Would you rather....

[Humberg]

Only 1 current SB-WINNING QB was drafted in the top 10, and that's Eli. The rest:

Big Ben, went #11
Joe Flacco, went #18
Russell Wilson, went #75
Aaron Rodgers, went #24
Drew Brees, went #32
Nick Foles, went #88

And we all know about Tom Brady

Let's look at the QBs, who did go in the top 10

Rivers, never been to a SB
Mariotta, 1 playoff win (thus far)
Winston, no payoff appearances and scuttlebutt has it that TB may let him go at the end of the year
Tannehill, no playoff appearances
Luck, never been to a SB
Cam, lost in the SB
Bortles, no SB appearances (thus far)
Sam Bradford, no playoff appearances & is now 3rd string
Stafford, 1 playoff appearance and no wins
Ryan, choked a SB away
Alex Smith, 2 playoff wins
Others are too soon to tell

So you see that you can win a SB with QBs not drafted In the top 10

Yeah, ok. I hear this argument all the time. It's got some merit. On the other hand, your crazy if you wouldn't go nuts if any number of the quarterbacks in that list were on our roster right now. And it's pretty clear that statistically the quarterbacks selected higher have done better individually (not necessarily been on better teams).

Besides, I would fire back, what's your point? You are saying we don't need to draft a quarterback in the first round. Ok.

So where are you getting a good quarterback from? Show me a better plan that is more likely to work? Or are you arguing that we don't need a good quarterback? Are you going to keep drafting them in the sixth round because once upon a time Tom Brady was drafted in the sixth round? Are you saying is more likely to draft one in rounds two through seven than in round one? Or that it's better to go through trade or free agency? Or even that you think it's better to draft one in the late first round than in the early first round? Give me an argument with some data behind it for fixing our quarterback play.

By the way, as you make your argument you might want to comment on why 4 of the seven Superbowl quarterbacks you listed, or over half of them, were drafted in the first round, and how another first rounder Carson Wentz was also heavily responsible for the Eagles having the season they had before Foles filled in. That's five of the seven teams with first round drafted quarterbacks. If you look at quarterbacks that played in the Superbowl, there's a ton of first rounders you aren't accounting for:

Matt Ryan
Cam Newton
Peyton Manning
Rex Grossman
Donovan McNabb
Kerry Collins
Trent Dilfer
Steve McNair
John Elway
Drew Bledsome
Troy Aikman
Steve young
Jim Kelly
Doug Williams
Phil Simms
Tony Eason
Jim McMahon
Dan Marino
Jim Plunkett
Terry Bradshaw

I feel like it's a thing. Show me a better plan. I don't think you have one.

[HUMCALC]

Yeah, ok. I hear this argument all the time. It's got some merit. On the other hand, your crazy if you wouldn't go nuts if any number of the quarterbacks in that list were on our roster right now. And it's pretty clear that statistically the quarterbacks selected higher have done better individually (not necessarily been on better teams).

Besides, I would fire back, what's your point? You are saying we don't need to draft a quarterback in the first round. Ok.

So where are you getting a good quarterback from? Show me a better plan that is more likely to work? Or are you arguing that we don't need a good quarterback? Are you going to keep drafting them in the sixth round because once upon a time Tom Brady was drafted in the sixth round? Are you saying is more likely to draft one in rounds two through seven than in round one? Or that it's better to go through trade or free agency? Or even that you think it's better to draft one in the late first round than in the early first round? Give me an argument with some data behind it for fixing our quarterback play.

By the way, as you make your argument you might want to comment on why 4 of the seven Superbowl quarterbacks you listed, or over half of them, were drafted in the first round, and how another first rounder Carson Wentz was also heavily responsible for the Eagles having the season they had before Foles filled in. That's five of the seven teams with first round drafted quarterbacks. If you look at quarterbacks that played in the Superbowl, there's a ton of first rounders you aren't accounting for:

Matt Ryan
Cam Newton
Peyton Manning
Rex Grossman
Donovan McNabb
Kerry Collins
Trent Dilfer
Steve McNair
John Elway
Drew Bledsome
Troy Aikman
Steve young
Jim Kelly
Doug Williams
Phil Simms
Tony Eason
Jim McMahon
Dan Marino
Jim Plunkett
Terry Bradshaw

I feel like it's a thing. Show me a better plan. I don't think you have one.

