Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 33
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    4,838

    Would you take a 1st round qb over Plummer?

    Would you rather us take a step next year towards our distant future with say Matt or any other 1st round qb? Not sayin I think we will, but would you rather spend a pick on the future than help our immediate problems?
    Bronco fan from Packer Land.
    Lefty Writer on The Sports Show with Woody Paige and Les Shapiro
    Tweet me @JoRo_5551

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Victoria
    Posts
    780
    Heck no. spacefiller
    http://img328.imageshack.us/img328/1...osig6ed9xr.jpg
    I like my defensive tackles like I like my women: well over 300 lbs.
    ABWRFRC

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    708
    nope, plummer's not that old yet and we know QB's can play on for a little longer, there are some good QB's coming out but HELL i just pray we dont take an "icon" for QB with someone like vince young, who's like the second coming of mike vick and throws every bit as badly as he does, vick does sell those merchandise, but will he get a team to the superbowl if they shut down the running and make him beat you with his arm, the answer is no
    [SIZE="4"]Member of Warwick University American Football Team in UK[/SIZE]
    [URL="http://www.warwickwolves.co.uk"]http://www.warwickwolves.co.uk[/URL]

    I adopt [COLOR="DarkOrange"]Erica Weston[/COLOR]

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    The Lone Star State
    Posts
    909
    Quote Originally Posted by MoFo_JoRo
    Would you rather us take a step next year towards our distant future with say Matt or any other 1st round qb? Not sayin I think we will, but would you rather spend a pick on the future than help our immediate problems?
    I seriously doubt that either of our picks will be close enough to draft Matt.
    Ultimate Thread Killer!!!

    http://img127.imageshack.us/img127/4...tlersigdz0.gif
    Sig above made by me!
    http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j1...1172395547.png

    Quote Originally Posted by Snk16
    You can never predict what Shanny will do, you never know.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Realism.
    Posts
    2,362
    Quote Originally Posted by dbdom
    nope, plummer's not that old yet and we know QB's can play on for a little longer, there are some good QB's coming out but HELL i just pray we dont take an "icon" for QB with someone like vince young, who's like the second coming of mike vick and throws every bit as badly as he does, vick does sell those merchandise, but will he get a team to the superbowl if they shut down the running and make him beat you with his arm, the answer is no
    Ummm... If you havent noticed, Mike Vick has won tons more playoff games than Mike Shannahan in the last 6 years.... considering Mike hasnt even been the league for 6 years that is sad. Id gladly take a Vince Young or Matt Leinart if they can do what Mike Vick does..... get the team deep in the playoffs and to Conference Championship games on the regular.

    With that said, I state it again.... Leinart is a realistic option. If a team wants a player bad enough, they will trade up/shift the salaries around to make it work. It all depends on if Sundquist (ahahahaha) wants a QB enough.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Tucson, AZ
    Posts
    13,488
    You bet. Why don't we ignore WR and OL and go for a blue-chip QB (even though I have not seen one yet in the upcoming draft)? That way we can end up doing what the Phoenix Cardinals did for six years: Get a great QB, give him nothing to work with, and watch him try to win games all by himself. The intelligence of some arguments I have seen just underwhelmes me.



    -----

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Tucson, AZ
    Posts
    13,488
    Quote Originally Posted by Momentum
    Ummm... If you havent noticed, Mike Vick has won tons more playoff games than Mike Shannahan in the last 6 years.... considering Mike hasnt even been the league for 6 years that is sad. Id gladly take a Vince Young or Matt Leinart if they can do what Mike Vick does..... get the team deep in the playoffs and to Conference Championship games on the regular.

    With that said, I state it again.... Leinart is a realistic option. If a team wants a player bad enough, they will trade up/shift the salaries around to make it work. It all depends on if Sundquist (ahahahaha) wants a QB enough.
    I didn't realize Shanahan plays football.

    Anyway, Vick could not have been winning playoff games for the last six years because he has been playing only since 2001. In that time, his team won a Wild Card game in 2002, then was promptly buried by the Eagles. In 2004, the team won the Divisional Playoff game, then was promptly buried in the AFC championship game--again by the Eagles (they are Atlanta's Indy?). So I'm not sure what you mean by "tons" more. Also, getting there a couple times is hardly "on the regular," isn't it?

    Anyway, this approach reminds me of throwing mud a against a wall, then whatever sticks, stays. Despite his 4,089 yards and 27 TDs, Plummer throws 20 INts, so we get rid of him. Perhaps we should have done that to Elway in 1985?

    -----

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    12,326
    I would like for the broncos to spend a 2nd or 3rd round pick on a qb this coming year (just as I wanted this year)...less pressure than a top ten pick, and more time to come along as a player..obviously plummer is here for a while, so i'd rather it be a 3rd rounder since they'll be learning on the sidelines for at least a few years.
    http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g2...e310/gagne.jpg
    "The Gagne T-shirt jersey comes with a complimentary can of gasoline and a set of matches."

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    148
    Quote Originally Posted by topscribe
    I didn't realize Shanahan plays football.

    Anyway, Vick could not have been winning playoff games for the last six years because he has been playing only since 2001. In that time, his team won a Wild Card game in 2002, then was promptly buried by the Eagles. In 2004, the team won the Divisional Playoff game, then was promptly buried in the AFC championship game--again by the Eagles (they are Atlanta's Indy?). So I'm not sure what you mean by "tons" more. Also, getting there a couple times is hardly "on the regular," isn't it?

