The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Orange Mane Discussion > Orange Mane Central Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-01-2014, 06:48 PM   #76
Lestat
Oreo Lucian Rockefeller
 
Lestat's Avatar
 
Say what again! I dare you!

Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 9,377
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoMan4ever View Post
Why do so many of you guys still b**** about this selection? The team took a major risk signing Manning. At the time there was no guarantee he would he would heal enough to even attempt to play. Had that happened Elway made sure the team had an insurance option. He got a guy he felt had good talent that if he was needed he would be able to play but was also youn,g so that if Manning healed, sitting and learning wouldn't be an issue.

There was no way in hell he was willing to turn the team over to the pieces of **** we had on the roster the year prior. Can you imagine us having to rely on Orton, Quinn or Tebow another year had Manning not healed?

Those of you b****ing about the pick would be sucking Elway and Brock's ***** had Manning not been able to play.
Selected right after Oz.


But mostly because people wanted to keep Tebow as the back up and them not have to draft a QB. Which was not ever an option.
Lestat is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2014, 06:57 PM   #77
yerner
Ring of Famer
 
yerner's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Charlottesville VA
Posts: 3,936
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoMan4ever View Post
Why do so many of you guys still b**** about this selection? The team took a major risk signing Manning. At the time there was no guarantee he would he would heal enough to even attempt to play. Had that happened Elway made sure the team had an insurance option. He got a guy he felt had good talent that if he was needed he would be able to play but was also youn,g so that if Manning healed, sitting and learning wouldn't be an issue.

There was no way in hell he was willing to turn the team over to the pieces of **** we had on the roster the year prior. Can you imagine us having to rely on Orton, Quinn or Tebow another year had Manning not healed?

Those of you b****ing about the pick would be sucking Elway and Brock's ***** had Manning not been able to play.

I get the logic, it's just Brock wasn't that good. There was no reason to select that kid with the body of work he put out at ASU in the 2nd round. Could have taken Foles later etc. I hope he's good though. His success would be the key to sustained success after Manning goes.
yerner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2014, 07:11 PM   #78
Luke Lucas
Just Drafted
 
Luke Lucas's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 38

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Do not waste pick on QB
Luke Lucas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2014, 07:32 PM   #79
Broncojef
Ring of Famer
 
Broncojef's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Great White North
Posts: 3,244
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoMan4ever View Post
Why do so many of you guys still b**** about this selection? The team took a major risk signing Manning. At the time there was no guarantee he would he would heal enough to even attempt to play. Had that happened Elway made sure the team had an insurance option. He got a guy he felt had good talent that if he was needed he would be able to play but was also youn,g so that if Manning healed, sitting and learning wouldn't be an issue.

There was no way in hell he was willing to turn the team over to the pieces of **** we had on the roster the year prior. Can you imagine us having to rely on Orton, Quinn or Tebow another year had Manning not healed?

Those of you b****ing about the pick would be sucking Elway and Brock's ***** had Manning not been able to play.
It was a waste of a pick. If Manning had gone down the rookie Osweiller had about as much up side as any other QB on our roster. Had no problem with Cousins or another QB later in the draft. Our defense had and continues to have holes. Throwing a second rounder away with no return seemed like a bad decision. Fair warning I'll b**** even more if we select another high draft pick on QB.
Broncojef is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2014, 07:41 PM   #80
pricejj
jungle
 
pricejj's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Louisville, CO
Posts: 8,546
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Requiem View Post
So what kind of contract are we getting Brocko? I assume he won't see the field as a starter until he is an FA. Bang up job of the FO drafting a guy in the second that didn't do squat.
At least the FO will know what they have in a likely 1st round draft pick, after having trained him for 4 years. Sure beats drafting some loser at the end of the 1st round the year after Manning, then flailing in purgatory while he learns on the job.
pricejj is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2014, 09:58 PM   #81
gunns
I WANT DEFENSE!
 
gunns's Avatar
 
Defense, defense, defense

Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Always Hoping
Posts: 12,499

Adopt-a-Bronco:
TJ Ward
Default

I want defense, I always want defense but I'd like to have more of an insurance policy than Oz. I've wondered if Elway might realize his mistake and take a QB. I don't know, it would depend on if there is some awesome defensive prospect available, then I'd say no. But we need something decent in place sooner than later.
gunns is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2014, 10:13 PM   #82
Agamemnon
Ring of Famer
 
Agamemnon's Avatar
 
Resurrected!

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 3,370

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Chris Clark
Default

I'd take Bridgewater over Osweiler any day of the week, but at this point the Broncos are better off spending their 1st round pick on someone who can help them get over the hump and actually win a championship this year.
Agamemnon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2014, 10:52 PM   #83
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,646
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yerner View Post
To me it's an obvious corner back pick. Biggest hole on the roster.
Considering last year we were thin at linebacker, then lost Woody, it seems like backer is the weakest position. I think Broncos could draft 2 linebackers and both could make the roster and play early and often.

We need a bkup WSL and a starting MLB IMO.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2014, 01:30 AM   #84
Arkie
Ring of Famer
 
Arkie's Avatar
 
Say 'what' again, I dare you

Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 10,442
Default

Colts drafted Luck instead of gambling on Peyton's future. They knew better than anybody about his condition. Broncos used a 2nd round pick for insurance purposes and because Peyton was 36 and never took a snap for the Broncos. It wasn't a wasted pick to go QB. Hypothetically, it's not a wasted pick if the "QBOTF" falls into our laps this year with Peyton being 38. I just don't think there's a QB in this draft worth our first pick.
Arkie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2014, 02:53 AM   #85
fontaine
Ring of Famer
 
fontaine's Avatar
 
Go John Manning!

Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 13,045
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Agamemnon View Post
I'd take Bridgewater over Osweiler any day of the week,
Why? In what ways, physically, is Bridgewater a better NFL prospect than Osweiler?
fontaine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2014, 09:35 AM   #86
Requiem
~~~
 
Requiem's Avatar
 
~ ~ ~

Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Earth Division
Posts: 23,292

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Princes of Tara
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoMan4ever View Post
Why do so many of you guys still b**** about this selection? The team took a major risk signing Manning. At the time there was no guarantee he would he would heal enough to even attempt to play. Had that happened Elway made sure the team had an insurance option. He got a guy he felt had good talent that if he was needed he would be able to play but was also youn,g so that if Manning healed, sitting and learning wouldn't be an issue.

There was no way in hell he was willing to turn the team over to the pieces of **** we had on the roster the year prior. Can you imagine us having to rely on Orton, Quinn or Tebow another year had Manning not healed?

Those of you b****ing about the pick would be sucking Elway and Brock's ***** had Manning not been able to play.
No.
Requiem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2014, 09:52 AM   #87
Brohemoth
Solid Starter
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 147

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fontaine View Post
Why? In what ways, physically, is Bridgewater a better NFL prospect than Osweiler?
I'm not a Bridgewater advocate, but there were countless moments that Bridgwater made people think, "Wow, that is special."

Osweiler was nothing more than a project with height and a rocket arm.
Brohemoth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2014, 10:32 AM   #88
Agamemnon
Ring of Famer
 
Agamemnon's Avatar
 
Resurrected!

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 3,370

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Chris Clark
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fontaine View Post
Why? In what ways, physically, is Bridgewater a better NFL prospect than Osweiler?
Is this a serious question? It would be easier to list where Osweiler is better (because it's a short list):

1) Arm strength
2) Height
Agamemnon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2014, 10:36 AM   #89
fontaine
Ring of Famer
 
fontaine's Avatar
 
Go John Manning!

Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 13,045
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brohemoth View Post
I'm not a Bridgewater advocate, but there were countless moments that Bridgwater made people think, "Wow, that is special."

Osweiler was nothing more than a project with height and a rocket arm.
Yes correct. I'm not questioning Bridgewater the player, I'm questioning Bridgewater the prospect as compared to Osweiler.

Any question about a QB prospect always starts with "How does he throw the ball?"

It's the reason why Bridgewater is expected to be drafted late in the 1st even though he's a more refined pocket passer than Brock who was drafted in the 2nd despite being "nothing more than a project."
fontaine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2014, 10:38 AM   #90
Agamemnon
Ring of Famer
 
Agamemnon's Avatar
 
Resurrected!

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 3,370

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Chris Clark
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fontaine View Post
Yes correct. I'm not questioning Bridgewater the player, I'm questioning Bridgewater the prospect as compared to Osweiler.

Any question about a QB prospect always starts with "How does he throw the ball?"

