AKRNA Posted April 3, 2018 Share Posted April 3, 2018 8 hours ago, BaldyBronco said: We have to remember that Kubiak, while I know favoring Trevor, was part of drafting Paxton. He believed in Trevor, but also IMO had to give the green light on Paxton as the future long term. Kubiak could be here in large part to fix Paxton for the future. Which supports your point even further. I'm not sure that's true. From what I'd read, etc. Kubiak had little if any involvement in personell decisions. Totally uninvolved in the draft decisions. I don't believe that's the case anymore. I'd imagine that we can start blaming Kubiak for draft choices and FA acquisitions pretty soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AKRNA Posted April 3, 2018 Share Posted April 3, 2018 13 hours ago, broncos67 said: Yeah, considering Manning/Brady/Roethlisberger have been the QBs representing the AFC for the better part of 15 years, it's safe to say that the QB you have matters. Sorry 67, I can't just give you that argument. Manning was the worst QB in the league when he won the SB with Denver and the best QB in the league when we got trounced in the SB. Just for grins, take a look at the teams the guys you listed played for. They were very good and solid on both sides of the LOS. The Brady/Belichik relationship won't ever be surpassed. How do you think Brady would have done elsewhere? Big Ben won his SB's with great teams. Not so special without. And really, are you saying that Eli is an elite QB? My point is simple. Not one of those guys won a SB without a great team behind him. NOT ONE! Now the argument is how do average to poor QB's do with great teams behind them. Pretty good it seems. Nick Foles this year, PM a few years ago, Russel Wilson. Anyway, we could play this game forever and never reach agreement. You'll tell me how great Montana was, I'll point out how stacked the roster was and he went to a ream with a league changing HC who developed the WCO that allowed a limited talent like Joe Montana to succeed. Bradshaw won all 4 SB's he was a part of. The Steel curtain years. Was Bradshaw really that great or did his team have something to do with it? We could do this forever. I'd point out that even Elway who I consider the best QB ever couldn't win a championship until he had the best OL in the league and an equally devastating bunch in the front seven defensively. So, there we have it. I don't believe it's a QB centric league and haven't for decades. The Raiders won two SB's in the day, two journeyman QB's. Only thing constant was they'd run the ball down your throat, courtesy of Art Shell, Gene Upshaw, Dave Dalby, Jim Otto, etc. They were there for over a decade. Anyway bud, it 'Il always will be a "chicken or egg" conversation. I'll always be about the team making the QB, not the other way around. Just seen it too many times over the years, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsthomp2007 Posted April 3, 2018 Share Posted April 3, 2018 I have three words: Jim McMahon and Mark Rypien. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
broncos67 Posted April 3, 2018 Share Posted April 3, 2018 8 hours ago, AKRNA said: Sorry 67, I can't just give you that argument. Manning was the worst QB in the league when he won the SB with Denver and the best QB in the league when we got trounced in the SB. Just for grins, take a look at the teams the guys you listed played for. They were very good and solid on both sides of the LOS. The Brady/Belichik relationship won't ever be surpassed. How do you think Brady would have done elsewhere? Big Ben won his SB's with great teams. Not so special without. And really, are you saying that Eli is an elite QB? My point is simple. Not one of those guys won a SB without a great team behind him. NOT ONE! Now the argument is how do average to poor QB's do with great teams behind them. Pretty good it seems. Nick Foles this year, PM a few years ago, Russel Wilson. Anyway, we could play this game forever and never reach agreement. You'll tell me how great Montana was, I'll point out how stacked the roster was and he went to a ream with a league changing HC who developed the WCO that allowed a limited talent like Joe Montana to succeed. Bradshaw won all 4 SB's he was a part of. The Steel curtain years. Was Bradshaw really that great or did his team have something to do with it? We could do this forever. I'd point out that even Elway who I consider the best QB ever couldn't win a championship until he had the best OL in the league and an