    Anyway, this approach reminds me of throwing mud a against a wall, then whatever sticks, stays. Despite his 4,089 yards and 27 TDs, Plummer throws 20 INts, so we get rid of him. Perhaps we should have done that to Elway in 1985?

    -----
    John was only in his third year in 1985. He didn't even play that much as a rookie. It was really only his second year as a starter. And lets face it,you could see loads of talent in Elway even when he was playing bad.You can't get rid of a player like that. This is going to be Plummers 9th year in the league and I see a solid player,but not tons of talent. I would take a chance on a rookie QB in the draft next year.I would take a chance on Vince Young. I would take a chance just like the Broncos did in making the trade to get Elway. We have two first round picks next year and an AVERAGE STARTING QB. WHY NOT? Anything wrong with getting alittle crazy from time to time.
    [IMG]http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c168/Crashman44b/dayne.jpg[/IMG]
    "The Dayne agreement"

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    13,600
    Quote Originally Posted by defense!!!
    I seriously doubt that either of our picks will be close enough to draft Matt.
    If the Redskins go 0-16 they will. The Redskins have shown that they aren't exactly the greatest team in the NFL so I think we'll be close enough to draft him.

    HOWEVER! We don't need one, Jake's a great QB and has shown much progress in Shanahan's system. He broke a franchise record for most yards in a season (IT WAS ELWAY!) and tied Elway's TD record for the franchise. I see Jake making a big impact on the Broncos. If he doesn't have a great year, I still see no reason to waste a first round pick on Leinhart. I think that we have some pressing needs this year that we could and should address next yaer.



    Sig made by me. Click top sig to view my Graphics Portfolio.

    There are three things you can expect in life:

    1. Death
    2. Taxes
    3. The Ball Being Picked Off by Champ Bailey

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Tucson, AZ
    Posts
    13,488
    Quote Originally Posted by Iceman_44b
    John was only in his third year in 1985. He didn't even play that much as a rookie. It was really only his second year as a starter. And lets face it,you could see loads of talent in Elway even when he was playing bad.You can't get rid of a player like that. This is going to be Plummers 9th year in the league and I see a solid player,but not tons of talent. I would take a chance on a rookie QB in the draft next year.I would take a chance on Vince Young. I would take a chance just like the Broncos did in making the trade to get Elway. We have two first round picks next year and an AVERAGE STARTING QB. WHY NOT? Anything wrong with getting alittle crazy from time to time.
    Well, you may not see "loads of talent," but your opinion is not shared by certain very knowledgeable people in the profession. For instance, Bill Walsh has compared him to Joe Montana. You know, Walsh, who coached Montana? I also do not share your opinion, and I have watched Jake play ever since he was a freshman in college. And no, I did not attend his alma mater, nor am I a fan of that school. Quite the contrary, ASU is an arch-rival to my U. of Arizona.

    Now, as to '"WHY NOT?" . . . . We lack quality depth on the Oline, and our best receiver is getting old. Since we have a QB with immense talent, as knowledgeable people have asserted, that is "WHY NOT."

    Edit: Incidentally, Elway started 10 games in his rookie year in 1983.

    -----
    Last edited by topscribe; 06-14-2005 at 03:43 AM.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Realism.
    Posts
    2,362
    Quote Originally Posted by topscribe
    I didn't realize Shanahan plays football.

    Anyway, Vick could not have been winning playoff games for the last six years because he has been playing only since 2001. In that time, his team won a Wild Card game in 2002, then was promptly buried by the Eagles. In 2004, the team won the Divisional Playoff game, then was promptly buried in the AFC championship game--again by the Eagles (they are Atlanta's Indy?). So I'm not sure what you mean by "tons" more. Also, getting there a couple times is hardly "on the regular," isn't it?

    Anyway, this approach reminds me of throwing mud a against a wall, then whatever sticks, stays. Despite his 4,089 yards and 27 TDs, Plummer throws 20 INts, so we get rid of him. Perhaps we should have done that to Elway in 1985?

    -----
    Once again, I ask you to look at the Mike Vick example.

    2 playoff wins is more than we have had in Six freaking years.... Six. And considering we havent sniffed a conference championship game.... no Bronco fan has any room to criticize Vick/Atlanta for getting there and not winning. We havent even made it out of wildcard weekend!

    You said

    You bet. Why don't we ignore WR and OL and go for a blue-chip QB (even though I have not seen one yet in the upcoming draft)? That way we can end up doing what the Phoenix Cardinals did for six years: Get a great QB, give him nothing to work with, and watch him try to win games all by himself. The intelligence of some arguments I have seen just underwhelmes me.
    That seemed to work for the Falcons, dont you think?

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Tucson, AZ
    Posts
    13,488
    Quote Originally Posted by Momentum
    That seemed to work for the Falcons, dont you think?
    Well . . . no.

    They might have won a game or two, but they also got crushed. Both times.
    I think I would rather have a QB who can pass the ball.

    Jake Plummer comes to mind . . . .



    -----

  14. #14
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    6,018
    yep stefan lefors

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Bis, ND
    Posts
    1,026
    tough decision, but I guess i'd have to still go with Plummer, because I'd rather see them use our first round picks next year on Wide Receiver and a Offensive Lineman, being we have 2 guys at those positions that are getting up there in age. If not, best available player is always fine with me.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •