Denver Broncos Thread

spiralism

D3PO wrote: »

you seem to completly forget O Line needs an upgrade, champ bailey and brian dawkins dont have too many years in the tank either.

still a fair bit of work for the broncos to be a very good football team.

I actually dunno about the offensive line. It's not as pressing a need as it looks, no.1 rushing offence and Tebow often gets ages to throw, its more a case of being a little inconsistent rather than a lack of talent. Besides, as the best offensive lines operate as a unit, i think the best job is to leave it alone and let it develop if its not in a bad way. All of them are very young and will likely be around a while, with Chris Kuper being the oldest at 29

Dawkins will retire this year i'd say unfortunately, Champ has a few years left and will probably move to free safety at some point in a vein similar to sharper and deion. Quentin Carter looks like he could step up at SS on the basis of last night, with Champ moving in alongside him eventually.

So if we were to draft or otherwise obtain a good CB or two in the next two years along with another DT and a MLB, this team would be set for ****ing ages, secondary aside (more so Bailey and Dawkins, Goodman is kinda meh) this team is very young.

Chucky the tree

As good as Thomas is McDaniels still deserves a heap of taking him over Dez Byrant.

Jolly Red Giant

spiralism wrote: »

So if we were to draft or otherwise obtain a good CB or two in the next two years along with another DT and a MLB, this team would be set for ****ing ages, secondary aside (more so Bailey and Dawkins, Goodman is kinda meh) this team is very young.

Broncos need 2 CBs with Champ moving to Safety, a SS, 2 X DT's, MLB, RB, TE (blocking and catching) a WR, C and other OL - if Harris recovers his health and form then Franklin could move to OG. After that the Broncos need roster depth and a lot of it.

Yes it is a young team - but there are still an awful lot of holes on the roster.

Jolly Red Giant

Chucky the tree wrote: »

As good as Thomas is McDaniels still deserves a heap of taking him over Dez Byrant.

Only two teams were going to take Bryant - Cowboys or Raiders - so McDaniels didn't have an insight better than the other 29 teams.

Chucky the tree

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Only two teams were going to take Bryant - Cowboys or Raiders - so McDaniels didn't have an insight better than the other 29 teams.

If he kept dropping lots of teams would have been in for him. He was the clear best WR in the draft in terms of ability, off the field issues caused him to drop big time. He was first on Cowboys board so he was never going past them but if he did their was no way he would have lasted until the 44th pick.

spiralism

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Broncos need 2 CBs with Champ moving to Safety, a SS, 2 X DT's, MLB, RB, TE (blocking and catching) a WR, C and other OL - if Harris recovers his health and form then Franklin could move to OG. After that the Broncos need roster depth and a lot of it.

Yes it is a young team - but there are still an awful lot of holes on the roster.

I think Carter can make the jump to SS tbh, he's only young and has looked great at times...electric last night. With Ty Warren coming back that means we'd likely only need the one DT, a MLB is still a need, we're grand at TE with Rosario, Fells, Julius Thomas and Green, WR is a need..as i already said.. i think we're well fixed on the offensive line actually, especially if Harris keeps healthy and we hang on to him. That would bump Franklin inside and Beadles down to rotation, we'd be doing pretty well then. After that we'd be looking at depth. One good draft and a nice FA pickup or two and there's a great team in the making.

tallaghtoutlaws

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

McDaniels drafts in Denver have to be taken in total - two drafts 2009 and 2010.

I wasn't talking about the 2009 draft though was I? So its irrelevent to my point. The fact that McDaniels was criticised for taking Thomas and Tebow in the first round was my point. Ok he took Tebow higher than expected but looking back he was afraid someone else would grab him before him.

Here is the big problem with both drafts by McDaniels -
Every single pick with the exception of Decker (and Cox who is probably heading for jail) was a reach - and in some cases a major reach.

Very true and I said it myself about him in the past and I never felt he was a good head coach and brutal at drafting for the most part but the 1st round of 2010 was my point. In the end both picks have worked out well for Denver.

Final point -
McDaniels would never have used Tebow in the way Fox and McCoy have this season.

No he would have actually developed Tebow the way he should have been developed.

McDaniels doesn't even know what the read-option is. McDaniels would have used Tebow to throw little bubble screen passes and running when the play broke down. It was the designed Tebow running plays that got the Broncos into the play-offs and past Pittsburgh last night.

This is absolute b0llocks to say McDaniels doesn't know what the read option is. His Father was a legend in his own right in Ohio High school football and McDaniels played High school and college football. He would 100% know what the read option is. If he didn't he would be wasting his time as a coach. Read option and Zone offenses have been around long before Tebow and for someone who said they have been a fan a long time you should know this. And every Modern coach would know of them if they played both High School and college football and have been coaching long enough.