I don't have a plan, but I think it's unwise to throw away draft picks on a crap shoot QB, who more than likely won't pan out. Besides I can name names at least 6 retired SB winning QBs, who didn't go in the first round. The draft is a crap shoot. You can find a SB winning QB in the first round or the 6th, so why mortgage your draft picks for a gamble? Did it work with WSH & RG3? I still say that your best option is to build the team and get the QB later. Look at Elway and Manning. They went to 9 SB, and they went 4-5. They got their rings when they were surrounded with major contributors. They didn't win rings, when they put up their best numbers. They did it, when they weren't one-man shows. Build your team with as much talent as possible, and then you get the QB that fits your team best

Teams win SBs, not QBs

[broncolee]

The Bears wear blue, so you’re blue with envy.

Maybe we should just accept that Elway will never get the right quarterback again, whether it’s through free agency or the draft.

Manning was too easy of a choice so he almost doesn’t count.

[dgobronco]

Mahomes will come down to earth. Gotta remember teams have very little tape on him. They will find some ways to slow him down. That's not to say he's not a good QB or that I wouldn't prefer him to Case. One of the truisms of the NFL is SB teams often get lucky with one or more players who outplay their draft spot. This allows the team to have legit stars that are underpaid for a while and put those saved resources into a surrounding cast. This certainly happened to us with TD. It happened to NE with Brady and SEA with Wilson. KC appears to be in just this position with Mahomes.

I like Chubb and think it's far too early for his position to judge his performance. He certainly hasn't looked like a scrub, just not a dominant force. But there's no getting around that what Chubb does or doesn't do really won't matter if we continue to get inconsistent and middling play from the QB position. The Oline play affects the QB, but even so, it's clear to me Case isn't going to lead this team very far. I was in the draft a QB at 5 or trade up camp primarily because it's the position with the most impact on W/L, and we basically never pick high enough to grab one. It's hard to know which QB's will thrive and which will be a bust, but it's even harder later in the draft. The teams that hit there look like geniuses, but for every Mahomes, there are 10 Lynch's. KC got lucky. Still, you gotta try, and the gamble of counting on Case and drafting Chubb is looking like a poor one at this point.

[dgobronco]

Teams win SBs, not QBs

This is partly true. Even great QBs lose SB's without a strong surrounding cast. But only once a decade or so does a team win a SB without a great QB. You could argue we did with a diminished Manning in 2015, but the last few years of misery should have taught all of us just how valuable Manning was despite looking like he was throwing a shot put. Then you have to go back to Balt. It's just darned hard either way, but the stats are more in your favor with a great QB than the other way around.

[Humberg]

I don't have a plan, but I think it's unwise to throw away draft picks on a crap shoot QB, who more than likely won't pan out. Besides I can name names at least 6 retired SB winning QBs, who didn't go in the first round.

I come up with 25 first round picked QBs that played in SB's and you come back with 6 that weren't selected in the first round? Is that supposed to convince me? 25 is bigger than 6 so I win I think.

You don't have a plan. Well, there it is. So my plan is bad, but you don't have anything better. I guess we go with my plan then. Thanks for agreeing.

