PDA

View Full Version : Did Jake Plummer help Broncos land Osweiler?


lonestar
04-28-2012, 11:51 PM
Did Jake Plummer indirectly help Broncos land Osweiler?
By Lindsay Jones

Should John Elway be sending Jake Plummer a thank you note?

Plummer, the former Broncos quarterback, served as somewhat of a mentor to new quarterback Brock Osweiler during Osweiler’s career at Arizona State — Plummer’s alma mater.

“He would come down to the Homecoming games every single year and pull me aside to give me a quick note,” Osweiler said. “He was at my pro day and he could see me walking into the facility a little juiced up, a little amped up, and he just pulled me aside and told me to calm down, enjoy this process, relax, and go have fun. That was really a breath of fresh air and I thank him for that.”

The Broncos were at that Pro Day workout in Tempe, and also flew to Arizona to put Osweiler through a private workout and interview.

Plummer had made himself scarce around Denver and Dove Valley after his career with the Broncos ended when Mike Shanahan benched him in favor of Jay Cutler. Don’t be surprised if now we see start seeing much more of Plummer around town.


http://blogs.denverpost.com/broncos/2012/04/28/jake-plummer-indirectly-broncos-land-osweiler/13235/

lonestar
04-28-2012, 11:52 PM
ahahahahahahaha

baja
04-28-2012, 11:56 PM
That would be great I like Jake

Mogulseeker
04-29-2012, 12:19 AM
I don't know about that, but Osweiler's throwing motion really reminds me of Plummer's.

myMind
04-29-2012, 12:56 AM
Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Mogulseeker
04-29-2012, 01:10 AM
Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Shoot, I'll take another Plummer. Especially a 6'7" one.

Man-Goblin
04-29-2012, 01:21 AM
You say help, I say hinder.

Do love Jake, though.

Man-Goblin
04-29-2012, 01:25 AM
By the way, if anyone was wondering why Plummer mysteriously appeared in Denver a few weeks ago, you don't have to anymore.

ZONA
04-29-2012, 01:43 AM
I would change your thread title. The Broncos didn't "land" Osweiler. That's really the word you associate with FA's. The Broncos drafted him. Plummer didn't have any say one way or the other so I don't know what the heck you mean when you say did Plummer help land him.

Dr. Broncenstein
04-29-2012, 01:59 AM
Hey kid,

When things get tough, there is always handball.

Your pal,

JP

KipCorrington25
04-29-2012, 02:25 AM
If he starts growing a beard and staring at the cheerleaders too long look out.

BroncoBuff
04-29-2012, 02:26 AM
Dumb article ... in fact I'm not sure what she's trying to get across.

Drek
04-29-2012, 05:29 AM
Over drafting helped the Broncos land Osweiler.

Cito Pelon
04-29-2012, 06:46 AM
Over drafting helped the Broncos land Osweiler.

I suppose one could say that. They (Elway) were locked onto him for weeks at #57. They knew he would be available then, they wanted him and weren't going to risk letting him get scooped by any other team.

Bronco Rob
04-29-2012, 07:16 AM
ESPN's Tedy Bruschi brought up a good point during the NFL draft on Saturday.

Bruschi said we shouldn’t expect Peyton Manning to be a mentor to Brock Osweiler right away. Denver signed Manning in March and drafted Osweiler with the No. 57 pick.

One of the benefits of drafting Osweiler is that he can sit and learn from Manning for the next three years or so without having to play. But Bruschi said Manning shouldn’t play the mentor role to Osweiler because he has more pressing concerns. Manning's chief priority will be to learn the offense and win games in Denver. Mentoring a young quarterback will not and shouldn’t be high on Manning’s to-do list, Bruschi said.

I agree.

Manning is in Denver to win, not baby-sit.

However, I think the Manning-Osweiler relationship can grow and Osweiler can learn from Manning without Manning putting too much effort in it or making Osweiler’s development a priority.

Osweiler can learn from Manning from simply watching him. During an interview with ESPN on Saturday, Osweiler said he is planning on buying a huge notebook. He wants to jot down Manning’s every move. That’s perfect.

Just by being Peyton Manning, Manning can help Osweiler grow.





http://espn.go.com/blog/afcwest/post/_/id/43468/mannings-affect-on-osweiler

BroncoBuff
04-29-2012, 07:21 AM
I suppose one could say that. They (Elway) were locked onto him for weeks at #57. They knew he would be available then, they wanted him and weren't going to risk letting him get scooped by any other team.

Problem isn't Brock or where we drafted him, the problem is that we drafted him at all.

Signing Manning was un cajones grande move, all our chips in the middle. We have a 2-3 year window to make a couple runs. So we drop #57 on a QBOTF .... future? Future is NOW!! I shudder to think of all the guys at #57, blue chip guys who could've contributed right away, I refuse to look.

THAT'S what's wrong with the Osweiler pick.

Drek
04-29-2012, 07:38 AM
I suppose one could say that. They (Elway) were locked onto him for weeks at #57. They knew he would be available then, they wanted him and weren't going to risk letting him get scooped by any other team.

And that risk aversion basically cost them their pick of Lavonte David, Rueben Randle, or Casey Hayward.

If they could have risked Osweiler going in the next four picks they could have had an epic draft.

BroncoBuff
04-29-2012, 07:41 AM
And while I'm at it, that article makes exactly ZERO sense. LESS that zero.

First off, why would we ever thank Jake? He didn't convince Brock to "sign with Denver, bro," Brock had no choice who drafted him. Second, a couple words before Homecoming games and a "mellow out dude" before his Pro Day did not mold young Brock into the player he is. Jake obviously didn't give us inside info, young Dirk Elway was our pipeline for that. And what if Brock is a bust, do we still thank Jake, or do we blame him?

Dumbest.article.ever. I've seen more coherent writing by Raider trolls.

Denver Brockos
04-29-2012, 08:04 AM
I would change your thread title. The Broncos didn't "land" Osweiler. That's really the word you associate with FA's. The Broncos drafted him. Plummer didn't have any say one way or the other so I don't know what the heck you mean when you say did Plummer help land him.

Are you kidding with this?

Thanks, Mom!

BroncoBuff
04-29-2012, 08:12 AM
Zona, we "landed" Brock as in .........


http://moviesmedia.ign.com/movies/image/article/897/897441/tropic-thunder-20080808031209195.jpg


Broncos are - literally - Brock Landers.

go_broncos
04-29-2012, 08:29 AM
Are you kidding with this?

Thanks, Mom!

TJ - Can you please ban the people that support a player blindly over the team.
Banning this guy will be good place to start.

DenverBrit
04-29-2012, 09:01 AM
Problem isn't Brock or where we drafted him, the problem is that we drafted him at all.

Signing Manning was un cajones grande move, all our chips in the middle. We have a 2-3 year window to make a couple runs. So we drop #57 on a QBOTF .... future? Future is NOW!! I shudder to think of all the guys at #57, blue chip guys who could've contributed right away, I refuse to look.

THAT'S what's wrong with the Osweiler pick.

Yeah, much better to look like another "Colts" when Manning is done.

It would be stupid NOT to draft a QB while Manning is in Denver.

baja
04-29-2012, 09:07 AM
Anyone happen to know Osweller's wonderlick scores??

