PDA

View Full Version : Mayock: Broncos need to select Sanchez


Taco John
04-16-2009, 12:01 AM
Mayock: Broncos need to select USC's Sanchez

NFL draft guru Mike Mayock is convinced the Broncos have only one choice in the first round of the April 25-26 draft.

"If they don't try to get Mark Sanchez, I think they're crazy," Mayock said Wednesday in a national conference call with reporters. "The bottom line to me is if their head coach goes 4-12 with Kyle Orton, he probably gets fired this year. If he goes 4-12 with Mark Sanchez, he's rebuilding."

Read the full story here:
http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_12152135?source=rss

SouthStndJunkie
04-16-2009, 12:02 AM
I posted this in the draft forum a bit ago....you can delete it if you want.

SouthStndJunkie
04-16-2009, 12:04 AM
If Sanchez fell into our laps, I would think Denver would have to consider drafting him....but I don't want to trade up to take him.

I don't think he makes it past SF at 10.

I can't believe we are looking for a franchise QB again....a few months ago, I thought we were set for the next 12 years.

Taco John
04-16-2009, 12:05 AM
I would be really disappointed if we packaged our picks to move up to select a quarterback after this whole ordeal. It seems like such a desperate thing to do after we traded Jay to Chicago, taking a lesser deal because Orton was tied to it.

I suppose at this point, nothing would suprise me.

Kaylore
04-16-2009, 12:07 AM
I think Orton's a better QB than Mayock thinks.

footstepsfrom#27
04-16-2009, 12:08 AM
Who needs Sanchez? We have Kyle Orton, the next Tom Brady... :stirstir:

NFLBRONCO
04-16-2009, 12:08 AM
I wouldn't rule out the possibility of McD doing a move up for him. Is Orton in last year of his contract?

SouthStndJunkie
04-16-2009, 12:11 AM
I think Orton's a better QB than Mayock thinks.

I think a lot of people have bought into the Kyle Orton propaganda.

Kaylore
04-16-2009, 12:16 AM
I think a lot of people have bought into the Kyle Orton propaganda.

He wasn't bad last year. They watched the Falcons game and saw he made some clutch throws with no wideouts, a very poor line and an unimaginative offensive coordinator. I'm not going to declare him god's gift to the NFL, but he's better than the people whining about Cutler care to acknowledge.

Williams
04-16-2009, 12:16 AM
I agree with Mayock. Sanchez is a hell of a young QB, fits the system, and from all indications does not appear to be a mopey primadonna pansy.

If the price is #12 and a 3rd rounder... do it. Plenty of other picks to help the D. I'm just not sold on Orton being the long-term answer.

Taco John
04-16-2009, 12:20 AM
I think a lot of people have bought into the Kyle Orton propaganda.


I have mixed feelings about Orton. I see Orton as, well... what he is: Griese's disciple. I think that he's the type who will be as good as the rest of your offense is. For that matter, I think we have a pretty good offense, which is the source of my mixed feelings on Orton.

But even if Orton is a solution, we are minus a runningback threat who can go the distance on any given play. I think Orton is going to give us the same sort of offense that Griese gave us: one that defenses love to throw pressure at and force us to beat them with the quarterback. Like Griese, I don't think Orton has the juice to make a defense pay for testing him, and I'm not convinced that our running game has the personnel there to take the heat off of Orton and open up the passing lanes.

I think we need a home run threat at runningback out of this draft.

Tyrant
04-16-2009, 12:23 AM
There is no way we trade up for Sanchez. At that point all you're doing is essentially trading Cutler for Sanchez, and McD is smarter than that...at least I hope he is.

I've been a McD supporter in this whole fiasco, but if he drafts Sanchez, even at #12, I'm done.

If we're all about the 'Patriot way' these days, than McD trades back from #12 and we get more depth in this year's draft and then potentially another first rounder for next years draft. I'm all about that.

watermock
04-16-2009, 12:26 AM
Yes, Orton is a FA in 10...


I'll bet anyone that denver won't win more than 6 next year.

NFLBRONCO
04-16-2009, 12:31 AM
There is no way we trade up for Sanchez. At that point all you're doing is essentially trading Cutler for Sanchez, and McD is smarter than that...at least I hope he is.

I've been a McD supporter in this whole fiasco, but if he drafts Sanchez, even at #12, I'm done.

If we're all about the 'Patriot way' these days, than McD trades back from #12 and we get more depth in this year's draft and then potentially another first rounder for next years draft. I'm all about that.

If Sanchez is at 12 Denver would have to consider it. If they take him at 12 it really isn't part of the Cutler trade. Having said, that I'd prefer trading down and stockpile more day 1 picks and bolster all areas of D.

watermock
04-16-2009, 12:31 AM
I agree with Mayock. Sanchez is a hell of a young QB, fits the system, and from all indications does not appear to be a mopey primadonna pansy.

If the price is #12 and a 3rd rounder... do it. Plenty of other picks to help the D. I'm just not sold on Orton being the long-term answer.

Dirty Sanchez and stafford have bust all over them.

Colt and Bradford are real, but Mcdummy won't draft either.

Remember my words.

NFLBRONCO
04-16-2009, 12:32 AM
Yes, Orton is a FA in 10...


I'll bet anyone that denver won't win more than 6 next year.

I'm expecting 6-10 unless our D magically gets alot better overnight.

watermock
04-16-2009, 12:37 AM
If Sanchez is at 12 Denver would have to consider it. If they take him at 12 it really isn't part of the Cutler trade. Having said, that I'd prefer trading down and stockpile more day 1 picks and bolster all areas of D.

WTF?

You ditch the QB, HOPE that Sanchez is there, BTW, he is a 1 year starter,

If you do that, your left with an unproven rookie and a low second rounder, which is the value of a low 1st in a lockout uncapped year.

Denver ****ed itself.

BroncoBuff
04-16-2009, 12:40 AM
Wow ... Mike Mayock said that?

He's the #1 expert in my book, he's almost always right. He was right that the Cutler trade was foolish. I've been totally against Sanchez, but I'd have to defer to Mayock ... he is correct that Sanchez would likely buy Josh more time to field a winner, but Sanchez is a junior, and the Matt Leinart result scares me.

I'm still against it, our defense sucks too much. But Mayock's opinion deserves great deference.

OBF1
04-16-2009, 12:41 AM
And the binge drinking continues... great birthday bender there Mock

24champ
04-16-2009, 12:42 AM
Buff...a Junior with one full year as a starter in the Pac-10. He's a project.

footstepsfrom#27
04-16-2009, 12:42 AM
Sanchez is to risky. He doesn't have big time measurables. He's a USC guy who was surrounded by talent, so he might be a system QB. If we have a chance to get Bradford by stockpiling picks we ought to do it that way.

BroncoBuff
04-16-2009, 12:45 AM
Can't help myself ... the #1 pre-eminent NFL commentator says:

Mayock was critical of the Broncos' decision to trade Cutler last month ... "The way I look at this is there's only six or seven franchise quarterbacks in this league," Mayock said. "Getting rid of one of them, I don't understand the whole thing."

footstepsfrom#27
04-16-2009, 12:49 AM
I have mixed feelings about Orton. I see Orton as, well... what he is: Griese's disciple. I think that he's the type who will be as good as the rest of your offense is. For that matter, I think we have a pretty good offense, which is the source of my mixed feelings on Orton.

But even if Orton is a solution, we are minus a runningback threat who can go the distance on any given play. I think Orton is going to give us the same sort of offense that Griese gave us: one that defenses love to throw pressure at and force us to beat them with the quarterback. Like Griese, I don't think Orton has the juice to make a defense pay for testing him, and I'm not convinced that our running game has the personnel there to take the heat off of Orton and open up the passing lanes.

I think we need a home run threat at runningback out of this draft.
One thing few people in here understand is that Jay Cutler's arm and mobility was huge in helping our running game generate production with 7 nobodies. Teams feared his big play capability so they sacrificed stopping the run to deal with him. Anybody who thinks Orton will get that respect is nuts. Even if we go heavy on defense, rookies rarely contribute that much, so this D will suck eggs once again. Cutler had a shot at keeping up with the pinball game...Orton...won't. Even if we do have a better defense, if we can't consistently move the ball and keep other teams offensive units off the field it won't matter. Unless we have a a very dominant running game...I don't see this team hitting going better than 6-8.

24champ
04-16-2009, 12:56 AM
"The bottom line to me is if their head coach goes 4-12 with Kyle Orton, he probably gets fired this year.

Does anyone really think Bowlen is going to have potentially three HCs on the payroll?

Shanny at millions per year, McDaniels at a couple mill, the next HC...I don't. Even if McDaniels goes 2-14 with Orton, I don't see him getting fired.

lex
04-16-2009, 12:57 AM
If we take Sanchez (or any QB in the first at all) that essentially means that we traded Cutler for Sanchez. No thanks. And if theyre going to take Sanchez, that was wasted swap value since Orton was one of the things the trade hinged on (it was reported McDaniels liked Orton more than, say, Campbell).

chickennob2
04-16-2009, 12:59 AM
You guys are acting like Mayock is the end all, be all of football knowledge. He's not. He's great with the draft. He spends a lot of his time scouting the college game. So when he says Sanchez will be good, one of the 6 or so franchise QBs in the league, that's his area of expertise. You can believe him on that. But when he says the Broncos have to take him, and that not taking him would get McDaniels fired, that's not his area of expertise. He's just throwing **** against the wall.

I mean if Mel Kiper insulted your coaching hire, would you really feel like you made a mistake? (I don't want to hear the "but Mayock is better than Kiper" crap, if that's you're argument then you missed the point)

footstepsfrom#27
04-16-2009, 12:59 AM
Wow ... Mike Mayock said that?

He's the #1 expert in my book, he's almost always right. He was right that the Cutler trade was foolish. I've been totally against Sanchez, but I'd have to defer to Mayock ... he is correct that Sanchez would likely buy Josh more time to field a winner, but Sanchez is a junior, and the Matt Leinart result scares me. I'm still against it, our defense sucks too much. But Mayock's opinion deserves great deference.
Here's something else that should scare you; Cassel went to USC also...it would not surprise me if little hoodie thinks he's got a farm system here he can mine at will.

Cassel brings up an interesting point. People credit McOpie with working a miracle with this guy. I didn't pay much attention to him at first...his story seemed amazing...a guy who never started in college coming out of nowhere like that...amazing eh? Do a little research...Cassel didn't pop up out of nowhere, he sat on the Pats bench soaking in the system for 3 years first, and on top of that, he was a Parade Magazine All American QB, ranked 8th in the country when he got to USC. Tony Romo is a better story IMO. Depending on how you look at it, Cassel had either the incredible misfortune or the incredible luck of sitting on the bench behind not 1 but 2 Heisman winners in Carson Palmer and Leinert. Had he transfered to Michigan or Notre Dame he might very well have been starting. He's the college version of Steve DeBerg sitting on the bench his whole college career behind Heisman guys, so that doesn't mean he had no talent. For all we know, if McD hadn't coached this guy up, somebody else certainly might have.

Popps
04-16-2009, 01:02 AM
I would be really disappointed if we packaged our picks to move up to select a quarterback after this whole ordeal. It seems like such a desperate thing to do after we traded Jay to Chicago, taking a lesser deal because Orton was tied to it.

I suppose at this point, nothing would suprise me.

Whoa, wait a minute... who said we turned down better deals, just so we could get Orton?

Did I miss something?

Who had a better deal out there on the table, and what was it?

watermock
04-16-2009, 01:09 AM
And the binge drinking continues... great birthday bender there Mock

i wouldn't take Stafford over Dirty Sanchez.

stafford couldn't perform under the spe=read and Sanchez was surrrounded by a great defense.

BTW, U don't know my birthday any more than my vastly superior knowledge.

This draft is a crap shoot, McDummy was willing to pay Cassell 14 million and give up a 1st.

What we have is a #18, an borderline QB going into FA, and the equivelant of a 2nd in an uncapped year.

Our best hope is to go #5 to gt Bradord or Colt.

BroncoBuff
04-16-2009, 01:14 AM
As much as I love Mike Mayock, my opinion is nix this idea. McD likes Orton a lot, so fine, give him a shot. If Orton doesn't work out, we'll have two 1st rounders in 2010, a much deeper QB class.

And for now ... DEFENSE DEFENSE DEFENSE.

extralife
04-16-2009, 01:23 AM
I don't want a QB. We hired a kid because of his work with QBs, and we fired our QB partially as a result. If Orton doesn't get a year to prove himself and we use half of the picks received in compensation to pick another QB, then the trade was a failure. Mayock is correct in assuming that picking Sanchez would be in the best interests of the future of Josh McDaniels, but it would not be in the best interests of the Denver Broncos. One good thing about the Shanny years was his job security meant his interests and the teams interests were one in the same. That is simply no longer the case. McD gets paid to work with QBs and we were sold on the idea that Orton was one he wanted. So lets see it.

extralife
04-16-2009, 01:24 AM
Whoa, wait a minute... who said we turned down better deals, just so we could get Orton?

Did I miss something?

Who had a better deal out there on the table, and what was it?

The rumor mill was saying Washington offered us essentially the same thing, with Campbell, and their pick is higher than Chicago's. I don't know how true it is, but Washington's interest is pretty certifiable, at least.

fontaine
04-16-2009, 02:28 AM
One thing few people in here understand is that Jay Cutler's arm and mobility was huge in helping our running game generate production with 7 nobodies. Teams feared his big play capability so they sacrificed stopping the run to deal with him. Anybody who thinks Orton will get that respect is nuts. Even if we go heavy on defense, rookies rarely contribute that much, so this D will suck eggs once again. Cutler had a shot at keeping up with the pinball game...Orton...won't. Even if we do have a better defense, if we can't consistently move the ball and keep other teams offensive units off the field it won't matter. Unless we have a a very dominant running game...I don't see this team hitting going better than 6-8.

Maybe. I think it's way to early to tell what kind of QB Orton is going to be in this system. Here are a couple of things that stand out about McDaniels going for Orton as opposed to Campbell:

1. Campbell seems like the kind of QB that plays really safe, checking down and going for the dink and dunk passes. I really believe that we chose Orton because that's NOT what McDaniels wanted in his QB.

2. Orton doesn't need to air the ball out 30-40 times a game if our RBs stay healthy. What's going to make or break Orton here is if he can work the spread offense and go to the most effective play most of the times. Yes, that means he HAS to connect on those 15-20 yard intermediate passes to TEs up the seem, those 15 yard side line routes that isolate Marshall/Royal one on one so they can gain YAC.

Our offensive players are good enough so that 5 yard check down pass will ALWAYS be available to guys like Graham/RBs/Stokely etc, but that kind of crap should be the last option on a passing play unless it's 3rd and short or you want to gain some +ive yards on first down.

I have NO idea whether Orton is good enough to consistently make those intermediate passes. Griese/Plummer both were benched because they couldn't connect on those passes and it choked off the running game as a result. The same will happen to Orton if he can't step up.

There's no question that we've got the offensive players on this team to score 30+ points a game. Whether they can do it or not really depends on Orton's effectiveness.

chrisp
04-16-2009, 02:37 AM
You guys are acting like Mayock is the end all, be all of football knowledge. He's not. He's great with the draft. He spends a lot of his time scouting the college game. So when he says Sanchez will be good, one of the 6 or so franchise QBs in the league, that's his area of expertise. You can believe him on that. But when he says the Broncos have to take him, and that not taking him would get McDaniels fired, that's not his area of expertise. He's just throwing **** against the wall.

I mean if Mel Kiper insulted your coaching hire, would you really feel like you made a mistake? (I don't want to hear the "but Mayock is better than Kiper" crap, if that's you're argument then you missed the point)

I think you've nailed it. If Mayock says Sanchez is a better QB than Stafford, then you can probably take that to the bank, but when he says that QB is a team need for the Broncos he is stepping outside of his area of expertise.

Plus the justification seems to be a political one - he doesn't seem to be saying we have a better chance of competing next year with Sanchez, just that McDaniels has a better chance of keeping his job if he gets a project QB.

Personally I don't think that McDaniels gets canned this season whatever happens - Bowlen didn't hire the new guy just to can him after one bad year, and his backing of McD through the Cutler fiasco shows that he's determined to back the man he picked.

When Mayock says who's best at a given position I listen. When Mayock ventures an opinion on what type of pick would be best for what team I take it with a pince of salt.

So if we do go QB then I hope it is Sanchez, but I don't agree that this is what we should do.

Drek
04-16-2009, 03:02 AM
Cassel brings up an interesting point. People credit McOpie with working a miracle with this guy.
FYI, so does Cassel.

And Tom Brady has even said he wouldn't be nearly as good a QB as he is today without McDaniels. The real source of this praise was that both said McDaniels' taught them how to make reads before the snap at a level of refinement well beyond anything they had been capable of before, to the point of knowing what the defense was going to do before they snapped the ball and by proxy knowing what the offense was supposed to do in order to beat it.

You might not like some of McDaniels' personnel decisions, but he's one of the brightest offensive mind in the NFL today, if not at the very top of that list.

BroncoMan4ever
04-16-2009, 03:09 AM
I think Orton's a better QB than Mayock thinks.

i agree, and the odd thing about Mayock calling for us to go after Sanchez is that he has a very similar skill set to Orton.

also i think with actual receiving weapons and hopefully a good running game, and a line that will keep him on his feet, the league might be introduced to a Kyle Orton nobody knew existed this year.

BroncoMan4ever
04-16-2009, 03:13 AM
FYI, so does Cassel.

And Tom Brady has even said he wouldn't be nearly as good a QB as he is today without McDaniels. The real source of this praise was that both said McDaniels' taught them how to make reads before the snap at a level of refinement well beyond anything they had been capable of before, to the point of knowing what the defense was going to do before they snapped the ball and by proxy knowing what the offense was supposed to do in order to beat it.

You might not like some of McDaniels' personnel decisions, but he's one of the brightest offensive mind in the NFL today, if not at the very top of that list.


while i agree he has a knack for teaching QBs and is a really good Offensive Coordinator, i just worry that at his age he might not be ready to be a HC. recent history has shown that young coaches can get the job done, but history has also shown Belicheat coaching disciples don't succeed.

so while i agree he is a good offensive mind, i am not set to buy him as a HC until i see at least a quarter of the season, if not a full year.

eddie mac
04-16-2009, 03:26 AM
Isn't McDaniels' philosophy doing whatever he can to improve the team. For the life of me I dont see how trading Jay Cutler for Mark Sanchez improves this team. Not this year, not next, not any IMO.

I can see how trading Jay Cutler for Kyle Orton and 3 other playmakers at different positions (especially defense) improves the team.

The Joker
04-16-2009, 03:29 AM
I have mixed feelings about Orton. I see Orton as, well... what he is: Griese's disciple. I think that he's the type who will be as good as the rest of your offense is. For that matter, I think we have a pretty good offense, which is the source of my mixed feelings on Orton.

But even if Orton is a solution, we are minus a runningback threat who can go the distance on any given play. I think Orton is going to give us the same sort of offense that Griese gave us: one that defenses love to throw pressure at and force us to beat them with the quarterback. Like Griese, I don't think Orton has the juice to make a defense pay for testing him, and I'm not convinced that our running game has the personnel there to take the heat off of Orton and open up the passing lanes.

I think we need a home run threat at runningback out of this draft.

This is basically how I feel.

With our offensive line, wide receivers and offensive playcaller, there's nothing to suggest Orton won't be pretty good in this offense. He was more than serviceable in Chicago last year without any of these things at his disposal.

I'm all for Beanie or Knowshon with one of our firsts, add a quality running back and this offense will keep on ticking next year. Orton doesn't have the ceiling that Cutler had in this offense, but he's far from a scrub.

If we improve the D to anywhere near middle of the pack we'll be able to hold our own next year. That, of course, is no easy feat though.

Drek
04-16-2009, 03:40 AM
while i agree he has a knack for teaching QBs and is a really good Offensive Coordinator, i just worry that at his age he might not be ready to be a HC. recent history has shown that young coaches can get the job done, but history has also shown Belicheat coaching disciples don't succeed.

so while i agree he is a good offensive mind, i am not set to buy him as a HC until i see at least a quarter of the season, if not a full year.

You do know this is a massively false myth right?

Eric Mangini has only been a HC for three seasons. He had a winning record for two of them, and that was after taking over a franchise that had been picking in the top five the last few years.

Romeo Crennel took over what was at the time the single worst organization in football. Worse than the Lions then. Butch Davis did such a bad job at drafting so that when he left Crennel was saddled with very little NFL talent, but a lot of guys with top 5 contracts. He just started to get that purged in '07 and had a solid season, but then he had massive injuries and some under performance in a division with two of the top 5 teams in the NFL last year.

I don't see how you can call him a failure when he actually produced a winner with that busted franchise, despite playing the Steelers and Ravens for a full quarter of his annual schedule.

Weiss is starting to look like a flop at ND, but his first two years he had them playing better than they should have (ND isn't an elite program from an on-field talent perspective at this point or any time in the last several years). However, thats college and is an entirely different deal than being an HC in the NFL.

Even people who trot out the "Belichick failed at his first coaching job" meme need to get over that myth as well. Not only did he take a team that was 3-13 the year before up to around .500 the next two years, his third they won double digits and a playoff game. It isn't his fault the owner publicly announced they were moving the franchise and basically had a negative home field impact that entire season. While at Cleveland he also first started bringing along guys like Pioli, Jim Schwartz (former Titans DC, now the Lions HC), Ozzie Newsome (Raven's GM), Mangini, Crennel, etc.. If the owner had actually done what he said he was going to do (keep Belichick post-move) the Ravens would probably still have him as their HC and they'd probably have a fist full of rings.

Hulamau
04-16-2009, 04:01 AM
Mayock: Broncos need to select USC's Sanchez

NFL draft guru Mike Mayock is convinced the Broncos have only one choice in the first round of the April 25-26 draft.

"If they don't try to get Mark Sanchez, I think they're crazy," Mayock said Wednesday in a national conference call with reporters. "The bottom line to me is if their head coach goes 4-12 with Kyle Orton, he probably gets fired this year. If he goes 4-12 with Mark Sanchez, he's rebuilding."

Read the full story here:
http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_12152135?source=rss

Mayock whiffed this one big time! After Bowlen pulled the plug on Cutlers hissy fit, McD got at least a two year grace period to show improvement even if he has Howdy Doody at QB.

Killericon
04-16-2009, 04:19 AM
Even if we took Sanchez, whatever happened to letting a guy ride the pine for a season or two? Orton is our QB this year, I think.

fontaine
04-16-2009, 04:27 AM
FYI, so does Cassel.

And Tom Brady has even said he wouldn't be nearly as good a QB as he is today without McDaniels. The real source of this praise was that both said McDaniels' taught them how to make reads before the snap at a level of refinement well beyond anything they had been capable of before, to the point of knowing what the defense was going to do before they snapped the ball and by proxy knowing what the offense was supposed to do in order to beat it.

You might not like some of McDaniels' personnel decisions, but he's one of the brightest offensive mind in the NFL today, if not at the very top of that list.


I don't know about Cassell but as far as Brady goes, Weiss was saying the same thing years before McDaniels which was that Brady was the best QB in the league when it came to making presnap reads and it was his greatest strength.

I'm sure a tape vault full of defensive signals helped in that area so I'm not impressed by McDaniels until I see it on the field.

You could say the same thing about Shanahan's offense as well and how he puts the QB in a position to make plays also.

cousinal11
04-16-2009, 05:26 AM
I don't know about Cassell but as far as Brady goes, Weiss was saying the same thing years before McDaniels which was that Brady was the best QB in the league when it came to making presnap reads and it was his greatest strength.

I'm sure a tape vault full of defensive signals helped in that area so I'm not impressed by McDaniels until I see it on the field.

You could say the same thing about Shanahan's offense as well and how he puts the QB in a position to make plays also.



:thanku:

Rohirrim
04-16-2009, 05:49 AM
Sanchez is a franchise QB, so yeah. Sure. Excellent pick.

El Guapo
04-16-2009, 05:57 AM
I cant wait to get a "dirty sanchez" jersey. :strong:

barryr
04-16-2009, 06:21 AM
Mayock knows a lot about college players, not so much about NFL and their needs. He's the same as Kiper in that regard.

Sanchez is hardly some sure thing as a QB since he hasn't started that much in college and taking him when he's not ready to start in the NFL is what is crazy and not going to buy McDaniels any more time either.

As I mentioned before, the NFL draft is full of QB busts who were taken when they weren't ready to be NFL starting QB's because they did not start much in college.

Ryan of Atlanta had immediate success. He also started since he was a freshman, so played a lot of games.

You can just about look at the QB's who made it and who didn't just by looking at how many games they started in college. There are exceptions to every rule, but for the most part, the QB's who played the most in college, tended to have the better NFL careers.

Or the ones who didn't play as much in college, if given time to develop and not rushed into the QB spot, they tended to develop.

The QB's who did not play as much in college and got drafted high and were rushed into the starting QB spot, which sounds like Mayock suggests the Broncos do, they tend to fail and fail miserably.

No thanks to that Mayock.

Beantown Bronco
04-16-2009, 06:22 AM
Part of me would love to see the meltdown on this board if they traded up to select Sanchez, and then it turned out that Raji was still available at the 12 spot.

Orange_Beard
04-16-2009, 06:26 AM
Sounds like a losing situation.

He is not saying "draft Sanchez because he is great", he is saying draft he to save McDorks job.

barryr
04-16-2009, 06:36 AM
So drafting a QB with your top pick who isn't ready to play when you have a horrid defense is going to save McDaniels' job? This really makes sense to people?

cmhargrove
04-16-2009, 06:37 AM
Take best value at 12, no need to trade up. But, if the best value is a QB or RB, so be it.


I also think people need to stop comparing Orton to Cutler. Compare Orton to a guy like Kurt Warner. They can both run a spread offense. They are both great under pressure. They both do very well if surrounded by lots of talented players. On their own, they aren't dynamic "playmakers" like Jay, but on the right squad, they can have great success. Kurt for the Rams was surrounded by "the greatest show on turf." After that, on a less talented Arizona squad, he was benched and they drafted his replacement. Then, the receivers were standouts again, and he goes to the Superbowl.

In my opinion, I try to load up on even more offensive talent to help Orton. I wouldn't mind an RB or WR in rounds 1-2 if they really think they are getting a playmaker.

Gcver2ver3
04-16-2009, 06:43 AM
Mayock, like anyone, has been wrong before and he's wrong on this one...

i'll add him to the list of folks that'll be eating humble about our upcoming season..

Garcia Bronco
04-16-2009, 06:46 AM
Sanchez will be a flop.

baja
04-16-2009, 06:48 AM
Yes, Orton is a FA in 10...


I'll bet anyone that denver won't win more than 6 next year.

I'll take that bet Mock, shell we say $25?

gyldenlove
04-16-2009, 07:16 AM
If they don't try to get Mark Sanchez, I think they're crazy," Mayock said Wednesday in a national conference call with reporters. "The bottom line to me is if their head coach goes 4-12 with Kyle Orton, he probably gets fired this year. If he goes 4-12 with Mark Sanchez, he's rebuilding."


If we are rebuilding the offense then Mcdaniels should be fired. He was brought in to tweak the offense and make it more mature and to make the team as a whole competitive. In any scenario other than a total disaster where the team plane crashes or a bubonic plague epidemic sweeps through the Denver area and knocks out most of our players he should be fired for going 4-12 full stop.

If we win 8 games or more with Orton or Simms then he has been very successful, if we win 8 games or more with Sanchez then he has been very successful but foolish.

We never needed to rebuild the offense, and that should never be an excuse, and I don't believe it will be.

kamakazi_kal
04-16-2009, 07:20 AM
If we stick with orton everyone should just get ready to watch the king of the dump off pass in action. Theirs a reason forte had almost 100 receptions last year.

As far as the Bear WR being poor in talent nobody here seems to consider that MAYBE Orton and Grossman weren't delivering the ball like a good QB should.

I really hope Simms :spit: wins the job and we build on the defense we don't have enough pieces to even run correctly yet.

footstepsfrom#27
04-16-2009, 07:22 AM
I don't want a QB. We hired a kid because of his work with QBs, and we fired our QB partially as a result. If Orton doesn't get a year to prove himself and we use half of the picks received in compensation to pick another QB, then the trade was a failure. Mayock is correct in assuming that picking Sanchez would be in the best interests of the future of Josh McDaniels, but it would not be in the best interests of the Denver Broncos. One good thing about the Shanny years was his job security meant his interests and the teams interests were one in the same. That is simply no longer the case. McD gets paid to work with QBs and we were sold on the idea that Orton was one he wanted. So lets see it.
Rep.

Bradford in 2010 would suit me fine...no to Sanchez or any other QB in this draft before round 5 or 6.

fontaine
04-16-2009, 07:22 AM
If we are rebuilding the offense then Mcdaniels should be fired. He was brought in to tweak the offense and make it more mature and to make the team as a whole competitive. In any scenario other than a total disaster where the team plane crashes or a bubonic plague epidemic sweeps through the Denver area and knocks out most of our players he should be fired for going 4-12 full stop.

If we win 8 games or more with Orton or Simms then he has been very successful, if we win 8 games or more with Sanchez then he has been very successful but foolish.

We never needed to rebuild the offense, and that should never be an excuse, and I don't believe it will be.

I agree, the offense was fine and doesn't need to rebuild (exactly how you would rebuild a young loaded offense is beyond me anyway) except for securing the QB play.

from SI.com

2. I think the Broncos may trade up in the first round, but not for what you think. Not for a quarterback. Maybe for Tyson Jackson, the LSU defensive end who's the best-available 3-4 defensive end in the draft, or Texas pass-rusher Brian Orakpo. I'm not saying it's impossible they'll draft a quarterback, but believe me when I tell you Josh McDaniels likes Kyle Orton a lot.

It's becoming pretty clear to me that McDaniels believes he can win with Orton and that was a big reason why the trade for Cutler was done so quickly with Chicago when the 'Skins had the higher first round pick this year and pr'bly next year.

Make it work McDaniels.

Gcver2ver3
04-16-2009, 07:26 AM
If we stick with orton everyone should just get ready to watch the king of the dump off pass in action. Theirs a reason forte had almost 100 receptions last year.



100 catches?...

Forte had 63 grabs last season...

FAIL...

worm
04-16-2009, 07:28 AM
He wasn't bad last year. They watched the Falcons game and saw he made some clutch throws with no wideouts, a very poor line and an unimaginative offensive coordinator. I'm not going to declare him god's gift to the NFL, but he's better than the people whining about Cutler care to acknowledge.

http://www.nfl.com/videos?videoId=09000d5d80d3e193

Here are the Orton highlights against the Saints. A defense just as bad as the Broncos.

At the :30 mark he fumbles the snap on his 1 yard line

He throws the ball like a girl at the :36 second mark. Almost a pick.

Orton 'limps' in for his second rushing TD in Week 15. Is compared to Joe Namath's running ability.

Watch him at the 1:55+ minute mark. Happy feet. Throwing off his back foot. Couldn't check down effectively. INT.

Later, his long pass to Hester is late and short.

Go back and watch tape of all his games and don't cherry pick the highlights like these videos do. The games I watched...he was maddeningly inconsistent.

If Orton is the QB this year...you will find McDaniels trying to mask his abilities by getting the ball to the WR playmakers as quickly as possible instead of highlighting the QBs abilities such as what you could do with Cutler.

I have yet to hear ANYONE believe this isn't a QB driven league. If McDaniels is here to show how he can deemphasize the QB position and win with lesser talent at the most critical position, then I will root for it...but I will believe the approach is viable when I see it do more than turn a 18-1 team into a 11-5 team.

Rohirrim
04-16-2009, 07:32 AM
And here I keep thinking Jay was traded because he refused to play in Denver after he got his panties all in a twist. I didn't realize it was a nefarious plot by McD to get rid of Jay all along and that if he now drafts another QB he is simply admitting that his plot has failed. Do any of The Lone Gunmen post here?

Gcver2ver3
04-16-2009, 07:33 AM
http://www.nfl.com/videos?videoId=09000d5d80d3e193

Here are the Orton highlights against the Saints. A defense just as bad as the Broncos.

At the :30 mark he fumbles the snap on his 1 yard line

He throws the ball like a girl at the :36 second mark. Almost a pick.

Orton 'limps' in for his second rushing TD in Week 15.

Watch him at the 1:55+ minute mark. Happy feet. Throwing off his back foot. Couldn't check down effectively. INT.

Later, his long pass to Hester is late and short.

Go back and watch tape of all his games and don't cherry pick the highlights like these videos do. The games I watched...he was maddeningly inconsistent.

If Orton is the QB this year...you will find McDaniels trying to mask his abilities by getting the ball to the WR playmakers as quickly as possible instead of highlighting the QBs abilities such as what you could do with Cutler.

I have yet to hear ANYONE believe this isn't a QB driven league. If McDaniels is here to show how he can deemphasize the QB position and win with lesser talent at the most critical position, then I will root for it...but I will believe the approach is viable when I see it do more than turn a 18-1 team into a 11-5 team.

and Jay Cutler didn't have bad games?...

If you want to see complete games he did well, check out his games against Atlanta and Philly...they both have and will prolly be aired again on the NFL Network...

Before his injury he was playing at a high level...with minimal talent...

tsiguy96
04-16-2009, 07:34 AM
I'll take that bet Mock, shell we say $25?

mocks next reply is the mandatory "raise the bet price to an amount you wont match so i win"

watch and see....

Where's Plummer???
04-16-2009, 07:37 AM
just go with D this season... we got a good QB and we got a good RB. let's see how they turn out and hope for the best

footstepsfrom#27
04-16-2009, 07:37 AM
I have yet to hear ANYONE believe this isn't a QB driven league. If McDaniels is here to show how he can deemphasize the QB position and win with lesser talent at the most critical position, then I will root for it...but I will believe the approach is viable when I see it do more than turn a 18-1 team into a 11-5 team.
Worm swishes the winning 3 pointer at the buzzer...

Game.

Gcver2ver3
04-16-2009, 07:43 AM
Worm swishes the winning 3 pointer at the buzzer...

Game.

huh?...

so a team loses the best QB in football, he helps coach them to 11-5 anyway and that's now a criticism against him?...

that's not anybody's 3 point winner....:spit:

The Joker
04-16-2009, 07:44 AM
Worm swishes the winning 3 pointer at the buzzer...

Game.

http://www.sportsbook-bonus.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/tom-brady-injury-268x300.jpg

OrangeRising
04-16-2009, 07:47 AM
I agree with Mayock. Sanchez is a hell of a young QB, fits the system, and from all indications does not appear to be a mopey primadonna pansy.

If the price is #12 and a 3rd rounder... do it. Plenty of other picks to help the D. I'm just not sold on Orton being the long-term answer.


Completely agree. It's also true he won't make it to the 12th pick. I don't agree it's desperate move. It potentially sets Denver up at the most critical position for the next 10-15 years.

Better yet, he'll get his reps behind one of the best O-lines in football.

More than a good football move, it would go a long way to heal the wounds left from the Cutler debacle.

Plenty of picks left to stock the defense, including in the first and second rounds and beyond.

Beantown Bronco
04-16-2009, 07:47 AM
huh?...

so a team loses the best QB in football, he helps coach them to 11-5 anyway and that's now a criticism against him?...

that's not anybody's 3 point winner....:spit:

Seriously. I've criticized McDaniels quite a bit around here, but to think he's a failure because he didn't go 19-0 without Brady is just insane.

The Joker
04-16-2009, 07:51 AM
I think footsteps and worm deserve a

http://demotivation-posters.com/gallery/1_06_01_09_4_56_13.jpg

Keep up the good work, guys. :strong:

Gcver2ver3
04-16-2009, 07:51 AM
Seriously. I've criticized McDaniels quite a bit around here, but to think he's a failure because he didn't go 19-0 without Brady is just insane.

yea, and don't get me wrong...while i don't agree, i can certainly understand why some fans will be skeptical about what McD and crew are doing...but some of these posters are just getting way carried away...

sounding like morons...

Rohirrim
04-16-2009, 07:56 AM
We're stretching the"silly" envelope.

Taco John
04-16-2009, 07:58 AM
Does anyone really think Bowlen is going to have potentially three HCs on the payroll?

Shanny at millions per year, McDaniels at a couple mill, the next HC...I don't. Even if McDaniels goes 2-14 with Orton, I don't see him getting fired.

Frankly, the case that Bowlen has thought the whole "firing Shanahan" thing through does not come with a whole lot of supporting evidence. It's hard to guess what Bowlen is going to do on any given day. This man went from "Jay is the man around here, obviously" and telling him that Jeremy Bates is going to stick around, to allowing Jeremy Bates to be fired and saying that he's old and completely forgot about the conversation - and then pushing Cutler out of the organization when Josh was trying to make it work.

It's anybody's guess how Bowlen would handle a 4-12, 2-14 season. Though, I'm not so pessimistic. I believe that we could go 8-8 or 9-7. This is a parity league still, and there's no telling who is going to be good or bad this upcoming season.

Hercules Rockefeller
04-16-2009, 08:05 AM
The rumor mill was saying Washington offered us essentially the same thing, with Campbell, and their pick is higher than Chicago's. I don't know how true it is, but Washington's interest is pretty certifiable, at least.

No. It's been well established Denver did not want Campbell, which was why the Skins were trying to trade him for a 2nd round pick that could then be used with other picks to acquire Cutler.

The rumor mill was that Denver was down to Chicago and Cleveland in the end because the Broncos wanted either Orton or Quinn to come back in any deal for Cutler. Denver stopped responding to calls/texts from Washington, Tampa, and the Jets because those teams could only offer trades for draft picks.

And McDaniels isn't getting fired for a 4-12 season with Orton, Bowlen chose sides in this whole ordeal and he blames Cutler for this fiasco.

SoDak Bronco
04-16-2009, 08:07 AM
I would love to see us go after Sanchez. I am in the camp that believes to win consistently in the NFL you need a top tier QB. Is Orton or Simms in that discussion? I don't think he is, and if we can grab Sanchez at #8 in exchange for our 3rd, I would love to see it. I have been a Cutler loyalist, and I will admit to this, he does have an attitude that has caused fans to choose sides. With Sanchez we are getting a really nice kid that would be a great person for Denver community and someone ALL fans could embrace (if he doesn't bust ). I think he would do well to sit and learn McD's complex scheme for a year and comeback the following season ready to rock and roll.

Traveler
04-16-2009, 08:09 AM
Frankly, the case that Bowlen has thought the whole "firing Shanahan" thing through does not come with a whole lot of supporting evidence. It's hard to guess what Bowlen is going to do on any given day. This man went from "Jay is the man around here, obviously" and telling him that Jeremy Bates is going to stick around, to allowing Jeremy Bates to be fired and saying that he's old and completely forgot about the conversation - and then pushing Cutler out of the organization when Josh was trying to make it work.

It's anybody's guess how Bowlen would handle a 4-12, 2-14 season. Though, I'm not so pessimistic. I believe that we could go 8-8 or 9-7. This is a parity league still, and there's no telling who is going to be good or bad this upcoming season.


TJ,

Jay was the man until he stopped acting like one and went into whine mode. Do you have inside knowledge Bowlen actually told him Bates would remain?

Last I remember, only people he publically said would remain was the Goodman's and a few offensive assistants.

As much as you'd like this to be about Bowlen getting old, it's not. Too much blame to go around on all sides.

worm
04-16-2009, 08:13 AM
Seriously. I've criticized McDaniels quite a bit around here, but to think he's a failure because he didn't go 19-0 without Brady is just insane.

Yes. That would be insane and is not what I was implying. It is also insane to point to an 11-5 season and say that McDaniels can 'coach up' a QB with lesser talent like Orton or Cassel and deliver a playoff calibur season on a team in the state the Broncos are in right now.

Back to this thread. You either believe Orton is good now...or will become good under McDaniels...or is not good enough so the need is there to draft another QB.

1) I don't believe Orton is good now. Or at least he is not consistent enough.

2) I believe that McDaniels can mask some of Kyle's weak points and rely more on the offensive WR playmakers around him (a better RB would help with this)

3) I am not convinced that in this league you can get by with doing just that. I think that maybe Josh's ego is getting in the way based on results he experienced last year that are not typical.

4) I believe that he will need to find his franchise QB in the next two drafts to get this team to where it wants to be.

If I was the Broncos FO I would evaluate all QB in this draft and next years. Target the one guy you want. Then go get him with all the fire power you have.

Beantown Bronco
04-16-2009, 08:17 AM
Yes. That would be insane and is not what I was implying. It is also insane to point to an 11-5 season and say that McDaniels can 'coach up' a QB with lesser talent like Orton or Cassel and deliver a playoff calibur season on a team in the state the Broncos are in right now.

McDaniels has been a QB coach for more than one season. Look at all the years he spent with Brady for instance. After college, Brady was viewed as garbage. After his rookie season, he was viewed as garbage by his own coaches (Back at the end of 2000, Brady found one of the Patriot QB coach's notebooks which had all his "grades" on it. He was failing miserably). McDaniels and Co. worked mercilessly with him and look at him today. You have to look beyond what he did in 2008 to get the full picture.

Taco John
04-16-2009, 08:19 AM
TJ,

Jay was the man until he stopped acting like one and went into whine mode. Do you have inside knowledge Bowlen actually told him Bates would remain?

Last I remember, only people he publically said would remain was the Goodman's and a few offensive assistants.

As much as you'd like this to be about Bowlen getting old, it's not. Too much blame to go around on all sides.



I think if anyone on this forum had been lied to as much as Jay had, they'd have reacted the same way. As far as your second sentance goes, by all accounts I've read and heard, Jeremy Bates was among the "few offensive assistants" that Bowlen had said he was keeping around. Bowlen, of course, denies he ever had that meeting with Jay - himself blaming his old age as a possible reason he "forgot" it.

worm
04-16-2009, 08:25 AM
McDaniels has been a QB coach for more than one season. Look at all the years he spent with Brady for instance. After college, Brady was viewed as garbage. After his rookie season, he was viewed as garbage by his own coaches (Back at the end of 2000, Brady found one of the Patriot QB coach's notebooks which had all his "grades" on it. He was failing miserably). McDaniels and Co. worked mercilessly with him and look at him today. You have to look beyond what he did in 2008 to get the full picture.

Hey, if Josh can turn Kyle into a top 10 QB in the NFL, I will be the first to acknowledge his greatness. I am just highly skeptical, even when I look at what was done with Brady and Cassel. That body of work got Josh a well paid head coaching job.

To keep that job he needs to have top 5-10 quality at the QB position.
If he can turn what I see of Orton on tape into Tom Brady...then Bowlen should give him a coach for life contract so we are set for the next 10 years at HC.

Traveler
04-16-2009, 08:26 AM
I think if anyone on this forum had been lied to as much as Jay had, they'd have reacted the same way. As far as your second sentance goes, by all accounts I've read and heard, Jeremy Bates was among the "few offensive assistants" that Bowlen had said he was keeping around. Bowlen, of course, denies he ever had that meeting with Jay - himself blaming his old age as a possible reason he "forgot" it.

Like I said, enough blame to go around. Just fleshing out your comment that Bowlen personally told Jay that Bates wasn't going anywhere. So we all can only infer, not prove, that Bates would be one of the remaining "few" assistants. Turns out, only a few did remain (Turner & Dennison).

fontaine
04-16-2009, 08:27 AM
I think if anyone on this forum had been lied to as much as Jay had, they'd have reacted the same way.

?Reacted the same way?

Stuff like that goes on a lot between coaches/players. But even Raider players talk to Al Davis.

Jay pretty much shut down communication and refused to talk with Bowlen. So when did Bowlen lie to Jay? And this is not about some meeting, it's about whether the owner of the team directly lied to Jay and even then Cutler had no reason to react the way he did with Bowlen.

McDaniels? Who cares about about a first year 32 year old coach? But Bowlen is an entirely different matter. Jay flunked his way out of Denver by refusing to communicate with Bowlen like an adult.

Smiling Assassin27
04-16-2009, 08:30 AM
Please. At no point was jay justified in demanding a trade. Never. At no point was he justified in avoiding phone calls from the owner. Never. At no point was he justified in taking this to the media, or allowing his agent to do so. Never.

Was he lied to? Maybe so. Instead of acting like a professional, he pulled stunts that were juvenile and amateurish. So stop with the 'if anyone here had been lied to, they'd do the same.' junk--it's just not true.

As for Sanchez, I won't be heart broken if we do pick him, but believe that greater needs exist elsewhere, particularly with the switch to 3-4. We need defensive contributors in the worst way--guys that will be good for the long term.

I'm willing to let McD take his shot and only care about results on the field, not innuendo and past love triangles that bruised egos and vaginal cavities. Get players that want to be here, that can play, and that are coachable. That is all.

Dedhed
04-16-2009, 08:31 AM
If we take Sanchez (or any QB in the first at all) that essentially means that we traded Cutler for Sanchez. No, it means we traded Cutler for Sanchez, a first round pick, a 5th turned into a 3rd, and a top quality backup QB.

Rabb
04-16-2009, 08:39 AM
Part of me would love to see the meltdown on this board if they traded up to select Sanchez, and then it turned out that Raji was still available at the 12 spot.

Jesus Christ I just got sick to my stomach

BroncoFiend
04-16-2009, 08:42 AM
I think if anyone on this forum had been lied to as much as Jay had, they'd have reacted the same way. As far as your second sentance goes, by all accounts I've read and heard, Jeremy Bates was among the "few offensive assistants" that Bowlen had said he was keeping around. Bowlen, of course, denies he ever had that meeting with Jay - himself blaming his old age as a possible reason he "forgot" it.

Didn't Bates leave on his own before McD made any decision because he knew he wouldn't be calling the plays?

TheDave
04-16-2009, 08:48 AM
Sorry but we hired this kidd because he is supposedly a THE newest brightest offensive mind in the NFL and a magician with QB's... Well it's time for him to work his magic on simms and orton.

This defense was absolutely the most pathetic talentless group I have ever seen... and that was with them running a version of the 4-3 that they were drafted and/or acquired for. Now were guessing that this group is somehow competent enough to run a much more complicated 3-4 system. We need a MASSIVE infusion of talent on that side of the ball... more than just one draft can deliver. Every high pick we spend on offense is one more lost opportunity to acquire defensive talent.

If the FO wants to throw a 3rd at a QB project (McGee or Bomar) and develop them... fine but wasting #12 and additional picks to move up for another project Makes a crappy trade for cutler even worse.

BroncoBuff
04-16-2009, 08:57 AM
If we stick with orton everyone should just get ready to watch the king of the dump off pass in action. Theirs a reason forte had almost 100 receptions last year.
HILLIS HILLIS HILLIS!

If Josh doesn't give Hillis a fair shot and instead plays Arrington and Buckhalter, I WILL start hating him :moody:


As far as the Bear WR being poor in talent nobody here seems to consider that MAYBE Orton and Grossman weren't delivering the ball like a good QB should.
I agree ... remember, Orton is not even an established starter in the league. He was benched several times on a quarterback-weak team. And every nanogram of Orton love on this board is because he's a Bronco now. The same people who love and anoint him in here would've laughed at their own posts a month ago.



I really hope Simms :spit: wins the job and we build on the defense we don't have enough pieces to even run correctly yet.
I might agree with this ... I watched Chris Simms all the time on the Ticket in '05 and early '06, and he is a very accurate passer, . If he's healthy, he might surprise some people.

TheChamp24
04-16-2009, 09:00 AM
Its funny how many people "hate" on Kyle Orton and think if he doesn't have a top 10, top 5 QB season, he is worthless.
I think he could be solid for us, and we really have no idea how good or bad he will be in our system. That is why I say ride it out a year with him, if he sucks, then take our QB next year in Sam Bradford.

fontaine
04-16-2009, 09:06 AM
Its funny how many people "hate" on Kyle Orton and think if he doesn't have a top 10, top 5 QB season, he is worthless.
I think he could be solid for us, and we really have no idea how good or bad he will be in our system. That is why I say ride it out a year with him, if he sucks, then take our QB next year in Sam Bradford.

There's nothing wrong with disliking crappy QBs that played poorly in Chicago.

Would you bow down and worship Rex Grossman if he were hypothetically traded instead of Orton?

And as far as how good he could be in our system etc etc, we pretty much had these same conversations when Plummer was signed here. I'm not saying Orton sucks and won't ever succeed here but please Orton was pretty much useless in Chicago except for a few 15 second highlight clips.

SonOfLe-loLang
04-16-2009, 09:10 AM
There's nothing wrong with disliking crappy QBs that played poorly in Chicago.

Would you bow down and worship Rex Grossman if he were hypothetically traded instead of Orton?

And as far as how good he could be in our system etc etc, we pretty much had these same conversations when Plummer was signed here. I'm not saying Orton sucks and won't ever succeed here but please Orton was pretty much useless in Chicago except for a few 15 second highlight clips.

There's a huge diff between Orton and Grossman. Grossman would force passes like Cutler, cept with half the talent. He was crap. Orton might not be the greatest thing in the world, but he's a completely diff QB than Cutler, Plummer, etc.

I watched a lot of bears games last year and was convinced Orton improved SIGNIFICANTLY as a QB. In fact, before his injury he was playing great football in a crappy ass offense. My bears friends were convinced this was his break out year (though i think QB's are naturally limited in the bears o) And never underestimate leadership quality in your QB. The bears played for this guy, they loved him. The Broncos, i assume, will love him too.

gyldenlove
04-16-2009, 09:11 AM
McDaniels has been a QB coach for more than one season. Look at all the years he spent with Brady for instance. After college, Brady was viewed as garbage. After his rookie season, he was viewed as garbage by his own coaches (Back at the end of 2000, Brady found one of the Patriot QB coach's notebooks which had all his "grades" on it. He was failing miserably). McDaniels and Co. worked mercilessly with him and look at him today. You have to look beyond what he did in 2008 to get the full picture.

Lets not give him more credit than he deserves on the Brady front. Mcdaniels didn't start working with the QBs until after Brady had won 2 super bowls and 2 matching super bowl MVPs.

It was Charlie Weis who build Tom Brady, not Mcdaniels. Mcdaniels just took over the nicely shrinkwrapped two times super bowl MVP and tweaked him a bit and when the Patriots finally got some really good WRs everything came together except the super bowl.

Tom Brady without Mcdaniels: 3 seasons as a starter, 2 super bowl wins and matching mvps.

Tom Brady with Mcdaniels: 4 seasons as a starter (not counting 2008), 1 super bowl win, no super bowl mvps, 1 league mvp and a bunch of passing records.

TheChamp24
04-16-2009, 09:28 AM
There's nothing wrong with disliking crappy QBs that played poorly in Chicago.

Would you bow down and worship Rex Grossman if he were hypothetically traded instead of Orton?

And as far as how good he could be in our system etc etc, we pretty much had these same conversations when Plummer was signed here. I'm not saying Orton sucks and won't ever succeed here but please Orton was pretty much useless in Chicago except for a few 15 second highlight clips.

Grossman is horrible because he is mistake prone.
Orton hasn't really had that problem much, and lets face it, Bears offense is nothing compared to the Broncos offense.
Orton did decently his rookie year, and progressed last year. Saying he is "crappy" is pretty bold statement. He isn't THAT bad, and like I said, we don't need a gunslinger out there at QB like Cutler was. Sure, Cutler was fantastic, but we can get by with someone else. Everybody worrying about the QB position and saying Orton sucks doesn't realize that our defense is so craptastic right now, it doesn't matter who we start out there, we need to fix that defense.

yerner
04-16-2009, 09:28 AM
I watched alot of Sanchez. I don't find him impressive. Plus there's this huge thing that always bothers me. Number of starts. How many do you think Sanchez had? I bet it wasn't more than 16 or 17. Seriously? I bet its a similiar number to Akili Smith.

And as you guys have said, he plays with a team full of top talent. Who hasn't had success at usc? Is he really anymore valuable than Booty last year? I would argue that Booty was better in his time at USC. I hate when these guys have to be top picks just cause there is nobody else. I see Sanchez as a 3rd rounder with his limited resume.

HILife
04-16-2009, 09:30 AM
Mayock: Broncos need to select USC's Sanchez

NFL draft guru Mike Mayock is convinced the Broncos have only one choice in the first round of the April 25-26 draft.

"If they don't try to get Mark Sanchez, I think they're crazy," Mayock said Wednesday in a national conference call with reporters. "The bottom line to me is if their head coach goes 4-12 with Kyle Orton, he probably gets fired this year. If he goes 4-12 with Mark Sanchez, he's rebuilding."

Read the full story here:
http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_12152135?source=rss


That would be really stupid if they fire him after one year. I'm for not drafting a QB. I'd like to see what Kyle can do under Josh McDaniels. He must think pretty highly of him to turn down higher draft picks from the Redskins.

Dagmar
04-16-2009, 09:30 AM
Dirty Sanchez and stafford have bust all over them.

Colt and Bradford are real, but Mcdummy won't draft either.

Remember my words.

The question is, will YOU remember your words?

'cause it's....


http://johngushue.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/05/08/its_peanut_butter_jelly_time_from_f.gif

baja
04-16-2009, 09:34 AM
HILLIS HILLIS HILLIS!

If Josh doesn't give Hillis a fair shot and instead plays Arrington and Buckhalter, I WILL start hating him :moody:



I agree ... remember, Orton is not even an established starter in the league. He was benched several times on a quarterback-weak team. And every nanogram of Orton love on this board is because he's a Bronco now. The same people who love and anoint him in here would've laughed at their own posts a month ago.





I might agree with this ... I watched Chris Simms all the time on the Ticket in '05 and early '06, and he is a very accurate passer, . If he's healthy, he might surprise some people.

i have always liked Chris Simms and was hoping we would draft him when he came out.

baja
04-16-2009, 09:36 AM
The question is, will YOU remember your words?

'cause it's....


http://johngushue.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/05/08/its_peanut_butter_jelly_time_from_f.gif

You keep posting this as if it's funny, it's not! The guy almost died and is permanently messed up.

Gcver2ver3
04-16-2009, 09:39 AM
Orton was pretty much useless in Chicago except for a few 15 second highlight clips.

that's just flat out not true...

Dagmar
04-16-2009, 09:45 AM
You keep posting this as if it's funny, it's not! The guy almost died and is permanently messed up.

I'll try being nicer if he'll try being smarter.

And it is funny, believe me. My rep disproves your point. Just because YOU don't find it funny, doesn't mean it isn't.

And to be honest, it messed him up, but he's back to being the same mock he was before it, thus he's all better thus it's ok to mock mock!

:peace:

Keep on taking the moral high ground though. I will keep laughing.

Inkana7
04-16-2009, 09:49 AM
TJ, it was never, ever said that Bates would be retained. In fact, he was pretty much written off by everyone when McDaniels was hired. He even interviewed for Oakland. You're pulling stuff out of your ass again.

BroncoBuff
04-16-2009, 09:51 AM
Frankly, the case that Bowlen has thought the whole "firing Shanahan" thing through does not come with a whole lot of supporting evidence. It's hard to guess what Bowlen is going to do on any given day. This man went from "Jay is the man around here, obviously" and telling him that Jeremy Bates is going to stick around, to allowing Jeremy Bates to be fired and saying that he's old and completely forgot about the conversation - and then pushing Cutler out of the organization when Josh was trying to make it work.
Well said ... it's so easy to forget this stuff, but it is important to acknowledge these things when assessing Jay's reaction and his mindset. I think Jay overreacted, but he had a damn good reason for being ticked off.

Two little things from Mike would've kept us on track:

1) STFU about the status of Dove Valley facilities, and
2) Fire the F out of Bob Slowick (and maybe hire Mike Nolan)

Mike made his own bed by sticking with Slowick and complaining about the "Paul D. Bowlen Memorial" facilities ... :nono:



It's anybody's guess how Bowlen would handle a 4-12, 2-14 season. Though, I'm not so pessimistic. I believe that we could go 8-8 or 9-7. This is a parity league still, and there's no telling who is going to be good or bad this upcoming season.
We'll see ... with all these changes, the over/under on wins is probably 6.

BlueCrusher
04-16-2009, 09:53 AM
I watched alot of Sanchez. I don't find him impressive. Plus there's this huge thing that always bothers me. Number of starts. How many do you think Sanchez had? I bet it wasn't more than 16 or 17. Seriously? I bet its a similiar number to Akili Smith.

