thebestever6 Posted February 1, 2019 Share Posted February 1, 2019 (edited) 30 minutes ago, AKRNA said: I think you’re missing my point so I’ll tell ya a little story to explain, please bear with me, this’ll be a little long winded. So, growing up in the 50’s and 60’s almost every recreational activity for guys involved a ball, throwing, running, catching. Basically, there wasn’t much else to do. Snowball fights, dodge ball, baseball, football…… You get my drift. You’re dad comes home from work and you bug him to play catch. We were all pretty good at it to some extent because that’s really all we did. One guy though, Art, was freakish. He didn’t practice, just played like the rest of us. His accuracy though was uncanny. He’d be falling to his right, you were running to your left and he’d put a snowball in your ear from 60’. It hurt! He had some zip. He was always the first guy chosen for any game involving throwing a ball and for good reason. Coaches didn’t think he was big enough to be a QB, about 5’ 9”/160lbs, but in a sandlot game he was incredible. In short, he was a “natural”. So, leaving out a bunch of the story he eventually went to ASU, (I think, maybe another baseball powerhouse) playing shortstop on a full ride. Bottom line, accuracy for him was second nature. He didn’t work at it, he just had it. Maybe it’s an “accuracy gene”, I don’t know. Somehow though, in a tiny fraction of a second his brain could adjust to his bodies position, speed and direction, his receivers speed and direction, and deliver a 20-30 yard dart on the money every time. Only thing affected by his body position was speed and zip on the ball, never accuracy. Trust me, accuracy is not an acquired ability. It’s a truly amazing athletic gift. You have it or you don’t, that simple. I understand that it's spatial ability. I do think Lock has some natural elements to his accuracy. That throw in the senior bowl was well placed down field where only his guy can have it. But lets be real in order to play d 1 qbs have to have some type of accuracy ability. Others they're not going d 1. Its whether or not that translates. Edited February 1, 2019 by thebestever6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebestever6 Posted February 1, 2019 Share Posted February 1, 2019 11 minutes ago, AKRNA said: Just curious, has anyone seen Kyler Murray play much? I've seen him in a handful of games. If he were fully committed to football he'd go first round there's enough there But that dan Patrick interview was so bad for him today. You have to make up your mind this late in the process. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
germ-x Posted February 2, 2019 Share Posted February 2, 2019 1 hour ago, AKRNA said: I think you’re missing my point so I’ll tell ya a little story to explain, please bear with me, this’ll be a little long winded. So, growing up in the 50’s and 60’s almost every recreational activity for guys involved a ball, throwing, running, catching. Basically, there wasn’t much else to do. Snowball fights, dodge ball, baseball, football…… You get my drift. You’re dad comes home from work and you bug him to play catch. We were all pretty good at it to some extent because that’s really all we did. One guy though, Art, was freakish. He didn’t practice, just played like the rest of us. His accuracy though was uncanny. He’d be falling to his right, you were running to your left and he’d put a snowball in your ear from 60’. It hurt! He had some zip. He was always the first guy chosen for any game involving throwing a ball and for good reason. Coaches didn’t think he was big enough to be a QB, about 5’ 9”/160lbs, but in a sandlot game he was incredible. In short, he was a “natural”. So, leaving out a bunch of the story he eventually went to ASU, (I think, maybe another baseball powerhouse) playing shortstop on a full ride. Bottom line, accuracy for him was second nature. He didn’t work at it, he just had it. Maybe it’s an “accuracy gene”, I don’t know. Somehow though, in a tiny fraction of a second his brain could adjust to his bodies position, speed and direction, his receivers speed and direction, and deliver a 20-30 yard dart on the money every time. Only thing affected by his body position was speed and zip on the ball, never accuracy. Trust me, accuracy is not an acquired ability. It’s a truly amazing athletic gift. You have it or you don’t, that simple. I generally agree with this. I think accuracy can be improved upon to an extent, but the truly special players from an accuracy standpoint just have it. They can throw from any angle, messed up footwork, whatever, and still deliver the ball accurately. I think the greats understand angles, what type of velocity, touch, and the likes. There is one thing to be accurate throwing the ball hard, many are very good at that, but the special ones know how to throw guys open. That isn’t to say a fastball thrower can’t be a franshise QB or even a HOFer. 