equally devastating bunch in the front seven defensively. So, there we have it. I don't believe it's a QB centric league and haven't for decades. The Raiders won two SB's in the day, two journeyman QB's. Only thing constant was they'd run the ball down your throat, courtesy of Art Shell, Gene Upshaw, Dave Dalby, Jim Otto, etc. They were there for over a decade. Anyway bud, it 'Il always will be a "chicken or egg" conversation. I'll always be about the team making the QB, not the other way around. Just seen it too many times over the years, No argument from me that having a great all around team, including the QB, is a better path forward than anything else. But I guess my point is that having that elite QB can mask other deficiencies. We've seen more SBs won by a great team WITH an elite QB than just a great team. Hell, we've arguably seen a great QB make the SB on his own more than a great team without one has. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bMiller031 Posted April 3, 2018 Share Posted April 3, 2018 Is all of this "Allen to Browns at 1.1?" talk just a Kiper/Media lightshow or do we think there is any legitimacy to it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnAngryAmerican Posted April 3, 2018 Share Posted April 3, 2018 On 4/1/2018 at 12:57 PM, AKRNA said: Add to the negatives I've already listed, we'd immediately have yet another QB controversy, split locker room, Keenum on a short leash, fans clamoring for the rookie and then when we put the rookie in he fails spectacularly. Within a year we're all hollering "bust". That, IMO, is the strongest argument against taking a QB at No. 5. I'm not sold on Keenum as the long-term answer and I think his ceiling is what we saw last year - a game-manager who, when surrounded all over the field by elite talent and a top-5 coaching staff, in a division where one team is in total rebuild mode and another has lost his first-ballot HOF QB, can get you into the playoffs. However, taking a QB at No. 5 this year just to take a QB, would be a major mistake and cause PR/fan base/media problems that this franchise would be wise to avoid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnAngryAmerican Posted April 3, 2018 Share Posted April 3, 2018 22 hours ago, broncos67 said: That's a definite. Another one of the reasons I'm not convinced we'll take a QB. Getting Keenum is a way to see what we have in Joseph. If he bottoms out with a QB that can win, he's toast. Honestly if he doesn't make the playoffs he's toast. I agree. It's make the playoffs or you're fired for Vance. He knows that and it is why, come draft day, he will be the one pounding the table for someone, anyone, other than a QB because a QB does nothing to help us win games this year. The other reason to avoid taking a QB is, if and when Vance is fired, the new HC is married to that QB we drafted at No. 5 and if he's not a fan of said QB then he's less-likely to take the job. Taking a QB has the potential to limit our coaching search nine months from now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnAngryAmerican Posted April 3, 2018 Share Posted April 3, 2018 13 hours ago, germ-x said: But if you have an elite QB you’re still always in contention and can focus all efforts on everything else. Case in point, look at the Packers last year. They were 4-1 when Aaron Rodgers got hurt. He went down early in the first quarter in the Vikings game (which they ended up losing) and then went on to lose four of their next five, with the only win coming against the rebuilding Bears. They did squeaked out a pair of wins in early December against the Bucs and Browns, both in OT and the Tampa game was in Lambeau, but once Rodgers went down their season was over for intents and purposes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnAngryAmerican Posted April 3, 2018 Share Posted April 3, 2018 1 hour ago, bMiller031 said: Is all of this "Allen to Browns at 1.1?" talk just a Kiper/Media lightshow or do we think there is any legitimacy to it? Well, the Browns have their bridge QB in Tyrod and Allen has the highest upside of anyone in the draft. Look at KC where Dorsey was last year (drafted Maholmes, raw but the off-the-charts upside) and back in Green Bay he was TT's scouting director when they drafted big-armed, athletic Aaron Rodgers. It wouldn't surprise me to see Cleveland take Allen No. 1 overall, roll with Tyrod this year and use No. 4 on either a Chubb/Barkley difference-maker or trade down with Buffalo, who it was recently leaked want