Rohirrim
04-29-2012, 09:08 AM
Following the logic of the OP, we should have found a way to "land" Luck. After all, I watched a lot of Stanford games the last two years and Elway was on the sidelines for quite a few of them. He knows the Luck family and talked with Andrew often. Probably gave him tips, too.

baja
04-29-2012, 09:16 AM
Wonder what our draft would have looked like if Manning had signed with another team?

Would we still have signed Osweller??? Who else would we have taken?

DivineLegion
04-29-2012, 09:16 AM
Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

AFC championship game? I'm ok with that.

BroncoMan4ever
04-29-2012, 10:00 AM
Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

So we could become a team that wins about 11 games a year goes to the playoffs including the AFCCG? I will happily take what Jake brought this team. Last time we were any good was when Jake was here.

A team with annual trips to the playoffs always has a shot at a championship and that is more than any of Jake's replacements can stake claim to (tebow excluded)

hambone13
04-29-2012, 10:23 AM
I would change your thread title. The Broncos didn't "land" Osweiler. That's really the word you associate with FA's. The Broncos drafted him. Plummer didn't have any say one way or the other so I don't know what the heck you mean when you say did Plummer help land him.

This. Osweiler was dying to come here. He already had a personal relationship with the top dog under the owner. How could a a draftee land in a sweeter spot. Kind of a worthless thread. Not much discussion here, move along.

hambone13
04-29-2012, 10:26 AM
Are you kidding with this?

Thanks, Mom!

No, thank you Corky. Go lick some windows.

Gort
04-29-2012, 10:31 AM
Wonder what our draft would have looked like if Manning had signed with another team?

Would we still have signed Osweller??? Who else would we have taken?

Elway + Fox + McCoy + Del Rio + Xanders = 6 QBs + 1 DT + 1 XL pepperoni.

hambone13
04-29-2012, 10:32 AM
Yeah, much better to look like another "Colts" when Manning is done.

It would be stupid NOT to draft a QB while Manning is in Denver.

I think this is a valid point. If Os turns out to be solid, EFX is going to look ingenious. He certainly has all of the intangibles, just needs the experience. It could turn out to be the right ship in the perfect storm.

Gort
04-29-2012, 10:32 AM
No, thank you Corky. Go lick some windows.

the bad news is that with the drafting of Jack's BFF, this board will now be inundated with ASU fans. the good news is that there are only 3 ASU fans.

Rohirrim
04-29-2012, 10:36 AM
the bad news is that with the drafting of Jack's BFF, this board will now be inundated with ASU fans. the good news is that there are only 3 ASU fans.

And they're rarely sober enough to work the internet.

hambone13
04-29-2012, 10:39 AM
the bad news is that with the drafting of Jack's BFF, this board will now be inundated with ASU fans. the good news is that there are only 3 ASU fans.

ROFL, that frankly could be too many given the value of the current market sample.

BroncoBeavis
04-29-2012, 10:40 AM
Over drafting helped the Broncos land Osweiler.

Yes but without the help of little Jack and the Snake, taking third or fourth round talent in the second would have been much harder to explain. :)

Gort
04-29-2012, 10:43 AM
just to be clear... i don't dislike Brock Osweiler. i just think that a mere month or so after signing Manning to a 5-year $97M contract in order to win now, it was dumb to throw away a 2nd round pick on a QB who may or may not ever take a snap here. pick him in the 4th or 5th, and i'm ok with that. pick him in the 2nd when we need help on the defense, and i'm wondering who got into Bowlen's liquor cabinet before the draft started.

also, the Jack/Brock thing reminds me of the the Shanny Jr./Simms Jr. thing and that's hilarious to me. :)

DenverBrit
04-29-2012, 10:46 AM
I think this is a valid point. If Os turns out to be solid, EFX is going to look ingenious. He certainly has all of the intangibles, just needs the experience. It could turn out to be the right ship in the perfect storm.

Os may or may not turnout to be the guy but he was closely looked at by the Broncos.....private workouts and AZ St practices.

Walter football's take:

Brock Osweiler, QB, Arizona State
Height: 6-7. Weight: 242.
Projected 40 Time: 4.70.
Hand: 9 7/8.
Projected Round (2012): 2-3.
4/24/12: Osweiler was moving up draft boards as teams prepared for the Combine. He hurt his climb by not working out in Indianapolis. Osweiler had a quality pro day to cement his status as the fifth-ranked quarterback in the 2012 draft class.

Osweiler is big-armed pocket passer who has surprising mobility. The former basketball player has good athletic ability for being so tall. Looking at him, one would think he would be a statue in the pocket, but that is definitely not the case.

Osweiler completed 63 percent of his passes this year for 4,036 yards with 26 touchdowns and 13 interceptions. The junior also ran for 298 yards and three touchdowns. His stats this season set the school records for yards, completions and attempts. He had only two starts in 2010, but played well, throwing for 797 yards and five touchdowns with zero interceptions while also running for 168 yards and a score.

Osweiler has real arm strength and the gun to be a starting quarterback in the NFL. He is very raw and needs some work. If Osweiler goes to a good coaching staff that can develop him for a few years, he could turn into something. It wouldn't be surprising if Osweiler's stock rises during the lead up to the draft. He should have stayed in school and improved before going pro.

Gort
04-29-2012, 10:49 AM
Os may or may not turnout to be the guy but he was closely looked at by the Broncos.....private workouts and AZ St practices.

Walter football's take:

Brock Osweiler, QB, Arizona State
Height: 6-7. Weight: 242.
Projected 40 Time: 4.70.
Hand: 9 7/8.
Projected Round (2012): 2-3.
4/24/12: Osweiler was moving up draft boards as teams prepared for the Combine. He hurt his climb by not working out in Indianapolis. Osweiler had a quality pro day to cement his status as the fifth-ranked quarterback in the 2012 draft class.

Osweiler is big-armed pocket passer who has surprising mobility. The former basketball player has good athletic ability for being so tall. Looking at him, one would think he would be a statue in the pocket, but that is definitely not the case.

Osweiler completed 63 percent of his passes this year for 4,036 yards with 26 touchdowns and 13 interceptions. The junior also ran for 298 yards and three touchdowns. His stats this season set the school records for yards, completions and attempts. He had only two starts in 2010, but played well, throwing for 797 yards and five touchdowns with zero interceptions while also running for 168 yards and a score.

Osweiler has real arm strength and the gun to be a starting quarterback in the NFL. He is very raw and needs some work. If Osweiler goes to a good coaching staff that can develop him for a few years, he could turn into something. It wouldn't be surprising if Osweiler's stock rises during the lead up to the draft. He should have stayed in school and improved before going pro.


maybe Elway just wanted a project he could work with this year... you know, to keep him busy during camp. ???

;)

CEH
04-29-2012, 10:53 AM
Yes but without the help of little Jack and the Snake, taking third or fourth round talent in the second would have been much harder to explain. :)

Based on who? Brock was 2nd round talent . Pick a 4th round grade and I'll find a 2 2nd round grade

Kiper had Brock in front of Weedin. Mayock has Brock tied with Weedlin as 4th best

Not saying these guys are end all be all but just sayin

Judging QBs is subjective as hell.

You can say maybe we didn't need a QB at #57 but you will have a hard time justifying a 4th round grade

DenverBrit
04-29-2012, 10:55 AM
maybe Elway just wanted a project he could work with this year... you know, to keep him busy during camp. ???