The draft is a crap shoot. You can find a SB winning QB in the first round or the 6th, so why mortgage your draft picks for a gamble? Did it work with WSH & RG3? I still say that your best option is to build the team and get the QB later. Look at Elway and Manning. They went to 9 SB, and they went 4-5. They got their rings when they were surrounded with major contributors. They didn't win rings, when they put up their best numbers. They did it, when they weren't one-man shows. Build your team with as much talent as possible, and then you get the QB that fits your team best

Well then, you must be incredibly content with where we are currently. Great. I'm glad that this .500 team makes you happy. I suppose, in a weird way, that's what it is all about, its entertainment after all and I can't argue with that. So I'm glad you are enjoying watching the front office building this team while neglecting the QB position, because we can apparently add that later (although, as you admitted, you don't have a plan for how to do that). Great, we are seeing in real time how your philosophy works. Actually have for the past 2 seasons as well. Missing the playoffs, having a losing record. All the while neglecting the QB position. This is how that works. Personally, I would rather have those one man shows you mentioned above, that get to the SB and lose than a team that misses the playoffs year after year. But that's just me. Yeah, your right, going to the superbowl, who would want that?

Next.....

[18Broncos]

OK, enough of this bad statistical analysis. You can't look at the performance of say the top 5 picks in the draft vs picks 15-30. This is a classic mistake in any multivariate analysis - which is what you need to do. An easy way to look at this is Cleveland has had many top QB choices which didn't pan out. Was that because their scouting sucks, their team is bad, their coaching is bad, the player was injured (Tim Couch), they had the misfortune of picking high in a bad draft year, etc.
A far more compelling case would be the top draft picks are the best players. The reason I know that is the NFL teams pay a ton of money and time and effort to find the best players to put on their team. When they make a mistake (Jamarcus Russell) it looks really bad for them. In some drafts the QBs are not considered head and shoulders above other players available and maybe some teams picking high don't have a need (Aaron Rodgers) and you can look at the Mahomes pick. 9 teams could have picked him but didn't. Several of those teams could definitely have used a QB. Even after the draft, as I recall, our draft class was rated higher than the Chiefs and several analysts thought the Chiefs were crazy for taking a project QB.
My bottom line is forget what the "experts" publicly state. If your evaluation says "this is our guy" you've got to jump at him. I recall a few saying things like "whoever falls to us" and I think that is a huge draft mistake when if comes to a huge impact player like QB.
It is hard to see the B Chubb pick as a mistake but I really didn't like the way we stated we drafted him - I heard "When Chubb fell to us we knew who we had to pick". Again, it wasn't a bad choice and pass rushers are definite value, but if there was a coveted QB in this draft we had the draft stock to go get them and we didn't. This last draft had more QB talent than most and we even had a need and we wimped out.
Now, maybe, I'm misunderstanding where our scouts were and if Baker Mayfield was their guy, then I can see us doing what we did, although we could of had any of the other QBs and we passed.
Not every QB chosen in the first round is going to be a bad choice and we can't poison our minds with the P Lynch debacle. We swung and we misssed - it happens, but the next pitch is coming and to NOT swing is a mistake.

I was responding to a post which stated that the best way to find a franchise QB is to go with a high draft pick in the first.
(I need to open the parenthesis here to say that, at one time, I was in that camp too.)

The particular post that I quoted in one instance also said that the team should not consider a QB that another team had released either.

To that point, I counter that Manning was released by the Colts and Brees was let go by the Chargers (in favor of Rivers.)
There were other guys, too - like Steve Young.
This clearly demonstrates that a high draft pick isn't the only way to find a franchise QB.

...

I will have to get back to the first point some other time, because I think it's rather involved.

In fact, I can already see a task trying to put all the thoughts in a logical and cohesive manner to make it a healthy discussion.
I'm not even sure I will be able to do that since the format of a forum is very limited.
It would take too much time for all that are interested to go back and read each post within the conversation.
That can create a lot of misunderstandings and doesn't help anybody at all.

[18Broncos]

Respectfully, I disagree. This is exactly the kind of thinking that got us into this position. Sure, I don't mind handing the keys for this season to Kelly. Why not? We don't have a starting QB on this roster so might as well let the young guy play (ongoing Keenum is not going to be an 18 million dollar backup). But we should not have any illusions that this is our answer. If he plays lights out and has a stellar 15 year career, then I'll be the first to post on the crow-eating thread and take mine with ketchup. But I think I'm safe and most of the NFL history would back me up on this. Trading any draft pick for Bridgewater is a waste of a draft pick that we could use instead to move up in the draft. Don't do it.

