PDA

View Full Version : John Elway: draft couldn't have gone better


Pages : 1 [2]

Br0nc0Buster
05-01-2012, 06:38 PM
John Elway : The Draft Couldn't have gone better.

Followed by 5 pages where the same handful of idiots b**** about the jets back up QB. This place really has become useless.

Too Bad...

up to 10 now

pricejj
05-01-2012, 07:15 PM
According to Klis on Friday Morning (before the pick of Wolfe at #36), during the Cecil Lammey show on 102.3 the Ticket:

1. NE called the Broncos during pick #22 to trade up for Hightower at #25. I am pretty sure the trade was made in principle before #25.
2. They knew Tampa Bay was going to take Doug Martin at #31...he was not "their guy". The trade was consumated while the Broncos were on the clock.
3. It's my feeling that Osweiler was THE guy at #57. Klis thought Osweiler would be gone by #57, and thought the Broncos might take him, if he was still on the board.
4. He was told that Kendall Reyes would not be the pick at #36.
5. He speculated that they would take an OT at #36 (they obviously didn't want an OT, or they would have taken Jonathan Martin or Cordy Glenn).
6. To me, Wolfe was always THE guy they wanted with their 1st round pick, and they traded down, because they thought he would still be on the board. In that case, it's pretty cool that they got an extra 4th round pick out of it.

http://stationcaster.com/player_skinned.php?s=96&c=742&f=509881

Agamemnon
05-01-2012, 07:22 PM
According to Klis on Friday Morning (before the pick of Wolfe at #36), during the Cecil Lammey show on 102.3 the Ticket:

1. NE called the Broncos during pick #22 to trade up for Hightower at #25. I am pretty sure the trade was made in principle before #25.
2. They knew Tampa Bay was going to take Doug Martin at #31...he was not "their guy". The trade was consumated while the Broncos were on the clock.
3. It's my feeling that Osweiler was THE guy at #57. Klis thought Osweiler would be gone by #57, and thought the Broncos might take him, if he was still on the board.
4. He was told that Kendall Reyes would not be the pick at #36.
5. He speculated that they would take an OT at #36 (they obviously didn't want an OT, or they would have taken Jonathan Martin or Cordy Glenn).
6. To me, Wolfe was always THE guy they wanted with their 1st round pick, and they traded down, because they thought he would still be on the board. In that case, it's pretty cool that they got an extra 4th round pick out of it.

http://stationcaster.com/player_skinned.php?s=96&c=742&f=509881

Klis also thinks they will use Wolfe as a DE, so yeah...

Old Dude
05-01-2012, 07:24 PM
....find a post by me on page 1 of this thread douche bag.

I warned you guys to knock off the name-calling and insults. Don't post in this thread again.

RaiderH8r
05-01-2012, 07:25 PM
I warned you guys to knock off the name-calling and insults. Don't post in this thread again.

And boom goes the dynamite.

Old Dude
05-01-2012, 07:26 PM
Yes, you are correct. That's why all this nonsense from Dmac on 104.3 about Martin "being their guy", is a bunch of hooey. Dmac = uninformed drama queen

Consider yourself thread-banned.

Old Dude
05-01-2012, 07:28 PM
We certainly know you won't.

Glad Old Guy's warning was heeded. This is not a Tebow thread.

I don't care whether you guys talk about Tebow or whether you like him or not. It's the name calling and personal attacks against other posters that needs to stop.

baja
05-01-2012, 07:33 PM
According to Klis on Friday Morning (before the pick of Wolfe at #36), during the Cecil Lammey show on 102.3 the Ticket:

1. NE called the Broncos during pick #22 to trade up for Hightower at #25. I am pretty sure the trade was made in principle before #25.
2. They knew Tampa Bay was going to take Doug Martin at #31...he was not "their guy". The trade was consumated while the Broncos were on the clock.
3. It's my feeling that Osweiler was THE guy at #57. Klis thought Osweiler would be gone by #57, and thought the Broncos might take him, if he was still on the board.
4. He was told that Kendall Reyes would not be the pick at #36.
5. He speculated that they would take an OT at #36 (they obviously didn't want an OT, or they would have taken Jonathan Martin or Cordy Glenn).
6. To me, Wolfe was always THE guy they wanted with their 1st round pick, and they traded down, because they thought he would still be on the board. In that case, it's pretty cool that they got an extra 4th round pick out of it.

http://stationcaster.com/player_skinned.php?s=96&c=742&f=509881

But it was dumb luck that the Ravens didn't take him at 35.

gyldenlove
05-01-2012, 07:42 PM
But it was dumb luck that the Ravens didn't take him at 35.

Dumb luck is by a wide margin my most favourite draft strategy.

baja
05-01-2012, 07:45 PM
Dumb luck is by a wide margin my most favourite draft strategy.

really, I wouldn't have guessed that about you.

pricejj
05-01-2012, 07:49 PM
Consider yourself thread-banned.

Dude, Dmac is a Denver radio guy...not a poster on this site. I got nothin' but love for the posters on the Orangemane...they are way more informed than the local media.

Chill out bro! :sunshine:

pricejj
05-01-2012, 07:51 PM
But it was dumb luck that the Ravens didn't take him at 35.

Yep, I know...got lucky on that one.

gyldenlove
05-01-2012, 07:54 PM
really, I wouldn't have guessed that about you.

I prefer dumb luck in most aspects of life - significantly less work than qualified guessing or scientific estimates.

Old Dude
05-01-2012, 07:55 PM
Dude, Dmac is a Denver radio guy...not a poster on this site. I got nothin' but love for the posters on the Orangemane...they are way more informed than the local media.

Chill out bro! :sunshine:

I stand corrected. I have a hair trigger today.

baja
05-01-2012, 07:56 PM
I prefer dumb luck in most aspects of life - significantly less work than qualified guessing or scientific estimates.

Luck has it's place no doubt.

baja
05-01-2012, 07:57 PM
I stand corrected. I have a hair trigger today.

You're a good guy Old Dude and the perfect mod.

baja
05-01-2012, 07:58 PM
I wish I could be a mod for a few days I'd do more damage than McD did to the Broncos. ;D

Old Dude
05-01-2012, 07:59 PM
ah BS. Of course Elway is going to say "we hit everything in the draft, we love it!!" that's what front office people do.

I defy you to find one nfl guy who after the draft says "we left a lot of things on the table and didn't really get the players we wanted."

doesn't happen.

There are better ways to rebut another poster's arguments than insulting them by refering to their views as "B.S." It's insulting. You know better. Don't do it again.

Lestat
05-01-2012, 08:01 PM
But it was dumb luck that the Ravens didn't take him at 35.

part of draft success is dumb luck. it was almost sheer dumb luck that DeCastro fell to the Steelers and no one before them took him. you have to gamble in the draft with as much info as you can grab and then play your board and no one else's.

baja
05-01-2012, 08:03 PM
part of draft success is dumb luck. it was almost sheer dumb luck that DeCastro fell to the Steelers and no one before them took him. you have to gamble in the draft with as much info as you can grab and then play your board and no one else's.

Oh I get that but he said it was the most important element by far.

Lestat
05-01-2012, 08:16 PM
Oh I get that but he said it was the most important element by far.

gotcha, missed that before i replied. my bad.

pricejj
05-01-2012, 08:19 PM
I stand corrected. I have a hair trigger today.

Thank you, kind sir. :sunshine:

GreatBronco16
05-01-2012, 08:34 PM
There are better ways to rebut another poster's arguments than insulting them by refering to their views as "B.S." It's insulting. You know better. Don't do it again.

What the hell man. Are you going to be in every thread seeing if someone is even slightly mean to someone else thread banning them?

Some of the remarks you are busting on are fine, but others, like someone just sayin "oh BS" then you throwing your weight around is just wrong.

I like seeing mods taking control around here, but I think you're going just a bit overkill. Relax just a bit.:kiss:

lonestar
05-01-2012, 08:51 PM
So did Cam Newton, RGIII, and a bevy of other recent prospects. Holding the college offense against a prospect in this day and age is silly. You look at the things QBs do and make a determination of whether the talent will translate in the system you envision using them in.

Osweiler has all the physical tools, throws the ball accurately with anticipation, moves extremely well in and out of the pocket, and is extremely young. Of course he has a ton to learn and will need time to develop the skills that NFL QBs need to use to run a pro style offense, but to discount a guy simply because he was in a system that pro teams don't use is short sighted.

I suspect we are going to be playing LOADS of shotgun this years with Manning calling the plays at the LOS..

and Osweller will not sniff the field till Manning hangs them up.. so why should anyone worry about him..

lonestar
05-01-2012, 08:58 PM
We are talking about Osweiler. Dude is not a prototypical pocket passer and struggles to read defenses. He was drafted based on his size, arm, and potential, nothing else.

Oh and his friendship with Jack. :~ohyah!:

the kid played ONE year of QB in college..

he is young and what players do in college does not ALWAYS translate to what they do in the pros ..

IF he had to come in and start this year your premise would be correct..

he is a smart kid and will have TWO HOF FQBs mentoring him..

If he was coming in under someone else I also would be concerned about his near future abilities..

Hopefully Manning will play a couple more years and Brock will get the coaching he needs to learn what your worried about..

If he does not then we will be sucking hind teat like we have been the past decade.. So what is new?

lonestar
05-01-2012, 09:00 PM
at some point in time are we going to stop talking about Tebow and what he might have been for the Broncos.

some are still stuck on greasy, Jake and cutlet.. so do not hold your breath..

IN FACT some are still praying for John to come out of retirement..

Tebow will be talked about for decades ESPECIALLY if he does well..

lonestar
05-01-2012, 09:07 PM
According to Klis on Friday Morning (before the pick of Wolfe at #36), during the Cecil Lammey show on 102.3 the Ticket:

1. NE called the Broncos during pick #22 to trade up for Hightower at #25. I am pretty sure the trade was made in principle before #25.
2. They knew Tampa Bay was going to take Doug Martin at #31...he was not "their guy". The trade was consumated while the Broncos were on the clock.
3. It's my feeling that Osweiler was THE guy at #57. Klis thought Osweiler would be gone by #57, and thought the Broncos might take him, if he was still on the board.
4. He was told that Kendall Reyes would not be the pick at #36.
5. He speculated that they would take an OT at #36 (they obviously didn't want an OT, or they would have taken Jonathan Martin or Cordy Glenn).
6. To me, Wolfe was always THE guy they wanted with their 1st round pick, and they traded down, because they thought he would still be on the board. In that case, it's pretty cool that they got an extra 4th round pick out of it.

http://stationcaster.com/player_skinned.php?s=96&c=742&f=509881

Kliss is the DP ass clown that bill burger was before he left..

If you want reasonably good info look at Legwold and there is Lindsay Jones that is pretty good also..
An up and comer.. Kliz is right behind kliss as king of ass clowns..

got to remember that they have to draw folks to their bylines to sell papers and advertising, so some of them are WAG's..

Drunken.Broncoholic
05-01-2012, 10:18 PM
some are still stuck on greasy, Jake and cutlet.. so do not hold your breath..

IN FACT some are still praying for John to come out of retirement..

Tebow will be talked about for decades ESPECIALLY if he does well..

Jake retired and never played another game, leaving the "what if" to stir debates for a long time. Cutler is still playing and relatively well too. So that's another "what if". In tebows case, if people see him fizzle out into mediocre/obscurity then the debate is far less intense. But if he puts up a laser show and many pro bowls then he will be at the top of "what if" debates for a long time.

Agamemnon
05-01-2012, 10:28 PM
the kid played ONE year of QB in college..

he is young and what players do in college does not ALWAYS translate to what they do in the pros ..

IF he had to come in and start this year your premise would be correct..

he is a smart kid and will have TWO HOF FQBs mentoring him..

If he was coming in under someone else I also would be concerned about his near future abilities..

Hopefully Manning will play a couple more years and Brock will get the coaching he needs to learn what your worried about..

If he does not then we will be sucking hind teat like we have been the past decade.. So what is new?

Not really the point. He may become a great QB, but chances of him being like Manning and being able to run the same offense are extremely slim. If he turns out to be a great QB, he projects into a gunslinger like Elway or Favre much more than a Manning-style field general.

baja
05-01-2012, 10:33 PM
Jake retired and never played another game, leaving the "what if" to stir debates for a long time. Cutler is still playing and relatively well too. So that's another "what if". In tebows case, if people see him fizzle out into mediocre/obscurity then the debate is far less intense. But if he puts up a laser show and many pro bowls then he will be at the top of "what if" debates for a long time.


With out a doubt.

It's the frequency that it comes up that is tiresome right now.

I mean we just had a draft and Tebow comes up on almost every page of every thread.

Hey read my tag from top to bottom. I loved watching Tebow work his magic.

But what is done is done and can not be undone.

BroncoBeavis
05-01-2012, 10:43 PM
With out a doubt.

It's the frequency that it comes up that is tiresome right now.

I mean we just had a draft and Tebow comes up on almost every page of every thread.

Hey read my tag from top to bottom. I loved watching Tebow work his magic.

But what is done is done and can not be undone.

Cuz we just traded a shotgun spread question mark with ice in his veins and a Heisman and national championships under his belt for a shotgun spread questionmark from some slacker go-nowhere Pac-12 also-ran.

lonestar
05-01-2012, 10:44 PM
Jake retired and never played another game, leaving the "what if" to stir debates for a long time. Cutler is still playing and relatively well too. So that's another "what if". In tebows case, if people see him fizzle out into mediocre/obscurity then the debate is far less intense. But if he puts up a laser show and many pro bowls then he will be at the top of "what if" debates for a long time.

Yet so many hate Jake because he was smart enough to stockplie his money and walk away..


this year will be make or break for cutlet..no more excuses but to win..loads of talent around him.. my money says he chokes..

Tebow now I doubt he fails at becoming a great FQB, unless he decides to give it all up and become a missionary, he is to driven not to become a winner.

lonestar
05-01-2012, 10:46 PM
Not really the point. He may become a great QB, but chances of him being like Manning and being able to run the same offense are extremely slim. If he turns out to be a great QB, he projects into a gunslinger like Elway or Favre much more than a Manning-style field general.

and becoming a gunslinger is bad?

worked for Elway..

as for learning from Manning there is littel doubt in my mind he will..

He may never be Manning, but then who will?

baja
05-01-2012, 10:47 PM
Cuz we just traded a shotgun spread question mark with ice in his veins and a Heisman and national championships under his belt for a shotgun spread questionmark from some slacker go-nowhere Pac-12 also-ran.

Hey did you figure that out all by yourself?

BTW you do not know what we got - not even EFX knows that.


PS maybe you can't read my tag message???

It says, "We will live to regret ..... giving up on ...... Tim Tebow

lonestar
05-01-2012, 10:48 PM
Cuz we just traded a shotgun spread question mark with ice in his veins and a Heisman and national championships under his belt for a shotgun spread questionmark from some slacker go-nowhere Pac-12 also-ran.

you sound like a your tebow loser.. and no matter who comes in will never be able to replace your man crush..

Old Dude
05-01-2012, 10:53 PM
What the hell man. Are you going to be in every thread seeing if someone is even slightly mean to someone else thread banning them?

Some of the remarks you are busting on are fine, but others, like someone just sayin "oh BS" then you throwing your weight around is just wrong.

I like seeing mods taking control around here, but I think you're going just a bit overkill. Relax just a bit.:kiss:


Personal attacks and insults towards moderators won't be tolerated either. If you have an issue with this, take it up with Taco John.

In the meantime, consider yourself banned from this thread.

BroncoBeavis
05-01-2012, 10:53 PM
Hey did you figure that out all by yourself?

BTW you do not know what we got - not even EFX knows that.


PS maybe you can't read my tag message???

It says, "We will live to regret ..... giving up on ...... Tim Tebow

I'm not the one standing around wondering why bringing in a raw project like Oz makes people question why we pissed away draft position to go backwards.

Old Dude
05-01-2012, 10:55 PM
you sound like a your tebow loser.. and no matter who comes in will never be able to replace your man crush..

Like I said, I've had enough of the insults. Get out of the thread.

BroncoBeavis
05-01-2012, 10:55 PM
you sound like a your tebow loser.. and no matter who comes in will never be able to replace your man crush..

Let's just say it'll take more than one losing season in the PAC-jr conference to convince me we didn't make a big mistake.

baja
05-01-2012, 10:56 PM
I'm not the one standing around wondering why bringing in a raw project like Oz makes people question why we pissed away draft position to go backwards.

Really? Could have fooled me...

RaiderH8r
05-01-2012, 11:02 PM
I wish I could be a mod for a few days I'd do more damage than McD did to the Broncos. ;D

I'd nuke the joint.

baja
05-01-2012, 11:13 PM
You would be a terror... ;D

Cito Pelon
05-01-2012, 11:26 PM
Personal attacks and insults towards moderators won't be tolerated either. If you have an issue with this, take it up with Taco John.

In the meantime, consider yourself banned from this thread.

What the heck got into you tonight? Jeez.

Agamemnon
05-02-2012, 01:02 AM
and becoming a gunslinger is bad?

worked for Elway..

as for learning from Manning there is littel doubt in my mind he will..

He may never be Manning, but then who will?

Okay. Again, not the point. I'll try one more time.

He does not look like a guy who will develop into a QB like Manning, and therefore he will be unlikely to be good at running the Manning offense. Therefore he will need a different offense if and when he becomes the starting QB for the Broncos.

GreatBronco16
05-02-2012, 05:13 AM
Personal attacks and insults towards moderators won't be tolerated either. If you have an issue with this, take it up with Taco John.

In the meantime, consider yourself banned from this thread.


Now you think I've personally attacked you? LOL, that's rich.

Old Dude
05-02-2012, 06:14 AM
Now you think I've personally attacked you? LOL, that's rich.

Take off two weeks and think about it.

Beantown Bronco
05-02-2012, 07:10 AM
Out......of........control.

I'm all for doing away with the personal insults and attacks that have become rampant around here, but if someone posting something as routine as the letters "BS" is the line that will get them banned, the site will have to shut down for two weeks. I'm guessing TJ might have a problem with that.

Old Dude
05-02-2012, 07:15 AM
Out......of........control.

I'm all for doing away with the personal insults and attacks that have become rampant around here, but if someone posting something as routine as the letters "BS" is the line that will get them banned, the site will have to shut down for two weeks. I'm guessing TJ might have a problem with that.

Then you can dispense with the speculation and PM him directly. Telling me that I'm "out of control" in a thread where I'm trying to establish some civility and order is exactly the kind of disrespect for moderators that has become rampant around here.

Consider yourself banned from this thread. Feel free to appeal to Taco John.

socalorado
05-02-2012, 07:18 AM
Out......of........control.

I'm all for doing away with the personal insults and attacks that have become rampant around here, but if someone posting something as routine as the letters "BS" is the line that will get them banned, the site will have to shut down for two weeks. I'm guessing TJ might have a problem with that.

Oh this is all just a bunch of mother****in BS bean! Cmon! Man!
Wake the **** up man! Its the Government dude! Ok! Man!?!?!
We need to take the power back!

Old Dude
05-02-2012, 07:39 AM
Oh this is all just a bunch of mother****in BS bean! Cmon! Man!
Wake the **** up man! Its the Government dude! Ok! Man!?!?!
We need to take the power back!

Ridiculing a moderator is great way to get yourself banned. Take two weeks.

TheReverend
05-02-2012, 08:05 AM
Is this a super late April Fools thread...?

A unique segway into Survivor...?

OD got hacked by Alec or Pez screwing around...?

Boobs McGee
05-02-2012, 08:08 AM
Quick question old dude, were Johnson AND beantown just permabanned? Or was that a warning for bean?

Boobs McGee
05-02-2012, 08:09 AM
*jhns

ColoradoDarin
05-02-2012, 08:15 AM
This thread (and 2.0) got jhns permabanned?

HoF thread!

footstepsfrom#27
05-02-2012, 08:17 AM
Let's just say it'll take more than one losing season in the PAC-jr conference to convince me we didn't make a big mistake.
Elway was a PAC 10 loser in college...not that Osweiller is Elway, but your logic is flawed if you're using the fact that he played in the PAC 12 and didn't win anything because neither did John. Shocking as it seems, it really does take an entire team to win.

edog24
05-02-2012, 08:20 AM
Is this a super late April Fools thread...?

A unique segway into Survivor...?

OD got hacked by Alec or Pez screwing around...?

I hope it's one of those!

Old Dude
05-02-2012, 08:23 AM
Quick question old dude, were Johnson AND beantown just permabanned? Or was that a warning for bean?

They both got permabanned. They can both appeal.

Rabb was a first-time offender so I gave him two weeks.

BroncoBeavis
05-02-2012, 08:36 AM
Elway was a PAC 10 loser in college...not that Osweiller is Elway, but your logic is flawed if you're using the fact that he played in the PAC 12 and didn't win anything because neither did John. Shocking as it seems, it really does take an entire team to win.

Couple it with it really only being one year, in what I've been told is a 'gimmick' offense, and how ineffectual he looked against top competition (BSU for instance) this is more blind hope than anything. Especially measured against how quickly these same people slammed the door on Tebow.

If Brock makes it, it will be because the Broncos show infinitely more patience with him than they did with Tebow. Wouldn't at all be surprised to see similar passing numbers, with more turnovers, and zero rushing production.

If/When Brock takes the reins, this team will be in full rebuild all over again. I don't expect guys like DT (assuming he develops like we think) to stick around for the lean times. Champ will be done or nearly. Even guys like Von may be looking for the exits. In reality we're not just risking losing Tebow. We're risking franchise implosion at a very inopportune time.

And part of that has little to do with Brock. But it will make his job even harder.

baja
05-02-2012, 08:53 AM
Couple it with it really only being one year, in what I've been told is a 'gimmick' offense, and how ineffectual he looked against top competition (BSU for instance) this is more blind hope than anything. Especially measured against how quickly these same people slammed the door on Tebow.

If Brock makes it, it will be because the Broncos show infinitely more patience with him than they did with Tebow. Wouldn't at all be surprised to see similar passing numbers, with more turnovers, and zero rushing production.

If/When Brock takes the reins, this team will be in full rebuild all over again. I don't expect guys like DT (assuming he develops like we think) to stick around for the lean times. Champ will be done or nearly. Even guys like Von may be looking for the exits. In reality we're not just risking losing Tebow. We're risking franchise implosion at a very inopportune time.

And part of that has little to do with Brock. But it will make his job even harder.

So when is the opportune time to have a franchise implosion?

baja
05-02-2012, 08:57 AM
Hey why did I get banned??

BroncoBeavis
05-02-2012, 08:59 AM
So when is the opportune time to have a franchise implosion?

When all your superstars and young talent don't retire and/or look for other teams all at the same time.

It's one thing to get ground down by years of attrition like the Colts did. They had a decade of great football. They just wore out.

We're doing this for probably a 2 year shot. And we're making the same mistake we've been making the last decade... thinking all that separated us from a Championship was the right quarterback. That's always the easy answer, but it's rarely the right one.

DENVERDUI55
05-02-2012, 09:00 AM
At 57 should of gave DJ a bottle of popov and sent his ass packing and drafted LaVonte. Could of filled two needs.

Denver Brockos
05-02-2012, 09:07 AM
BAN FEST 2012 - JUST LIKE THE MAYANS PREDICTED.

footstepsfrom#27
05-02-2012, 09:08 AM
Couple it with it really only being one year, in what I've been told is a 'gimmick' offense, and how ineffectual he looked against top competition (BSU for instance) this is more blind hope than anything. Especially measured against how quickly these same people slammed the door on Tebow.
You do realize the guy was expected by NFL scouts to go somewhere between the top end of the first round to the point where they got him right? If he has all these supposed deficits as you suggest, why was ranked as highly as he was having only started one year? By all accounts his football intelligence is far superior to what you'd expect from a guy only starting one year, which means he's going to be learning from the best in the business going forward. Since he doesn't have to start now, who cares if he hasn't got the experience level yet? He doesnt' need it yet.
If Brock makes it, it will be because the Broncos show infinitely more patience with him than they did with Tebow. Wouldn't at all be surprised to see similar passing numbers, with more turnovers, and zero rushing production.
Well of course they'll show more patience with him...he won't be asked to start like Tebow was. That's a silly argument which is irrelevant to whether he will make it or not.
If/When Brock takes the reins, this team will be in full rebuild all over again. I don't expect guys like DT (assuming he develops like we think) to stick around for the lean times. Champ will be done or nearly. Even guys like Von may be looking for the exits. In reality we're not just risking losing Tebow. We're risking franchise implosion at a very inopportune time.
Let me understand this nonsense...you're saying because we took Brock Osweiler in the 2nd round, the franchise is going to implode? Hilarious! Is that really your argument? Why would young guys like DT and Miller want to jump ship because we chose a potential replacement for Manning a couple years before he's needed? That's utter foolishness. There's no reason to believe the team will be in rebuild mode three years down the road, and if anything, this is a move that helps ensure we're more, not less ready for the eventual retirement of Manning.

DENVERDUI55
05-02-2012, 09:10 AM
When all your superstars and young talent don't retire and/or look for other teams all at the same time.

It's one thing to get ground down by years of attrition like the Colts did. They had a decade of great football. They just wore out.

We're doing this for probably a 2 year shot. And we're making the same mistake we've been making the last decade... thinking all that separated us from a Championship was the right quarterback. That's always the easy answer, but it's rarely the right one.

At least we have a shot. We didn't have one until we got manning.

baja
05-02-2012, 09:13 AM
I can't post in half of the threads, WTF

alkemical
05-02-2012, 09:14 AM
I can't post in half of the threads, WTF

So far, i haven't had an issue. No clues dude.

I don't think aliens are the answer to this one. :D

Denver Brockos
05-02-2012, 09:16 AM
I can't post in half of the threads, WTF

It sounds like you're criticizing the functionality of the board. Also, "WTF" stands for "what the ****" which is not acceptable. Take two weeks.

edog24
05-02-2012, 09:18 AM
So far, i haven't had an issue. No clues dude.

I don't think aliens are the answer to this one. :D

It's spotty for me, something's up.

alkemical
05-02-2012, 09:23 AM
It's spotty for me, something's up.


Probably just DHS scanning the board to find dissidents.

baja
05-02-2012, 09:25 AM
WOW now I can't even post in this one....

alkemical
05-02-2012, 09:26 AM
WOW now I can't even post in this one....

really?

Stagger Lee
05-02-2012, 09:28 AM
I've got to have at least one post in this epic thread, just to say I did. I should be safe with this one, right?