;)

Well, Xanders does seem to have the pizza job locked up, so you have a point. ;D

hambone13
04-29-2012, 10:57 AM
just to be clear... i don't dislike Brock Osweiler. i just think that a mere month or so after signing Manning to a 5-year $97M contract in order to win now, it was dumb to throw away a 2nd round pick on a QB who may or may not ever take a snap here. pick him in the 4th or 5th, and i'm ok with that. pick him in the 2nd when we need help on the defense, and i'm wondering who got into Bowlen's liquor cabinet before the draft started.

also, the Jack/Brock thing reminds me of the the Shanny Jr./Simms Jr. thing and that's hilarious to me. :)

I totally understand the value aspect of your argument and agree with it in principal. I just think they thought he wouldn't be around later and it wasn't worth the risk of losing a stellar prospect. Honestly, one of the only things PM hasn't done yet is mentor a legacy. Unlike Favre, he seems to have gained humility in his age rather than arrogance and this could be the perfect development project. I didn't like the pick at first but it's growing on me.

BroncoBeavis
04-29-2012, 10:59 AM
Based on who? Brock was 2nd round talent . Pick a 4th round grade and I'll find a 2 2nd round grade

Kiper had Brock in front of Weedin. Mayock has Brock tied with Weedlin as 4th best

Not saying these guys are end all be all but just sayin

Judging QBs is subjective as hell.

You can say maybe we didn't need a QB at #57 but you will have a hard time justifying a 4th round grade

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/31/in-survey-of-nine-teams-eight-call-osweiler-a-fourth-round-prospect/

In survey of nine teams, eight call Osweiler a fourth round prospect

And Weeden was a bad stretch. I'd be livid if we took him even at 57 as well.

Rohirrim
04-29-2012, 10:59 AM
maybe Elway just wanted a project he could work with this year... you know, to keep him busy during camp. ???

;)

Like having an old Nova in the garage? :rofl:

hambone13
04-29-2012, 11:00 AM
Os may or may not turnout to be the guy but he was closely looked at by the Broncos.....private workouts and AZ St practices.

Walter football's take:

Brock Osweiler, QB, Arizona State
Height: 6-7. Weight: 242.
Projected 40 Time: 4.70.
Hand: 9 7/8.
Projected Round (2012): 2-3.
4/24/12: Osweiler was moving up draft boards as teams prepared for the Combine. He hurt his climb by not working out in Indianapolis. Osweiler had a quality pro day to cement his status as the fifth-ranked quarterback in the 2012 draft class.

Osweiler is big-armed pocket passer who has surprising mobility. The former basketball player has good athletic ability for being so tall. Looking at him, one would think he would be a statue in the pocket, but that is definitely not the case.

Osweiler completed 63 percent of his passes this year for 4,036 yards with 26 touchdowns and 13 interceptions. The junior also ran for 298 yards and three touchdowns. His stats this season set the school records for yards, completions and attempts. He had only two starts in 2010, but played well, throwing for 797 yards and five touchdowns with zero interceptions while also running for 168 yards and a score.

Osweiler has real arm strength and the gun to be a starting quarterback in the NFL. He is very raw and needs some work. If Osweiler goes to a good coaching staff that can develop him for a few years, he could turn into something. It wouldn't be surprising if Osweiler's stock rises during the lead up to the draft. He should have stayed in school and improved before going pro.


I don't know if you heard his interviews but his decision to leave school early was primarily based on the fact that the coach that he respected so much left. Had he stayed, he would have likely been there for another year. Had that been the case and he did as well as he did during his darling year, we would have never had a shot at him. It's all speculation but I found it interesting.

CrazyCoffey
04-29-2012, 11:04 AM
Zona, we "landed" Brock as in .........


http://moviesmedia.ign.com/movies/image/article/897/897441/tropic-thunder-20080808031209195.jpg


Broncos are - literally - Brock Landers.


This is good word play. Hilarious!

BroncoBuff
04-29-2012, 11:05 AM
Come on guys, it's Lindsay Jones' headline, not Brocko's.

And the words "Brock Landers" are a humorical Boogie Nights reference.

Don't you guys dig Diggler?




*EDIT* THANK YOU Crazy-newguy-Coffey

CEH
04-29-2012, 11:29 AM
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/31/in-survey-of-nine-teams-eight-call-osweiler-a-fourth-round-prospect/

In survey of nine teams, eight call Osweiler a fourth round prospect

And Weeden was a bad stretch. I'd be livid if we took him even at 57 as well.

Do you think the NFL would invite Brock to NYC to be in the Green room if they didn't believe he'd be a a minimum a 2nd round pick

Was his invitation based soley on a call to the Broncos. Last season, a record 25 players were invited to occupy the NFL Draft green room. Twenty of them were drafted in the first round.

Tweet from Brock

Just received a green room invitation from the NFL! So appreciative and thankful to be asked! Been a dream of mine since I was 8 years old.

BroncoBuff
04-29-2012, 12:53 PM
It would be stupid NOT to draft a QB while Manning is in Denver.

That's old thinking. The practice of "grooming a QBOTF" sounds warm and cozy, but in fact it's outdated, doesn't really happen anymore. Fact is, highly drafted QBs usually start as rookies, 1st rounders damn near every one.

I did a breakdown recently: QBs who started all or most of their rookie seasons, last 7 years: Cam Newton, Blaine Gabbert, Sam Bradford, Joe Flacco, Mark Sanchez, Matt Stafford, Matt Ryan, Josh Freeman, Jamarcus Russell, Vince Young, Matt Leinart, Christian Ponder, Jimmy Clausen ... Colt McCoy started 8 and Jay Cutler 5. Only three 1st rounders did not start as rookies: Jake Locker, Tim Tebow, Brady Quinn. The point is we can get a QB later!

NOW we have short-list-best-ever Peyton-freaking-Manning, but for just two or three years. Not sure why I'm having to sell this, but THE ONLY PLAY is to surround him with every possible asset NOW. The object of the game is Super Bowl Trophies, and suddenly we have a window. Make hay while the sun shines? Strike while the iron is hot ... let's hit 'em now while we got the muscle. We should have got something for NOW at 57.

DenverBrit
04-29-2012, 01:49 PM
That's old thinking. The practice of "grooming a QBOTF" sounds warm and cozy, but in fact it's outdated, doesn't really happen anymore. Fact is, highly drafted QBs usually start as rookies, 1st rounders damn near every one.

I did a breakdown recently: QBs who started all or most of their rookie seasons, last 7 years: Cam Newton, Blaine Gabbert, Sam Bradford, Joe Flacco, Mark Sanchez, Matt Stafford, Matt Ryan, Josh Freeman, Jamarcus Russell, Vince Young, Matt Leinart, Christian Ponder, Jimmy Clausen ... Colt McCoy started 8 and Jay Cutler 5. Only three 1st rounders did not start as rookies: Jake Locker, Tim Tebow, Brady Quinn. The point is we can get a QB later!

NOW we have short-list-best-ever Peyton-freaking-Manning, but for just two or three years. Not sure why I'm having to sell this, but THE ONLY PLAY is to surround him with every possible asset NOW. The object of the game is Super Bowl Trophies, and suddenly we have a window. Make hay while the sun shines? Strike while the iron is hot ... let's hit 'em now while we got the muscle. We should have got something for NOW at 57.

IMO, you're wrong. Grooming a successor to Manning makes sense. Get a QB later?? Why wait if you see what you want and can have him sit and learn from one of the best ever to play the position.