Jolly Red Giant

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

In the end both picks have worked out well for Denver.

Thomas hardly played all of last season and half of this one. Tebow has had an impact but again over a limited period. A draft pick's benefit is not determined in one or two seasons - it is determined over a prolonged period of five or six years. If both Thomas and Tebow are still playing at a high level for Denver in four years then you can say both picks will have worked out well.

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

No he would have actually developed Tebow the way he should have been developed.

Please enlighten us.

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

This is absolute b0llocks to say McDaniels doesn't know what the read option is.

I was being flippant - the point I was making is that McDaniels would not have used Tebow to his strengths. The biggest problem with McDaniels what that he had his system (the Pats system) and everyone else had to fit into it whether they were able to or not and whether it utilised them to the best of their ability or not. Fox and McCoy have coached to Tebow's strengths, McDaniels would have tried to force Tebow to play his way - and Tebow would have failed.

spiralism wrote: »

I think Carter can make the jump to SS tbh, he's only young and has looked great at times...electric last night.

Carter has blown hot and cold at times this season - it is still up in the air whether he can do the job or not. The most impressive of the young DB's has been Harris who is a tackling mchine.

spiralism wrote: »

With Ty Warren coming back that means we'd likely only need the one DT,

Warren is old, slow and often injured. Remember he missed all of last season as well with a hip injury. The guy might never play a snap for Denver.

spiralism wrote: »

we're grand at TE with Rosario, Fells, Julius Thomas and Green,

Rosario and Fells are average at best and Thomas and Green have potential but have a very long way to go - particularly Thomas. TE needs an upgrade.

spiralism wrote: »

i think we're well fixed on the offensive line actually, especially if Harris keeps healthy and we hang on to him. That would bump Franklin inside and Beadles down to rotation, we'd be doing pretty well then. After that we'd be looking at depth.

Walton has to be replaced at centre - he just can't cope with the bull-rusher who come up the middle against him.

spiralism wrote: »

One good draft and a nice FA pickup or two and there's a great team in the making.

It will take at least two more drafts at least as good as this year before the roster even comes close to being able to challange consistantly - there is zero depth on the roster.

Syferus

It'll be fascinating to see Tebow and a Broncos team still largely in McDaniels' image (at least personnel-wise) going to Foxboro and finding McDaniels on the Patriots side-line for the first time since he left for the Broncos. There would be a delicious irony to the Broncos dumping the Patriots out next week.

tallaghtoutlaws

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Thomas hardly played all of last season and half of this one. Tebow has had an impact but again over a limited period. A draft pick's benefit is not determined in one or two seasons - it is determined over a prolonged period of five or six years. If both Thomas and Tebow are still playing at a high level for Denver in four years then you can say both picks will have worked out well.

But both are working out right now and the mad thing is Broncos fans have been arguing that case to non Tebow lovers all of this season and when you put it back to Broncos fans all of a sudden the same argument is thrown back in your face to say that you cant say McDaniels first round picks in 2010 havent worked just yet Mad to be honest. I know you arent Tebows beiggest fan either but Thomas and Tebow are two of the reasons why the Broncos are into the next round of the playoffs and both have shown they have talent. Sure they could flop over the next few years but right now those picks are looking good.

Please enlighten us.

McDaniels and his Father are experts when it comes to working with QBs. This showed with Brady in New England with his relationship with McDaniels and Orton when McDaniels joined Denver and took Orton. McDaniels is known for his abilities of working with QBs and getting the best out of them and also known for working on QBs mechanics. He would have given Tebow the best opportunity to fix his mechanics and you can almost be sure McDaniels would have made sure to develop Tebow.

I was being flippant - the point I was making is that McDaniels would not have used Tebow to his strengths. The biggest problem with McDaniels what that he had his system (the Pats system) and everyone else had to fit into it whether they were able to or not and whether it utilised them to the best of their ability or not. Fox and McCoy have coached to Tebow's strengths, McDaniels would have tried to force Tebow to play his way - and Tebow would have failed.

As I said above McDaniels took Tebow to develop him. He took him as his project. Sure he took him too high as a project but you can be sure he would have tried to get the most out of fixing the basic mechanics Tebow needed. Fox and Elway put themselves into a situation where they HAD to utilise Tebow to his strengths, People seem to forget the situation they put themselves in. They arent any masters by any means for doing so they backed themselves into the situation when they realised Tebow couldnt do what they wanted originally.