Old Dude
05-02-2012, 09:32 AM
It sounds like you're criticizing the functionality of the board. Also, "WTF" stands for "what the ****" which is not acceptable. Take two weeks.


Your first post was almost funny. This one gets you banned.

Dedhed
05-02-2012, 09:38 AM
Your first post was almost funny. This one gets you banned.

Kudos Old Dude. It's gotten to the point in here where actual discussion is pretty much impossible amidst the name calling and personal attacks. Nice to see some steps taken to discourage those who simply want to troll.

Falconer
05-02-2012, 09:41 AM
Your first post was almost funny. This one gets you banned.

I actually thought his second post was better. Unfortunately it got him banned, but much better humor wise.

P.S. That wasn't a permaban for him was it?

Dedhed
05-02-2012, 09:44 AM
I actually thought his second post was better. Unfortunately it got him banned, but much better humor wise.

P.S. That wasn't a permaban for him was it?

Is there really a permanent ban?

Old Dude
05-02-2012, 09:46 AM
I actually thought his second post was better. Unfortunately it got him banned, but much better humor wise.

P.S. That wasn't a permaban for him was it?

No, I gave him two weeks, which seemed appropriate. And the reason he got banned wasn't due to the humor level. Or due to some oversensitivity on my part. It's because he was intentionally disrupting my efforts to bring some civility to the thread.

The fact that he's a recent addition to the forum who has contributed virtually nothing to any discussion didn't help him.

Falconer
05-02-2012, 09:47 AM
Is there really a permanent ban?

I don't know. I suppose you could come back under a different name, but that kind of sucks if you've been around here for awhile.

Old Dude
05-02-2012, 09:49 AM
I don't know. I suppose you could come back under a different name, but that kind of sucks if you've been around here for awhile.

Yes, we have perma-bans. And if I find that someone who has been perma-banned comes back with a sockpuppet account, based on the IP address, etc. they'll automatically get banned again.

BroncoBeavis
05-02-2012, 09:56 AM
You do realize the guy was expected by NFL scouts to go somewhere between the top end of the first round to the point where they got him right? If he has all these supposed deficits as you suggest, why was ranked as highly as he was having only started one year? By all accounts his football intelligence is far superior to what you'd expect from a guy only starting one year, which means he's going to be learning from the best in the business going forward. Since he doesn't have to start now, who cares if he hasn't got the experience level yet? He doesnt' need it yet.

I posted an article where it said a majority that they surveyed had him in the 4th. I've heard guys like Kiper mocked him to us in the 2nd, which is good on him, prediction wise, but then if you go read what he thinks about that, he doesn't think it was a smart move. I've heard the 'green room' argument as well. I'm not sure how that proves anything about where teams were willing to take him. In a different setting, I wouldn't have a problem burning a #57 on the kid. But it makes no sense in go for broke mode. Everyone knows I wasn't on board with go for broke in the first place, but now that we've cut the cord, I'd like to see it done well.

Well of course they'll show more patience with him...he won't be asked to start like Tebow was. That's a silly argument which is irrelevant to whether he will make it or not.

I'm talking about when he does start. I don't see how icing the 'gimmick' QB on the bench for a couple years behind the guy who runs a system from Peyton, by Peyton, and for Peyton is going to do much for his development. As I said, when he takes the reins, he will look rough.

Let me understand this nonsense...you're saying because we took Brock Osweiler in the 2nd round, the franchise is going to implode? Hilarious! Is that really your argument? Why would young guys like DT and Miller want to jump ship because we chose a potential replacement for Manning a couple years before he's needed? That's utter foolishness. There's no reason to believe the team will be in rebuild mode three years down the road, and if anything, this is a move that helps ensure we're more, not less ready for the eventual retirement of Manning.

As I said, much of this path has nothing to do with Brock. It will just make his life much harder. The Peyton system won't be his system when he starts. He'll have a team that spent 2 or 3 years working in the Peyton system, and will then have to completely retool.

The expectation that a guy like DT's going to stay home when Manning retires just to learn a new system built around a QB who's never really proven anything about anything is kinda silly. Could it happen? Sure. But those young guys saw what team loyalty meant this offseason, which is nothing. When DT goes shopping for his pay day, it's going to look awfully good to get paid and go work with another established blue-chip QB like he had in Manning, vs crossing his fingers and hoping Brock can make the NFL transition, just because he likes wearing the Horsey logo.

Falconer
05-02-2012, 09:58 AM
No, I gave him two weeks, which seemed appropriate. And the reason he got banned wasn't due to the humor level. Or due to some oversensitivity on my part. It's because he was intentionally disrupting my efforts to bring some civility to the thread.

The fact that he's a recent addition to the forum who has contributed virtually nothing to any discussion didn't help him.

I agree that things are kind of crazy around here. I loved Tebow and really hoped he would progress, but I didn't really want to say much because you were immediately pigeonholed. I now will be rooting that we have made the right draft choices. I don't know as much about college players as a lot of people around here, so I will just defer in that category.

I'm not sure if coming down this hard will work, but I wish you the best of luck. I really do like this place, even if I don't post much.

Meck77
05-02-2012, 10:22 AM
Let's show some respect to the moderators. It's a tough job and quite frankly a thankless job. No matter what a mod does there will always be people who agree or disagree. Better to just shut your trap and let them do the job. Old Dude deserves respect along with the other mods that TJ has trusted with the site. This is a free site and it's privilege to post here not a right.

Your right can be taken away as you can see so don't test it!

Besides it's the off season. Save your good smak for the raider fans after Manning destroys them!

broncobum6162
05-02-2012, 10:31 AM
Let's show some respect to the moderators. It's a tough job and quite frankly a thankless job. No matter what a mod does there will always be people who agree or disagree. Better to just shut your trap and let them do the job. Old Dude deserves respect along with the other mods that TJ has trusted with the site. This is a free site and it's privilege to post here not a right.

Your right can be taken away as you can see so don't test it!

Besides it's the off season. Save your good smak for the raider fans after Manning destroys them!

Rep for this post even though you never got my permission to get married....

Meck77
05-02-2012, 10:37 AM
Rep for this post even though you never got my permission to get married....

lol....Bum I just knew you would approve of this gal. She loves to watch football, drink a little beer, and tailgate! Believe it or not she was born in Canton Ohio! You know she comes from good football stock!

Hope you can meet her this season!

Hulamau
05-02-2012, 11:02 AM
Originally Posted by Agamemnon
Fox never accommodated anything but Tebow's running ability (while running a passing scheme that actually undermined Tebow's strengths in the passing game). And the two situations are completely different any way. It's about philosophy differences, not what he can or can't do. What he did with Tebow is something he was documented to have thought about well before Tebow, and was ridiculously run heavy which is what he prefers.

I'm just curious to see if Manning's tendency to pass every down and Fox's tendency to run a lot and try to control the clock will mesh. I certainly don't see it as a certainty.[/QUOTE]


All I can say is I am glad I don't live in your negative and erroneous thinking world. I actually enjoy the transformation the Broncos are enjoying. I see the wisdom in most of the moves we are making.

Could TT become an amazing Qb in the NFL? Sure he could but he is a long way off.

Quoted for truth Baja ... 'Aggie-Me-No-Likey-EFX-mnon' is just an Elway hating Curmudgeon who can't see the forest for the trees and is quickly heading toward the ignore list.

Hulamau
05-02-2012, 11:06 AM
With out a doubt.

It's the frequency that it comes up that is tiresome right now.

I mean we just had a draft and Tebow comes up on almost every page of every thread.

Hey read my tag from top to bottom. I loved watching Tebow work his magic.

But what is done is done and can not be undone.

Amen Baja, the voice of reason...

Old Dude
05-02-2012, 11:09 AM
... 'Aggie-Me-No-Likey-EFX-mnon' is just an Elway hating Curmudgeon who can't see the forest for the trees and is quickly heading toward the ignore list....

For crying out loud, what part of the "no insults or name calling in this thread" did you not understand?

Leave the thread.

Lestat
05-02-2012, 11:32 AM
why are we discussing Tebow in a comparison with Brock? they are not the same type of player. they played QB coming out of college and that's about it.

Tebow was not then nor now seen as a long term prototypical NFL QB.
he has flaws that most can't fix due to him continuously reverting to the things that made him successful in the Florida offense.
he might be the greatest college football player to ever play the sport in college. but he is not a good NFL QB, he's got a lot of developing to do and i don't know that the Jets use of him will allow him to do so.