It's the reason why Bridgewater is expected to be drafted late in the 1st even though he's a more refined pocket passer than Brock who was drafted in the 2nd despite being "nothing more than a project."
I thought Osweiler was drafted in the 2nd because he was Jack Elway's BFF.

On a serious note, Bridgewater throws the football waaaaaaay better than Osweiler did coming out of college. The reason Bridgewater is dropping is his lack of size and a poor pro day. Personally I think pro days are a joke, so I give that no weight.
Agamemnon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2014, 10:44 AM   #91
fontaine
Ring of Famer
 
fontaine's Avatar
 
Go John Manning!

Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 13,045
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Agamemnon View Post
I thought Osweiler was drafted in the 2nd because he was Jack Elway's BFF.

On a serious note, Bridgewater throws the football waaaaaaay better than Osweiler did coming out of college. The reason Bridgewater is dropping is his lack of size and a poor pro day. Personally I think pro days are a joke, so I give that no weight.
I agree that Pro days aren't as important.

But lack of size/arm strength are serious issues that don't translate well into the NFL with tighter windows, better defenses.

I don't see where you're saying Bridgewater throws the ball way better? Do you mean anticipation/accuracy on selected throws that suit his lack of arm strength? If so, then sure, Bridgewater is a more accurate, refined pocket passer on short passes inside the hash marks.

But that doesn't mean he's a better thrower of the ball as a prospect. Again difference between player/prospect.
fontaine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2014, 10:48 AM   #92
Agamemnon
Ring of Famer
 
Agamemnon's Avatar
 
Resurrected!

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 3,370

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Chris Clark
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fontaine View Post
I agree that Pro days aren't as important.

But lack of size/arm strength are serious issues that don't translate well into the NFL with tighter windows, better defenses.

I don't see where you're saying Bridgewater throws the ball way better? Do you mean anticipation/accuracy on selected throws that suit his lack of arm strength? If so, then sure, Bridgewater is a more accurate, refined pocket passer on short passes inside the hash marks.

But that doesn't mean he's a better thrower of the ball as a prospect. Again difference between player/prospect.
Where did you get the notion that Bridgewater's arm is a "serious issue"? He doesn't have a cannon, but QBs with weaker arms have succeeded in the NFL many times. Having a cannon means nothing. Every time Osweiler has seen the field this has been clearly illustrated.

Seriously, what about Osweiler do you like? I've seen nothing to be positive about other than his velocity.
Agamemnon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2014, 11:58 AM   #93
fontaine
Ring of Famer
 
fontaine's Avatar
 
Go John Manning!

Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 13,045
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Agamemnon View Post
Where did you get the notion that Bridgewater's arm is a "serious issue"? He doesn't have a cannon, but QBs with weaker arms have succeeded in the NFL many times. Having a cannon means nothing. Every time Osweiler has seen the field this has been clearly illustrated.
I'm not saying Bridgewater can't succeed in the NFL. And you misread what I said. Lack of size/arm strength are serious issues. In other words both things combined are a serious issue.

Quote:
Seriously, what about Osweiler do you like? I've seen nothing to be positive about other than his velocity.
Well, we could talk about this for hours but simply Osweiler has demonstrated often that he has the combination of accuracy/timing/power in throws that are called "NFL type throws."

It's not just velocity. It's throwing to a tight window (accuracy), on a tough deep opposite hashmark throw (arm strength), just when his WR is still in his break (timing).

When on a college level he routinely makes this throw that requires the toughest combination of those three things then you know he has the ability to throw the ball in the NFL. And like it or not, agree or disagree, that's what scouts/coaches value very highly in the NFL.

What I also like is that most of the cons listed against Brock are his lack of refinement/experience which are entirely coachable given he's had time to do that on the bench.

Last edited by fontaine; 05-02-2014 at 12:09 PM..
fontaine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2014, 12:07 PM   #94
fontaine
Ring of Famer
 
fontaine's Avatar
 
Go John Manning!

Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 13,045
Default



Time mark 1:09

That's what I mean. That intermediate sideline pass from the opposite hashmark where a QB has to combine timing, accuracy and power is a very rare trait.

It's not just about arm strength/velocity, it's a combination of those things above with a quick, repeatable release.

Watch the rest of the throws after that one and they are different games but same essential throw. There's a reason why those specific throws are featured in his draft pick highlight reel, and it's because those are NFL quality throws.

It's what gets QB drafted high. Does that mean Brock is sure to succeed in the NFL? Hell no, but it does mean he already has the physical traits that can't be coached.

Last edited by fontaine; 05-02-2014 at 02:28 PM..
fontaine is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:46 PM.


Denver Broncos