And as you guys have said, he plays with a team full of top talent. Who hasn't had success at usc? Is he really anymore valuable than Booty last year? I would argue that Booty was better in his time at USC. I hate when these guys have to be top picks just cause there is nobody else. I see Sanchez as a 3rd rounder with his limited resume.

I totally agree. If Sanchez was coming out next year, he would probably be the fifth QB taken...

Broncomutt
04-16-2009, 10:04 AM
I've loved everything that's happened so far this off-season, but I think taking a QB with our first pick would trouble me.

Anybody else want to build a defense so mean and nasty that it won't matter who's at QB?

Sometimes I really feel alone in that sentiment.:-[

baja
04-16-2009, 10:09 AM
I'll try being nicer if he'll try being smarter.

And it is funny, believe me. My rep disproves your point. Just because YOU don't find it funny, doesn't mean it isn't.

And to be honest, it messed him up, <b>but he's back to being the same mock he was before </b> it, thus he's all better thus it's ok to mock mock!

:peace:

Keep on taking the moral high ground though. I will keep laughing.

He will never ever be the same as he was before.

I have had the pleasure of talking with Mock on the phone a month or so ago and he is a good guy that is disabled so if you think it's funny making fun of the disabled than knock yourself out, me I think it is completely tasteless.

Paladin
04-16-2009, 10:15 AM
:deadhorse

TotallyScrewed
04-16-2009, 10:27 AM
I agree with Mayock. Sanchez is a hell of a young QB, fits the system, and from all indications does not appear to be a mopey primadonna pansy.

If the price is #12 and a 3rd rounder... do it. Plenty of other picks to help the D. I'm just not sold on Orton being the long-term answer.

This mess just keeps on growing...

I really like how Bowlen for Dollars keeps serving the koolaid... "clearly Jay didn't want to play here Blah, blah"...It's all Jay's fault.

And now some want to get a good QB. This is such a waste. If they package a bunch of picks to take another chance on a premier QB, I'm going to laugh that their dumb azz.

The only thing I'm sure of is that Orton is the wrong answer.

24champ
04-16-2009, 10:28 AM
Frankly, the case that Bowlen has thought the whole "firing Shanahan" thing through does not come with a whole lot of supporting evidence. It's hard to guess what Bowlen is going to do on any given day. This man went from "Jay is the man around here, obviously" and telling him that Jeremy Bates is going to stick around, to allowing Jeremy Bates to be fired and saying that he's old and completely forgot about the conversation - and then pushing Cutler out of the organization when Josh was trying to make it work.

It's anybody's guess how Bowlen would handle a 4-12, 2-14 season. Though, I'm not so pessimistic. I believe that we could go 8-8 or 9-7. This is a parity league still, and there's no telling who is going to be good or bad this upcoming season.

Point taken, however there is one consistent with Pat Bowlen believe it or not. He's been giving McDaniels full support and backing. He's put all the marbles in McDaniels basket.

If the Broncos play like utter crap next season and go 4-12, 2-14 whatever...I just don't see Bowlen ready to admit the fact he screwed up everything in one off-season. Not that soon, keep in mind Bowlen has his own agenda. He wants to be in the HOF as a great owner.

McDaniels has a 2 year leash, regardless of what happens in the first year.

DrFate
04-16-2009, 10:30 AM
I can't imagine the rage of the fans if, in the end, this is a Cutler for Sanchez deal. (that would suppose a trade UP)

if Sanchez falls to 12 and we draft a LB at 18, then it becomes a Cutler for Sanchez + the LB trade. (yes, I know about the 2010 #1, let's wait and see on that).

But if Denver packages the 2 #1s this year to move up and take Sanchez - eesh. I can see riots in the streets.

Rabb
04-16-2009, 10:32 AM
I've loved everything that's happened so far this off-season, but I think taking a QB with our first pick would trouble me.

Anybody else want to build a defense so mean and nasty that it won't matter who's at QB?

Sometimes I really feel alone in that sentiment.:-[

I am completely in your camp

Mile High Mojoe
04-16-2009, 10:37 AM
Moving up to get Sanchez or even taking him if he happens to fall to #12 is a mistake. Iím not buying Sanchezís abilities, look at how ineffective Leinart as been. Maybe Sanchez is equal in talent to Leinart, big deal, if thatís true what does that give us? I say we draft all Defense and if by some chance a good RB is left on the board maybe go that way with the 2nd or 3rd pick.

If the Broncos do take Sanchez then McD is saying that he did make the Cutler trade to get him. Not only that he losses more creditability with the team and the fans if he makes this move and I also believe it compounds the pressure for him to win NOW more than if he went with Orton. If McD drafts Sanchez and fails I bet he doesnít live to see the 3rd year of his contract. Besides the cap cost to draft Sanchez to $40 million dollar contract is insane when we need help at every position on D and need more depth at RB and WR. McDís claim to fame is his so called ability to take a turd and turn him into gold, if you buy the Cassel success let him prove it with Orton or Simms.

I hated the Cutler trade from the get go but I say we go with Orton, at least for this year. Maybe Tim Tebow could be a possibility next year if he recovers from the shoulder injury, what do guys think about him? But Sanchez? NO! Stafford? NO! Draft Defense? YES! RB if we can get one? YES!

Gcver2ver3
04-16-2009, 10:37 AM
The only thing I'm sure of is that Orton is the wrong answer.


and the only thing i'm sure of is that your post = FAIL...

Gcver2ver3
04-16-2009, 10:39 AM
But if Denver packages the 2 #1s this year to move up and take Sanchez - eesh. I can see riots in the streets.

if that happens i would officially jump camps and join the McD bashers...

but i'm feel confident it ain't gonna happen...

yerner
04-16-2009, 10:42 AM
Actually, I bet the move for Sanchez doesn't make sense from a money standpoint. How much cash could they justify spending at one position. Especially with the amount of Simms contract.

TotallyScrewed
04-16-2009, 10:44 AM
Whoa, wait a minute... who said we turned down better deals, just so we could get Orton?

Did I miss something?

Who had a better deal out there on the table, and what was it?

The better deal was Bowlen sticking a hand in his pants and remembering that he has a pair and FORCING his boys to correct their mistakes. They were both under contract to work for him.

Beantown Bronco
04-16-2009, 10:46 AM
Actually, I bet the move for Sanchez doesn't make sense from a money standpoint. How much cash could they justify spending at one position. Especially with the amount of Simms contract.

It's a sad state of affairs when Chris Simms' contract is holding you back financially.

DrFate
04-16-2009, 10:48 AM
if that happens i would officially jump camps and join the McD bashers...

Plenty of room for you over here. :) It's crowded, but we can take more.

I think it is unlikely, but the conventional wisdom is Sanchez is gone by 12. If so, for him to be a Bronco they have to move up. Now if they package #12 with the third round pick - that's one thing.

If they package #12 and #18 to move up to guarantee Sanchez - I think it could get very ugly around here. A select few :homer:s will say it is a stroke of genius, but most will feel the team is officially off the tracks.

TotallyScrewed
04-16-2009, 10:53 AM
I think you've nailed it. If Mayock says Sanchez is a better QB than Stafford, then you can probably take that to the bank, but when he says that QB is a team need for the Broncos he is stepping outside of his area of expertise.

Plus the justification seems to be a political one - he doesn't seem to be saying we have a better chance of competing next year with Sanchez, just that McDaniels has a better chance of keeping his job if he gets a project QB.

Personally I don't think that McDaniels gets canned this season whatever happens - Bowlen didn't hire the new guy just to can him after one bad year, and his backing of McD through the Cutler fiasco shows that he's determined to back the man he picked.

When Mayock says who's best at a given position I listen. When Mayock ventures an opinion on what type of pick would be best for what team I take it with a pince of salt.

So if we do go QB then I hope it is Sanchez, but I don't agree that this is what we should do.

I agree completely. To get rid of Cutler to take a chance on a potentially "good" QB, makes no sense. The Broncos better get lots of defensive help in THIS draft.

Inkana7
04-16-2009, 11:14 AM
Actually, I bet the move for Sanchez doesn't make sense from a money standpoint. How much cash could they justify spending at one position. Especially with the amount of Simms contract.

Yeah, that 2-year, $6 Million dollar blockbuster we signed him to.

gyldenlove
04-16-2009, 11:38 AM
Actually, I bet the move for Sanchez doesn't make sense from a money standpoint. How much cash could they justify spending at one position. Especially with the amount of Simms contract.

If they wanted to give a big contract to a young QB they could have kept the kid who is 25 and already has numerous franchise records. Getting Sanchez makes so little sense in so many ways.

Punisher
04-16-2009, 11:44 AM
If Sanchez fell into our laps, I would think Denver would have to consider drafting him....but I don't want to trade up to take him.

I don't think he makes it past SF at 10.

I can't believe we are looking for a franchise QB again....a few months ago, I thought we were set for the next 12 years.

Don't remind me :notthissh

Taco John
04-16-2009, 11:54 AM
Point taken, however there is one consistent with Pat Bowlen believe it or not. He's been giving McDaniels full support and backing. He's put all the marbles in McDaniels basket.

If the Broncos play like utter crap next season and go 4-12, 2-14 whatever...I just don't see Bowlen ready to admit the fact he screwed up everything in one off-season. Not that soon, keep in mind Bowlen has his own agenda. He wants to be in the HOF as a great owner.

McDaniels has a 2 year leash, regardless of what happens in the first year.



From a practical standpoint, I agree with you. My only point is that there's no guessing how Bowlen might handle a 4-12 or worse season... and that it might be a moot point anyway because we're really not as bad as so many are imagining. The cupboards aren't bare by any stretch of the imgination.

chaz
04-16-2009, 12:02 PM
He wasn't bad last year.

Not bad doesn't cut it...you don't win super bowls with a mediocre QB. It's pretty simple.

chaz
04-16-2009, 12:06 PM
Wow ... Mike Mayock said that?

He's the #1 expert in my book, he's almost always right. He was right that the Cutler trade was foolish. I've been totally against Sanchez, but I'd have to defer to Mayock ... he is correct that Sanchez would likely buy Josh more time to field a winner, but Sanchez is a junior, and the Matt Leinart result scares me.

Leinert lived for fame, Sanchez lives for football...a big difference in mentality. I don't know how to evaluate QBs really, but I think Sanchez has the tools for McD to turn into a star.

Hulamau
04-16-2009, 12:06 PM
I have mixed feelings about Orton. I see Orton as, well... what he is: Griese's disciple. I think that he's the type who will be as good as the rest of your offense is. For that matter, I think we have a pretty good offense, which is the source of my mixed feelings on Orton.

But even if Orton is a solution, we are minus a runningback threat who can go the distance on any given play. I think Orton is going to give us the same sort of offense that Griese gave us: one that defenses love to throw pressure at and force us to beat them with the quarterback. Like Griese, I don't think Orton has the juice to make a defense pay for testing him, and I'm not convinced that our running game has the personnel there to take the heat off of Orton and open up the passing lanes.

I think we need a home run threat at running back out of this draft.

Agree with you Taco on the need for a stud at RB to pull the whole O together. Cutler could have used that as well last year as well as this if he had stayed.

But the thing I like about Orton is, I think his size, skill set and in particular his smarts at the line and how quickly he gets rid of that ball as well as his high accuracy in the 5 to 40 yard range will all elevate his play considerably in this system with this offensive talent, above what he would possibly do in Chicago or on many other teams where he would have to make a lot more happen on shear athleticism, rolling out of the pocket etc.

He is a near textbook QB for McD and this system. He's a total team guy, he knows how to earn the loyalty and respect of his teammates from all reports from Chicago. He's extremely smart and relishes playing more again from the shotgun as he often did at Purdue.

And he's got a bucket load more talent around him than he has EVER had! Not to mention a scheme that a QB could die for... Most people that rag on him simply have not watched him close up at Purdue and particularly last year when he was healthy. He wasn't just serviceable before that blow-out high ankle sprain, he was damn good!

One thing is for sure, by the end of the year we should have a much better fix on just how good Orton can really be. Not counting too much on huge winning stats this year, what with the entire team in makeover-ville.

The team wont even know each others first names until mid season, not to mention the brutal schedule this year. But steady progress AND a stronger team at the finish is what I am looking for, with a lot of momentum heading into 2010. Anything more is just gravy this year.

And yes, a stud RB would be very welcome all around.

gyldenlove
04-16-2009, 12:29 PM
From a practical standpoint, I agree with you. My only point is that there's no guessing how Bowlen might handle a 4-12 or worse season... and that it might be a moot point anyway because we're really not as bad as so many are imagining. The cupboards aren't bare by any stretch of the imgination.

I agree here, Bowlen is probably pretty set on keeping Mcdaniels around for at least 2 years, but I still doubt that he gets more than 1 year if the team really tanks. Bowlen appears to be willing to pay Shanahan 8 mill a year for not coaching, I am sure he would accept paying Mcdaniels 7.5 million for not coaching if he had to.

Pick Six
04-16-2009, 12:30 PM
Not giving Orton a chance to thrive in Denver would be stupid. Shanahan obviously saw all he wanted in Plummer before drafting Cutler...

BroncoBuff
04-16-2009, 12:46 PM
The better deal was Bowlen sticking a hand in his pants and remembering that he has a pair and FORCING his boys to correct their mistakes. They were both under contract to work for him.

Bingo.

And he shouldda stood up for Goodman, too.

Kaylore
04-16-2009, 01:46 PM
Bingo.

And he shouldda stood up for Goodman, too.

The Goodmans being canned bugs me too, but in this case there was little he could do. Jim Goodman didn't want to be promoted so he gave the job to Xanders and Jeff threw a hissy fit. Jeff goes, so Jim and the other Goodman went to try and avoid any weirdness in their family or on the team. It sucks but it's one of the reasons Nepotism in the business sucks.

Rohirrim
04-16-2009, 01:50 PM
I totally agree. If Sanchez was coming out next year, he would probably be the fifth QB taken...

Hmmm. Interesting idea. What if Sanchez had stayed at USC, played another year, was even better than last season, and made it to the national championship? Fifth QB taken? I highly doubt it.

DrFate
04-16-2009, 01:56 PM
Hmmm. Interesting idea. What if Sanchez had stayed at USC, played another year, was even better than last season, and made it to the national championship? Fifth QB taken? I highly doubt it.

What if Sanchez stayed at USC, played another year, was selected to go to Mars, but before lift-off was mauled by a bear on a unicycle?

Short of Miss Cleo, nobody knows the future. The point the guy made was taking his body of work to date. Sanchez came out NOW because he knows he's likely the #2 QB off the board. If he has to compete with McCoy and Bradford and whoever else - he slips.

Hercules Rockefeller
04-16-2009, 01:58 PM
The better deal was Bowlen sticking a hand in his pants and remembering that he has a pair and FORCING his boys to correct their mistakes. They were both under contract to work for him.

And maybe he did that?

Not everything that occurred during this whole fiasco is out there publically yet.

BroncoBuff
04-16-2009, 01:59 PM
The Goodmans being canned bugs me too, but in this case there was little he could do. Jim Goodman didn't want to be promoted so he gave the job to Xanders and Jeff threw a hissy fit. Jeff goes, so Jim and the other Goodman went to try and avoid any weirdness in their family or on the team. It sucks but it's one of the reasons Nepotism in the business sucks.

I don't agree there ... Jeremy Bates didn't experience any "weirdness" after pop was canned. He thrived, actually ... and Jim Goodman did not resign, he was fired. Bowlen promised power-sharing, and yet Josh appears firmly in control, at least of personnel. He's making the trades all by himself, according to Jerry Angelo, who oughtta know.

And is it true Goodman didn't want to be promoted? Is that something you surmise, or was it said somewhere?


I just think Josh is a brash, energetic go-getter, and it wouldn't surprise me one bit if he got what he wanted when Goodman was canned. Goodman's authority has fallen to Josh, and any cop will tell you to follow the money for suspects (here, follow the control and authority). We'll see who's in the "Captain's Chair" in the Broncos Warroom next Saturday .... I'll bet my last nickel Josh is front and center and in control.

I just dont trust him yet ... yet. He's the newcomer, he has to earn my trust. He definitely CAN earn my trust, but for right now, too much blood has been spilled. And his fingerprints are everywhere.

Rohirrim
04-16-2009, 02:08 PM
What if Sanchez stayed at USC, played another year, was selected to go to Mars, but before lift-off was mauled by a bear on a unicycle?

Short of Miss Cleo, nobody knows the future. The point the guy made was taking his body of work to date. Sanchez came out NOW because he knows he's likely the #2 QB off the board. If he has to compete with McCoy and Bradford and whoever else - he slips.

You already know what McCoy and Bradford will be doing next season? Or it just doesn't matter? And yet people keep saying that Sanchez will be a bust. Weird. I guess it's selective precognition. Sanchez has been at USC for four years. He wanted to move on. Nothing wrong with that. Who would use a fifth year of eligibility when they could cash in instead? Obviously, one of Sanchez' assets is his smarts.

Drek
04-16-2009, 02:24 PM
I don't agree there ... Jeremy Bates didn't experience any "weirdness" after pop was canned. He thrived, actually ... and Jim Goodman did not resign, he was fired. Bowlen promised power-sharing, and yet Josh appears firmly in control, at least of personnel. He's making the trades all by himself, according to Jerry Angelo, who oughtta know.
Jeremy Bates, the leader of the 16th best scoring offense?

I'm sorry, but when a team is #2 in total yardage, but #16 in points, you can pin a whole ton of that on the offensive play calling in the red zone.

Shanahan handed the keys to the Ferrari over to a kid, and the kid did fine cruising down the open straight aways. But as soon as you asked him to parallel park he broke out tail lights and put more than his fair share of scratches on it.

He's grossly overrated and is now working in college under an offensive minded HC who also already has an established system as a result.

And is it true Goodman didn't want to be promoted? Is that something you surmise, or was it said somewhere?
I believe Goodman himself said he didn't want the GM job. He hoped Jeff Goodman would get it.

And Bowlen said he fired Jim Goodman because he didn't want to put him in an awkward position of choosing between loyalty to his son, or the team and honoring his contract.


I just think Josh is a brash, energetic go-getter, and it wouldn't surprise me one bit if he got what he wanted when Goodman was canned. Goodman's authority has fallen to Josh, and any cop will tell you to follow the money for suspects (here, follow the control and authority).
Jim Goodman didn't want a full GM position, it was Josh's authority from the day he was hired.

You've got some sort of fantasy that Bowlen promised a division of GM/HC in which the GM picks all the players and the HC just coaches them. That is not today's NFL, and that is never what Bowlen promised. He wanted more balanced power, where the cap, player salary negotiations, player selection, hiring of coaching and other football related staff, etc. were not all handled by one man. More importantly, he promised to be more involved himself.

He's fulfilling that promise. Xanders now manages all things financial and McDaniels makes his personnel moves within those limitations, with input from Xanders and the scouting staff (probably the coaching staff as well).