Brock is seen as a green QB project that has all the physical tools to become a very good NFL QB. if he went back to school and had a good or better season he was likely a top 20 pick next season.
the issues with Brock can be worked on and fixed if he is mentally accepting of the changes that need to be made.

the Broncos draft as a whole went well. could have gone much better if we snagged DeCastro but we didn't so it's moot now.
we traded back, we got high value players in later rounds where if they had come out a season later that would have been top 2 round players in most cases.

the thing now is development, coaching and production. if that happens then we look back on this draft as one of the best in recent Broncos memory. if it doesn't then we'll be hearing the same complaints we are now.

but i choose to look at it from this perspective. we filled almost every need that could have been filled in the draft. we have players that will help now and into the future of the franchise and keep it in contention moving forward. based on Elway's first draft and the production from the decisions he's made i have no issues with him making the calls he's supposed to make in the draft.

if this draft works out we're looking at the past 2 drafts being the foundation of a dynasty that could have a 10-12-15 year run. isn't that worth taking a gamble on instead of constantly interjecting negativity? we all want the Broncos to be highly successful and win world championships. the draft is the way to do that, while we might not agree with the names selected at all times in the case of this draft we didn't truly reach for anyone like in the past.

no Willie Middlebrooks', no Paul Toviessi's, no Marcus Nash's, no trade ups for Richard Quinn, no trades for Alphonso Smith.

the value we got from this draft was high, not as high as it could have been but it was still high. instead of "oh no, Elway is a so & so because he took or didn't take player X." we need to wait, watch and see how it pans out. because if it does(which from the previous draft under Elway i assume it will) then most will regret their words if they're truly Denver Broncos fans.

DENVERDUI55
05-02-2012, 12:05 PM
why are we discussing Tebow in a comparison with Brock? they are not the same type of player. they played QB coming out of college and that's about it.

.

Because the te-blowers are all over him for his off the field production and can't admit what a gimmick he was and a limited QB. Brock is a project too but he has a fairly quick release and may develope into a good QB. I agree with your post and that is a good assement.

Hulamau
05-02-2012, 12:10 PM
.... If he turns out to be a great QB, he projects into a gunslinger like Elway or Favre much more than a Manning-style field general.

That works for me!! :wave:

houghtam
05-02-2012, 12:16 PM
why are we discussing Tebow in a comparison with Brock? they are not the same type of player. they played QB coming out of college and that's about it.

I think a lot of it is because the two are linked; there's nothing you can do about it. The Broncos got rid of an athletic guy with an awful throwing motion who may or may not amount to anything and replaced him with an unathletic guy with an awful throwing motion who may or may not amount to anything. Whether you agree with the decision or not, Osweiler replaced Tebow, and the two will be forever compared.

Just like people wanted to talk about Griese vs. Brister. Or Griese vs. Plummer. Or Plummer vs. Cutler. Or Cutler vs. Orton. Or Orton vs. Tebow.

The only two of those who were even remotely comparable were Griese and Brister (although separated by 10+ years of experience), yet the comparisons were still and will still be made by everyone, regardless of which side of the fence you're on.

Bmore Manning
05-02-2012, 12:22 PM
I think a lot of it is because the two are linked; there's nothing you can do about it. The Broncos got rid of an athletic guy with an awful throwing motion who may or may not amount to anything and replaced him with an unathletic guy with an awful throwing motion who may or may not amount to anything. Whether you agree with the decision or not, Osweiler replaced Tebow, and the two will be forever compared.

Just like people wanted to talk about Griese vs. Brister. Or Griese vs. Plummer. Or Plummer vs. Cutler. Or Cutler vs. Orton. Or Orton vs. Tebow.

The only two of those who were even remotely comparable were Griese and Brister (although separated by 10+ years of experience), yet the comparisons were still and will still be made by everyone, regardless of which side of the fence you're on.

Brock is very athletic for his size. His release is far less unorthodox than Tebows release.

houghtam
05-02-2012, 12:25 PM
Brock is very athletic for his size. His release is far less unorthodox than Tebows release.

He throws sidearm. Less unorthodox? Maybe. Still a problem? Quite possibly.

Yao Ming is very athletic "for his size". He's still un-athletic as all hell though.

Br0nc0Buster
05-02-2012, 12:38 PM
He throws sidearm. Less unorthodox? Maybe. Still a problem? Quite possibly.

Yao Ming is very athletic "for his size". He's still un-athletic as all hell though.

sidearm?
He has a similar 3/4s release to Philip Rivers
His height allows that to work just fine, his balls arent getting batted down at the LOS or anything
his release is also quick, so his motion really doesnt hinder anything in his game

unathletic?
he was offered basketball scholarships coming out of highschool, he has good mobility for someone his size
besides mobility only matters for qbs who cant throw the ball, his mobility at the very least is on par with the Mannings, Brees, and Brady
you know 5 of the 6 elite qbs in the game

He is close to a prototypical pocket passer, comparing him to Tebow is like comparing Vince Young to Ryan Mallet

houghtam
05-02-2012, 12:47 PM
sidearm?
He has a similar 3/4s release to Philip Rivers
His height allows that to work just fine, his balls arent getting batted down at the LOS or anything
his release is also quick, so his motion really doesnt hinder anything in his game

unathletic?
he was offered basketball scholarships coming out of highschool, he has good mobility for someone his size
besides mobility only matters for qbs who cant throw the ball, his mobility at the very least is on par with the Mannings, Brees, and Brady
you know 5 of the 6 elite qbs in the game

He is close to a prototypical pocket passer, comparing him to Tebow is like comparing Vince Young to Ryan Mallet

No, it's closer to comparing Vince Young and Kerry Collins. Two completely different quarterbacks, but one took over for another.

You guys are apparently not understanding my post, for one reason or another, on which I will not opine out of fear of getting banned.

Tebow and Osweiler will be compared to each other forever, no matter how different their styles are. Hell, people still compare Ed Reed and Ashley Lelie, and they don't even play the same position!

Bmore Manning
05-02-2012, 12:48 PM
He throws sidearm. Less unorthodox? Maybe. Still a problem? Quite possibly.

Yao Ming is very athletic "for his size". He's still un-athletic as all hell though.

Your completely wrong here. Brock is mobile, he looks awkward cause he's tall. He throws three quarters, over hand, and side arm, but let's pretend his versatility is worse than Tebows windup delivery.

But yes they will get compared, your right, but your assessment of Brock was not accurate.

Br0nc0Buster
05-02-2012, 01:01 PM
Your completely wrong here. Brock is mobile, he looks awkward cause he's tall. He throws three quarters, over hand, and side arm, but let's pretend his versatility is worse than Tebows windup delivery.

But yes they will get compared, your right, but your assessment of Brock was not accurate.

yea, these people complaining about "we got rid of a raw qb for another one" are missing on WHY we got rid of tebow and drafted Osweiler in his place

Had we drafted Jacory Harris and signed Seneca Wallace there would be a point to the whole "why not keep tebow", but we traded one style for another

also you are correct some of these critiques of Osweiler's game are just flat out wrong

Bmore Manning
05-02-2012, 01:04 PM
yea, these people complaining about "we got rid of a raw qb for another one" are missing on WHY we got rid of tebow and drafted Osweiler in his place

Had we drafted Jacory Harris and signed Seneca Wallace there would be a point to the whole "why not keep tebow", but we traded one style for another

also you are correct some of these critiques of Osweiler's game are just flat out wrong

Glad we see it the same way bro!

errand
05-02-2012, 01:04 PM
Elway was a PAC 10 loser in college...not that Osweiller is Elway, but your logic is flawed if you're using the fact that he played in the PAC 12 and didn't win anything because neither did John. Shocking as it seems, it really does take an entire team to win.

makes you woinder how well their teams would have done without them, huh?

DENVERDUI55
05-02-2012, 01:05 PM
He throws sidearm. Less unorthodox? Maybe. Still a problem? Quite possibly.

Yao Ming is very athletic "for his size". He's still un-athletic as all hell though.

Show me any tape, video footage, scouts notes or anything saying he is unathletic? You ky friend haven't seen him play. I'm not a fan of the pick but if you are going to make claims like that have some ammo. You don't get a gonzaga bb scholorship being unathletic.

TheReverend
05-02-2012, 01:11 PM
Show me any tape, video footage, scouts notes or anything saying he is unathletic? You ky friend haven't seen him play. I'm not a fan of the pick but if you are going to make claims like that have some ammo. You don't get a gonzaga bb scholorship being unathletic.

I like Brock a lot. He was my 2nd fav QB in the draft (until it was clear Griffin was going to Shanahan, more than Tannehill and Weeden for certain). But he absolutely has problems with lateral agility and straight line speed, two things people generally refer to "athleticism" as. That being said, he's a legitimate pro-athlete with good footwork so athleticism isn't the term I'd use.

Personally I think you guys are arguing over semantics.

BroncoBeavis
05-02-2012, 01:13 PM
Show me any tape, video footage, scouts notes or anything saying he is unathletic? You ky friend haven't seen him play. I'm not a fan of the pick but if you are going to make claims like that have some ammo. You don't get a gonzaga bb scholorship being unathletic.

Go watch his Boise State snaps. Every time he scrambles he looks like he's falling forward the whole time.

houghtam
05-02-2012, 01:17 PM
I like Brock a lot. He was my 2nd fav QB in the draft (until it was clear Griffin was going to Shanahan, more than Tannehill and Weeden for certain). But he absolutely has problems with lateral agility and straight line speed, two things people generally refer to "athleticism" as. That being said, he's a legitimate pro-athlete with good footwork so athleticism isn't the term I'd use.

Personally I think you guys are arguing over semantics.