2 great examples of that are Elway and Favre. Obviously you can find examples of great touch throws, but they were vertical high velocity passers and that’s how they made their living. On the flip side you have guys like the Manning’s, Brady, Brees. Proving there is more than 1 way to go about this. The touch stuff is part of why I like Fromm so much. You can tell he has an exceptional understanding of what it takes to get a WR open and really processes information quickly. He made some throws in the SEC championship that weren’t “wow” from a velocity standpoint to the average viewer, but were absolutely magnificent throws. One was a swing route to an RB that only traveled maybe 15 yards and only 2 downfield, but most QBs I don’t think would’ve had a chance at completing that ball (the runner took off for another 15). It took excellent processing speed, excellent ball placement, and remarkable touch to make that a completed pass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsthomp2007 Posted February 2, 2019 Share Posted February 2, 2019 Too bad Tannehill isn't on our radar. I've always liked his game. He is better than Flacco and Foles in my opinion. If the Broncos brought him in and went all defense and all offensive in FA in the draft, I'd be happy with that. And, if him or Keenum don't pan out...then your one QB away....and a Trevor Lawrence on the horizon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsthomp2007 Posted February 2, 2019 Share Posted February 2, 2019 One...I'd throw a TE or two in that mix too. Alas...I really think they need a CB more than a QB at this point...but, I could be wrong. I mean with weapons, a good offensive line, and a great defense...and Keenum will do for a season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DiehardBronxFan Posted February 2, 2019 Share Posted February 2, 2019 4 hours ago, jsthomp2007 said: Too bad Tannehill isn't on our radar. I've always liked his game. He is better than Flacco and Foles in my opinion. If the Broncos brought him in and went all defense and all offensive in FA in the draft, I'd be happy with that. And, if him or Keenum don't pan out...then your one QB away....and a Trevor Lawrence on the horizon. Tannehill is just one more band-aid at QB. NO MORE STOP GAPS! STOP THE MADNESS! I’d rather take a shot at somebody who COULD turn into a playoff caliber QB instead of any more PROVEN mediocre solutions. Im not in love with LOCK, but no way you can tell me he isn’t a better prospect than Tannehill ever was. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebestever6 Posted February 2, 2019 Share Posted February 2, 2019 3 minutes ago, DiehardBronxFan said: Tannehill is just one more band-aid at QB. NO MORE STOP GAPS! STOP THE MADNESS! I’d rather take a shot at somebody who COULD turn into a playoff caliber QB instead of any more PROVEN mediocre solutions. Im not in love with LOCK, but no way you can tell me he isn’t a better prospect than Tannehill ever was. Yea I'm stay put if lock falls he falls to us. Don't panic, don't give up too much in a trade up. Play the board as it lies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BowserBroncos Posted February 4, 2019 Share Posted February 4, 2019 On 02/02/2019 at 8:45 PM, thebestever6 said: Yea I'm stay put if lock falls he falls to us. Don't panic, don't give up too much in a trade up. Play the board as it lies. Yeah, that's what I'd do too. I wish we had a better stop gap than Keenum, that would probably be determinant on if Elway would play the board or not. Until Lock at 10 happens, I think Elway will trade up for him....would not be either surprised if he makes Lock the 1st QB taken. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebestever6 Posted February 5, 2019 Share Posted February 5, 2019 55 minutes ago, BowserBroncos said: Yeah, that's what I'd do too. I wish we had a better stop gap than Keenum, that would probably be determinant on if Elway would play the board or not. Until Lock at 10 happens, I think Elway will trade up for him....would not be either surprised if he makes Lock the 1st QB taken. If a better stopgap makes or breaks us trading a bunch to trade up or not we're in trouble. That's not the way to play this at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BroncosFan2010 Posted February 5, 2019 Share Posted February 5, 2019 Quote Im not in love with LOCK, but no way you can tell me he isn’t a better prospect than Tannehill ever was. Tannenhill was the 8th pick, so similar range to Lock. He has a career 87 rating and was a 4.58 40 guy at 6'04. He was consitered a plus athlete with plus arm strength coming out. I think any QB we take around pick #10 would be lucky, historically speaking, to be a 6 year starter and post a rating like Tannenhill. That says more about the bust rate than anything, but this idea that we can snag a QB that will win games for us is mistaken. The types of guys that can win a game for you are few and far between. This isnt to say we need a QB, just that we should temper our expectations. Put a team with less constant turnover around Tannenhill and he easily could have had a Flacco/Foles type run and won a chip. He was talented enough to do that, and thats what we need. Were not getting the next Mahomes, or even Goff, but we need SOMETHING and if that requires a top-10 pick then so be it. If we use a top-10 pick on a guy that turns out to be the next Ryan Tannenhill, I would be fine with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jolly red giant Posted February 5, 2019 Share Posted February 5, 2019 1 hour ago, BroncosFan2010 said: This isnt to say we need a QB, just that we should temper our expectations. Drafting a QB is a crap-shoot - there are very few that come out guaranteed to succeed - a Peyton or a Luck are a very rare commodity. When you step outside picks 1.1 and 1.2 the chances