Much better than being the Colts part deux!

chickennob2
04-29-2012, 02:03 PM
In what we thought might be (and proved to be) Dawkins last year, we brought in two rookie safeties to learn from one of the greatest of all time. As Champ's career is winding down, we've bought in talented youth (Porter, Bolden) at the position to learn from one of the greatest of all time. We just signed Peyton Manning. Did you really expect us to not draft a young kid to learn from him? This is completely our M.O. Fill positions with a mix of experienced, productive vets and bring in talented youth to learn from them while providing depth.

lonestar
04-29-2012, 03:06 PM
Shoot, I'll take another Plummer. Especially a 6'7" one.

With a huge arm that can play from the pocket as well as run..

% wise IIRC Jake lead the Broncos in wins..

lonestar
04-29-2012, 03:11 PM
I suppose one could say that. They (Elway) were locked onto him for weeks at #57. They knew he would be available then, they wanted him and weren't going to risk letting him get scooped by any other team.

In one of the interviews John commented about taking a few of the players when they did..

He confirmed that via phone calls that there was more interest in those players than they anticipated and commented that calls after they were taken proved it out..

Now he could have been lying out his rectum about that to defend 'their reaching" but i suspect that the falling back in the first a couple of times showed great patience IMO..

lonestar
04-29-2012, 03:16 PM
Originally Posted by ZONA
I would change your thread title. The Broncos didn't "land" Osweiler. That's really the word you associate with FA's. The Broncos drafted him. Plummer didn't have any say one way or the other so I don't know what the heck you mean when you say did Plummer help land him.

Yes he was drafted..

But knowing Jake and his newer relationship with the Broncos (since mikey left) I suspect when interviewed by broncos scouts and FO personnel he jsut might have been a bit more interested than a few of the other teams..

This. Osweiler was dying to come here. He already had a personal relationship with the top dog under the owner. How could a a draftee land in a sweeter spot. Kind of a worthless thread. Not much discussion here, move along.

Seems like maybe there is something to talk about going o three pages now.. But feel free not to join in..

lonestar
04-29-2012, 03:22 PM
Os may or may not turnout to be the guy but he was closely looked at by the Broncos.....private workouts and AZ St practices.

Walter football's take:

Brock Osweiler, QB, Arizona State
Height: 6-7. Weight: 242.
Projected 40 Time: 4.70.
Hand: 9 7/8.
Projected Round (2012): 2-3.
4/24/12: Osweiler was moving up draft boards as teams prepared for the Combine. He hurt his climb by not working out in Indianapolis. Osweiler had a quality pro day to cement his status as the fifth-ranked quarterback in the 2012 draft class.

Osweiler is big-armed pocket passer who has surprising mobility. The former basketball player has good athletic ability for being so tall. Looking at him, one would think he would be a statue in the pocket, but that is definitely not the case.

Osweiler completed 63 percent of his passes this year for 4,036 yards with 26 touchdowns and 13 interceptions. The junior also ran for 298 yards and three touchdowns. His stats this season set the school records for yards, completions and attempts. He had only two starts in 2010, but played well, throwing for 797 yards and five touchdowns with zero interceptions while also running for 168 yards and a score.

Osweiler has real arm strength and the gun to be a starting quarterback in the NFL. He is very raw and needs some work. If Osweiler goes to a good coaching staff that can develop him for a few years, he could turn into something. It wouldn't be surprising if Osweiler's stock rises during the lead up to the draft. He should have stayed in school and improved before going pro.



Good post..

but folks lets not let facts in get in the way,,

MAnning is OLD, has been major hurt.

While I had hoped that we would fix our other problem areas.. This kid could be the real deal..

He seems to be happy to sit behind the best QB to ever play football, wacth and learn from him in flim sessions, QB meetings.. I susepct he will get few if any snaps in practice, but learning from two HOF QB's when he should still be in college this coming year, what is not to like..

It is not like we spent a top five pick on him..

lonestar
04-29-2012, 03:38 PM
I totally understand the value aspect of your argument and agree with it in principal. I just think they thought he wouldn't be around later and it wasn't worth the risk of losing a stellar prospect. Honestly, one of the only things PM hasn't done yet is mentor a legacy. Unlike Favre, he seems to have gained humility in his age rather than arrogance and this could be the perfect development project. I didn't like the pick at first but it's growing on me.

LEts hope he realizes that he will not play another 15 years..

I also suspect that in conversations with him John gave him some advise about it..

I alos bet that Manning will be less prone to "hog" it up in practice knwong that he only has so many more throws in those arms..

DENVERDUI55
04-29-2012, 03:44 PM
Problem isn't Brock or where we drafted him, the problem is that we drafted him at all.

Signing Manning was un cajones grande move, all our chips in the middle. We have a 2-3 year window to make a couple runs. So we drop #57 on a QBOTF .... future? Future is NOW!! I shudder to think of all the guys at #57, blue chip guys who could've contributed right away, I refuse to look.

THAT'S what's wrong with the Osweiler pick.

I agree completely.

baja
04-29-2012, 03:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBuff
Problem isn't Brock or where we drafted him, the problem is that we drafted him at all.

Signing Manning was un cajones grande move, all our chips in the middle. We have a 2-3 year window to make a couple runs. So we drop #57 on a QBOTF .... future? Future is NOW!! I shudder to think of all the guys at #57, blue chip guys who could've contributed right away, I refuse to look.

THAT'S what's wrong with the Osweiler pick.





I agree completely.

You guys are subscribing to the American corporation style of business plan, the next 365 days while Elway is subscribing to the Japanese corporation business plan, the next 5 years and the next 10 years. I like Elway's approach.

DenverBrit
04-29-2012, 04:03 PM
I don't know if you heard his interviews but his decision to leave school early was primarily based on the fact that the coach that he respected so much left. Had he stayed, he would have likely been there for another year. Had that been the case and he did as well as he did during his darling year, we would have never had a shot at him. It's all speculation but I found it interesting.

Exactly. So instead of him going back to gain experience, he gets the chance to sit behind Manning and learn.

It's a good move if he's 'the guy.' If not, then they'll draft another QB next year.

DenverBrit
04-29-2012, 04:06 PM
Quote:

You guys are subscribing to the American corporation style of business plan, the next 365 days while Elway is subscribing to the Japanese corporation business plan, the next 5 years and the next 10 years. I like Elway's approach.

We don't need no stinking planning. :)

lonestar
04-29-2012, 04:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBuff
Problem isn't Brock or where we drafted him, the problem is that we drafted him at all.

Signing Manning was un cajones grande move, all our chips in the middle. We have a 2-3 year window to make a couple runs. So we drop #57 on a QBOTF .... future? Future is NOW!! I shudder to think of all the guys at #57, blue chip guys who could've contributed right away, I refuse to look.

THAT'S what's wrong with the Osweiler pick.







You guys are subscribing to the American corporation style of business plan, the next 365 days while Elway is subscribing to the Japanese corporation business plan, the next 5 years and the next 10 years. I like Elway's approach.


Add me to that list..

Hell Manning may only plays a year or for that matter a few games..

but then letting what appears to be a very bright kid learn a couple of years behind two grand masters.. a Kid that is only a junior..

not sure what the bicth is..

errand
04-29-2012, 04:29 PM
I don't know about that, but Osweiler's throwing motion really reminds me of Plummer's.

Perhaps...but at 6'7" he'll have very few if any passes batted down at the line of scrimmage....

But then again because he can see over most OL, the DB's can also see his eyes. will it be a problem in NFL...maybe. Gruden mentioned this in his QB Camp episode....

Captain 'Dre
04-29-2012, 04:30 PM
Problem isn't Brock or where we drafted him, the problem is that we drafted him at all.

Signing Manning was un cajones grande move, all our chips in the middle. We have a 2-3 year window to make a couple runs. So we drop #57 on a QBOTF .... future? Future is NOW!! I shudder to think of all the guys at #57, blue chip guys who could've contributed right away, I refuse to look.

THAT'S what's wrong with the Osweiler pick.

Only Red Chip guys were left at #57. Even Courtney Upshaw (taken at-- what? #35 overall?-- was a Red Chip guy. I think the final Blue Chipper was DeCastro, who went around #25.

You'll give yourself a stroke if you convince yourself that the team could have secured a Blue Chip player in place of Osweiler.

errand
04-29-2012, 04:32 PM
Over drafting helped the Broncos land Osweiler.


If Osweiler turns out to be a career 48% passer, then yeah...you can say we over drafted or he's a bust.

But what if he has a very good career and/or wins a title in denver? would you still be b****ing we "over drafted" to get him?

I wouldn't....but then again, I'm not you.

DenverBrit
04-29-2012, 04:40 PM
I don't know about that, but Osweiler's throwing motion really reminds me of Plummer's.

Listening to Elway during his post draft presser, he addressed BO's throwing motion. Basically saying that he had concerns about the throwing motion before heading out to AZ St to see him during a practice.

Apparently, BO has been working on it and Elway commented that it looked good/ok/fine.....I forget which.

Video here: http://www.denverbroncos.com/multimedia/videos/End-of-Draft-Press-Conference/607063ff-87c5-4d96-957a-d9116561203e

Drek
04-29-2012, 06:20 PM
If Osweiler turns out to be a career 48% passer, then yeah...you can say we over drafted or he's a bust.

But what if he has a very good career and/or wins a title in denver? would you still be b****ing we "over drafted" to get him?

I wouldn't....but then again, I'm not you.

I don't care what he does for his career, they still over picked him. They could have easily gotten him a few spots lower and maximized draft value by using #57 on one of the several borderline first rounders who slid down into range.

Will his success make that over pick much more palatable? Of course. But they still left value on the board.

DBroncos4life
04-29-2012, 06:26 PM
I don't care what he does for his career, they still over picked him. They could have easily gotten him a few spots lower and maximized draft value by using #57 on one of the several borderline first rounders who slid down into range.

Will his success make that over pick much more palatable? Of course. But they still left value on the board.

Hilarious! So if he wins four Super Bowls breaks every NFL record you will still be crying about value??? Haters going to hate!

DBroncos4life
04-29-2012, 06:39 PM
I don't even like the pick over David but, to say what he does the rest of his career does change you opinion on the value is being stubborn.

BroncoBeavis
04-29-2012, 07:42 PM
Hilarious! So if he wins four Super Bowls breaks every NFL record you will still be crying about value??? Haters going to hate!

Awww look. Brock's already got Ozboners. Fresh off a college career which culminated in an unranked season and a shellacking in the prestigious Maaco Las Vegas Bowl.

BroncoBuff
04-29-2012, 08:39 PM
You guys are subscribing to the American corporation style of business plan, the next 365 days while Elway is subscribing to the Japanese corporation business plan, the next 5 years and the next 10 years. I like Elway's approach.

Style, what style? It's not a style, it's the most logical and aggressive course of action to maximize the sudden acquisition of a best-ever short-lister like Manning. We didn't sign him to sell jerseys, we signed him to make a Super Bowl run. Dropping a 56 on QBOTF adds nothing.

There is a time for rebuilding, a time for stockpiling. Now is not that time. Now is the time to load up and open fire.

Frankie Five Angels said it perfectly:

http://images.wikia.com/godfather/images/8/8a/Michael_Pentangeli.jpg
"Let's hit 'em all ... now while we got the muscle."

BroncoBuff
04-29-2012, 08:53 PM
Besides, the era of the clipboard-carrying QBOTF is over. Rodgers and Rivers might've been the last of the breed.

Rookie QBs start now, start right outta the gate, most every one. We can spend a 1st-round pick on a QB when the time comes. Now we should've drafted a guy like Lavonte David, the #2-#3 rated OLB in the draft. He could've contributed immediately.

footstepsfrom#27
04-29-2012, 09:03 PM
Yeah, much better to look like another "Colts" when Manning is done.

It would be stupid NOT to draft a QB while Manning is in Denver.
Yeah, I'm leaning very slightly in that direction as well...even though I hated this pick. I'm trying to look at it as if Manning had been here all along, in which case nobody would mind taking a 2-3 year project with a big arm who is willing to sit and learn behiind Manning before he gets a shot. Manning's health is still in question till he proves it on the field...can't get excited about Caleb Haney either so from the perspective of ignoring the big contract and the short window we have, it does make a bit of sense. I'd still rather have used this pick on a player that could help us now but we might be happy down the road with this pick.

footstepsfrom#27
04-29-2012, 09:06 PM
Besides, the era of the clipboard-carrying QBOTF is over. Rodgers and Rivers might've been the last of the breed.

Rookie QBs start now, start right outta the gate, most every one. We can spend a 1st-round pick on a QB when the time comes. Now we should've drafted a guy like Lavonte David, the #2-#3 rated OLB in the draft. He could've contributed immediately.
Don't really disagree with this, but from what has been reported, he's a guy who has only one year starting so probably fits the mold of a guy who wouldn't mind sitting a while, and we've had plenty of 2nd round busts anyway so maybe this will work out better than expected.

Bronco Yoda
04-29-2012, 09:10 PM
Anyone happen to know Osweller's wonderlick scores??

I believe Brock Landers was 69.

ThirtyDegrees
04-29-2012, 09:14 PM
Besides, the era of the clipboard-carrying QBOTF is over. Rodgers and Rivers might've been the last of the breed.

Rookie QBs start now, start right outta the gate, most every one. We can spend a 1st-round pick on a QB when the time comes. Now we should've drafted a guy like Lavonte David, the #2-#3 rated OLB in the draft. He could've contributed immediately.

Rookie QBs are expected to start out of the gate now, except for when, you know, they aren't.

See: Freeman, Josh. Locker, Jake. Ponder, Christian. Tebow, Tim.

The original plan for Dalton was for him to sit behind Palmer.

So, maybe you might want to tone down the overly general absolutist arguments.

Dr. Broncenstein
04-29-2012, 09:14 PM
Tyler Bray was heard saying Osweiler's ink is wack.

SoCalBronco
04-29-2012, 09:42 PM
Hey kid,

When things get tough, there is always handball.

Your pal,

JP

Boom.

baja
04-29-2012, 09:46 PM
Style, what style? It's not a style, it's the most logical and aggressive course of action to maximize the sudden acquisition of a best-ever short-lister like Manning. We didn't sign him to sell jerseys, we signed him to make a Super Bowl run. Dropping a 56 on QBOTF adds nothing.

There is a time for rebuilding, a time for stockpiling. Now is not that time. Now is the time to load up and open fire.

Frankie Five Angels said it perfectly:

http://images.wikia.com/godfather/images/8/8a/Michael_Pentangeli.jpg
"Let's hit 'em all ... now while we got the muscle."

I should save this post somewhere. It'll be funny in a the near future

baja
04-29-2012, 09:49 PM
BTW given that you are a lawyer I would think you would understand balance. All anything in the draft is not a good thing. What you do is what is best for the team now and tomorrow.

SureShot
04-29-2012, 11:13 PM
10 year plan? Elway wont be here in 5 years if they don't win a Super Bowl with Manning.

broncocalijohn
04-29-2012, 11:21 PM
I suppose one could say that. They (Elway) were locked onto him for weeks at #57. They knew he would be available then, they wanted him and weren't going to risk letting him get scooped by any other team.

Was he available at #67 or #77? I think we could have backed out some and picked up a few picks or improved on our late round ones. I didnt see or care at the time where he was projected to go but I doubt around #57.

BroncoBuff
04-30-2012, 03:28 AM
Rookie QBs are expected to start out of the gate now, except for when, you know, they aren't.

See: Freeman, Josh. Locker, Jake. Ponder, Christian. Tebow, Tim.

So, maybe you might want to tone down the overly general absolutist arguments.


I'm not really a "tone down" kind of guy. Not an absolutist either, though my ardent tone might give that impression. Appreciate you squaring up on this topic (nice jab-factor with the last name/first name thing, I gotta remember that).

Anyway, I did the research on this, and I think you'll be surprised:


Started majority of games as rookies (2006 forward):
Cam Newton, Blaine Gabbert, Sam Bradford, Joe Flacco, Andy Dalton, Mark Sanchez, Christian Ponder (10), Matt Stafford, Matt Ryan, Josh Freeman (9), Jamarcus Russell, Vince Young, Matt Leinart, Jimmy Clausen. Colt McCoy started 8, Jay Cutler 5. Only three 1st rounders did NOT start as rookies: Jake Locker, Tim Tebow, Brady Quinn.



Looks like standard procedure now, but it was almost unheard of as recently as the 90s. Teams worried about "breaking a kid's confidence," starting a rookie QB was called "throwing him to the wolves."

Also interesting, look at the list again ... couple guys were/are being written off for good as starters (Leinart, Clausen, McCoy) based on rookie performance alone. Again, unheard of 20 and more years ago. Back then 1st round QBs could pee the bed a dozen colors and still have a future.

Back to the Osweiler pick, my point is QBOTF is an outdated, even discarded approach. So just use our 1st rounder on a QB when Manning leaves ... right now pick a monster (red chip, whatever) WLB like Lavonte David, now THAT's an immediate upgrade. Von Miller and Lavonte David, that'd be a wicket set of OLBs.

Drek
04-30-2012, 03:34 AM
Hilarious! So if he wins four Super Bowls breaks every NFL record you will still be crying about value??? Haters going to hate!

I don't think you know how to use that expression. My issue is with an action, not a player. I think Osweiler is a pretty solid option to groom for the style of offense Elway and Fox are looking for.

But the fact that he could have been taken a few spots later with the Hillman selection, allowing us another borderline first round level talent, is just that - a fact. You can't leave value on the board like that.

I think the team did a great job hitting on value in the later rounds and I completely understand going after Wolfe at 36. If he's "their guy" at DT then they had to take him. Some 3-4 team was likely to grab him before 57 to play DE (San Diego for example) and he fills an immediate need.

The only reason reaching for Osweiler makes sense is if the team seriously believes that in the next two or three drafts Osweiler is the ONLY prospect they'll have a shot at that they will like. That seems rather myopic to me and is a horrible reason to have over drafted Osweiler at the expense of better players at bigger immediate needs.

Broncoman13
04-30-2012, 04:52 AM
The Broncos for weeks had made it known to some of the local beat writers that they were targeting RB, CB, DT and QB in their first picks. They got their DT early, which left RB, CB, and QB. My question is more about the order of selection. Maybe they were afraid that Osweiller wouldn't drop much more. Maybe they didn't have LaMichael James very high on their board? I would think that getting James at 57 and then trading up to get Osweiller would probably back a lot of people off... But that is mainly bc James is more well known than Hillman. Time will tell.

Cito Pelon
04-30-2012, 05:56 AM
That's old thinking. The practice of "grooming a QBOTF" sounds warm and cozy, but in fact it's outdated, doesn't really happen anymore. Fact is, highly drafted QBs usually start as rookies, 1st rounders damn near every one.

I did a breakdown recently: QBs who started all or most of their rookie seasons, last 7 years: Cam Newton, Blaine Gabbert, Sam Bradford, Joe Flacco, Mark Sanchez, Matt Stafford, Matt Ryan, Josh Freeman, Jamarcus Russell, Vince Young, Matt Leinart, Christian Ponder, Jimmy Clausen ... Colt McCoy started 8 and Jay Cutler 5. Only three 1st rounders did not start as rookies: Jake Locker, Tim Tebow, Brady Quinn. The point is we can get a QB later!

NOW we have short-list-best-ever Peyton-freaking-Manning, but for just two or three years. Not sure why I'm having to sell this, but THE ONLY PLAY is to surround him with every possible asset NOW. The object of the game is Super Bowl Trophies, and suddenly we have a window. Make hay while the sun shines? Strike while the iron is hot ... let's hit 'em now while we got the muscle. We should have got something for NOW at 57.

Yeah, you go ahead and "get a QB later". That sure works out 9 times out of 10.

Gort
04-30-2012, 09:32 AM
The Broncos for weeks had made it known to some of the local beat writers that they were targeting RB, CB, DT and QB in their first picks. They got their DT early, which left RB, CB, and QB. My question is more about the order of selection. Maybe they were afraid that Osweiller wouldn't drop much more. Maybe they didn't have LaMichael James very high on their board? I would think that getting James at 57 and then trading up to get Osweiller would probably back a lot of people off... But that is mainly bc James is more well known than Hillman. Time will tell.

i got the real scoop this morning. on the light rail. there was a guy on there who has a source in Dove Valley. it seems that after John drafted Wolfe, Jack started throwing a tantrum and threatened to hold his breath until John drafted Brock. when Jack started turning blue in the face, John panicked and drafted Brock on the next pick.

i know it sounds far-fetched, but i heard it from a guy on the light rail, so you know it's solid info.

Bronco Rob
04-30-2012, 10:58 AM
Hey kid,

When things get tough, there is always handball.

Your pal,

JP



Hilarious!

BroncoBeavis
04-30-2012, 11:07 AM
I'm not really a "tone down" kind of guy. Not an absolutist either, though my ardent tone might give that impression. Appreciate you squaring up on this topic (nice jab-factor with the last name/first name thing, I gotta remember that).

Anyway, I did the research on this, and I think you'll be surprised:


Started majority of games as rookies (2006 forward):
Cam Newton, Blaine Gabbert, Sam Bradford, Joe Flacco, Andy Dalton, Mark Sanchez, Christian Ponder (10), Matt Stafford, Matt Ryan, Josh Freeman (9), Jamarcus Russell, Vince Young, Matt Leinart, Jimmy Clausen. Colt McCoy started 8, Jay Cutler 5. Only three 1st rounders did NOT start as rookies: Jake Locker, Tim Tebow, Brady Quinn.



Looks like standard procedure now, but it was almost unheard of as recently as the 90s. Teams worried about "breaking a kid's confidence," starting a rookie QB was called "throwing him to the wolves."

Also interesting, look at the list again ... couple guys were/are being written off for good as starters (Leinart, Clausen, McCoy) based on rookie performance alone. Again, unheard of 20 and more years ago. Back then 1st round QBs could pee the bed a dozen colors and still have a future.

Back to the Osweiler pick, my point is QBOTF is an outdated, even discarded approach. So just use our 1st rounder on a QB when Manning leaves ... right now pick a monster (red chip, whatever) WLB like Lavonte David, now THAT's an immediate upgrade. Von Miller and Lavonte David, that'd be a wicket set of OLBs.

I'm confused about the 'did not start as rookie' thing for Tebow. He played the last 3.

DenverBrit
04-30-2012, 11:34 AM
I'm not really a "tone down" kind of guy. Not an absolutist either, though my ardent tone might give that impression. Appreciate you squaring up on this topic (nice jab-factor with the last name/first name thing, I gotta remember that).

Anyway, I did the research on this, and I think you'll be surprised:


Started majority of games as rookies (2006 forward):
Cam Newton, Blaine Gabbert, Sam Bradford, Joe Flacco, Andy Dalton, Mark Sanchez, Christian Ponder (10), Matt Stafford, Matt Ryan, Josh Freeman (9), Jamarcus Russell, Vince Young, Matt Leinart, Jimmy Clausen. Colt McCoy started 8, Jay Cutler 5. Only three 1st rounders did NOT start as rookies: Jake Locker, Tim Tebow, Brady Quinn.



Looks like standard procedure now, but it was almost unheard of as recently as the 90s. Teams worried about "breaking a kid's confidence," starting a rookie QB was called "throwing him to the wolves."

Also interesting, look at the list again ... couple guys were/are being written off for good as starters (Leinart, Clausen, McCoy) based on rookie performance alone. Again, unheard of 20 and more years ago. Back then 1st round QBs could pee the bed a dozen colors and still have a future.

Back to the Osweiler pick, my point is QBOTF is an outdated, even discarded approach. So just use our 1st rounder on a QB when Manning leaves ... right now pick a monster (red chip, whatever) WLB like Lavonte David, now THAT's an immediate upgrade. Von Miller and Lavonte David, that'd be a wicket set of OLBs.

LOL

You're on a roll.

hambone13
04-30-2012, 11:40 AM
I don't think you know how to use that expression. My issue is with an action, not a player. I think Osweiler is a pretty solid option to groom for the style of offense Elway and Fox are looking for.

But the fact that he could have been taken a few spots later with the Hillman selection, allowing us another borderline first round level talent, is just that - a fact. You can't leave value on the board like that.

I think the team did a great job hitting on value in the later rounds and I completely understand going after Wolfe at 36. If he's "their guy" at DT then they had to take him. Some 3-4 team was likely to grab him before 57 to play DE (San Diego for example) and he fills an immediate need.

The only reason reaching for Osweiler makes sense is if the team seriously believes that in the next two or three drafts Osweiler is the ONLY prospect they'll have a shot at that they will like. That seems rather myopic to me and is a horrible reason to have over drafted Osweiler at the expense of better players at bigger immediate needs.

Lol, you have to stop being intelligent and focused in your communication, it's ruining the whining.

DBroncos4life
04-30-2012, 12:24 PM
I don't think you know how to use that expression. My issue is with an action, not a player. I think Osweiler is a pretty solid option to groom for the style of offense Elway and Fox are looking for.

But the fact that he could have been taken a few spots later with the Hillman selection, allowing us another borderline first round level talent, is just that - a fact. You can't leave value on the board like that.

I think the team did a great job hitting on value in the later rounds and I completely understand going after Wolfe at 36. If he's "their guy" at DT then they had to take him. Some 3-4 team was likely to grab him before 57 to play DE (San Diego for example) and he fills an immediate need.

The only reason reaching for Osweiler makes sense is if the team seriously believes that in the next two or three drafts Osweiler is the ONLY prospect they'll have a shot at that they will like. That seems rather myopic to me and is a horrible reason to have over drafted Osweiler at the expense of better players at bigger immediate needs.

So if goes on to have a HOF career you still are going to play well maybe we could have drafted another HOF QB next year? If he preforms well no one will give a crap about what might have been period. That is like saying yeah we hit on Micheal Jordan but did we really address our need for a bigman with that pick?

Drek
04-30-2012, 02:24 PM
So if goes on to have a HOF career you still are going to play well maybe we could have drafted another HOF QB next year? If he preforms well no one will give a crap about what might have been period. That is like saying yeah we hit on Micheal Jordan but did we really address our need for a bigman with that pick?

No, I'll be saying "but look at what we could have had WITH HIM..."

You keep construing this as me saying we shouldn't have drafted Osweiler. I'm not saying that. I'm saying that relative to what was also on the board there is no one on this planet other than maybe Osweiler's mom who thinks he's a better pro prospect than Lavonte David, Rueben Randle, or Casey Hayward. Those are the guys we passed up at need positions to take Osweiler and wait two or three years for any pay off.

Are you saying that there won't be a single QB prospect as good as Osweiler anywhere within the Broncos draftable range for the next three years? And even if the answer to that is "no" (which is ridiculous) then the question still remains, why didn't they take great value when it was available (David, Randle, or Hayward) and use the ammo they had obviously earmarked for trading up to get Osweiler? What we gave for #67 was more than the Packers gave for #162 so we could definitely have moved up there and almost certainly gotten Osweiler.

Hence how we left value on the board. No matter how you slice it they could have played the second day of the draft better, giving us more impact players for both the short and long term betterment of this team. And that fact is completely independent of how you view Osweiler or how he does. The player isn't the problem, the FO's acquisition strategy is. They had a man crush and stopped valuing their picks appropriately to fulfill that man crush.

orangemonkey
04-30-2012, 03:26 PM
No, I'll be saying "but look at what we could have had WITH HIM..."

You keep construing this as me saying we shouldn't have drafted Osweiler. I'm not saying that. I'm saying that relative to what was also on the board there is no one on this planet other than maybe Osweiler's mom who thinks he's a better pro prospect than Lavonte David, Rueben Randle, or Casey Hayward. Those are the guys we passed up at need positions to take Osweiler and wait two or three years for any pay off.

Are you saying that there won't be a single QB prospect as good as Osweiler anywhere within the Broncos draftable range for the next three years? And even if the answer to that is "no" (which is ridiculous) then the question still remains, why didn't they take great value when it was available (David, Randle, or Hayward) and use the ammo they had obviously earmarked for trading up to get Osweiler? What we gave for #67 was more than the Packers gave for #162 so we could definitely have moved up there and almost certainly gotten Osweiler.

Hence how we left value on the board. No matter how you slice it they could have played the second day of the draft better, giving us more impact players for both the short and long term betterment of this team. And that fact is completely independent of how you view Osweiler or how he does. The player isn't the problem, the FO's acquisition strategy is. They had a man crush and stopped valuing their picks appropriately to fulfill that man crush.

Manning, good running game and Fox led defense means there's a high probability we're making deep playoff runs for the next 3 years. So yes, there is a good chance we won't see a QB prospect as good as Osweiler in that same time-frame. I trust Elway to make the quarterback decisions for this team. He was right about shipping off Tebow so I'm sure he's right about the value he placed on Osweiler.