We keep hoping to strike gold with the QB clearance rack and are puzzled when we keep getting subpar QB play. This also tricks us into thinking we should prioritize other positions in the draft which has been our MO. When are we going to learn.

What I don't understand is that this isn't hard and it's not particularly complex for a GM to comprehend. Rarely, stud QBs are found in free agency or trade but usually if a team has a franchise QB, they aren't letting him go. Usually they come to a team with the high picks in the first round of the draft. Go where the probability is highest and stop mucking around.

So it was Humberg's original post and this post of his that I have been responding to.

We want to clearly understand his premises if we're going to have a healthy discussion.

[18Broncos]

He wants to use a high draft pick (no price is too high).

No free agency or trade.

[18Broncos]

I want to make sure of his premises so I asked him to clarify how high is high.

From his various posts, he did declare that no price is too high.

Unless I miss something here.

So once again, I'd like to hear his exact position on the matter.

[Humberg]

I want to make sure of his premises so I asked him to clarify how high is high.

From his various posts, he did declare that no price is too high.

Unless I miss something here.

So once again, I'd like to hear his exact position on the matter.

I think I've made it pretty clear with all the other posts, and I've responded to you even if my ire for you came out at Humcalc, but you intrigue me with your healthy discussion invite. The game is afoot. So here goes:

1) We need a QB if we are really going to be serious about winning (QB is the most important position on the team)
2) We are most likely to find a good QB by drafting one in the first round (not a guarantee I realize, but most likely odds of doing so)
3) We should prioritize this above all else given that it is the most important position on the team.

In simple terms, find your guy in the draft. Once you find him, you may have to move up to ensure nobody else gets him. Be willing to pay for this.....and we wouldn't be in this situation had the Broncos drafted wisely in this past draft.

I don't see how anyone can argue with this, so to you it goes......

[samparnell]

I assumed Elway was going to draft Ramczyk too since I thought
Wisconsin was known for churning out NFL OLmen. Guess not.

However, given the state of Denver's offensive line play, can
someone with offensive line blocking knowledge answer this question:

Assuming McGovern (or whomever) is the team's poorest rated pass blocker,
can't he just "run block" the guy in front of him instead of waiting for the block
to come to him (pass block)?

Theoretically, McGovern would eliminate one defender,
kind of like when you sacrifice a pawn to capture a bishop.
Everyone else that can "pass block" does except for McGovern who "run blocks."

Or maybe just after the ball is hiked, the OL can immediately lock hands.
That should work just fine too.

For the O-Line there are three kinds of blocking with some miscellaneous techniques that can be used with one or more of them: pass protection; angle blocking; and, zone steps. Base blocks, drive blocks and influence can be seen in one or more of the three.

Pass protection is passive and the blocker comes out of his stance in a breakdown position never going forward. Zone steps are lateral never going backward. Angle blocks go forward with pullers taking a step back, but ultimately going forward.

If it's a pass, you can't have one guy going forward or laterally while the other O-Linemen are set up in pass protection because it would create an opening in the screen.

[18Broncos]

I think I've made it pretty clear with all the other posts, and I've responded to you even if my ire for you came out at Humcalc, but you intrigue me with your healthy discussion invite. The game is afoot. So here goes:

1) We need a QB if we are really going to be serious about winning (QB is the most important position on the team)
2) We are most likely to find a good QB by drafting one in the first round (not a guarantee I realize, but most likely odds of doing so)
3) We should prioritize this above all else given that it is the most important position on the team.

In simple terms, find your guy in the draft. Once you find him, you may have to move up to ensure nobody else gets him. Be willing to pay for this.....and we wouldn't be in this situation had the Broncos drafted wisely in this past draft.

I don't see how anyone can argue with this, so to you it goes......

Alrighty.
I see that you had backed off the original premise a bit; you have now settled for ANY QB in the first round (if I'm mistaken, let me know).
....