drop even more - but even with the first two picks you can still get a complete bust. I don't have a problem drafting a QB - I don't have a preference although (up until his awful interview a couple of days ago) I was intrigued by Kyler Murray. But until we actually draft a QB and put the ball in his hands against an NFL defence - you will not know what they have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnAngryAmerican Posted February 5, 2019 Share Posted February 5, 2019 (edited) On 2/2/2019 at 3:41 PM, DiehardBronxFan said: Tannehill is just one more band-aid at QB. NO MORE STOP GAPS! STOP THE MADNESS! I’d rather take a shot at somebody who COULD turn into a playoff caliber QB instead of any more PROVEN mediocre solutions. Im not in love with LOCK, but no way you can tell me he isn’t a better prospect than Tannehill ever was. This is where I come down too. I don’t blame Elway as harshly as some do for missing on Paxton because he at least took a shot. Frankly, signing Case bugs me more than whiffing on Paxton because we knew who Case was; NFL history is littered with guys who had one year that far exceeded their career mean, got paid handsomely and then regressed to that career mean. If it’s Lock we like the best, I say pull the trigger. Same if it’s Haskins or Love or Murray or whomever. At least try to find a long-term answer because we’re stuck in purgatory until we do. Edited February 5, 2019 by AnAngryAmerican Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebestever6 Posted February 5, 2019 Share Posted February 5, 2019 55 minutes ago, BroncosFan2010 said: Tannenhill was the 8th pick, so similar range to Lock. He has a career 87 rating and was a 4.58 40 guy at 6'04. He was consitered a plus athlete with plus arm strength coming out. I think any QB we take around pick #10 would be lucky, historically speaking, to be a 6 year starter and post a rating like Tannenhill. That says more about the bust rate than anything, but this idea that we can snag a QB that will win games for us is mistaken. The types of guys that can win a game for you are few and far between. This isnt to say we need a QB, just that we should temper our expectations. Put a team with less constant turnover around Tannenhill and he easily could have had a Flacco/Foles type run and won a chip. He was talented enough to do that, and thats what we need. Were not getting the next Mahomes, or even Goff, but we need SOMETHING and if that requires a top-10 pick then so be it. If we use a top-10 pick on a guy that turns out to be the next Ryan Tannenhill, I would be fine with that. I wouldn't be thats bare minimum of what you'd want to happen at that spot. A top 10 pick you want to be a franchise qb. A Tannenhill qb wouldn't make the pick a failure but it wouldn't be a success. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DiehardBronxFan Posted February 6, 2019 Share Posted February 6, 2019 8 hours ago, BroncosFan2010 said: Tannenhill was the 8th pick, so similar range to Lock. He has a career 87 rating and was a 4.58 40 guy at 6'04. He was consitered a plus athlete with plus arm strength coming out. I think any QB we take around pick #10 would be lucky, historically speaking, to be a 6 year starter and post a rating like Tannenhill. That says more about the bust rate than anything, but this idea that we can snag a QB that will win games for us is mistaken. The types of guys that can win a game for you are few and far between. This isnt to say we need a QB, just that we should temper our expectations. Put a team with less constant turnover around Tannenhill and he easily could have had a Flacco/Foles type run and won a chip. He was talented enough to do that, and thats what we need. Were not getting the next Mahomes, or even Goff, but we need SOMETHING and if that requires a top-10 pick then so be it. If we use a top-10 pick on a guy that turns out to be the next Ryan Tannenhill, I would be fine with that. Tannehill was a converted WR with 1 year at QB. He was a teach. Maybe Locke will be a reach, but he is a much safer / better prospect then Tannehill. And if we end up with another “Tannehill, I will be very disappointed. He was a bust, no matter what his QB rating is. But, the risk of disappointment doesn’t change the need to take the risk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
germ-x Posted February 6, 2019 Share Posted February 6, 2019 7 hours ago, AnAngryAmerican said: This is where I come down too. I don’t blame Elway as harshly as some do for missing on Paxton because he at least took a shot. Frankly, signing Case bugs me more than whiffing on Paxton because we knew who Case was; NFL history is littered with guys who had one year that far exceeded their career mean, got paid handsomely and then regressed to that career mean. If it’s Lock we like the best, I say pull the trigger. Same if it’s Haskins or Love or Murray or whomever. At least try to find a long-term answer because we’re stuck in purgatory until we do. Completely agree here. At some point Elway has to take the leap, I’m giving him 2-3 years to do so, but this team can’t sit back and bank on average journeyman or cross their fingers an elite QB hits the market (this almost never happens). If Elway is going to stick in Denver and if this team is truly about competing on a yearly basis they have to find a young QB. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.