Writers of Pro Football Prospectus 2008

19 Mar 2012

Peyton Manning to Broncos

Our long national nightmare is finally over, as Chris Mortensen has announced Peyton Manning will sign with the Denver Broncos, barring an unexpected contract talks snag per Adam Schefter. Schefter adds the Broncos will try to trade Tim Tebow.

Posted by: Tom Gower on 19 Mar 2012

271 comments, Last at 24 Mar 2012, 9:47am by Dragon Pie


by Peepshowmopguy (not verified) :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 11:59am

... for a Ham Sandwich.

by The Hypno-Toad :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 1:36pm

Once again, the conservative, sandwich-heavy portfolio pays off for the hungry investor.

by Temo :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 8:49pm


by AnonymousBoob (not verified) :: Tue, 03/20/2012 - 12:47pm

Very nice.

by RickD :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 12:02pm

This should be an interesting development.

So...who are his WRs? Demaryius Thomas is good, but he was also Tebow's buddy.

by trill :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 12:12pm

With Manning around I bet Thomas improves in all kinds of ways. He's a beast from a physical standpoint; his main weaknesses are route running and concentration (looking the ball all the way into his hands). If he's willing to put in the work he could be a top-15 WR in the next two years.

With Eddie Royal gone, Eric Decker becomes the clear #2 in Denver. He's kinda like D. Thomas lite - a little shorter, a little slower, but a big guy with good body control, acceptable speed/quicks, and better hands and route-running than Thomas. His production was pretty sporadic last year but when Tebow put the ball in his vicinity he made plays.

They could use a slot guy, but they're more desperate for talent at RB and in the defensive backfield.

by big_jgke :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 1:41pm

'He's a beast from a physical standpoint; his main weaknesses are route running and concentration (looking the ball all the way into his hands).' Those sound like the weaknesses of a WR that Peyton will murder by the second week of training camp in case he can't fix them.

Seriously, if there is a trait that a Manning led offense values higher than predictable, crisp, route-running and conversely values less than explosive athleticism I don't know it. I still have no idea how the Broncos or Peyton think that this is a good idea.

by Ben :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 1:44pm

That's the first thing I thought of when I read that comment as well.

There's not much that will get a receiver off of Manning's Christmas list faster than running sloppy/wrong routes...

by Marko :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 8:03pm

"Goddammit Demaryius."

by trill :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 2:14pm

Do you really think that's how Manning would respond to a 3rd year WR with a lot of upside who needs to clean up his routes a little? I kinda doubt that. He worked with Pierre Garcon, a similarly-built WR with similar strengths and weaknesses, despite the fact that Garcon didn't show much in the way of improvement in his time with Peyton.

I am sure Manning has met, and possibly thrown passes to, these guys. I am also sure he didn't base his entire decision around who the starting WRs were on his new team; that said what he's working with in DEN are two young and talented guys, as opposed to the unknown quantities in SF/MIA.

by Stats are for losers (not verified) :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 2:24pm

I agree. Peyton Manning is almost certainly better at evaluating WR talent, front-office politics, offensive lines and schemes, etc. than almost all of the anonymous people on the internet put together. He's certainly got access to a hell of a lot more game film than we do.

How Demaryius Thomas and Eric Decker compare to Randy Moss, Michael Crabtree, and Mario Manningham in a vacuum is pretty irrelevant to the discussion of who Peyton'd rather throw to.

by Kal :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 3:44pm

At the same time, it's not a matter of him comparing them to Wayne or Harrison; it's comparing them to a 37 year old Moss or Britt + whatever else they have in Tennessee. It could be, simply, that this is the best of a set of bad options.

by commissionerleaf :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 2:30pm

I don't think Manning is necessarily more fond of crisp route running and field intelligence than raw athleticism. The Colts have had so little of either at the receiver position in so long I don't know how we would know. 2006 was Harrison's last year with legs, and Wayne has been great up to and including last year but his deep speed stopped being his selling point about the same time.

