we went to Manning.

If they didn't think Manning could last very long they should've never signed him in the first place, but it's becoming clear to me that the real reason they signed Manning had nothing to do with winning Super Bowls.

Dedhed
04-28-2012, 10:50 PM
When you plan on winning you have to plan on drafting later. Might as well take the flyer on a guy this year while you still have a lower draft pick.

This comes down to how the FO views the prospect. They clearly liked what they saw in Osweiler, and like I mentioned in the OP, there are few 2nd round QBs with his raw skills.

I would guess (hope) that the FO looked at him and decided that they thought more highly of Brock with a year in the system than they did of a guy like Landry Jones as a Rookie.

Dedhed
04-28-2012, 10:53 PM
No, it's committing to a course of action fully.
You just want to pretend that it's a black vs white scenario. There are all sorts of shades of grey to deal with here. None of them suit your agenda so you keep it black and white. That's fine, but it doesn't pertain to this thread.

Dedhed
04-28-2012, 10:57 PM
It comes down to if you think osweller is something special that needs two years to be ready than you like and understand the reason you needed to take him.

On the other hand if you think osweller is a dime a dozen type than you hate the pick and justifiably so.

I'm gonna trust Elway on this one.

At any rate it will take us 2 to 3 years to find out who is right.

Very true. I think it's pretty clear that the FO thought Osweiler possessed some things that not may prospects do, and that they could build in the rest through coaching.

I happen to agree, and I think the people who are completely bent out of shape over the pick are refusing to look at some things.

Agamemnon
04-28-2012, 11:01 PM
You just want to pretend that it's a black vs white scenario. There are all sorts of shades of grey to deal with here. None of them suit your agenda so you keep it black and white. That's fine, but it doesn't pertain to this thread.

It is black and white in my eyes because they over paid for an aging QB and discarded a promising QB who needed to be developed (much like the guy they just drafted, only he could actually win while being raw). So if we aren't going all out to win a Super Bowl with Manning, then what the **** are we doing? Seems to me it's all just PR games so they could do what they really wanted, replace Tebow with a project QB of their own choosing while avoiding a nightmare with the fans.

They just effectively replaced Tebow with Osweiler. That's all this really comes down to, and to me that's a complete joke.

Dedhed
04-28-2012, 11:12 PM
It is black and white in my eyes because they over paid for an aging QB and discarded a promising QB who needed to be developed (much like the guy they just drafted, only he could actually win while being raw). So if we aren't going all out to win a Super Bowl with Manning, then what the **** are we doing? Seems to me it's all just PR games so they could do what they really wanted, replace Tebow with a project QB of their own choosing while avoiding a nightmare with the fans.

They just effectively replaced Tebow with Osweiler. That's all this really comes down to, and to me that's a complete joke.

I think there are a lot of other threads you can derail with Tebow talk. Let's avoid that here.

Agamemnon
04-28-2012, 11:21 PM
I think there are a lot of other threads you can derail with Tebow talk. Let's avoid that here.

This is an issue that is directly connected to how they handled Tebow. Nothing is being derailed.

The point is that EFX once again lied to us (about there only being a Plan A and about trying to get immediate impact players in the draft). At this point, I wonder if even Manning is wondering what the **** they are really doing. I seriously doubt they told him they were planning on using an early pick on another QB rather than drafting to improve the teams' starters when he came on his visit to Denver before signing with us.

baja
04-28-2012, 11:26 PM
This is an issue that is directly connected to how they handled Tebow. Nothing is being derailed.

The point is that EFX once again lied to us (about there only being a Plan A and about trying to get immediate impact players in the draft). At this point, I wonder if even Manning is wondering what the **** they are really doing. I seriously doubt they told him they were planning on using an early pick on another QB rather than drafting to improve the teams' starters when he came on his visit to Denver before signing with us.

I know others have asked you this but why are you still following this team? Really it makes no sense for you to be following the Broncos with the way you see things. Legit question. If you are true to yourself you should dump this team like unwanted corrupt trash.

Agamemnon
04-28-2012, 11:30 PM
I know others have asked you this but why are you still following this team? Really it makes no sense for you to be following the Broncos with the way you see things. Legit question. If you are true to yourself you should dump this team like unwanted corrupt trash.

Actually, there is nothing "legit" about the question. Did you ask the same thing of all the Bronco fans who hated how McD ran the team before he was eventually fired? I was a Bronco fan well before the EFX era, so I don't see why them grossly mismanaging my favorite team should make me just leave.

baja
04-28-2012, 11:47 PM
Actually, there is nothing "legit" about the question. Did you ask the same thing of all the Bronco fans who hated how McD ran the team before he was eventually fired? I was a Bronco fan well before the EFX era, so I don't see why them grossly mismanaging my favorite team should make me just leave.

Considering that you consider Elway, the face of the Broncos a chronic lier and generally despicable character I would think it would be a matter of honor to be compelled to leave such a unholy organization. I know I would.

Agamemnon
04-28-2012, 11:51 PM
Considering that you consider Elway, the face of the Broncos a chronic lier and generally despicable character I would think it would be a matter of honor to be compelled to leave such a unholy organization. I know I would.

I think Elway is dishonest in his dealings with the fans. I never said I think he's evil incarnate. I still hold him in high regard as a former player, I just completely disconnect that from what I think of him as a football exec. He's no more evil than McD or Shanny, and his ability to run a team is just as bad if not worse.

baja
04-28-2012, 11:53 PM
I think Elway is dishonest in his dealings with the fans. I never said I think he's evil incarnate. I still hold him in high regard as a former player, I just completely disconnect that from what I think of him as a football exec. He's no more evil than McD or Shanny, and his ability to run a team is just as bad if not worse.

well you are in for a long haul because Elway ain't going anywhere any time soon.

Agamemnon
04-28-2012, 11:58 PM
well you are in for a long haul because Elway ain't going anywhere any time soon.

I'm aware, and I'm hoping he proves me wrong, because if he proves me right the next five years are going to be brutal.

eddie mac
04-29-2012, 04:20 AM
I have yet to hear a reasonable explanation for why the Broncos could not have signed any Free Agents at all until they signed Manning.

Pretty simple really, Manning's decision affected the cash budget they held for signings this offseason. $18m can buy you a No1 QB but then again if he didn't sign it would've brought in 3-4 good starters at other positions like Soliai, Bunkley and/or someone else.

Denver did not backload their contracts this year like Washington still do under Shanahan and like we did under him. The majority of our players contracts are evenly based over the term of the deals, with cash budgets evenly balanced over upcoming seasons.

Drek
04-29-2012, 04:38 AM
In your eyes only so..,

95th best player in the league according to his peers. That's the top 6%.

So yeah....

Cito Pelon
04-29-2012, 05:31 AM
IMO they were smart to balance a future need (Osweiler) against current needs at the #57. You can't assume a similarly-skilled QB will drop to #57 in the future when you HAVE to draft one. I have a question about Osweiler - why did he choose to enter the draft early?

Broncos_OTM
04-29-2012, 05:59 AM
I didn't like that we had to use a pick on a QB but glad we got one.

I going through what I have been through with nerve damage I cannot believe that Manning will be ready to play and last a full system.

I like the DT we got we can call our DL "Von Wolfe Doom" now.

Wolfe Von doom sounds better and more dutch

Drek
04-29-2012, 06:19 AM
IMO they were smart to balance a future need (Osweiler) against current needs at the #57. You can't assume a similarly-skilled QB will drop to #57 in the future when you HAVE to draft one. I have a question about Osweiler - why did he choose to enter the draft early?

Dennis Erickson was fired. So if Osweiler had returned he would be learning a new offense with a new head coach.

You can see his viewpoint there. He had an ok junior campaign and is still viewed as having a lot of potential. If he had a bad year with a new staff who aren't particularly invested in him he could have taken a big slide.

BroncoBeavis
04-29-2012, 06:28 AM
When you plan on winning you have to plan on drafting later. Might as well take the flyer on a guy this year while you still have a lower draft pick.

Dude, it was the 57th pick. We're likely to have at least two that high or higher every year.
I'm amazed at how everyone here was applauding the tradebacks (for chump change) but now is giving the standing ovation while saying "ya never know when we'll get to pick that early again!" The answer is every year.

And Brock was easily slipping to the 3rd if not 4th if it wasn't for us.

edog24
04-29-2012, 06:41 AM
we traded away Tebow, that allowed us to draft Osweiler and stash him as the QBOTF, we drafted Blake and Trevathan with the picks we got for Tebow.
having those extra picks allowed us to maneuver well in the draft.

so we went from having Tebow to Manning as the starter, Osweiler as the back up, Blake to improve the OL and likely start at G, then netted a potential special teams ace who also plays LB.
so we used a former starter to give us two future starters with higher upside overall.

nothing stupid about that IMO. that's being a good GM.

Until Osweiler leads us to a playoff win, the above statement loses all credibility. We are screwed if Manning goes down, that is pretty simple. A green college qb or TT could not run a Manning offense. At least with TT we had a QB that could improvise and would have been fine leading us to some wins (all based on the hypothetical without Manning scenario).

I'm glad you are buying what the FO is selling though, someone has to, it's just not me.

Shananahan
04-29-2012, 06:41 AM
And Brock was easily slipping to the 3rd if not 4th if it wasn't for us.
You really think he gets by Seattle in the third?

I'm not so sure.

edog24
04-29-2012, 06:47 AM
You've missed, or ignored, the entire premise of the thread. That's the "pickle" that we entered into when we signed Manning. Yes, we're trying to win now, but ignoring the possible down side of the situation, and thus not addressing the QB position at all, is also "sticking your head in the sand".

Well the "Pickle" was self-induced by our Vice President of football operations inability to co-exist with TT. If TT is allowed to stay here, move him to backup, our draft just got a lot easier, DL, OL, DB, LB, maybe RB but not QB for chrissakes.

Now, we had a bunch of crappy draft picks, got rid of a qb that took us to the playoffs for nothing, and had to scramble to find a mediocre clipboard holder to groom for starting duties 3-4 years from now (God help us if Manning goes down before then).

He made this bed, now we get to lay in it.

Drek
04-29-2012, 06:51 AM
You really think he gets by Seattle in the third?

I'm not so sure.

Doesn't need to. What we gave to move up to #67 was more than what the Packers gave to get up to #62, so we definitely could have moved up there and grabbed him four spots after where he almost definitely would have been.

We would then be betting on Hillman sliding into the early 4th, which given how the RB draft class panned out that is entirely possible. If we had missed out on him we could also have taken Turbin so its not like we would have completely missed on getting a good back. Maybe Malik Jackson doesn't make it to our 6th round pick, but I'd take that risk in exchange for one of the guys I previously mentioned.

This is what I've been saying since the draft. The FO was unwilling to take a risk on losing "their guys" early on and so they over drafted, leaving value on the board. If they had jockeyed for position a little better we might have come away with another day one impact player.

CEH
04-29-2012, 07:08 AM
You really think he gets by Seattle in the third?

I'm not so sure.

Heck lets throw Philly at #59 into the mix because they also selected a QB in round 3. Who knows how they had Brock graded? Maybe (the what if game) Reid takes a QB at #59. It's all a what if game.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/8BTej926Pvo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>[/QUOTE]

Rohirrim
04-29-2012, 07:36 AM
Very true. I think it's pretty clear that the FO thought Osweiler possessed some things that not may prospects do, and that they could build in the rest through coaching.

I happen to agree, and I think the people who are completely bent out of shape over the pick are refusing to look at some things.

In other words, they fell in love with his arm. ;D

His biggest weakness is in the mental aspects of the game, understanding defenses, coverages, etc. In fact, that whole ASU squad seemed to be very poorly coached, as far as discipline went. Look at Burfict! Brock is big, strong, accurate and throws a bullet. I watched him beat up on the Trojans pretty good last year. He couldn't be in a better place as far as learning the mental aspects of the position. He gets to watch Manning while getting coached by Gase, and presumably picking up some knowledge from Elway. It's like entering QB heaven. But the reality is, that even with all that, Brock won't be ready to get on an NFL field for three years, at best. Like I said before, when it comes to QBs, I defer to Elway. The whole crux of the issue is, Manning must stay healthy!

BroncoBuff
04-29-2012, 08:28 AM
Not for nothin, but Pete Carroll said they had Russell Wilson (QB they drafted at #75) ranked ahead of "both the Arizona guys." Wilson's just 5'11" 205, but he's a sick accurate passer ... 73%, 33-4 TD-Int last year.

gyldenlove
04-29-2012, 08:39 AM
Not for nothin, but Pete Carroll said they had Russell Wilson (QB they drafted at #75) ranked ahead of "both the Arizona guys." Wilson's just 5'11" 205, but he's a sick accurate passer ... 73%, 33-4 TD-Int last year.

Pete Carrol also had Bruce Irvin ranked in the top of the 1st round while several teams didn't have him ranked at all - I should treat his rankings with some caution.

CEH
04-29-2012, 08:58 AM
Pete Carrol also had Bruce Irvin ranked in the top of the 1st round while several teams didn't have him ranked at all - I should treat his rankings with some caution.

I thought this report was totally out there but it was true

04/26/2012 08:00 am Michael Lombardi of the NFL Network reports West Virginia OLB Bruce Irvin was told by a team in the bottom third of the draft order that he will be picked in the first round

gyldenlove
04-29-2012, 09:04 AM
I thought this report was totally out there but it was true

04/26/2012 08:00 am Michael Lombardi of the NFL Network reports West Virginia OLB Bruce Irvin was told by a team in the bottom third of the draft order that he will be picked in the first round

The same way Sanu was told he was getting drafted in the 1st?

Rohirrim
04-29-2012, 09:06 AM
Pete Carroll is about to discover the difference between college and the NFL. He took some troubled kids and gave them a fresh start at USC. He should be very highly commended for all that he did in that community. But it's a different ball game when you take the troubled kid, hand him a few million dollars, and THEN try and keep him straight. I really admire how much faith Pete has in his fellow humans, and in his ability to be a life coach, but I guess I'm just too cynical to believe it will work at the NFL level. Money completely changes the equation. You can't hold a scholarship over somebody's head. All you've got is playing time. The stick is way smaller than the carrot.

Rohirrim
04-29-2012, 09:10 AM
The same way Sanu was told he was getting drafted in the 1st?

Yeah. I didn't get that one. IMO, he's much better than where he was drafted. Very physical. Long arms. Runs good routes. Anybody who tries press coverage on him will get their asses kicked. No character concerns. I think the Bengals got a steal in the third round on that one. ???

Tombstone RJ
04-29-2012, 09:19 AM
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/8BTej926Pvo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Hahaha, this was pretty much me with the Osweiler pick...

broncosteven
04-29-2012, 12:10 PM
No. If Manning were to go down we'd take our lumps with Hanie, ditch Manning in the off season, and look to build around Brock in 2013.

Chicago tried that and gave up after a couple games.

I am interested in what we can do with Hanie but not hoping for much.

DBroncos4life
04-29-2012, 01:06 PM
95th best player in the league according to his peers. That's the top 6%.

So yeah....

Did you watch the show?

Drek
04-29-2012, 02:55 PM
Did you watch the show?

Yep. Your point? The other players in the league either hate him or love him, but enough love him to have voted him into the top 100.

He's an impact player, simple as that. The best teams in the NFL are defined by their ability to highlight their impact players.

gyldenlove
04-29-2012, 03:41 PM
Yeah. I didn't get that one. IMO, he's much better than where he was drafted. Very physical. Long arms. Runs good routes. Anybody who tries press coverage on him will get their asses kicked. No character concerns. I think the Bengals got a steal in the third round on that one. ???

I think he is a guy who is going to struggle generating seperation, he just doesn't seem quick enough.

DBroncos4life
04-29-2012, 04:08 PM
Yep. Your point? The other players in the league either hate him or love him, but enough love him to have voted him into the top 100.

He's an impact player, simple as that. The best teams in the NFL are defined by their ability to highlight their impact players.

Probably why the Jets made him a punt blocker.

Drek
04-29-2012, 05:14 PM
Probably why the Jets made him a punt blocker.

And #2 QB, and wildcat QB, and have talked about getting him as many touches as they can a game. But what you gonna do?

http://i.qkme.me/35f3cv.jpg

DBroncos4life
04-29-2012, 05:19 PM
And #2 QB, and wildcat QB, and have talked about getting him as many touches as they can a game. But what you gonna do?

http://i.qkme.me/35f3cv.jpg

Wildcat QB that's scary. They are doing nothing to develop him by making him a gimmick player. As long as he is on the field I'm sure you're happy even it is hurting him in the long run!

kappys
04-29-2012, 05:40 PM
And #2 QB, and wildcat QB, and have talked about getting him as many touches as they can a game. But what you gonna do?

http://i.qkme.me/35f3cv.jpg

Regardless of your overall opinion on Tebow there is definitely a role for a guy who can convert short yardage the way he can even if he offers nothing else.

gyldenlove
04-29-2012, 05:51 PM
Regardless of your overall opinion on Tebow there is definitely a role for a guy who can convert short yardage the way he can even if he offers nothing else.

He is not great at converting anything - last season we were 3rd worst in 3rd down conversions and worst in 4th down conversions.