Nail. Head.

But by all means I will let these "esteemed and awesome" posters continue to "spew" their "intelligent takes on football" while "missing" the "point" of my "post".

If people are still screaming Ed Reeeeeeeeed over Ashley Lelie ten years later, how long do you think it will take Tebow to be out of people's hearts and minds?

Dedhed
05-02-2012, 01:18 PM
Go watch his Boise State snaps. Every time he scrambles he looks like he's falling forward the whole time.

Brock is more athletic than Manning. He's more athletic than Brady. He's more athletic than plenty of guys who have been successful at the position.

Lestat
05-02-2012, 01:20 PM
I think a lot of it is because the two are linked; there's nothing you can do about it. The Broncos got rid of an athletic guy with an awful throwing motion who may or may not amount to anything and replaced him with an unathletic guy with an awful throwing motion who may or may not amount to anything. Whether you agree with the decision or not, Osweiler replaced Tebow, and the two will be forever compared.

Just like people wanted to talk about Griese vs. Brister. Or Griese vs. Plummer. Or Plummer vs. Cutler. Or Cutler vs. Orton. Or Orton vs. Tebow.

The only two of those who were even remotely comparable were Griese and Brister (although separated by 10+ years of experience), yet the comparisons were still and will still be made by everyone, regardless of which side of the fence you're on.

it was a partially rhetorical question. i know why they keep discussing it but Manning replaced Tebow not Osweiler. Osweiler is the heir apparent to Manning and what they fail to realize when comparing them is that there was no way to keep Tebow on the roster due to his fans constant clamoring for him no matter what.

he gets traded to a team that believes in what he can do as a wild cat QB. we got a draft pick that helped us beef up the OL & we drafted a QBOTF who won't be a liability in backing up Manning(i mean PR wise).

Osweiler is a pretty athletic QB though houghtam, he's just not an electrifying athlete who can run around and get you 10-15 yard runs. i'd say he's more Dree Brees athletic in terms of moving around in the pocket and tough to sack when he's on than the expected version of athletic like a Cam,Vick,RGIII or etc.

houghtam
05-02-2012, 01:55 PM
it was a partially rhetorical question. i know why they keep discussing it but Manning replaced Tebow not Osweiler. Osweiler is the heir apparent to Manning and what they fail to realize when comparing them is that there was no way to keep Tebow on the roster due to his fans constant clamoring for him no matter what.

he gets traded to a team that believes in what he can do as a wild cat QB. we got a draft pick that helped us beef up the OL & we drafted a QBOTF who won't be a liability in backing up Manning(i mean PR wise).

Osweiler is a pretty athletic QB though houghtam, he's just not an electrifying athlete who can run around and get you 10-15 yard runs. i'd say he's more Dree Brees athletic in terms of moving around in the pocket and tough to sack when he's on than the expected version of athletic like a Cam,Vick,RGIII or etc.

He was sacked 28 times in 13 games. That's bottom third in NCAA. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of athleticism no matter how tall you are.

DENVERDUI55
05-02-2012, 01:56 PM
Go watch his Boise State snaps. Every time he scrambles he looks like he's falling forward the whole time.

I was at game and went to 4 ASU games last year. Again I don't like the pick that early but Brock is fairly fast and far from unathletic.

gyldenlove
05-02-2012, 02:03 PM
I like Brock a lot. He was my 2nd fav QB in the draft (until it was clear Griffin was going to Shanahan, more than Tannehill and Weeden for certain). But he absolutely has problems with lateral agility and straight line speed, two things people generally refer to "athleticism" as. That being said, he's a legitimate pro-athlete with good footwork so athleticism isn't the term I'd use.

Personally I think you guys are arguing over semantics.

I am within experimental errors the same size and build as Brock, for his size he is pretty nimble that kid. He is not a sprinter, but he has some pretty solid foot work and he can shuffle and slide with the best of them.

It is worth noting that his workout numbers are somewhat biased by a foot injury he was recovering from that kept him out of drills at the combine.

Things to like about Osweiler: he is very young, he is 7 years younger than Brandon Weeden, meaning even if you keep him on the pine for 3 years he can have a full career. He has a pro arm, he can deliver a quick and compact pass because of his arm strength, and he has no problem standing in the face of a pass rusher to get the ball out and then take a hit. He has a pretty nice delivery and although he has had a bit of a side arm delivery he has shown improvement in his mechanic and has been getting a more consistent overhead delivery which with his size and arm length makes it nigh impossible to bat down passes at the line.

If he can spend time in the film room with Manning and learn from him and Elway how to react to NFL defenses, what to look for, he can be very good - he certainly has every physical tool necessary.

mwill07
05-02-2012, 02:04 PM
...
if this draft works out we're looking at the past 2 drafts being the foundation of a dynasty that could have a 10-12-15 year run. isn't that worth taking a gamble on instead of constantly interjecting negativity?

...


I like this take. If Osweiller can be the QBotF, we'll have him and Von Miller for an extended run. Those would be two pieces we can build around and enjoy watching for a really long time.

TonyR
05-02-2012, 02:05 PM
He was sacked 28 times in 13 games. That's bottom third in NCAA. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of athleticism no matter how tall you are.

Sacks are an extremely poor indicator of athleticism.

BroncoBeavis
05-02-2012, 02:12 PM
I was at game and went to 4 ASU games last year. Again I don't like the pick that early but Brock is fairly fast and far from unathletic.

Come on, throw on a "for his size"

You know you want to :)

Tombstone RJ
05-02-2012, 02:14 PM
who names their kid Brock anyway?

houghtam
05-02-2012, 02:16 PM
who names their kid Brock anyway?

If my last name were Osweiler? Helmut would be my name of choice for that kid. What, you're going to pick on a 6'7" guy named Helmut Osweiler? I think not.

DENVERDUI55
05-02-2012, 02:20 PM
Come on, throw on a "for his size"

You know you want to :)

Why would I say that. I know he is athletic and moves well. I've actually seen him play 5 times and I always commented he moves well and will be able to escape and extend plays at next level. I'll bet you never saw him play other than YouTube.

DBroncos4life
05-02-2012, 02:21 PM
Sacks are an extremely poor indicator of athleticism.

No kidding. Houghtam is a huge Tebow fan and he is talking about times sacked? Tebow was sacked 33 times in 271 drop backs and no one will ever say he isn't athletic. By the way Brock was sacked 28 times in 516 drop backs. The games played is meaningless.

Agamemnon
05-02-2012, 02:23 PM
LOL at the people trying to argue that Osweiler is athletic and mobile simply because he isn't a complete statue. Not being a complete statue is a good thing, but come on, the dude is not going to be scrambling around very often in the NFL.

Lestat
05-02-2012, 02:30 PM
He was sacked 28 times in 13 games. That's bottom third in NCAA. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of athleticism no matter how tall you are.

his sacks were more of a mental thing than lack of physical. his issue is always trying to make the big play and he ends up getting sacked or throwing a INT. which often times is the issue with most QB's with his potential.

Bmore Manning
05-02-2012, 02:32 PM
LOL at the people trying to argue that Osweiler is athletic and mobile simply because he isn't a complete statue. Not being a complete statue is a good thing, but come on, the dude is not going to be scrambling around very often in the NFL.

You enjoy being a trouble maker huh?

BroncoBeavis
05-02-2012, 02:43 PM
Brock is more athletic than Manning. He's more athletic than Brady. He's more athletic than plenty of guys who have been successful at the position.

I think I already said he was more athletic than Manning. Don't think Brady's all that athletic either, although his ability to move within the pocket is other-worldly.

But for a College spread QB as far as making things happen with his legs (which is what athleticism's about, isn't it?) what has he done? Less rushing yards than most of the top QB's in this year's draft.

The NFL is trending towards QB's who are very athletic. And Brock's athleticism doesn't hold up all that well when you compare him to those around him.

BroncoBeavis
05-02-2012, 02:44 PM
his sacks were more of a mental thing than lack of physical. his issue is always trying to make the big play and he ends up getting sacked or throwing a INT. which often times is the issue with most QB's with his potential.

This sounds completely unfamiliar to me. And I don't mean that.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
05-02-2012, 02:51 PM
He was sacked 28 times in 13 games. That's bottom third in NCAA. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of athleticism no matter how tall you are.

Isn't Elway the most sacked QB of all time?

Lestat
05-02-2012, 03:20 PM
This sounds completely unfamiliar to me. And I don't mean that.

except that other guy was trying to be a RB in that scenario.

BroncoBeavis
05-02-2012, 03:23 PM
except that other guy <s>was trying to be</s> could make a play like a RB in that scenario.

FIFY

lonestar
05-02-2012, 03:27 PM
who names their kid Brock anyway?

Brock Sr..

2KBack
05-02-2012, 03:49 PM
He was sacked 28 times in 13 games. That's bottom third in NCAA. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of athleticism no matter how tall you are.