I also don't get the love of Jim Goodman. Did he manage a couple good drafts? Sure did. But this was also a team that intentionally started the last three seasons with JOHN ENGELBERGER as a starting DE. That let Nate Webster go into the pre-season as the 1st string MLB. That thought LB depth was a few rookies and Jamie Winborn behind DJ, Webster, and the oft injured Boss Bailey. Like nothing would go wrong there. The same people who fielded a RB corps with the old and often injured Michael Pittman, the young and freakishly frail Selvin Young, the completely unproven Andre Hall, and the frail Ryan Torain as the top RBs. Is it really surprising we had so many RB injuries?

They helped scout a very good '06 class that was actually selected by Shanahan and Sundquist (still the GM at that time). They got some power and we had the massive under-delivery on the '07 class, when we headed into the draft with 9 picks, four on the first day, and walked away with two bust DEs, a very good RT who still isn't a safe bet to stay healthy long term, and a DT who should be a rotational player on a decent team.

The '08 draft is looking pretty good sure, but its hardly reason to hail them as infallible player personnel gods. If they had even 1/10th of the say on player personnel you attribute to them then they have just as many horrible moves to be held accountable for than smart ones.

elsid13
04-16-2009, 02:26 PM
Actually, I bet the move for Sanchez doesn't make sense from a money standpoint. How much cash could they justify spending at one position. Especially with the amount of Simms contract.

It not a big deal. Remember McDaniels was willing to spend 16 million dollars a year on one year starter.

elsid13
04-16-2009, 02:31 PM
Back to the subject on hand. I think that we should serious consider what most folks outside of the fan base are saying. To the outside folks neither Orton or Simms appear to be the long term solution at QB for the Denver Broncos. If that is the case, we should draft QB this season to at least give this team the opportunity to win next season.

ZONA
04-16-2009, 02:43 PM
Sanchez is to risky. He doesn't have big time measurables. He's a USC guy who was surrounded by talent, so he might be a system QB. If we have a chance to get Bradford by stockpiling picks we ought to do it that way.

What's going on? We are agreeing on alot these days. Yeah, I'm totally against drafting a QB in round 1 this year. People (and that includes Mayock) are stupid crazy if they think McD is going to be fired this year if we go 4-12. With the schedule we have, new offense, new defense, new coaches, new GM, many new players, anything can go in 2009. It's a total transition year. Bradford makes way more sense to me and the deal we took looks like it points to that anyways. We get Orton to help us this year as we make the transition and who knows, maybe he can really play. But his contract is over in 1 year and Bradford will be in the draft that same year. We no doubt will suck next year and have a very high pick, along with our other picks, should have no problems getting him. People should not be in such a rush. I'd rather wait another year and get a big time QB in Bradford then settle for Sanchez.

NFLBRONCO
04-16-2009, 03:20 PM
After slobbering over Leinart like they did why isn't their more caution with Sanchez this time around by the media. Leinart hasn't done much in NFL.

TheChamp24
04-16-2009, 04:17 PM
You already know what McCoy and Bradford will be doing next season? Or it just doesn't matter? And yet people keep saying that Sanchez will be a bust. Weird. I guess it's selective precognition. Sanchez has been at USC for four years. He wanted to move on. Nothing wrong with that. Who would use a fifth year of eligibility when they could cash in instead? Obviously, one of Sanchez' assets is his smarts.

Well, its just McCoy and Bradford have a larger sample size to choose from.

Sanchez career starts: 15

McCoy career starts: 36
Bradford career starts: 24

Bradford has been exceptional for 2 straight and got better this past year.
McCoy did well his freshman year, struggled his sophmore year, then played amazing last year.
People don't really know what Sanchez has to offer because he has a limited sample size, I'd be a little hesitant on selecting him, usually QB's like him do NOT fare well in the NFL, this has been proven by the number of busts of underclassmen declaring for the NFL.

Honestly, and this may be a bit of bias since I do go to OU, but I think Bradford would do very well for us because he has very good accuracy, doesn't force anything and has a good enough arm to go long. He had really good accuracy on some long passes last year. Just remembering the NC Game, his 2nd interception was a deep pass to Jauquin Iglesias, in double coverage, and Iglesias didn't haul it in as it hit right on his hands, tipped it up for the defender.

Rohirrim
04-16-2009, 04:25 PM
Well, its just McCoy and Bradford have a larger sample size to choose from.

Sanchez career starts: 15

McCoy career starts: 36
Bradford career starts: 24

Bradford has been exceptional for 2 straight and got better this past year.
McCoy did well his freshman year, struggled his sophmore year, then played amazing last year.
People don't really know what Sanchez has to offer because he has a limited sample size, I'd be a little hesitant on selecting him, usually QB's like him do NOT fare well in the NFL, this has been proven by the number of busts of underclassmen declaring for the NFL.

Honestly, and this may be a bit of bias since I do go to OU, but I think Bradford would do very well for us because he has very good accuracy, doesn't force anything and has a good enough arm to go long. He had really good accuracy on some long passes last year. Just remembering the NC Game, his 2nd interception was a deep pass to Jauquin Iglesias, in double coverage, and Iglesias didn't haul it in as it hit right on his hands, tipped it up for the defender.

I'll agree with one thing; When it comes to drafting QBs, there's no such thing as a sure thing. I was just arguing against the point that if Sanchez had stayed for his fifth year of eligibility, he would have been the fifth QB taken next year. Nobody can possible know such a thing. It's ridiculous to put it out there. What if Sanchez had a great year and won the National Championship? Hell, he might have been the #1 pick of the draft. It's unknowable.

Judging by a lot of the comments on here you'd think Sanchez was a slouch. He's not:
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/v_rib5nD5P0&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/v_rib5nD5P0&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Br0nc0Buster
04-16-2009, 04:34 PM
Sanchez?
**** that

It doenst make sense
Lets see what Orton has got and if he sucks then we have the ammunition to move up and take our qb next year.

If McDaniels really was looking at Sanchez, Cutler would be playing for either Detroit or Washington right now

Dedhed
04-16-2009, 05:06 PM
I'll agree with one thing; When it comes to drafting QBs, there's no such thing as a sure thing. I was just arguing against the point that if Sanchez had stayed for his fifth year of eligibility, he would have been the fifth QB taken next year. Nobody can possible know such a thing. It's ridiculous to put it out there. What if Sanchez had a great year and won the National Championship? Hell, he might have been the #1 pick of the draft. It's unknowable.

Judging by a lot of the comments on here you'd think Sanchez was a slouch. He's not:
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/v_rib5nD5P0&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/v_rib5nD5P0&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>I don't think we'll be sniffing QBs in the first, but if the throw he makes at the 3:00 mark doesn't impress you, you're dead.

DBroncos4life
04-16-2009, 05:34 PM
I think we should draft him. We still get the other picks and it makes the blow from losing Cutler easier to swallow from a talent point of view. Say what you want about Orton but the guy lost 4 games last year when his D held the other team to under 20 points. He isn't going to find many games next year that our team will hold the other team under 28 points as it stands now.

We lose a guy that was our "franchise" QB then we get a guy that we can build around and still have more picks on top of it keeps heat off of McD's head.

Sodak
04-16-2009, 06:24 PM
I'd bet we could pry Vince Young loose for a third rounder...hmmm...

The Moops
04-16-2009, 06:39 PM
I'm so tired of draft gurus pushing QBs in the first round.

It's such a risk. History proves it every year, unless you're the next John Elway . . . no need to do it.

I think Denver should play Orton this year and work on building the defense. Maybe pick a QB no higher than the 3rd round if a Josh Freeman or Rhett Bomar is still there.

Denver should stay at 12 and pick the best defensive player available. Then stay at 18 and see how many good d-players are there. If there are 2-3 they like at 18, they can move down a couple notches and pick up a 3rd or 4th rounder . . .

tonngo0
04-16-2009, 06:58 PM
Peyton Manning and Elways were a sure thing.

DBroncos4life
04-16-2009, 07:06 PM
Whats the worst that can happen. Its not like we have someone to build around anyways.

ScottXray
04-16-2009, 07:18 PM
Lets see...Jay Cutler.....picked 11th, traded up to get there, and he immediately took us to .....no playoffs for Three years.

And he DID make the pro-bowl, (and frankly threw up aa wounded duck pass
that got picked and handed the game to the NFC at the end), Although he wouldn't have if the voting was later than the 10th game.

So we traded away this FRANCHISE player (he might actually be one ....SOMEDAY) for Orton and a couple of middle round firsts ......And now were supposed to use our higher draft pick to pick an underclassmen QB who will lead us to the promised land....Maybe?

Draft DEFENSE and SEE what we already have (Simms or Orton) in The QB box before wasting a first on another MAYBE player, Maybe bust.:curtsey:

TheChamp24
04-16-2009, 07:45 PM
I'll agree with one thing; When it comes to drafting QBs, there's no such thing as a sure thing. I was just arguing against the point that if Sanchez had stayed for his fifth year of eligibility, he would have been the fifth QB taken next year. Nobody can possible know such a thing. It's ridiculous to put it out there. What if Sanchez had a great year and won the National Championship? Hell, he might have been the #1 pick of the draft. It's unknowable.

Judging by a lot of the comments on here you'd think Sanchez was a slouch. He's not:
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/v_rib5nD5P0&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/v_rib5nD5P0&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

See, Sanchez made the right move money wise because he is without a doubt the 2nd best QB this year. Next year, it is debateable he could've been the 4th best behind Bradford, McCoy, and Tebow. I honestly don't think he would've surpassed Bradford, I am just really high on Bradford.
And again, Sanchez has a very small sample size, and in that highlite clip, there is a LOT of throws where his WR is WIDE open. Now, he did make some pretty amazing throws, but still, I highly question his potential because it is unknown still.

lex
04-16-2009, 08:15 PM
So drafting a QB with your top pick who isn't ready to play when you have a horrid defense is going to save McDaniels' job? This really makes sense to people?

Mayock is saying that drafting another position may not prevent losing but if he loses with a rookie QB, McDaniels can at least hide behind that as an excuse.

Rabb
04-16-2009, 08:23 PM
That vid shows some awesome pocket presence and that he is not afraid to stay in there and not get happy feet. He can make some awesome throws but some of them, they are so open it is hard to judge. I did like some of the throws he made on the move and yeah that one at 3:00 is sick.

The one thing I noticed is he did what Jay did sometimes and that is throw off his back foot relying on his arm strength. That **** will get picked off in the big show.

Great talent though, still...pass please.

Rohirrim
04-16-2009, 08:25 PM
Hopefully, when the Broncos get on the clock at 12, they first listen to trade talk for fifteen minutes then, if they don't hear anything they like, they pick the BPA.

Rabb
04-16-2009, 08:27 PM
Hopefully, when the Broncos get on the clock at 12, they first listen to trade talk for fifteen minutes then, if they don't hear anything they like, they pick the BPA.

I am always interested in the BPA argument

say Sanchez is there at 12 and Raji is gone (this is very probable so buckle up), would the general opinion be that he fell to us, and we could get a guy like Brace later and take the best player available or the best player available that we need?

Gcver2ver3
04-16-2009, 09:13 PM
say Sanchez is there at 12 and Raji is gone (this is very probable so buckle up

not at all probable...

there is a zero chance at this point that Sanchez makes it passed the top 10...

it's just flat out not happening...

baja
04-16-2009, 09:17 PM
Well McD is bringing in players to take a look at before the draft, what a concept!

Shanny would do everything possible to avoid any contact with a player he was interested in for fear some other team would steal his pick just because the great talent evaluator Shanahan showed interest in someone. So that he could reach for yet another head scratcher.

Lolad
04-16-2009, 09:20 PM
If we are rebuilding the offense then Mcdaniels should be fired. He was brought in to tweak the offense and make it more mature and to make the team as a whole competitive. In any scenario other than a total disaster where the team plane crashes or a bubonic plague epidemic sweeps through the Denver area and knocks out most of our players he should be fired for going 4-12 full stop.

If we win 8 games or more with Orton or Simms then he has been very successful, if we win 8 games or more with Sanchez then he has been very successful but foolish.

We never needed to rebuild the offense, and that should never be an excuse, and I don't believe it will be.

me and this guy speak the same language. He should at least be on the hot seat if he doesn't win at least 8 games

lazarus4444
04-16-2009, 09:33 PM
If we go offense in the first round grab that center. What is his name? Mack?

That or a RB. NO QB.

summerdenver
04-16-2009, 09:34 PM
Lets not give him more credit than he deserves on the Brady front. Mcdaniels didn't start working with the QBs until after Brady had won 2 super bowls and 2 matching super bowl MVPs.

It was Charlie Weis who build Tom Brady, not Mcdaniels. Mcdaniels just took over the nicely shrinkwrapped two times super bowl MVP and tweaked him a bit and when the Patriots finally got some really good WRs everything came together except the super bowl.

Tom Brady without Mcdaniels: 3 seasons as a starter, 2 super bowl wins and matching mvps.

Tom Brady with Mcdaniels: 4 seasons as a starter (not counting 2008), 1 super bowl win, no super bowl mvps, 1 league mvp and a bunch of passing records.


Brady won all three SBs with Weiss as coordinator. McD took over as OC in 2006 ITRC.

footstepsfrom#27
04-16-2009, 10:01 PM
What's going on? We are agreeing on alot these days.
Scary aint it? ;D
I'd rather wait another year and get a big time QB in Bradford then settle for Sanchez.
QFT...The QB spot is to important to "settle" for a guy in the first round. If you take a QB that high you gotta make as sure as possible he's the whole package.

NFLBRONCO
04-16-2009, 10:05 PM
Is Bradford a NFL Franchise QB?

footstepsfrom#27
04-16-2009, 10:13 PM
Is Bradford a NFL Franchise QB?
He'd be the #1 pick in this draft...probably a strong possibility of that in next year's also from what I understand.

Bob's your Information Minister
04-16-2009, 10:24 PM
Nothing would make me happier than seeing KC rape the Broncos for Sanchez.

BroncoBuff
04-16-2009, 10:24 PM
Jeremy Bates, the leader of the 16th best scoring offense?

I'm sorry, but when a team is #2 in total yardage, but #16 in points, you can pin a whole ton of that on the offensive play calling in the red zone.
No no no, we weren't talking about how sucessful they were. We were discussing whether Pat TRULY fired Jim Goodman because it would be "weird" for him after his son was gone. I said it wasn't weird for Jeremy after his Dad was gone. So, partly on that basis, I think it's a pansy excuse ... made it sound like Jim agreed with the decision ... Goodman didn't resign, he was FIRED! Have the cajones to say that, he had the cajones to say that about Shanahan.


You've got some sort of fantasy that Bowlen promised a division of GM/HC in which the GM picks all the players and the HC just coaches them.
No fantasy ... just read Pat's statement the day after he fired Mike. It's pretty much all in there:

""I felt Mike was doing both those jobs and doing them well, and I don't anticipate the next coach having both those jobs," Bowlen said. "But, ultimately, it ends up on my desk, I'm here every day, I make the decisions, that's going to continue. . . . I run the show."

Because of that, Bowlen said the Broncos will be focused on finding a new coach because he said his plan is to leave the team's personnel department intact.

Sundquist was replaced with personnel chief Jim Goodman and assistant general managers Jeff Goodman and Brian Xanders, a trio that Bowlen said this week would remain in place.

That's all pretty straightforward - and CERTAINLY not a fantasy. There was to have been a split between head coach and personnel man, period. He changed his mind.

This is the lesson of Shanahan-power that it seemed Pat had learned, but apparently did not: "Mike was so enamored with his ability to make any player look great that he didn't concern himself enough with talent. Maybe the most damning stat: Only five players from his 2001-05 drafts remain on the roster. Hard to go to a Super Bowl that way."


That is not today's NFL.
That IS today's NFL ... just look around you! A.J. Smith in San Diego, Scott Pioli in KC (after 10+ yrs of Carl Peterson), Al Davis in Oakland (or whomever, we know Tom Cable has no power), and that's our entire division. Bill Parcells in Miami, Phil Savage (formerly) in Cleveland, Rick Smith in Houston, Bill Polian of the Colts, Mike Tannenbaum of the Jets (total control of draft), Ozzie Newsome in Baltimore. Marv Levy left the Bills and That's just a few in the AFC ... there's even more in the NFC. We all know Jerry Angelo in Chicago, Jerry Jones in Dallas, Rich McKay in Atlanta, the new Dominik guy in Tampa, Vinnie Cerato in Washington, Thompson in Green Bay.

Mostly just very experienced/tenured coaches run personnel (Josh is an exception). And no less a tenured coach as Jeff Fisher had Floyd Reese calling personnel shots until a year or so ago.



I don't get the love of Jim Goodman. Did he manage a couple good drafts? Sure did. But this was also a team that intentionally started the last three seasons with JOHN ENGELBERGER as a starting DE. That let Nate Webster go into the pre-season as the 1st string MLB. That thought LB depth was a few rookies and Jamie Winborn behind DJ, Webster, and the oft injured Boss Bailey. Like nothing would go wrong there. The same people who fielded a RB corps with the old and often injured Michael Pittman, the young and freakishly frail Selvin Young, the completely unproven Andre Hall, and the frail Ryan Torain as the top RBs. Is it really surprising we had so many RB injuries?

It seems you're really reaching there to paint Jim Goodman as average and/or ineffective. In my view, these last three drafts have been golden examples of near-perfection (with the exception of Moss & Crowder). And I think the 2006 draft is one of the best I have ever seen for any team in any year. I'm not a student of drafts or anything, but it's certainly the best draft the Broncos have had in 50 years (BTW, Torian was clearly Mike's guy).

And it's pretty clear that Jim Goodman never cut guys or started or benched guys. He's not a coach, he's a personnel guy. Cutting/starting/benching was Shanahan's area. And imo Engleberger was Mike's guy. It is WAY not fair to blame Jim-freaking-Goodman for John-freaking-Engleberger ::)


Look, I kind of admire that so many people are such big Josh fans and defenders, in spite of the facts he is so young and so new. I'm different, I think a guy has to EARN my loyalty when he comes in new (especially after so much blood has been spilled). The Josh people give their loyalty upfront, most it seems with few questions asked. Either way is fine, there's no right or wrong ... besides, in 24 hours, I'm clamming up! ;D

cabronco
04-16-2009, 10:25 PM
He'd be the #1 pick in this draft...probably a strong possibility of that in next year's also from what I understand.

That wouldn't surprise me, at all.

BroncoMan4ever
04-16-2009, 10:29 PM
I think we should draft him. We still get the other picks and it makes the blow from losing Cutler easier to swallow from a talent point of view. Say what you want about Orton but the guy lost 4 games last year when his D held the other team to under 20 points. He isn't going to find many games next year that our team will hold the other team under 28 points as it stands now.

We lose a guy that was our "franchise" QB then we get a guy that we can build around and still have more picks on top of it keeps heat off of McD's head.