DBroncos4life
04-30-2012, 04:14 PM
No, I'll be saying "but look at what we could have had WITH HIM..."

You keep construing this as me saying we shouldn't have drafted Osweiler. I'm not saying that. I'm saying that relative to what was also on the board there is no one on this planet other than maybe Osweiler's mom who thinks he's a better pro prospect than Lavonte David, Rueben Randle, or Casey Hayward. Those are the guys we passed up at need positions to take Osweiler and wait two or three years for any pay off.

Are you saying that there won't be a single QB prospect as good as Osweiler anywhere within the Broncos draftable range for the next three years? And even if the answer to that is "no" (which is ridiculous) then the question still remains, why didn't they take great value when it was available (David, Randle, or Hayward) and use the ammo they had obviously earmarked for trading up to get Osweiler? What we gave for #67 was more than the Packers gave for #162 so we could definitely have moved up there and almost certainly gotten Osweiler.

Hence how we left value on the board. No matter how you slice it they could have played the second day of the draft better, giving us more impact players for both the short and long term betterment of this team. And that fact is completely independent of how you view Osweiler or how he does. The player isn't the problem, the FO's acquisition strategy is. They had a man crush and stopped valuing their picks appropriately to fulfill that man crush.

Stop talking to me about short term value when you clearly said it doesn't matter what he does his WHOLE career. If goes on to play like Aaron Rodgers it won't matter what players that did on the field before he started playing. Do you really think there are Packers fans crying about the value they they left on the board that draft now?

BroncoBuff
04-30-2012, 04:57 PM
I'm confused about the 'did not start as rookie' thing for Tebow. He played the last 3.

You're right ... he started after Josh left.

Can't imagine having missed that Hmmm

Orange_Beard
04-30-2012, 06:31 PM
Do we really need help from Jake Plummer?

CEH
04-30-2012, 06:43 PM
This could be a fine move by Denver. If Brock went back for his senior year and lit it up in the PAC 10 he's be a first round pick. Now we get him a year eariler and let him develop not in college but in the NFL under Manning.

Would he really be that much better with another year of college or a year under Manning and the NFL. No Manning is not here to be a tutor. It is up to Brock to sit and watch and learn

Tought to tell but could be a reason why they decided to pick him at #57 plus I think they goofed up and missed out on a RB at #31

lonestar
04-30-2012, 07:24 PM
Was he available at #67 or #77? I think we could have backed out some and picked up a few picks or improved on our late round ones. I didnt see or care at the time where he was projected to go but I doubt around #57.

John said they were getting calls about him prior to them taking him when they did and even more after they did saying he would not had made it to their next pick..

Now whether he was just covering his ass about it few will ever know..

Drek
04-30-2012, 07:26 PM
Stop talking to me about short term value when you clearly said it doesn't matter what he does his WHOLE career. If goes on to play like Aaron Rodgers it won't matter what players that did on the field before he started playing. Do you really think there are Packers fans crying about the value they they left on the board that draft now?

Aaron Rodgers was hands down the best player on the board when he was drafted.

If Ryan Tannehill had slipped to #57 or hell, even #36 I'd have no complaints with drafting him. That would make sense, he'd be by far the best BPA available.

People often argue whether you should draft based on need or based on BPA. Those are the two schools of thought. Picking Osweiler was the wrong move according to both. It only makes sense if you're hungry to fill the QBOTF "void" with your own guy, knowing Manning is going to be here for the next several years.

lonestar
04-30-2012, 07:38 PM
Aaron Rodgers was hands down the best player on the board when he was drafted.

If Ryan Tannehill had slipped to #57 or hell, even #36 I'd have no complaints with drafting him. That would make sense, he'd be by far the best BPA available.

People often argue whether you should draft based on need or based on BPA. Those are the two schools of thought. Picking Osweiler was the wrong move according to both. It only makes sense if you're hungry to fill the QBOTF "void" with your own guy, knowing Manning is going to be here for the next several years.

Elway likes the kid UNLIKE Tebow..

No ONE knows how long Manning will or can play..

this KID and I repeat kid because he is was Junior needs time to learn the game.. and IF I were him as he has stated he is sitting in tall cotton.. Being able to learn from TWO HOF players probably two of the top ten Gamers to ever play the position..

In three years if manning lasts that long he will be 24 or so..

If they would have taken him in the first round I could see folks whining about it.. as it was and the potential we get out of the kid I do not see what the issue is..

Do we need other players absolutely would it have made any difference to pick one up in his spot, IMO not a chance..

we are still several players away from being a CONSISTENT winner.. and even more so if we have injuries.. as the depth on this team is poor at best..

winning at all costs is VERY short term and I see this as long term planning.. a wise move ..

CEH
04-30-2012, 07:52 PM
The bus stop is full of value and potential. It's now up to the player and coaches to make this a successful pick

Does anyone have the book called "When is the best time to groom a QBOTF"

If so, please post it so we can all be on the same page

lonestar
04-30-2012, 08:03 PM
The bus stop is full of value and potential. It's now up to the player and coaches to make this a successful pick

Does anyone have the book called "When is the best time to groom a QBOTF"

If so, please post it so we can all be on the same page

NO book but if now is not the time with two of the premier guys at the position to mentor him when is?

Cito Pelon
05-01-2012, 11:57 PM
I don't think you know how to use that expression. My issue is with an action, not a player. I think Osweiler is a pretty solid option to groom for the style of offense Elway and Fox are looking for.

But the fact that he could have been taken a few spots later with the Hillman selection, allowing us another borderline first round level talent, is just that - a fact. You can't leave value on the board like that.

I think the team did a great job hitting on value in the later rounds and I completely understand going after Wolfe at 36. If he's "their guy" at DT then they had to take him. Some 3-4 team was likely to grab him before 57 to play DE (San Diego for example) and he fills an immediate need.

The only reason reaching for Osweiler makes sense is if the team seriously believes that in the next two or three drafts Osweiler is the ONLY prospect they'll have a shot at that they will like. That seems rather myopic to me and is a horrible reason to have over drafted Osweiler at the expense of better players at bigger immediate needs.

Chances are good that is true. And it wasn't that much of a "reach" or "over-draft". Maybe a little, but not much.

Look, they got a 21 yr old with all the physical tools, no baggage, and with the #57. You think they'll get that same opportunity again? Fat chance.

They didn't want to be left with HAVING to spend their highest pick or TRADE UP to get MAYBE the QBOTF sometime down the road. IMO it was smart strategy, other people apparently don't think so. It was the #57 dude, if this kid pans out it was a steal.

BroncoBeavis
05-02-2012, 12:11 AM
NO book but if now is not the time with two of the premier guys at the position to mentor him when is?

I think they've got bigger fish to fry with a 2-3 year window. They still have to get the whole team to gel around a new system. Their backup QB is going to be the last thing they'll be spending time on.

Brock didn't walk into a well oiled machine. He walked into a frenzied attempt to throw one together.

baja
05-02-2012, 12:21 AM
I think they've got bigger fish to fry with a 2-3 year window. They still have to get the whole team to gel around a new system. Their backup QB is going to be the last thing they'll be spending time on.

Brock didn't walk into a well oiled machine. He walked into a frenzied attempt to throw one together.

If you just inherited a million dollars would you throw it all on one short term investment hoping to have a big payday or would you invest much of it short term expecting a nice quick return along with making a long term investment with the plan of building your wealth both long and short term?