to get into the top-five for a QB. What interesting, is if Allen is taken No. 1 overall it's rumored that the Giants have Darnold No. 1 on their board, meaning they take a him at No. 2. That leaves the Jets with Rosen or Mayfield and the Bills, if they trade up with Cleveland for No. 4, take the one on whom the Bills pass. That would give us our pick of the rest of the non-QB lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoundrel Posted April 3, 2018 Share Posted April 3, 2018 5 minutes ago, AnAngryAmerican said: Well, the Browns have their bridge QB in Tyrod and Allen has the highest upside of anyone in the draft. Look at KC where Dorsey was last year (drafted Maholmes, raw but the off-the-charts upside) and back in Green Bay he was TT's scouting director when they drafted big-armed, athletic Aaron Rodgers. It wouldn't surprise me to see Cleveland take Allen No. 1 overall, roll with Tyrod this year and use No. 4 on either a Chubb/Barkley difference-maker or trade down with Buffalo, who it was recently leaked want to get into the top-five for a QB. What interesting, is if Allen is taken No. 1 overall it's rumored that the Giants have Darnold No. 1 on their board, meaning they take a him at No. 2. That leaves the Jets with Rosen or Mayfield and the Bills, if they trade up with Cleveland for No. 4, take the one on whom the Bills pass. That would give us our pick of the rest of the non-QB lot. This is the scenario I want Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoundrel Posted April 3, 2018 Share Posted April 3, 2018 Broncos meet with Vita Vea Is he a surprise option at 5? Are they just doing there homework in case they trade down? your opinions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anewdawn Posted April 3, 2018 Share Posted April 3, 2018 2 minutes ago, Counselor said: Broncos meet with Vita Vea Is he a surprise option at 5? Are they just doing there homework in case they trade down? your opinions? I mentioned him the other day. I thought 5 was a reach and that's just based on all the mocks I see. I believe you take who you like and who can help you out the most and I think he is a good fit. They may be talking to him in case of a trade down which was my scenario the other day if we can get some value for 5. They have to have options just in case...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AKRNA Posted April 3, 2018 Share Posted April 3, 2018 12 minutes ago, Counselor said: Broncos meet with Vita Vea Is he a surprise option at 5? Are they just doing there homework in case they trade down? your opinions? I'd say it's option 2. He'd be quite a reach at 5. My guess is, they've already got plan A figured out. If that player is off the board by 5 they go to plan B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bMiller031 Posted April 3, 2018 Share Posted April 3, 2018 1 hour ago, AnAngryAmerican said: What interesting, is if Allen is taken No. 1 overall it's rumored that the Giants have Darnold No. 1 on their board, meaning they take a him at No. 2. That leaves the Jets with Rosen or Mayfield and the Bills, if they trade up with Cleveland for No. 4, take the one on whom the Bills pass. That would give us our pick of the rest of the non-QB lot. This actually seems like a medium scenario for us. The value of our pick tanks if the big-3 QBs are off the board at 1.5, the remaining guys (Nelson, Chubb, Barkley, etc) seem to be so close to one-another that we'd be best served to trade back to get the last one left of the three (likely Nelson) and pick up value - but if the QBs are gone, who trades up? I agree that any of those three guys should be our target(s) (assuming Rosen and Darnold are gone). But a top 5 pick is a rare asset (hopefully), one you don't don't come across often if the FO is doing their job competently. All three of those guys are very nice players to have - but in theory, you'd like the 1.5 pick to be worth more than just one of those three guys. You'd like it to be the QBOTF or the chess piece that lands multiple anchors, especially in a draft with such a strong QB supply at the top. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
broncos67 Posted April 3, 2018 Share Posted April 3, 2018 1 hour ago, Counselor said: Broncos meet with Vita Vea Is he a surprise option at 5? Are they just doing there homework in case they trade down? your opinions? Gotta be an option in the event of a trade down. But he would be a hell of a pick at 12 if we went there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.