More like a poor endorsement of the protection at ASU. Watching those clips you should come to the same conclusion...there were a lot of free rushers. That offense was just stupid.

houghtam
05-02-2012, 03:51 PM
I think I already said he was more athletic than Manning. Don't think Brady's all that athletic either, although his ability to move within the pocket is other-worldly.

But for a College spread QB as far as making things happen with his legs (which is what athleticism's about, isn't it?) what has he done? Less rushing yards than most of the top QB's in this year's draft.

The NFL is trending towards QB's who are very athletic. And Brock's athleticism doesn't hold up all that well when you compare him to those around him.

Honestly, the only reason I brought up "athletic" was to point out another way he's different than Tebow, yet will still be compared to him. Then someone commented that he's athletic for his size which was like saying that dwarf is tall for his size.

Not sure why it took the turn in this direction, but I think the "league trending to athletic QBs" argument is crap. There has always (at least in my lifetime) and will always be room in the league for both types of quarterbacks.

My point is that I think if Osweiler were to make the field this season, he and his athletic-for-his size self would get destroyed behind our sieve of an offensive line.

CEH
05-02-2012, 03:51 PM
More like a poor endorsement of the protection at ASU. Watching those clips you should come to the same conclusion...there were a lot of free rushers. That offense was just stupid.

I watched the USC game and several times a rusher came free and he stood in and delivered a strike. No matter what anyone thinks I think you have to admire that as a postive trait for an NFL QB

Old Dude
05-02-2012, 03:53 PM
Brock Sr..

You were banned from this thread in post #288. Your choice to ignore that ban now earns you a two week general ban.

BroncoBeavis
05-02-2012, 04:02 PM
Honestly, the only reason I brought up "athletic" was to point out another way he's different than Tebow, yet will still be compared to him. Then someone commented that he's athletic for his size which was like saying that dwarf is tall for his size.

Not sure why it took the turn in this direction, but I think the "league trending to athletic QBs" argument is crap. There has always (at least in my lifetime) and will always be room in the league for both types of quarterbacks.

My point is that I think if Osweiler were to make the field this season, he and his athletic-for-his size self would get destroyed behind our sieve of an offensive line.

Look at today's long-time elites. Manning, Brady, Brees, maybe Eli?

None of them are really threats to take the ball downfield. I think Rodgers does ok on the ground.

But pretty much everyone coming out now, except maybe Weeden blows these guys away when it comes to their legs. Even Brock. But among the recent crop over the last few years of "athletic" quarterbacks, he doesn't hold a candle. Throw in the beasts like Tebow, Cam and RG3, and Brock's running ability isn't even worth discussing.

Like I said, better than Manning, but not good enough to mark it down as a strength.

TheReverend
05-02-2012, 04:06 PM
^ Even Luck and Tannehill have crazy quicks

BroncoBeavis
05-02-2012, 04:32 PM
^ Even Luck and Tannehill have crazy quicks

Yeah, those were two I had in mind specifically when I thought about Weeden. Those two are a step down from the RG3's.

Or I guess when it comes to Athleticism, RG3>Luck/Tannehill>Brock>Weeden. Just don't see why you'd highlight Brock's athleticism, other then to say he's not so bad for how tall he is.

footstepsfrom#27
05-02-2012, 06:12 PM
I posted an article where it said a majority that they surveyed had him in the 4th. I've heard guys like Kiper mocked him to us in the 2nd, which is good on him, prediction wise, but then if you go read what he thinks about that, he doesn't think it was a smart move. I've heard the 'green room' argument as well. I'm not sure how that proves anything about where teams were willing to take him. In a different setting, I wouldn't have a problem burning a #57 on the kid. But it makes no sense in go for broke mode. Everyone knows I wasn't on board with go for broke in the first place, but now that we've cut the cord, I'd like to see it done well.
NFL Netowk had him the 5th ranked QB right behind the guys who went in the first round, and it should be obvious when you're talking about QB's that analysts looking at where a guy will go are giving a high level of priority to how NFL ready a guy is to come in right now and start, which probably accounts for those ranking him lower since he only had one year as a starter. However Denver's situation is entirely different since they're not looking for a guy to come in and start in a year, hence that consideration doesn't apply to us.
I'm talking about when he does start. I don't see how icing the 'gimmick' QB on the bench for a couple years behind the guy who runs a system from Peyton, by Peyton, and for Peyton is going to do much for his development. As I said, when he takes the reins, he will look rough.
First of all, one of the most overrated things in these draft discussion is what kind of system a college QB runs. For starters, alot of NFL QB's didn't run pro style offenses in college, but they came in and learned a new system and were fine. Yes, the Andrew Luck's of the world have an initial advantage because of familiarity, but if you believe that a "gimmic" offense should keep a team from drafting a QB they like, then you wouldn't want RG III since he ran a spread offense with four receivers at Baylor operating from the shotgun. Somehow Mike Shanahan (who I will criticize for many things but not his understanding of what it takes to be an NFL QB) seemed to think it wasn't a problem to use the #2 pick in the entire draft on the kid.

Second, according to ESPN anlyst Brock Huard, ASU ran a "zone read" offense with a no-huddle approach, a system not far from what Denver ran with Tebow. Look around the league and you'll see alot of other NFL teams either running aspects of that or hybrid variations. There's no reason to believe Osweiler can't adjust to whatever system he's given to learn here. By all acconts he's exceptionally football intelligent, so this is a spurious argument and one Elway would have considered if it were of any consequence.
As I said, much of this path has nothing to do with Brock. It will just make his life much harder. The Peyton system won't be his system when he starts. He'll have a team that spent 2 or 3 years working in the Peyton system, and will then have to completely retool.
He'll be in that system learning under Manning the entire time, so once again, this argument makes no sense. He'll have more time in this system than the one he ran for one year in college before he starts a game in it.
The expectation that a guy like DT's going to stay home when Manning retires just to learn a new system built around a QB who's never really proven anything about anything is kinda silly. Could it happen? Sure. But those young guys saw what team loyalty meant this offseason, which is nothing. When DT goes shopping for his pay day, it's going to look awfully good to get paid and go work with another established blue-chip QB like he had in Manning, vs crossing his fingers and hoping Brock can make the NFL transition, just because he likes wearing the Horsey logo.
I'm 100% sure the Broncos will know long in advance of Peyton's retirement whether this kid can run the offense or not. In any case, if they were to do as you think they should and wait a couple years to find Manning's replacement, that guy would have even less time to learn this offense than Osweiler would have having just spent 2, 3 or 4 years watching and learning from the master at it. I guess having a rookie come in here knowing nothing about it would be preferable to having a guy already schooled in it right? You're arguments fail on all counts.

Cito Pelon
05-02-2012, 06:26 PM
Kudos Old Dude. It's gotten to the point in here where actual discussion is pretty much impossible amidst the name calling and personal attacks. Nice to see some steps taken to discourage those who simply want to troll.

Wait now, you don't really want the OM to turn into just another bland, no personality board, do you? I don't. Those touchy-feely, everybody has to get along boards are crap.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
05-02-2012, 06:28 PM
Wait now, you don't really want the OM to turn into just another bland, no personality board, do you? I don't. Those touchy-feely, everybody has to get along boards are crap.

There actually is quite a lot of middle ground between "touchy-feely, everybody has to get along" and "**** you!/no **** you!/no **** YOU!" nonsense.

baja
05-02-2012, 06:34 PM
I thought it was a joke when Beantown was banned. You don't ban a ten year great poster just because one day you wake up and say to yourself I'm going to fix this place. Really bad decision IMO.

Old Dude
05-02-2012, 06:46 PM
I thought it was a joke when Beantown was banned. You don't ban a ten year great poster just because one day you wake up and say to yourself I'm going to fix this place. Really bad decision IMO.

That's your perogative. And if TJ wants to lift or modify that ban, it's fine with me. But I stand firmly behind that decision and wouldn't hesitate to do it again.

footstepsfrom#27
05-02-2012, 07:00 PM
Yeah, those were two I had in mind specifically when I thought about Weeden. Those two are a step down from the RG3's.

Or I guess when it comes to Athleticism, RG3>Luck/Tannehill>Brock>Weeden. Just don't see why you'd highlight Brock's athleticism, other then to say he's not so bad for how tall he is.
He was a Gonzaga basketball recruit, and they have a pretty good program so I seriously doubt he's got a lack of athleticism if the recent history of NFL players coming out of basketball backgrounds is any indication.

baja
05-02-2012, 07:14 PM
That's your perogative. And if TJ wants to lift or modify that ban, it's fine with me. But I stand firmly behind that decision and wouldn't hesitate to do it again.

I see what you are attempting to accomplish and it needed to be done and done fairly . Not sure it needed to be so heavy handed and without clear notice but than it's not my job either.

Remember you banned a guy for calling a radio personality a name.

I think you will need more mods working under the same guidelines for this to have any lasting success.

For the sake of this board I hope you plan works out. Last comment from me on this matter....

Mogulseeker
05-02-2012, 07:16 PM
Sacks are an extremely poor indicator of athleticism.

I'm pretty sure his first few years in the league, Mike Vick led the league ins sacks. Ben Roethlisberger is near the top of the league in sacks every year.