Orton also led an offense that had absolutely no playmakers outside of Forte, and played behind a bad line. if we can hold teams to 20 a game, Orton can win here. he will be protected behind our bad mother****ers in the trenches, and he will have Marshall, Royal, Stokley, Gaffney, Hillis possibly Scheff a new RB. he has weapons and protection. he might not be able to put a ball 65 yards into the air, but he has enough talent to win if supplied with talent.

BroncoMan4ever
04-16-2009, 10:35 PM
I am always interested in the BPA argument

say Sanchez is there at 12 and Raji is gone (this is very probable so buckle up), would the general opinion be that he fell to us, and we could get a guy like Brace later and take the best player available or the best player available that we need?

even at 12 if Sanchez fell that far, he wouldn't be the BPA. Wells, Matthews, Cushing, Rey, Jackson, Brown, Jenkins, are all more than likely still going to be available and all are better than Sanchez. so BPA doesn't work in regards to drafting Sanchez even if he fell to 12.

BroncoMan4ever
04-16-2009, 10:39 PM
me and this guy speak the same language. He should at least be on the hot seat if he doesn't win at least 8 games

i agree. our offense got us 8 wins last season and was returning completely intact, and he was brought in to make those guys better.

so regardless of the defense rebuilding, he should be expected to get us 8 wins right off the bat, because our offense last season got us 8 wins, and returned complete, and with McDaniels saying his moves are to make the team better, so with that in mind it means, even with Orton, Simms, or a rookie taking snaps our offense shouldn't skip a beat and should match the 8 wins our offense got us last season.

OrangeRising
04-16-2009, 10:42 PM
Hopefully, when the Broncos get on the clock at 12, they first listen to trade talk for fifteen minutes then, if they don't hear anything they like, they pick the BPA.

This, realistically, would be the best idea. I would like to see the Broncos draft Mark Sanchez if they get the chance, but the very best opportunity to improve this team would be to get as many draft choices as possible in the early going and stock up for next year as well.

I don't think too many people have any illusions about 2009. It will be a process no matter who we draft.

gunns
04-16-2009, 10:57 PM
Wow ... Mike Mayock said that?

He's the #1 expert in my book, he's almost always right. He was right that the Cutler trade was foolish. I've been totally against Sanchez, but I'd have to defer to Mayock ... he is correct that Sanchez would likely buy Josh more time to field a winner, but Sanchez is a junior, and the Matt Leinart result scares me.

I'm still against it, our defense sucks too much. But Mayock's opinion deserves great deference.

I feel the same way about Mayock but damn, I think that would be an incredibly stupid pick, only second to taking Freeman anywhere. I don't see any surprise QB's this year, ala Matt Ryan and Flacco. We can survive one, two years with Orton and Simms, we cannot survive another year without beginning to support the defense. And 4-12 is 4-12 regardless of any draft picks.

epicSocialism4tw
04-16-2009, 11:02 PM
Mayock: Broncos need to select USC's Sanchez

NFL draft guru Mike Mayock is convinced the Broncos have only one choice in the first round of the April 25-26 draft.

"If they don't try to get Mark Sanchez, I think they're crazy," Mayock said Wednesday in a national conference call with reporters. "The bottom line to me is if their head coach goes 4-12 with Kyle Orton, he probably gets fired this year. If he goes 4-12 with Mark Sanchez, he's rebuilding."

Read the full story here:
http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_12152135?source=rss

Ugh.

So...it would be alright to waste #12 overall on an overrated player in a QB-thin draft when other positions need more attention just to save McD's job?

Is this guy serious?

DBroncos4life
04-16-2009, 11:03 PM
Orton also led an offense that had absolutely no playmakers outside of Forte, and played behind a bad line. if we can hold teams to 20 a game, Orton can win here. he will be protected behind our bad mother****ers in the trenches, and he will have Marshall, Royal, Stokley, Gaffney, Hillis possibly Scheff a new RB. he has weapons and protection. he might not be able to put a ball 65 yards into the air, but he has enough talent to win if supplied with talent.

You see this happening with just Dawkins?

epicSocialism4tw
04-16-2009, 11:04 PM
Is Bradford a NFL Franchise QB?

Bradford has everything.

He is uncannily similar to Peyton Manning.

He's worth waiting for.

chaz
04-17-2009, 12:11 AM
Bradford has everything.

He is uncannily similar to Peyton Manning.

He's worth waiting for.

Are you aware the kind of deal it would take to trade up for the first pick if there is "the next peyton manning" on the board??!

chaz
04-17-2009, 12:12 AM
Judging by a lot of the comments on here you'd think Sanchez was a slouch. He's not:
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/v_rib5nD5P0&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/v_rib5nD5P0&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

I like Sanchez personally, but most of those throws were hitting guys that didn't have a defender within 10 yards...

footstepsfrom#27
04-17-2009, 12:46 AM
Are you aware the kind of deal it would take to trade up for the first pick if there is "the next peyton manning" on the board??!
Three first rounders would do it. That's why I suggested moving an '09 1st to a team that will give us their 1st next year. Let's say we finish 5-11 with the 8th pick. Chicago and the new trading partner get us the 16th and 23rd next year. Maybe that does it...toss in something else...whatever, but if we want this guy...the picks we have right now probaly give us the ammo to get him if we use them right.

lex
04-17-2009, 12:49 AM
Three first rounders would do it. That's why I suggested moving an '09 1st to a team that will give us their 1st next year. Let's say we finish 5-11 with the 8th pick. Chicago and the new trading partner get us the 16th and 23rd next year. Maybe that does it...toss in something else...whatever, but if we want this guy...the picks we have right now probaly give us the ammo to get him if we use them right.

What makes you so sure any of those QBs are going to be all that when theyre not playing on teams that are far more talented than 90% of the teams they play? The talent in the NFL is even you dont get these huge passing windows.

footstepsfrom#27
04-17-2009, 12:59 AM
What makes you so sure any of those QBs are going to be all that when theyre not playing on teams that are far more talented than 90% of the teams they play? The talent in the NFL is even you dont get these huge passing windows.
That's a great point, and one reason I'm concerned about Sanchez, and a reason I also liked Cutler when he came out. Bradford by all accounts I've read, and I'm only going on that...has all the tools of a big time player. He's done it at a very early age, but obviously the Oklahoma O surrounded him with alot of talent. The combine will tell more, but all I'm saying is we ought to positon ourselves in case we want him. If it turns out he slips down the list, we'd still have the extra picks in a good draft.

One way or another, we need to position ourselves for the possibility we need to draft a QB.

SlipperyPete
04-17-2009, 01:04 AM
As of Thursday, Todd McShay of ESPN is reporting... actually reporting based on what he's been told, not just random draft guru speculation... that Seattle is taking Sanchez if he's there at #4.

Who knows if they really will, but all another team (Redskins?) has to think is that Seattle might take him at #4, and they'll look to trade up above Seattle to get him.

Anyway, there's really no chance of him being there at #12, and if we actually want to make a move, it's probably going to have to be with KC.

lex
04-17-2009, 01:09 AM
That's a great point, and one reason I'm concerned about Sanchez, and a reason I also liked Cutler when he came out. Bradford by all accounts I've read, and I'm only going on that...has all the tools of a big time player. He's done it at a very early age, but obviously the Oklahoma O surrounded him with alot of talent. The combine will tell more, but all I'm saying is we ought to positon ourselves in case we want him. If it turns out he slips down the list, we'd still have the extra picks in a good draft.

One way or another, we need to position ourselves for the possibility we need to draft a QB.


Its too risky. That sets your franchise back too far if you do that and youre wrong. People get too mesmerized by guys that play on teams that win a lot but have it easy becaues of the talent disparity. Youre talking about possibly foregoing 3 great players in order to put your eggs in one basket too. Its not just the risk that comes with taking that QB. Its also what you forego.

lex
04-17-2009, 01:10 AM
As of Thursday, Todd McShay of ESPN is reporting... actually reporting based on what he's been told, not just random draft guru speculation... that Seattle is taking Sanchez if he's there at #4.

Who knows if they really will, but all another team (Redskins?) has to think is that Seattle might take him at #4, and they'll look to trade up above Seattle to get him.

Anyway, there's really no chance of him being there at #12, and if we actually want to make a move, it's probably going to have to be with KC.

Its possible that its just a ploy to trade out of the top 5. Hasselbeck is only 32. He has a few years left.

SlipperyPete
04-17-2009, 01:19 AM
Its possible that its just a ploy to trade out of the top 5. Hasselbeck is only 32. He has a few years left.

Could be. But if Seattle wants to trade back, I would think leaking that they want Sanchez would make it more likely for KC to get offers at #3 then Seattle getting offers themselves. McShay expounded on that point too in his story.

If it was a strategic leak on their part, it might be more likely that Seattle actually wants to take, let's say, Aaron Curry at #4, and they're trying to encourage someone to trade up with KC and take Sanchez so that KC doesn't take Curry and he slips to them.

Or maybe Seattle does want Sanchez and this wasn't supposed to get out, and they'll have to think about moving up so that nobody can leapfrog them.

But whatever the case may be, it all involves Sanchez going by pick #4.

BroncoMan4ever
04-17-2009, 01:47 AM
You see this happening with just Dawkins?

i didn't say our defense would only yield 20 a game. i was simply replying to a post that claimed Orton lost games where the defense held teams to 20 or less, while Jay doesn't. i was replying saying if our defense gives him those opportunit0es of only allowing 20 a game that Orton will be fine in Denver with our line, receiving weapons and hopefully revamped running game.

although in response to your questioning of my post. with the additions of actual leaders in Dawkins and Davis to the defense, upgrading the secondary, getting Champ back healthy, dumping our previous defensive garbage, and getting solid talented coaching and stability, our defense will be improved. add in if we can find a few guys in the draft for the front 7(an OLB and 2 guys on the line who can at least contribute as part of a rotation) and this defense quite possibly will shock a lot of people

BroncoMan4ever
04-17-2009, 02:01 AM
Its too risky. That sets your franchise back too far if you do that and youre wrong. People get too mesmerized by guys that play on teams that win a lot but have it easy becaues of the talent disparity. Youre talking about possibly foregoing 3 great players in order to put your eggs in one basket too. Its not just the risk that comes with taking that QB. Its also what you forego.

i don't want to be packaging a bunch of 1st round picks for any QB next season. if our season is as bad as a lot of people think it is going to be, we will be in position to get Bradford or McCoy. hell maybe even Tebow will be a possibility. i know right now he seems to fall more on the Vince Young side of the game in terms of athletic ability, but mentally he is an absolutely great leader. he is also working on playing in a more pro style offense, and with his ability, it would not shock me to see him become very good.

another guy i think we all need to keep our eyes on in the 2009 season is Jimmy Clausen. he's a Charlie Weis guy familiar with the Patriots style offense, and might be very enticing to McDaniels if he comes out in 2010

footstepsfrom#27
04-17-2009, 02:21 AM
Its too risky. That sets your franchise back too far if you do that and youre wrong. People get too mesmerized by guys that play on teams that win a lot but have it easy becaues of the talent disparity. Youre talking about possibly foregoing 3 great players in order to put your eggs in one basket too. Its not just the risk that comes with taking that QB. Its also what you forego.
So what are you saying, we never again go for a franchise QB and muddle along with the Grieses and Orton's of the world? We've seen how that works in the past.

First of all there's no guarantee that any other picks in the first round are even good, let alone great players. They could be busts too. Any player picked high is a risk. Second, at some point we're going to have to admit that you can't be a consistent contender at the highest levels without a top notch QB. You might bet lucky later, but the odds of that happening are not good. For every Brady there's 20 guys drafted later who never make it or just become backups or journeymen. This fanbase ought to know this better than any team in the NFL. We spent decades languishing in mediocrity until a superstar got us to the championship. If it turns out Orton is just a caretaker, and I think he is...what's your solution? When would we have another chance at drafting a guy like Bradford if not next year?

I'm no enamored with Bradford based on him being on a great team. Like I said, the combine will offer more information and either him or McCoy could drop down as well.

footstepsfrom#27
04-17-2009, 02:26 AM
i don't want to be packaging a bunch of 1st round picks for any QB next season. if our season is as bad as a lot of people think it is going to be, we will be in position to get Bradford or McCoy.
Not unless we're the worst one or two teams in the league. If we go 5-11 and draft 8th and these two are going 1-2...you'd rather not try to move up? We are not going to be consistent winners without a true franchise QB. I'm not sure what Tebow is at this point...but reguardless of who it is, we are going to have to get somebody fairly soon who isn't just another Griese/Frerotte/Plummer clone.

Atwater His Ass
04-17-2009, 02:45 AM
So what are you saying, we never again go for a franchise QB and muddle along with the Grieses and Orton's of the world? We've seen how that works in the past.





This is suppossed to be McD's "system". Most of the McD supporters are brainwashed into thinking the Orton's of the world will be enough for us to win and thus made a premier QB like Cutler expendable.

Now I don't drink that kool-aid. However, I do believe it is something he has sold to Bowlen. Therefore, I will not support any draft picks being spent on a QB prior to round 4. You can't ship out a proven young QB because of personal difference and turn around and spend day 1 picks on a QB.

IMO, if McD drafts a day 1 QB it is to only by himself a couple more years before he gets fired since he can attempt to use that as an excuse.

If Bowlen allows that to happen, that's almost as much of a tradegy as him allowing Cutler to get away in the first place.

BroncoMan4ever
04-17-2009, 03:01 AM
Not unless we're the worst one or two teams in the league. If we go 5-11 and draft 8th and these two are going 1-2...you'd rather not try to move up? We are not going to be consistent winners without a true franchise QB. I'm not sure what Tebow is at this point...but reguardless of who it is, we are going to have to get somebody fairly soon who isn't just another Griese/Frerotte/Plummer clone.

i have no problem trading up a few slots with a mid rounder or something. but i am really against trading as many as 3-1st rounders to move up for an unproven rookie QB in the 1st or 2nd spot in the draft. the risk is way too much to bank that much into a draft for 1 player, especially a QB where the success rate of QBs coming into the NFL is around 20% at best and that is a generous estimate.

the 2006 QB class has Cutler as the only sure starter this season, and had i think about 12 QBs selected. so the chances of finding a guy who will succeed are very slim, and makes the price and risk way to high to move up and get almost any QB.

unless there is an Elway in the draft, a can't miss QB prospect, i don't think it is worth the price or risk to move up for a QB.

and yes i agree, that we need to get someone in here, in the strong likelihood that Orton is no more than a 1 year stop gap and we need our future QB to lead us for the next decade. but i really don't want to see us unloading a lot to move up to get one of the perceived top QBs in any draft, when more than likely, they aren't going to pan out

fontaine
04-17-2009, 03:02 AM
This is suppossed to be McD's "system". Most of the McD supporters are brainwashed into thinking the Orton's of the world will be enough for us to win and thus made a premier QB like Cutler expendable.

Now I don't drink that kool-aid. However, I do believe it is something he has sold to Bowlen. Therefore, I will not support any draft picks being spent on a QB prior to round 4. You can't ship out a proven young QB because of personal difference and turn around and spend day 1 picks on a QB.

IMO, if McD drafts a day 1 QB it is to only by himself a couple more years before he gets fired since he can attempt to use that as an excuse.

If Bowlen allows that to happen, that's almost as much of a tradegy as him allowing Cutler to get away in the first place.

Well it depends if you believe the stuff from King about how McDaniels is sold on Orton and went with the trade quickly because he preferred Orton over other QBs that were available. If that's really the case, and I believe it is then McDaniels should get at least two/three years to develop the D along with Orton.

The key in all of these is that the current group of guys don't blow on the high end draft picks and we see some kind of improvement, no matter how small it is on defense and see Orton play better than he did in Chicago. That's all I'm asking. The running game can take care of the rest.

BroncoMan4ever
04-17-2009, 03:06 AM
Well it depends if you believe the stuff from King about how McDaniels is sold on Orton and went with the trade quickly because he preferred Orton over other QBs that were available. If that's really the case, and I believe it is then McDaniels should get at least two/three years to develop the D along with Orton.

The key in all of these is that the current group of guys don't blow on the high end draft picks and we see some kind of improvement, no matter how small it is on defense and see Orton play better than he did in Chicago. That's all I'm asking. The running game can take care of the rest.

i agree, with improvement on the defense, and if Orton can be good for us, which i think he will with protection and receiving weapons, and if we can get the running game back on track, i will be happy.

however, i think Orton in a way is going to need to have a win now, or look for work in 2010 mentality as he is only signed for this year, and probably won't get the 2-3 year buffer of having the team built up around him.

Atwater His Ass
04-17-2009, 03:09 AM
Well it depends if you believe the stuff from King about how McDaniels is sold on Orton and went with the trade quickly because he preferred Orton over other QBs that were available. If that's really the case, and I believe it is then McDaniels should get at least two/three years to develop the D along with Orton.

The key in all of these is that the current group of guys don't blow on the high end draft picks and we see some kind of improvement, no matter how small it is on defense and see Orton play better than he did in Chicago. That's all I'm asking. The running game can take care of the rest.

I can't get behind a coach that traded away what every franchise in this league wished they could have only to turn around and spend a day 1 pick on a QB. That is not acceptable to me.

This team needed and still needs defense. The offense, although needing some tweaks, was fine. Now McD has come in and made offense and defense a need if he doesn't believe in Orton. But he goddam better believe in Orton after trading for him.

The only first day pick for offense I would even entertain is at RB. The other picks better go towards defense or if you don't feel a defensive player of value is at your spot, attempting to trade down, but still using the majority of those gained picks on defense.

fontaine
04-17-2009, 06:23 AM
I can't get behind a coach that traded away what every franchise in this league wished they could have only to turn around and spend a day 1 pick on a QB. That is not acceptable to me.

This team needed and still needs defense. The offense, although needing some tweaks, was fine. Now McD has come in and made offense and defense a need if he doesn't believe in Orton. But he goddam better believe in Orton after trading for him.

The only first day pick for offense I would even entertain is at RB. The other picks better go towards defense or if you don't feel a defensive player of value is at your spot, attempting to trade down, but still using the majority of those gained picks on defense.

I agree. No way should we draft a QB in the first day in this draft. Apart from DJ we need 5 other starters along the front 7 so it's got to be defense all the way.

Use this year to evaluate Orton and allow the Defense to gel and improve. If Orton or Simms can't be the guy then get rid of them because Denver has nothing invested in these guys in long term deals and looking at the QB class of next year McDouche can target the franchise QB we need.