Joe10000

Was never a huge fan of American football, would watch the odd game here and there but this guy Tebow is on the news everyday and I'm interested again. Controversial (within the law of the land) characters don't do sport any harm.

davyjose

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

McDaniels and his Father are experts when it comes to working with QBs. This showed with Brady in New England with his relationship with McDaniels and Orton when McDaniels joined Denver and took Orton. McDaniels is known for his abilities of working with QBs and getting the best out of them and also known for working on QBs mechanics. He would have given Tebow the best opportunity to fix his mechanics and you can almost be sure McDaniels would have made sure to develop Tebow.

I think McDaniels gets a little too much credit for NE's 2007 season. you had Tom Brady, a 3 time Super Bowl winner, confident, deadly accurate, a great decision maker and leader. Then you add give him one of the most naturally talented wide receivers, one of the most gifted athletes the world has seen in Randy Moss, and and an incredibly efficient route runner - welker, and a fantastic O-line. Sure McDaniels added his share to the perfect storm of the greatest Offense in the history of the NFL.

McDaniels was in no way the great mastermind. And I'm not buying that he made Brady better either.

spiralism

davyjose wrote: »

I think McDaniels gets a little too much credit for NE's 2007 season. you had Tom Brady, a 3 time Super Bowl winner, confident, deadly accurate, a great decision maker and leader. Then you add give him one of the most naturally talented wide receivers, one of the most gifted athletes the world has seen in Randy Moss, and and an incredibly efficient route runner - welker, and a fantastic O-line. Sure McDaniels added his share to the perfect storm of the greatest Offense in the history of the NFL.

McDaniels was in no way the great mastermind. And I'm not buying that he made Brady better either.

I think it's been surpassed now. Both this years Packers (for pure point scoring efficiency) and this years Saints (for the sheer awe-inspiring firepower) are better offenses than the 07 pats. But that's another debate.
McDaniels was your typical pats assistant, a greatly talented co-ordinator destined to struggle as a head coach due to an inability to move past being a co-ordinator. Same as Eric Mangini did in his terms with the Jets and Browns though, he brought in a lot of good players and helped put together a good team for his successor..and just like Mangini, he struggled as a coach apart from that.

Neil3030

On second thoughts, probably fair to call it the Broncos thread at this stage.

Stev_o

Neil3030 wrote: »

On second thoughts, probably fair to call it the Broncos thread at this stage.

Tbh Neil id prefer it was renamed to the Tim Tebow thread. He is the main discussion point and has been since page one.

poldebruin

Stev_o wrote: »

Neil3030 wrote: »

On second thoughts, probably fair to call it the Broncos thread at this stage.

Tbh Neil id prefer it was renamed to the Tim Tebow thread. He is the main discussion point and has been since page one.

I agree it is still predominantly a discussion about tim tebow. Change It back!

Syferus

Let's be honest, the story is Tim Tebow and the Denver Broncos, not the Denver Broncos and Tim Tebow - there would be far, far less interest in the Broncos were it not for their QB.

No need to mess with the thread title beyond calling it 'The Tim Tebow Debate', because that's what it began as and what it continued as.

Neil3030

There is now talk of the 09 and 10 drafts, McDaniels, the Broncos offense, Thomas etc.

Stev_o

Neil3030 wrote: »

There is now talk of the 09 and 10 drafts, McDaniels, the Broncos offense, Thomas etc.

All of which centred from discussing Tebow and all are related. Look you can leave this name the way it is now but I think it's an awful waste since it's not the same format that say the Patriots and Green Bay threads are in. The reason why this has 60+ replies is down to Tebow, not down to the Broncos.

tallaghtoutlaws

I dont get why the Broncos thread isn't acceptable for this. If the Pats or Packers threads had the same season the Broncos have had you can bet they would be a million pages long with discussion. After all Tebow is the main discussion with the Broncos right now.

Stev_o

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

I dont get why the Broncos thread isn't acceptable for this. If the Pats or Packers threads had the same season the Broncos have had you can bet they would be a million pages long with discussion. After all Tebow is the main discussion with the Broncos right now.

Because most of the people in this discussion don't want to hear the latest news about Denvers coaching staff or FO. We'v continually discussed Tebow with the team as the after thought.

I understand the idea "Well Tebow plays for Denver so all things Bronco's should fall under here" but that's not how this thread really started out nor how it developed. Really turned into a analysis of Tebow and his situation in a week by week format.

And TO Pats had Brady doing all sorts of crazy stuff as a QB last year and that thread still stayed small.

tallaghtoutlaws

davyjose wrote: »

I think McDaniels gets a little too much credit for NE's 2007 season. you had Tom Brady, a 3 time Super Bowl winner, confident, deadly accurate, a great decision maker and leader. Then you add give him one of the most naturally talented wide receivers, one of the most gifted athletes the world has seen in Randy Moss, and and an incredibly efficient route runner - welker, and a fantastic O-line. Sure McDaniels added his share to the perfect storm of the greatest Offense in the history of the NFL.