Tom Brady and Peyton Manning are always near the bottom in the league in sacks.

So yeah... Vick and Roethlisberger are way less athletic than Brady and Manning.

Mogulseeker
05-02-2012, 07:18 PM
I love sacks.

Old Dude
05-02-2012, 07:32 PM
...Remember you banned a guy for calling a radio personality a name.

....

He was ejected from the thread and immediately reinstituted once the error was brought to my attention.

theAPAOps5
05-02-2012, 07:37 PM
Today will now be known as the mayday massacre. No opinion on the bannings but every event needs a nickname

Shananahan
05-02-2012, 07:47 PM
He was ejected from the thread and immediately reinstituted once the error was brought to my attention.
I think the point is that your action was uninformed and without discretion.

It also seems a little ridiculous for you to be perfectly fine with the insulting of personalities, athletes, fans from other boards, etc but willing to ban a member of the board with the quickness for doing the same to a guy here.

Might as well ban me from this thread as well, it sucks anyway.

baja
05-02-2012, 07:54 PM
He was ejected from the thread and immediately reinstituted once the error was brought to my attention.

The same over the top heavy handedness was taken with Beantown IMHO

OK really is my last comment on this matter except to say you are in the small group of long time posters that I have much respect for, Beantown is in that group as well. You were wrong in this instance Old Dude

Good luck with this endeavor ;D

I'm out...

TonyR
05-02-2012, 08:13 PM
I'm pretty sure...

Yup, exactly. More "athletic" QB's often get sacked more often. Hell, Dan Marino was one of the least "athletic" QB's ever and he rarely got sacked.

barryr
05-02-2012, 08:37 PM
Sacks can and usually are a result of many things. Anything from a young QB who is late to read defenses and holds the ball too long. A QB who has lost confidence and doesn't trust what he sees since has thrown too many picks, so some open receivers are missed and the QB keeps the ball too long. A weak o-line that has troubles with speed rushers and troubles reading and picking up blitzes. A lack of a running game and a weak blocker at RB, so defenses can gear up to rush the QB, especially since the QB is faced with too many 3rd and long situations. Having an athletic QB can help, but not much if those other factors I listed are a problem.

Play2win
05-02-2012, 08:53 PM
Today will now be known as the mayday massacre. No opinion on the bannings but every event needs a nickname

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fd/El_Tres_de_Mayo%2C_by_Francisco_de_Goya%2C_from_Pr ado_thin_black_margin.jpg/776px-El_Tres_de_Mayo%2C_by_Francisco_de_Goya%2C_from_Pr ado_thin_black_margin.jpg

3rd of May by Goya

TheElusiveKyleOrton
05-03-2012, 06:07 AM
I think the point is that your action was uninformed and without discretion.

It also seems a little ridiculous for you to be perfectly fine with the insulting of personalities, athletes, fans from other boards, etc but willing to ban a member of the board with the quickness for doing the same to a guy here.

Might as well ban me from this thread as well, it sucks anyway.

.

Shotgun Willie
05-03-2012, 07:16 AM
They both got permabanned. They can both appeal.

Rabb was a first-time offender so I gave him two weeks.

That leads to the obvious question of how one would even attempt an appeal when they've been banned from the site? I assume that banning means you can't post or pm....or even access the main page. I also assume that nobody here has the home email addresses for any of the mods.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
05-03-2012, 07:33 AM
That leads to the obvious question of how one would even attempt an appeal when they've been banned from the site? I assume that banning means you can't post or pm....or even access the main page. I also assume that nobody here has the home email addresses for any of the mods.

And the address they actually give for contacting the administrators bounces back.

Old Dude
05-03-2012, 07:38 AM
That leads to the obvious question of how one would even attempt an appeal when they've been banned from the site? I assume that banning means you can't post or pm....or even access the main page. I also assume that nobody here has the home email addresses for any of the mods.

That's a good point, and we'll probably set up some kind of procedure in the new posting rules. In the meantime, TJ is the owner and ultimate decision-maker and I'm sure he'll review my calls when time permits.

I'd suggest that you direct your complaints, constructive criticisms and suggestions to him. Or you can PM me and I'll be happy to pass them along.

Old Dude
05-03-2012, 07:52 AM
I think the point is that your action was uninformed and without discretion.

It also seems a little ridiculous for you to be perfectly fine with the insulting of personalities, athletes, fans from other boards, etc but willing to ban a member of the board with the quickness for doing the same to a guy here.

Might as well ban me from this thread as well, it sucks anyway.

I see several points mixed together in your post. Taking them in reverse order, (1) you think this thread sucks. Whatever.

(2)(a) You see a double standard wherein I allow posters from rival teams to engage in whatever smack and rudeness they want, while enforcing posting rules against Bronco fans. If rival fans came into this thread and disregarded moderator directives, I guarantee you they'd be sanctioned as well. Your point, so far as this thread is concerned, is irrelevant.

(2)(b) Assuming you're talking about the bigger picture in terms of how to reconcile posting rules with the "smack" element of sports message boards, that's a question for another day. It may be that we follow the majority of other boards and institute a "smack" forum expressly for that purpose.

(3)(a) You feel that I should use my discretion to make an exception for longtime and popular posters to disregard my directives whenever they feel like it and that I should only clamp down on unpopular posters, or, more specifically, people whose opinions you don't like. That seems to me to be the very opposite of informed discretion.

(3)(b) You, and others, feel that the permaban I imposed on Beantown was unduly severe. I imagine that will be reviewed by TJ, and my decision may be reversed. Personally, however, I'm content to let it stand.

broncogary
05-03-2012, 07:56 AM
That's a good point, and we'll probably set up some kind of procedure in the new posting rules. In the meantime, TJ is the owner and ultimate decision-maker and I'm sure he'll review my calls when time permits.

I'd suggest that you direct your complaints, constructive criticisms and suggestions to him. Or you can PM me and I'll be happy to pass them along.

Oh, there are new posting rules? Why don't you enlighten us? Hilarious!

Old Dude
05-03-2012, 08:18 AM
Oh, there are new posting rules? Why don't you enlighten us? Hilarious!

For years, TJ has refrained from posting specific codes of conduct on these boards, relying instead on the ability of posters to employ common sense.

As the board has grown and as the debate has become increasingly factionalized, it appears that this will no longer suffice and a more specific set of rules concerning poster conduct is in the works. I expect it will be completed before the regular season begins - - probably much sooner.

In the meantime, we are functioning under "common sense" guidelines, and I don't think it's too much of a stretch of common sense for people to understand that disregarding the directives of forum moderators and ridiculing their decisions will lead to sanctions by those same moderators.

If that strikes you as hilarious, unheard-of and nonsensical, then maybe you should reconsider your view of reality.

broncogary
05-03-2012, 10:33 AM
For years, TJ has refrained from posting specific codes of conduct on these boards, relying instead on the ability of posters to employ common sense.

As the board has grown and as the debate has become increasingly factionalized, it appears that this will no longer suffice and a more specific set of rules concerning poster conduct is in the works. I expect it will be completed before the regular season begins - - probably much sooner.

In the meantime, we are functioning under "common sense" guidelines, and I don't think it's too much of a stretch of common sense for people to understand that disregarding the directives of forum moderators and ridiculing their decisions will lead to sanctions by those same moderators.

If that strikes you as hilarious, unheard-of and nonsensical, then maybe you should reconsider your view of reality.

It strikes me as hilarious that you start enforcing the "new code" unannounced in the middle of the night.

I agree that there is too much name-calling and rude behavior. Unfortunately, it was specifically allowed by the owner of this board. You decided to go out and be a vigilante in the middle of the night. Yes, that's hilarious.

mwill07
05-03-2012, 10:45 AM
I'm glad to see tighter moderation. I like to come here for analysis and opinions on what is going on in Denver - there are some sharp guys here. Unfortunately, most threads devolve pretty quickly into name calling or debate about the Jets back-up QB, and it makes this place pretty unbearable.

Old Dude: IMO your best bet here is to work w/ TJ and establish a set of rules and procedures. Include warnings, time-out durations, appeal processes, etc. If you are going to be handing out time-outs, make sure that the line-crosser is aware of what line has been crossed. I'd also suggest more than a few moderators because policing the boards can be time-consuming... that means you should at least try to have a standard protocol for when lines are crossed.

Old Dude
05-03-2012, 10:47 AM
It strikes me as hilarious that you start enforcing the "new code" unannounced in the middle of the night.

I agree that there is too much name-calling and rude behavior. Unfortunately, it was specifically allowed by the owner of this board. You decided to go out and be a vigilante in the middle of the night. Yes, that's hilarious.

Really? I told people to restrain themselves in ONE THREAD. Several of them found themselves incapable of doing that, or blew me off, or decided they wanted to play games to see how far they could push it.

For me, this just underscores the problem.

I'm sure that TJ will take all of this feedback under consideration and that we'll come up with something that most people can live with.

For now, that's all I've got to say on the subject, and it's time to lock the thread.