Rohirrim
04-17-2009, 06:58 AM
Look, I kind of admire that so many people are such big Josh fans and defenders, in spite of the facts he is so young and so new. I'm different, I think a guy has to EARN my loyalty when he comes in new (especially after so much blood has been spilled). The Josh people give their loyalty upfront, most it seems with few questions asked. Either way is fine, there's no right or wrong ... besides, in 24 hours, I'm clamming up! ;D

You really misinterpret this, either by design or just as some kind of clever argumentative ploy. The people you want to lump into one big group of "Josh loyalists" are not that at all. When confronted with the choice between the Broncos organization, McD and Bowlen vs the whiny biatch that Cutler turned out to be, they side with the organization. That doesn't mean they are not holding McD's ass to the flame. He is making choices. Like any coach in the NFL, his career path will live or die on the choices he makes. That's the grown-up world. A world Jay does not want to become a part of. All your posts do is heighten the polarization of this site. What you mischaracterize as "loyalty" could more honestly be described as "willing to wait and see rather than jump to a ****load of conclusions."

Rabb
04-17-2009, 07:13 AM
even at 12 if Sanchez fell that far, he wouldn't be the BPA. Wells, Matthews, Cushing, Rey, Jackson, Brown, Jenkins, are all more than likely still going to be available and all are better than Sanchez. so BPA doesn't work in regards to drafting Sanchez even if he fell to 12.

well you are sort of saying what I am saying though...the whole BPA thing is very subjective really because it should go by the best player you need

Like you said if he fell to that point...wouldn't that mean he was the best at that spot then since he should have gone earlier? Maybe I am wrong but I could see him "falling" to 12, it is not out of the question. Then it becomes the best player for us, not necessarily the best available

that is my whole point

epicSocialism4tw
04-17-2009, 07:16 AM
So what are you saying, we never again go for a franchise QB and muddle along with the Grieses and Orton's of the world? We've seen how that works in the past.

First of all there's no guarantee that any other picks in the first round are even good, let alone great players. They could be busts too. Any player picked high is a risk. Second, at some point we're going to have to admit that you can't be a consistent contender at the highest levels without a top notch QB. You might bet lucky later, but the odds of that happening are not good. For every Brady there's 20 guys drafted later who never make it or just become backups or journeymen. This fanbase ought to know this better than any team in the NFL. We spent decades languishing in mediocrity until a superstar got us to the championship. If it turns out Orton is just a caretaker, and I think he is...what's your solution? When would we have another chance at drafting a guy like Bradford if not next year?

I'm no enamored with Bradford based on him being on a great team. Like I said, the combine will offer more information and either him or McCoy could drop down as well.


Remember, Cutler cost 2 first rounders to begin with. We packaged two of them to get him.

Bradford is probably going to be the first pick in the draft and he will be in demand. It wont be like this year where teams are thinking of bailing out of the top 5.

With that said, I have never seen a college QB as accurate. The guy throws frozen ropes and fits them anywhere. There's no telling how many yards and TD's he would have had had his WR's not had stone hands.

Tom A Hawk
04-17-2009, 07:29 AM
I would be really disappointed if we packaged our picks to move up to select a quarterback after this whole ordeal. It seems like such a desperate thing to do after we traded Jay to Chicago, taking a lesser deal because Orton was tied to it.

I suppose at this point, nothing would suprise me.

But TJ, if you have to, Chiefs are waiting to here from you;D

Inkana7
04-17-2009, 07:42 AM
Remember, Cutler cost 2 first rounders to begin with. We packaged two of them to get him.

Bradford is probably going to be the first pick in the draft and he will be in demand. It wont be like this year where teams are thinking of bailing out of the top 5.

With that said, I have never seen a college QB as accurate. The guy throws frozen ropes and fits them anywhere. There's no telling how many yards and TD's he would have had had his WR's not had stone hands.

No we didn't. We moved from 15 to 11 with a first and a third.

epicSocialism4tw
04-17-2009, 07:49 AM
No we didn't. We moved from 15 to 11 with a first and a third.

Okay, so Jay cost us 2 firsts and a third.

BroncoBuff
04-17-2009, 07:49 AM
The people you want to lump into one big group of "Josh loyalists" are not that at all. When confronted with the choice between the Broncos organization, McD and Bowlen vs the whiny biatch that Cutler turned out to be, they side with the organization. That doesn't mean they are not holding McD's ass to the flame. He is making choices.

You're doing the lumping, sir, I never said there were just two camps. I talked about "Josh loyalists" in reference to a handful of the guys who have sided with him from the beginning, no questions asked. Despite the fact there is ample cause for skepticism: he has no head coaching experience on any level, was knee-deep in the biggest cheating scandal in league history, and the best drafting exec in the league and our star quarterback are both gone. Despite Pat Bowlen's promise the personnel department would remain intact, and that power would be split.

If you're not that guy, not the "pro-Josh" guy I'm referring to, fine. But if you're not, then ... why so defensive? Why respond to my post about them, with argumentative words like "b!atch"? If it's not you, maybe just move along, secure in the knowledge I'm not describing you.


Like any coach in the NFL, his career path will live or die on the choices he makes. That's the grown-up world.

Yes, of course. And the likelihood in this "grownup world" is he'll be gone by 2012 or sooner. That's just facts, that's just history. I dearly hope he succeeds greatly and we win Super Bowls, but the odds are we'll be watching Jay light up the league years after McDaniels has been fired.

But let's dig deeper into this:

In the NBA for example, no coach would ever win such a battle with a star player, especially a raw rookie head coach. In fact, not even an established coach. Phil freaking Jackson needed Kobe's okay before the Lakers hired him back. But somehow the standard is different in the NFL. I'm not saying I prefer the NBA model, not completely, I'm just saying there is a broad swath of authoritarianism here ... "do not question authority, obey your boss no questions asked" stuff. And THAT is why I have been so surprised you've been (sorry about the label, don't freak) pro-Josh through all this, Roh. My position in life in general - and I thought yours - was to challenge authority and give the hired hand his hearing. I think Jay was cut loose by many fans in favor of "the authority," despite very solid evidence Josh was far deeper into trade talks than he admitted. Go read the first Josh quotes, "we answered the phone, but just said no." That's pretty clearly NOT what happened. Like several commentators said, "if you think four teams called them the same week about Jay Cutler just by chance, I've goit a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn."

I believe Jay deserved some kind of mea culpa, he deserved something. I'm always for the "hired hand" in general, especially where the "boss" is new and has a checkered history. Josh was way too new IMHO to get near-full deference from Pat in such an important matter as the retention of our star QB. But in this authoritarian structure of the NFL, Pat apparently demanded no mea culpa from this new kid, none we know of anyway. And I think we're gonna regret it for a long time. Let's just hope we find a good QB asap.

epicSocialism4tw
04-17-2009, 07:54 AM
There is no doubt that McD was given too much latitude for his own good.

montrose
04-17-2009, 07:55 AM
From the bits of I've seen and heard about Sanchez, I like him. I wouldn't be upset at all if he was selected at #12. I don't like the idea of moving up to get him, or anyone else.

Rohirrim
04-17-2009, 07:57 AM
You're doing the lumping, sir, I never said there were just two camps. I talked about "Josh loyalists" in reference to a handful of the guys who have sided with him from the beginning, no questions asked. Despite the fact there is ample cause for skepticism: he has no head coaching experience on any level, was knee-deep in the biggest cheating scandal in league history, and the best drafting exec in the league and our star quarterback are both gone. Despite Pat Bowlen's promise the personnel department would remain intact, and that power would be split.

If you're not that guy, not the "pro-Josh" guy I'm referring to, fine. But if you're not, then ... why so defensive? Why respond to my post about them, with argumentative words like "b!atch"? If it's not you, maybe just move along, secure in the knowledge I'm not describing you.




Yes, of course. And the likelihood in this "grownup world" is he'll be gone by 2012 or sooner. That's just facts, that's just history. I dearly hope he succeeds greatly and we win Super Bowls, but the odds are we'll be watching Jay light up the league years after McDaniels has been fired.

But let's dig deeper into this:

In the NBA for example, no coach would ever win such a battle with a star player, especially a raw rookie head coach. In fact, not even an established coach. Phil freaking Jackson needed Kobe's okay before the Lakers hired him back. But somehow the standard is different in the NFL. I'm not saying I prefer the NBA model, not completely, I'm just saying there is a broad swath of authoritarianism here ... "do not question authority, obey your boss no questions asked" stuff. And THAT is why I have been so surprised you've been (sorry about the label, don't freak) pro-Josh through all this, Roh. My position in life in general - and I thought yours - was to challenge authority and give the hired hand his hearing. I think Jay was cut loose by many fans in favor of "the authority," despite very solid evidence Josh was far deeper into trade talks than he admitted. Go read the first Josh quotes, "we answered the phone, but just said no." That's pretty clearly NOT what happened. Like several commentators said, "if you think four teams called them the same week about Jay Cutler just by chance, I've goit a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn."

I believe Jay deserved some kind of mea culpa, he deserved something. I'm always for the "hired hand" in general, especially where the "boss" is new and has a checkered history. Josh was way too new IMHO to get near-full deference from Pat in such an important matter as the retention of our star QB. But in this authoritarian structure of the NFL, Pat apparently demanded no mea culpa from this new kid, none we know of anyway. And I think we're gonna regret it for a long time. Let's just hope we find a good QB asap.

You obviously don't notice this, but your posts about this whole thing are dripping with Jay-love. The guy has a great arm. One of the greatest I've seen in a while. He also has a ****load of issues. Never, in all the decades I've been watching the NFL, have a seen a QB get this ridiculous over his team involving him in trade talks. Never. Which convinces me that Bowlen was right. Jay wanted out of Denver. So basically, you have a player who just dragged the Broncos franchise through the mud so he could get what he wanted. The idea that you would try to paint Jay as a member of beleagured laborer is ludicrous. Let him give Bowlen back the $17 mil signing bonus, then we'll talk. Ha!

TheElusiveKyleOrton
04-17-2009, 07:57 AM
No moves. If he's there at 12, I'd be happy to grab him. I'd also be happy to go defense all the way until the second pick of the third round, then draft Stephen McGee.

BroncoBuff
04-17-2009, 07:58 AM
There is no doubt that McD was given too much latitude for his own good.

It certainly looks that way.

Funny part is that after Mike was fired, nobody but NOBODY would've approved of some first-time head coach coming in here, and Jim Goodman and Jay Cutler going out. This board would've been apoplectic over such a thing .... 99.9% would have (violently) opposed such a result.

And yet, here we are. And the rationalizers are in full authority-deferring supplication.

Inkana7
04-17-2009, 07:59 AM
It certainly looks that way.

Funny part is that after Mike was fired, nobody but NOBODY would've approved of some first-time head coach coming in here, and Jim Goodman and Jay Cutler going out. This board would've been apoplectic over such a thing .... 99.9% would have (violently) opposed such a result.

And yet, here we are. And the rationalizers are in full authority-deferring supplication.

Buff, shut up.

epicSocialism4tw
04-17-2009, 08:01 AM
It certainly looks that way.

Funny part is that after Mike was fired, nobody but NOBODY would've approved of some first-time head coach coming in here, and Jim Goodman and Jay Cutler going out. This board would've been apoplectic over such a thing .... 99.9% would have (violently) opposed such a result.

And yet, here we are. And the rationalizers are in full authority-deferring supplication.

Thats the nature of message boards. Camp out in an ideological trench and fire shots from the foxhole with your brethren. Not a thought to be had save the ones that are contrived to defend an irrational position.

gunns
04-17-2009, 08:09 AM
Its possible that its just a ploy to trade out of the top 5. Hasselbeck is only 32. He has a few years left.

That's why they are saying Seattle. They also think Sanchez is possibly a two year project at best and needs to sit behind an experienced QB and learn.

BroncoBuff
04-17-2009, 08:29 AM
You obviously don't notice this, but your posts about this whole thing are dripping with Jay-love. The guy has a great arm. One of the greatest I've seen in a while. He also has a ****load of issues.
GUILTY AS CHARGED ... I LOVE JAY CUTLER!

Good lord, Roh, I "don't notice this"? I'm screaming it from the mountaintops ... I LOVE JAY CUTLER!! Chop down that strawman and scream it with me, Roh! ;D



Never, in all the decades I've been watching the NFL, have a seen a QB get this ridiculous over his team involving him in trade talks. Never.
Fernevvinsake, Roh! IT WASN'T THE TRADE TALKS THAT SET HIM OFF!!!! You cannot be the real Rohirrim ... the real Rohirrim is above that kind of specious reasoning. The real Rohirrim knows Jay's problem was he felt McD lied/misled him about the depth of involvement in trade discussions. Period. In fact, Jay said he understood that Cassel was Josh's "guy," or something like that. You should know this, Roh .... pretending Jay was angry merely because his name came up in trade talks is blithely ignoring reality.



The idea that you would try to paint Jay as a member of beleagured laborer is ludicrous. Let him give Bowlen back the $17 mil signing bonus, then we'll talk. Ha!
Another strawman, sheesh ....

I painted no such picture, that's silly, and this has nothing to do with salary, Roh. Jay is the employee, and Josh is the boss. Pat obviously sided with the boss - in a manner that would not have happened so quickly in the NBA or MLB. Salaries aren't the point here, this is about authority and how you treat employees. Besides, some of the most far-reaching court decisions on unions and employee relations have been decided over MLB players' union issues. Believe it or not, Curt Flood and its progeny applies to regular day-to-day workers. It's the same issues, the salary is not relevant.


So now Roh ... respond to anything but the substance here. I know ... respond to my "not the real Rohirrim" thing, or joke about my "man crush" on Jay ... anything but addressing the substance here that you STILL don't get why Jay was angry. And side with management .... it's The Will of Landrew! :nono:

Tombstone RJ
04-17-2009, 08:37 AM
GUILTY AS CHARGED ... I LOVE JAY CUTLER!

Good lord, Roh, I "don't notice this"? I'm screaming it from the mountaintops ... I LOVE JAY CUTLER!! Chop down that strawman and scream it with me, Roh! ;D




Fernevvinsake, Roh! IT WASN'T THE TRADE TALKS THAT SET HIM OFF!!!! You cannot be the real Rohirrim ... the real Rohirrim is above that kind of specious reasoning. The real Rohirrim knows Jay's problem was he felt McD lied/misled him about the depth of involvement in trade discussions. Period. In fact, Jay said he understood that Cassel was Josh's "guy," or something like that. You should know this, Roh .... pretending Jay was angry merely because his name came up in trade talks is blithely ignoring reality.




Another strawman, sheesh ....

I painted no such picture, that's silly, and this has nothing to do with salary, Roh. Jay is the employee, and Josh is the boss. Pat obviously sided with the boss - in a manner that would not have happened so quickly in the NBA or MLB. Salaries aren't the point here, this is about authority and how you treat employees. Besides, some of the most far-reaching court decisions on unions and employee relations have been decided over MLB players' union issues. Believe it or not, Curt Flood and its progeny applies to regular day-to-day workers. It's the same issues, the salary is not relevant.


So now Roh ... respond to anything but the substance here. I know ... respond to my "not the real Rohirrim" thing, or joke about my "man crush" on Jay ... anything but addressing the substance here that you STILL don't get why Jay was angry. And side with management .... it's The Will of Landrew! :nono:

Really Buff, you need to let it go. Just, let it go dude.

Jay used the Cassel talk as a cheap excuse to demand a new contract. PERIOD. Bus Cook saw an opportunity and when Bowlen refused to play, Cutler got traded. PERIOD.

All you have to do is look at how Cutler answered questions after he got to Chicago. He basically admitted culpability. Then he said, "I don't want to talk about the past."

He FUGGED UP!

Now he's in Chicago, he's happy, and it's time to move the PHHUCK on.

BroncoBuff
04-17-2009, 08:44 AM
Really Buff, you need to let it go. Just, let it go dude.

Jay used the Cassel talk as a cheap excuse to demand a new contract. PERIOD. Bus Cook saw an opportunity and when Bowlen refused to play, Cutler got traded. PERIOD.

If you truly want to "let it go," and "move on," then why are you arguing? Especially why argue the discredited notion that Jay engineered all this to get a new contract? After the trade, Bus Cook said they'll wait til next year to negotiate ... so that pretty much killed the whole "new contract" motivation, the accusation that Jay didn't like this "dead money year" in his deal.

Cito Pelon
04-17-2009, 09:02 AM
The Broncs are not going to draft Sanchez, and don't need him.

fontaine
04-17-2009, 09:04 AM
You obviously don't notice this, but your posts about this whole thing are dripping with Jay-love. The guy has a great arm. One of the greatest I've seen in a while. He also has a ****load of issues. Never, in all the decades I've been watching the NFL, have a seen a QB get this ridiculous over his team involving him in trade talks. Never. Which convinces me that Bowlen was right. Jay wanted out of Denver. So basically, you have a player who just dragged the Broncos franchise through the mud so he could get what he wanted. The idea that you would try to paint Jay as a member of beleagured laborer is ludicrous. Let him give Bowlen back the $17 mil signing bonus, then we'll talk. Ha!

Yeah, I'll bet all the Denver fans were all broken up about Elway not wanting to play in Indy. I'll bet the Mannings fans in New York were really upset that he didn't want to play in San Diego when they were celebrating that superbowl win.

Almost every single player in the league would leave his current team behind if it meant more money or getting away from coaches they hate. In Cutler's case it's pretty easy to see him and Josh just didn't get on with each other. End of story.

To say one is right, the other wrong, one is a crybaby, blah, blah, just seems weak at this point.

Punisher
04-17-2009, 09:15 AM
Jay Cutler is a bear end of story.

Tombstone RJ
04-17-2009, 09:16 AM
If you truly want to "let it go," and "move on," then why are you arguing? Especially why argue the discredited notion that Jay engineered all this to get a new contract? After the trade, Bus Cook said they'll wait til next year to negotiate ... so that pretty much killed the whole "new contract" motivation, the accusation that Jay didn't like this "dead money year" in his deal.

WTF??

So, Cook says this crap after the trade and you still want to argue with me? All that tells me is that 1. Jay did not want to be in Denver and 2. Cook was pushing for more money with the Broncos, then he STFU when Jay got to Chicago.

Again, BACKFIRE.

All I have to know is what Jay said after the trade: "I would have done some things differently...." to paraphrase.

Punisher
04-17-2009, 09:18 AM
:deadhorse :garcia:

Cito Pelon
04-17-2009, 09:24 AM
It certainly looks that way.

Funny part is that after Mike was fired, nobody but NOBODY would've approved of some first-time head coach coming in here, and Jim Goodman and Jay Cutler going out. This board would've been apoplectic over such a thing .... 99.9% would have (violently) opposed such a result.

And yet, here we are. And the rationalizers are in full authority-deferring supplication.

Wouldn't have bothered me too much. All of Bowlen's decisions since 12/28/08 are fine with me.

chex
04-17-2009, 09:28 AM
WTF??

So, Cook says this crap after the trade and you still want to argue with me? All that tells me is that 1. Jay did not want to be in Denver and 2. Cook was pushing for more money with the Broncos, then he STFU when Jay got to Chicago.

Again, BACKFIRE.

All I have to know is what Jay said after the trade: "I would have done some things differently...." to paraphrase.