McDaniels was in no way the great mastermind. And I'm not buying that he made Brady better either.

I was talking about the relationship he had with Brady and the rapport they had with each other. McDaniels is good with QBs simple as. I never bought into the credit Pats fans gave McDaniels for the 2007 season either I just think when your QB/OC/QBC are working well together and have a great understanding it takes pressure off the head coach and gives you good success at that position. The freedom to play.

When it comes to the Broncos I do believe McDaniels would have gotten the best out of Tebow even if he failed as a head coach. I dont believe he is HC material but the kid is a awesome QB Coach and OC. The Broncos have Elway now and you would expect the same level of coaching from him also considering he is one of the greatest QBs in the NFL. It will be interesting to see if they actually try develop his skills and give him a full chance needed for any NFL QB.

tallaghtoutlaws

Stev_o wrote: »

Because most of the people in this discussion don't want to hear the latest news about Denvers coaching staff or FO. We'v continually discussed Tebow with the team as the after thought.

But it all relates to the Denver Broncos.

I understand the idea "Well Tebow plays for Denver so all things Bronco's should fall under here" but that's not how this thread really started out nor how it developed. Really turned into a analysis of Tebow and his situation in a week by week format.

The Packers and Pats threads are dead right now as there is no real big discussion with them or controversies.

And TO Pats had Brady doing all sorts of crazy stuff as a QB last year and that thread still stayed small.

Really? Last season was no different to any Pats season. Same old same old and nothing like the Broncos season this season. I guarantee you if the Packers/Pats had a situation like the Broncos right now those threads would be as big. Should we create threads everytime for QBs or certain positions for guys even if they fit inside the Teams thread? You can turn this thread into whatever you want still people dont have to go back to page 1.

Stev_o

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

Really? Last season was no different to any Pats season. Same old same old and nothing like the Broncos season this season. I guarantee you if the Packers/Pats had a situation like the Broncos right now those threads would be as big. Should we create threads everytime for QBs or certain positions for guys even if they fit inside the Teams thread? You can turn this thread into whatever you want still people dont have to go back to page 1.

No other player in the league dividies opionon like Tebow, not Brady,not Manning, not Vick or Rogers.

Go find me a thread where there has been 65 pages about one player. Why change the name when it was known as the Tebow thread? Denver fans weren't posting in here about the latest gossip at all.

tallaghtoutlaws

Stev_o wrote: »

No other player in the league dividies opionon like Tebow, not Brady,not Manning, not Vick or Rogers.

Go find me a thread where there has been 65 pages about one player. Why change the name when it was known as the Tebow thread? Denver fans weren't posting in here about the latest gossip at all.

The Manning Brady discussions could have filled 100 Pages easy back in the day. It wasn't until mods stepped in and start telling folk to start 1 thread instead of taking over other threads and this was even before people started making team threads. Had there been a Pats/Colts thread when those discussions were going on they would easily be like this if the Mods back then told folk to keep it to one thread.

Johnny_Fontane

cmon lads, the pats and colts have always been great to watch, but Tebow is box office. Everybody knows tom brady and peyton manning are great, but the way tebow fails yet succeeds is why he is the most talked about sports person in years.

9,400 tweets per second about tebow at 8pm on Sunday night.....

Hell, Woody Paige was interviewed by Newstalk before Sundays game!

bruschi

why dont we name the thread 'the thread title discussion thread'. nearly more discussion now on the title than on Tebow or the broncos! Its fine whatever it is. its the default Tebow thread or whatever. it will still be 90% of discussion on here.

Read a report in the Irish Indo today, christ it was awful stuff.

http://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/american-football-broncos-have-prayers-answered-by-tebow-2983570.html

quick points from it:

Tim Tebow made himself a national cult figure -- hurling winning, last-minute touchdown passes

Tebow hasnt thrown a last minute TD yet.

There was even talk of replacing him by an untried back-up

untried? Quinn has nearly as many games as Tebow

The Steelers (12-5)

have never seen playoff loss recorded against a wild card team when talking of an opponent

I saw some reports calling his pass to Thomas as a Hail Mary play too. some unreal lazy journalists out there.

deisedude

How about calling it "Denver Broncos Thread starring Tim Tebow" ? Tis all about compromise lads :pac:

Stev_o

deisedude wrote: »

How about calling it "Denver Broncos Thread starring Tim Tebow" ? Tis all about compromise lads :pac:

"Tim Tebow starring the Denver Broncos".....remember he is a god after all.

Hazys

I think the Pats win by forcing Tebow to roll right.

He mostly only seems to make most of his passes when he is rolling to the left. Can Tebow adapt to it or is he the reincarnation of Rick Mirer?

Do the Pats have a LB who can constantly rush Tebow's left side, thats another Q.