Now, as I had said, I was originally in the club of "drafting a QB high in the first, but not if you have to sell the farm to trade up" some years ago, but I had since changed my "strategy" to "explore all venues and make a decision with both a long-term view and a shor-term plan; you win with a team - not with just the QB - and there are different ways to build a team".

.....

So, my first counterpoint to the "draft high in the first philosophy" is to look at all the QBs that had ever played in the Super Bowls.
I had looked at them all, but had never saved the "study".

Let me just go over the first five Super Bowls at this time.
- Bart Starr, Packers (17th Rounder - ie. drafted in the 17th round)
- Len Dawson, Chiefs (FA). Chiefs was his third team.
- Bart Starr (second SB)
- Daryle Lamonica, Raiders (12th Rd)
- JOE NAMATH, New York Jets (TRUE 1st Rd) - The first true first round QB that played in a SB.
- Earl Morrall, Baltimore Colts (FA); Colts was his fifth team.
- LEN DAWSON, Chiefs (FA); Dawson's 2nd trip to the SB as a free agent.
- Joe Kapp, Minnesota Vikings (18th rd)
- JOHNNY UNITAS, Baltimore Colts (9th rd)
- Craig Morton, Dallas Cowboys (TRUE 1st Rd ***).
........

So through the first five Super Bowls, there were just 2/10 QBs that were drafted in the first round.

*** And Morton was a special case.
He was a back-up during his first 4 years in the league. He only got the start in his fifth year because Don Meridith abruptly decided to retire.
Morton led the Cowboys to the playoffs, but lost the first game (going 8-24 for 92 yards, 0TD and 2 Ints).

Morton was a starter for 13 games the next year.
The Cowboys went to the playoffs again, and reached the SB despite of Morton; his pissed-poor performance in the playoffs can be seen on a statistic site like ProFootballReference.

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/M/MortCr00/gamelog/1970/

Morton lost the starting gig the next year to Staubach.
He became the starter again when Staubach got injured the year after that.
The Cowboys finally traded him in 1975.
He became a journeyman that would come to Denver later on for that last hurrah.

So, even though Morton was a firsr rounder, he was never entranched as a franchise QB.

......

In another word, out of the 10 QB spots in the first 5 SBs, only one (Joe Namath) is a true franchise QB that was drafted in the first round.

.....

You can continue with more SBs, or you could wait until I get to them later.

[jflee66]

Mahomes seem very good, but lets not forget that Ried has drafted exceptional offensive talent, and that makes Mahomes look a lot better. Kareem Hunt and Tyreek Hill are tremendous burners, and the reason Mahomes has an easy time is that defenses have to stop Hill, Kelse....

The reason that Manning was so exceptional in 2013 was the "pick your poison" offense, and that is what Chiefs seem to have until they have to pay people.

Mahomes had some great plays yes. But he had some real ugly throws as well. He will be great QB in the league, but he won't reach Elways or Manning stature. He had trouble from the pocket and it is where he will have to make his living from. Broncos will counter with the and elite pass rush. In this game,, mahomes got very lucky. IMO.

[Kyousukeneko]

I think I've made it pretty clear with all the other posts, and I've responded to you even if my ire for you came out at Humcalc, but you intrigue me with your healthy discussion invite. The game is afoot. So here goes:

1) We need a QB if we are really going to be serious about winning (QB is the most important position on the team)
2) We are most likely to find a good QB by drafting one in the first round (not a guarantee I realize, but most likely odds of doing so)
3) We should prioritize this above all else given that it is the most important position on the team.

In simple terms, find your guy in the draft. Once you find him, you may have to move up to ensure nobody else gets him. Be willing to pay for this.....and we wouldn't be in this situation had the Broncos drafted wisely in this past draft.

I don't see how anyone can argue with this, so to you it goes......

are you saying we should reach for a QB in the first round regardless cause have seen how this works. Christian Ponder for example. or when we panic drafted Paxton lynch