Exactly. Even Bus Cook isnít arrogant enough to demand a new contract this soon after this fiasco. Rest assured, once this season is over, at the latest, the contract rumblings will begin. Theyíre just biding their time until then to avoid any bad p.r. If anyone thinks money wasnít even a partial motivator on the Cook/Cutler side is just oblivious.

Rohirrim
04-17-2009, 09:58 AM
GUILTY AS CHARGED ... I LOVE JAY CUTLER!

Good lord, Roh, I "don't notice this"? I'm screaming it from the mountaintops ... I LOVE JAY CUTLER!! Chop down that strawman and scream it with me, Roh! ;D




Fernevvinsake, Roh! IT WASN'T THE TRADE TALKS THAT SET HIM OFF!!!! You cannot be the real Rohirrim ... the real Rohirrim is above that kind of specious reasoning. The real Rohirrim knows Jay's problem was he felt McD lied/misled him about the depth of involvement in trade discussions. Period. In fact, Jay said he understood that Cassel was Josh's "guy," or something like that. You should know this, Roh .... pretending Jay was angry merely because his name came up in trade talks is blithely ignoring reality.




Another strawman, sheesh ....

I painted no such picture, that's silly, and this has nothing to do with salary, Roh. Jay is the employee, and Josh is the boss. Pat obviously sided with the boss - in a manner that would not have happened so quickly in the NBA or MLB. Salaries aren't the point here, this is about authority and how you treat employees. Besides, some of the most far-reaching court decisions on unions and employee relations have been decided over MLB players' union issues. Believe it or not, Curt Flood and its progeny applies to regular day-to-day workers. It's the same issues, the salary is not relevant.


So now Roh ... respond to anything but the substance here. I know ... respond to my "not the real Rohirrim" thing, or joke about my "man crush" on Jay ... anything but addressing the substance here that you STILL don't get why Jay was angry. And side with management .... it's The Will of Landrew! :nono:


I can't respond to the "substance" of your post because there isn't any. There is only jilted Jaylove; The bleating of a wounded heart. I don't really care about Jay's wounded feelings. If his feelings were hurt he should have called up his daddy and asked, "Hey daddy, what's my checking account balance?" That would have made him feel better. Here's the truth for all you jilted Jay-lovers. Jay just dragged the Broncos through the mud so he could get out of a town he hated and a team he didn't want to play for. He doesn't give a **** about your expressions of love. Perhaps you could write him a love letter or go buy his Bears' jersey. Whatever.

Rohirrim
04-17-2009, 10:00 AM
Yeah, I'll bet all the Denver fans were all broken up about Elway not wanting to play in Indy. I'll bet the Mannings fans in New York were really upset that he didn't want to play in San Diego when they were celebrating that superbowl win.

Almost every single player in the league would leave his current team behind if it meant more money or getting away from coaches they hate. In Cutler's case it's pretty easy to see him and Josh just didn't get on with each other. End of story.

To say one is right, the other wrong, one is a crybaby, blah, blah, just seems weak at this point.

Don't know what that has to do with my post, but whatever. ???

SportinOne
04-17-2009, 10:52 AM
No No No No No No

BroncoMan4ever
04-17-2009, 11:07 AM
well you are sort of saying what I am saying though...the whole BPA thing is very subjective really because it should go by the best player you need

Like you said if he fell to that point...wouldn't that mean he was the best at that spot then since he should have gone earlier? Maybe I am wrong but I could see him "falling" to 12, it is not out of the question. Then it becomes the best player for us, not necessarily the best available

that is my whole point

yes, BPA is subjective to need. i mean lets say in a fantasy world, you had a team with a RB position comprised of TD, Barry Sanders, and Emmit Smith all in their primes, and by far the BPA available in this draft was Wells, there would be no need to take him as the position is already loaded and he would have very little value in terms of need and wouldn't bring any upgrade to the position, so the pick would be better used, getting the Best Available defensive player.

so in the case of Sanchez, while he might be one of the better Qbs in a weak draft class, he really isn't good enough to warrant use of a number 12 pick even if he was available. he is not an upgrade to Orton, in fact they are very similar in skill set, and makes trading a 25 year old pro bowler just look idiotic on the franchise's part.

BroncoMan4ever
04-17-2009, 11:20 AM
Not unless we're the worst one or two teams in the league. If we go 5-11 and draft 8th and these two are going 1-2...you'd rather not try to move up? We are not going to be consistent winners without a true franchise QB. I'm not sure what Tebow is at this point...but reguardless of who it is, we are going to have to get somebody fairly soon who isn't just another Griese/Frerotte/Plummer clone.

who says Bradford and McCoy are going to be franchise QBs? Leinart, Young, Harrington, Carr, Smith, are all recent guys drafted around top 10 who were supposedly going to be franchise QBs and set up franchises for years to come, but all have done nothing.

with that in mind and the fact that finding a QB in the draft who becomes a good starter let alone a superstar is extremely rare, no way is it worth packaging as many as 3-1st rounders to move up for any QB.

now if a case like the Cutler Draft Situation pops up and we can move up a few slots with a mid round pick, that is fine, but no one coming out of college is worth as many as 3-1st rounders and the guaranteed money they get.

Rohirrim
04-17-2009, 11:52 AM
Perhaps the Sanchez question is becoming moot. A few outlets, including SI's Banks, are now predicting that the Seahawks will take Sanchez at #4. That will pretty much end that discussion, eh? ;D

TheChamp24
04-17-2009, 11:58 AM
who says Bradford and McCoy are going to be franchise QBs? Leinart, Young, Harrington, Carr, Smith, are all recent guys drafted around top 10 who were supposedly going to be franchise QBs and set up franchises for years to come, but all have done nothing.

with that in mind and the fact that finding a QB in the draft who becomes a good starter let alone a superstar is extremely rare, no way is it worth packaging as many as 3-1st rounders to move up for any QB.

now if a case like the Cutler Draft Situation pops up and we can move up a few slots with a mid round pick, that is fine, but no one coming out of college is worth as many as 3-1st rounders and the guaranteed money they get.

Vince Young was one guy that was a huge boom or bust pick, because he never really had good QB skills, but he was such a dual threat.
Akili Smith was a guy that was a gigantic boom or bust pick. He barely played and scouts were enamored with his potential although he had so many question marks.
David Carr rode a weak QB class and a fluke year into being the #1 pick.
Joey Harrington suffered by going to the other black hole, Detroit. No way should he have been a top 5 pick though, another Millen blunder. I still remember at that time I thought Harrington was a mid to late 1st round pick and should sit for a year at least.
Leinart just hasn't put full focus on football.

Yes, there are busts, but thats true with every position. What makes BJ Raji such a sure thing? What makes Aaron Curry such a sure thing? People were saying Lavar Arrington was going to be a stud. You just don't really know, but when you see a guy with the skill set Sam Bradford has, there must be something there.

jutang
04-17-2009, 12:16 PM
Mayock always highly touted Cutler. If Cutler truly becomes one of the greats, then it would only cement Mayock's reputation as a great draft guru. Now that Cutler's been traded, it's a slight to Mayock's reputation that Cutler may never become the franchise QB we all hoped for (at least for the Broncos). The reasoning that Denver now has to draft a QB in the 1st round doesn't make too much sense, but I can see how Mayock needs to state that the Broncos are in trouble at QB.

elsid13
04-17-2009, 02:14 PM
Adding Fuel to the fire
http://www.denverpost.com/ci_12165975?source=rss

The Broncos are not going to let the upcoming draft pass without making a serious evaluation of Mark Sanchez.


According to an NFL source, Broncos coach Josh McDaniels and general manager Brian Xanders have scheduled a private workout with the USC quarterback for next Tuesday.


The Broncos have the No. 12 and 18 picks in the first round, plus an extra third-round selection if they want to move up to select Sanchez, who figures to go somewhere in the top 10.


The source said the private workout doesn't necessarily mean the Broncos have identified Sanchez as their primary target in the NFL draft that will commence next Saturday. Instead, the Broncos are merely playing catch up in scouting a position that wasn't considered a strong need until they felt forced to grant Jay Cutler's trade request earlier this month.
Cutler, the Broncos' starting quarterback dating back to late in the 2006 season, was dealt along with a fifth-round pick earlier this month to the Chicago Bears in exchange for quarterback Kyle Orton, the No. 18 pick in this year's draft, a third-round pick, and a first-round pick in 2010.


The Broncos' held their first veteran minicamp session today with Orton and Chris Simms as their only quarterbacks. That means even if it's not Sanchez in the first round, there is a good chance the Broncos will come away with a quarterback from this draft.


"We've evaluated all the quarterbacks in this draft and there's more than a handful that are pretty good players and would fit in and play well in this league and for our team," McDaniels said today after the team's minicamp practice. "If it fit right where we had to draft a player, then we would be interested in drafting a quarterback if that would help us."

lex
04-17-2009, 02:17 PM
Adding Fuel to the fire
http://www.denverpost.com/ci_12165975?source=rss

The Broncos are not going to let the upcoming draft pass without making a serious evaluation of Mark Sanchez.


According to an NFL source, Broncos coach Josh McDaniels and general manager Brian Xanders have scheduled a private workout with the USC quarterback for next Tuesday.


The Broncos have the No. 12 and 18 picks in the first round, plus an extra third-round selection if they want to move up to select Sanchez, who figures to go somewhere in the top 10.


The source said the private workout doesn't necessarily mean the Broncos have identified Sanchez as their primary target in the NFL draft that will commence next Saturday. Instead, the Broncos are merely playing catch up in scouting a position that wasn't considered a strong need until they felt forced to grant Jay Cutler's trade request earlier this month.
Cutler, the Broncos' starting quarterback dating back to late in the 2006 season, was dealt along with a fifth-round pick earlier this month to the Chicago Bears in exchange for quarterback Kyle Orton, the No. 18 pick in this year's draft, a third-round pick, and a first-round pick in 2010.


The Broncos' held their first veteran minicamp session today with Orton and Chris Simms as their only quarterbacks. That means even if it's not Sanchez in the first round, there is a good chance the Broncos will come away with a quarterback from this draft.


"We've evaluated all the quarterbacks in this draft and there's more than a handful that are pretty good players and would fit in and play well in this league and for our team," McDaniels said today after the team's minicamp practice. "If it fit right where we had to draft a player, then we would be interested in drafting a quarterback if that would help us."

What McDaniels said could also be interpreted to mean possibly taking a guy in the mid or lower rounds but not before they think they should.

elsid13
04-17-2009, 02:21 PM
What McDaniels said could also be interpreted to mean possibly taking a guy in the mid or lower rounds but not before they think they should.

I am hoping that he means McGee and not Painter or Sanchez. But I have the strange feeling that Sanchez is close they might be tempted to move up and get him.

Punisher
04-17-2009, 02:25 PM
Rhett Bomar in the 6th Round :pray:

lex
04-17-2009, 02:25 PM
I am hoping that he means McGee and not Painter or Sanchez. But I have the strange feeling that Sanchez is close they might be tempted to move up and get him.
IF they draft Sanchez, that would be disgrace that Ill probably have to find something else to do with my Sundays. What a charlie foxtrot our FO is.

Drek
04-17-2009, 05:56 PM
No no no, we weren't talking about how sucessful they were. We were discussing whether Pat TRULY fired Jim Goodman because it would be "weird" for him after his son was gone. I said it wasn't weird for Jeremy after his Dad was gone. So, partly on that basis, I think it's a pansy excuse ... made it sound like Jim agreed with the decision ... Goodman didn't resign, he was FIRED! Have the cajones to say that, he had the cajones to say that about Shanahan.

You want to hold Pat accountable for what he said and then you don't actually want to listen when he gives an answer you don't like.

He said he let Jim Goodman go because if Goodman had to resign he'd have voided his contract, by firing him he still gets the remainder of it's value. Pretty solid move for an owner to do in the current tough economic times.


No fantasy ... just read Pat's statement the day after he fired Mike. It's pretty much all in there:

That's all pretty straightforward - and CERTAINLY not a fantasy. There was to have been a split between head coach and personnel man, period. He changed his mind.
You must have a very different meaning of the word "anticipate" than what Webster's Dictionary feels it means. Pat went into it with that perspective, in the interim things changed. He found a young talent that he (and the Goodmans, who where involved in the interview process) felt had a great vision for the franchise. Then Jeff Goodman apparently was not amenable to Xanders becoming the new full fledged GM. Bowlen can't see into the future or read men's souls. He didn't know that his hand would be forced in a lot of this. But the biggest change he did talk about and promise to make was to be more involved himself, and to date he's acted on it.





This is the lesson of Shanahan-power that it seemed Pat had learned, but apparently did not: "Mike was so enamored with his ability to make any player look great that he didn't concern himself enough with talent. Maybe the most damning stat: Only five players from his 2001-05 drafts remain on the roster. Hard to go to a Super Bowl that way."
And? What evidence do we have that its going to be a 100% McDaniels controlled draft? Will he have significant power? Of course, but to assume that Xanders, the scouting department, and Nolan will have zero play is pretty foolish, and to think that Bowlen himself isn't going to now be much more involved in the war room is bordering on delusion. That is the whole point here. Bowlen wants to actually be involved with his team, not just write blank checks for Shanahan. You think about Shanahan's power entirely from a personnel standpoint, but Bowlen never once groused about that. Instead all reports point to his issues with Shanahan's power level stemming from his near 100% control of even the non-personnel related operations of the organization.



That IS today's NFL ... just look around you! A.J. Smith in San Diego,
A place where neutered coaches continually produce underachieving teams.

Scott Pioli in KC (after 10+ yrs of Carl Peterson),
Just came from a place where he had to answer to Beichick, the HC, on personnel decisions.

Al Davis in Oakland (or whomever, we know Tom Cable has no power)
Is that the model we want our team to go by?

Bill Parcells in Miami
Yeah, the former coach who once said "if you want me to make dinner you should let me go shopping for the groceries." Great example there.

Phil Savage (formerly) in Cleveland
Where is he working now? Oh, and they brought in a HC who now runs the show.

Rick Smith in Houston
Thats a pretty even power divide between him and Kubiak, FYI.

Bill Polian of the Colts
Dungy had considerable FO pull, just because he retired doesn't make it an example of a GM entirely running the show from a personnel standpoint.

Mike Tannenbaum of the Jets (total control of draft)
Not until just recently. The last few years Mangini has had pretty much full power to call the shots. Its a big reason why the Brett Favre fallout orchestrated a power play resulting in a three year HC with two winning seasons getting fired.

Ozzie Newsome in Baltimore.
Belichick disciple FYI, so he started out in an HC ran organization.

Jerry Angelo in Chicago Not something they should be touting as the model for draft success.

Jerry Jones in Dallas
He's the owner and their recent success is entirely thanks to the brief period when he let Parcells come in and call the shots.

Rich McKay in Atlanta
Rich McKay doesn't work in Atlanta anymore, Thomas Dimitroff does and he shares power with their HC pretty evenly. Dimitroff is also from the HC controlled Belichick tree.

the new Dominik guy in Tampa
You mean the placeholder GM and HC pair they have before they can them and hire Shanahan next year?

Vinnie Cerato in Washington
You mean Dan Snyder right? And how is that organization an example of how the draft should be ran? The only reason they're headed in the right direction is that Gibbs, as HC, ran the show completely for a few years and put in a solid base.

Thompson in Green Bay.
Another example of pretty even power sharing where the coach at least gets significant input.

And no less a tenured coach as Jeff Fisher had Floyd Reese calling personnel shots until a year or so ago.
Yeah, the same Floyd Reese who took Vince Young over Jay Cutler. The Titans' draft success improved dramatically last year, so again, not a great model.

The Steelers are one of the best examples and what you should've been referencing here. But when you have an organization like the Pats (HC ran, wildly successful), the Seahawks up until last year (dominated the division with a HC/GM), Parcells' turn around works of the last few years as HC/GM, Marty Schottenheimer's history of turning franchises around, etc. you find that there are at least as many HCs that when given the power to call personnel shots actually dramatically improve their team.

The problem comes in when you have someone like Shanahan his last few years in Denver, dictating not just personnel but facilities and non-football managerial moves. He ran everything and there was no checks and balances on his power. McDaniels simply calls the shots on what players they target, while Xanders is an immediate check, Nolan provides balanced perspective, and Bowlen has veto power on everything. It is nothing like the Shanahan era.





It seems you're really reaching there to paint Jim Goodman as average and/or ineffective. In my view, these last three drafts have been golden examples of near-perfection (with the exception of Moss & Crowder). And I think the 2006 draft is one of the best I have ever seen for any team in any year. I'm not a student of drafts or anything, but it's certainly the best draft the Broncos have had in 50 years (BTW, Torian was clearly Mike's guy).
You mean the draft when Ted Sundquist was GM? Why should Jim Goodman get credit as anything more than a quality scout from that draft? He didn't have any say on the actual draft selections, Sundquist and Shanahan ran the show that year (obviously).

And it's pretty clear that Jim Goodman never cut guys or started or benched guys. He's not a coach, he's a personnel guy. Cutting/starting/benching was Shanahan's area. And imo Engleberger was Mike's guy. It is WAY not fair to blame Jim-freaking-Goodman for John-freaking-Engleberger ::)
But the last few seasons (post Sundquist) he did help assemble the roster. Who was the talent we brought in to compete with Engelberger at the strong side DE position? Kenny Peterson and Tim Crowder? Who was the competition for Nate Webster? Niko Koutouvides and moving DJ back and forth out of position? You act like he had all this player personnel input, well then give credit where credit is due. He didn't do a damn thing right on the defense in the last two years, except maybe if we're lucky hit on a couple ok later rounders in Larsen, Woodyard, and Barrett (none of whom are even definite starters in the league yet).


Look, I kind of admire that so many people are such big Josh fans and defenders, in spite of the facts he is so young and so new. I'm different, I think a guy has to EARN my loyalty when he comes in new (especially after so much blood has been spilled). The Josh people give their loyalty upfront, most it seems with few questions asked. Either way is fine, there's no right or wrong ... besides, in 24 hours, I'm clamming up! ;D
I'm not giving McDaniels my loyalty, its entirely with the Broncos. I don't see the "spilled blood" you refer to, as the FO changeover was largely the result of one assistant GM refusing to work well with the other as his supervisor, and the biggest personnel move was because a emo QB decided before McDaniels was even hired that he didn't want to be a Bronco anymore. Other than that its all been moves I don't think any knowledgeable fan can find any fault with at all.

I've got no loyalty to McDaniels, but I respect the resume and so far I like his approach to roster building. I like that the organization is now running under a much cleaner, less nepotism riddled hierarchy where Bowlen is really at the top and not some figure head like he's let himself be the last few years. I like that we have a coaching staff who actually has succeeded in their current positions, not a bunch of guys promoted over their heads running things.

I don't give any loyalty until it pays off with wins, but to this point I don't see much to find fault with. Those who do are looking for reasons to nay say and doubt simply because their preconceptions of what the Broncos are as an organization aren't being kept pristine and unchallenged.