Other than those two, Indy has been Garcon and a bunch of oft-injured white guys; Peyton probably would have loved to have Vernon Davis. What he had was Blair White.

by Will Allen :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 12:37pm

Eric Decker will work his ass off to maximize this opportunity, and he is enough of an athlete to make it into several Pro Bowl appearances, IF he can stay healthy.

by Noah Arkadia :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 1:11pm

Tebow might have been bad, but being his buddy is certainly not a drawback. Demaryius will handle it like a professional, I expect.

We are number one. All others are number two, or lower.

by Old Europe Joe (not verified) :: Tue, 03/20/2012 - 10:26am

His chances of reaching more fame and fortune just quadruppled. He should lick his fingers and start training right now.
What is the sweetest dream a WR playing today in the NFL can have? Catching passes from ... (insert his current favorite QB) and Peyton comes higher on that list than Tebow.
OK maybee the dream includes something with the Kardashians...

by Will Allen :: Tue, 03/20/2012 - 10:32am

I've never heard of someone dreaming of taking a course of antibiotics.

by Mr Shush :: Tue, 03/20/2012 - 11:01am

I think I might rather take the antibiotics than have a tête-à-tête with a Kardashian.

Why must so much money be placed in the hands of men of such lamentable poor taste? Even the elder Lohan sister would be better: at least she was once beautiful and talented, and one could enjoy the idle fantasy that one might rescue her from herself. Pneumatic lumps of raw stupidity allow for no such diverting delusions.

by bravehoptoad :: Tue, 03/20/2012 - 12:09pm

I dunno, man...them Kardashians got awful nice têtes.

by Mike B. In Va :: Tue, 03/20/2012 - 3:53pm

Well played, sir.

by Theo :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 12:05pm

I wonder if they have space to pick up come recently-released colts.

by ebongreen :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 12:20pm

One would think Dallas Clark would be an obvious option.

by Stats are for losers (not verified) :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 12:54pm

Free-agent Jeff Saturday would be an even more obvious option.

by Theo :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 4:43pm

Worth every buck, since he knows Manning better than anyone (football).

by FrontRunningPhinsFan :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 12:06pm

For sure we'll see Tebow to the Dolphins for a first round pick. My nightmare continutes.

by splortsaresplorty (not verified) :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 12:15pm

Being a dolphins fan is starting to feel like dating a really annoying fat girl. You dont really want anyone to know about it, embarrassing when people do find out, and she just keeps getting fatter and louder. If tebow comes here i may just dump the bitch until she drops some weight and gets it together.

by FrontRunningPhinsFan :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 12:21pm

I feel like I'm complaining too much on these boards as it is, but yeah things seem pretty bleak right now. And somehow continue to get worse.

I almost expect them to fold as an NFL franchise and move to the UFL.

by strannix (not verified) :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 1:23pm

Interesting analogy, but here's where it breaks down:

The girl, after "getting it together", will probably be able to do a lot better than you. After all, that's how you ended up dating the annoying ugly chick in the first place. But sports teams always have to take you back.

by Dragon Pie (not verified) :: Sat, 03/24/2012 - 9:47am

I'd be more embarrassed for being a fat-phobic, misogynistic dick, but you know, that's me.

by ebongreen :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 12:20pm

Not if the Jaguars get to him first!

by The Anti-Dave (not verified) :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 12:35pm

The Jaguars have absolutely no interest in Tebow.

by Mr Shush :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 12:56pm

Which is ironic, given that unlike the Dolphins (and almost every other franchise in the NFL) their current starting quarterback is actually worse.

by hrudey (not verified) :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 1:45pm

Right, I mean, other than having the youngest QB in league history to start 13 games, after a lockout-shortened offseason where he spent all of training camp getting #3 QB reps and then thrown into the fire by Jack of the River. Clearly, there's no chance at all that the kid could actually improve or anything . . .

by Chris UK :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 1:53pm

Where exactly did he say that he couldn't improve? He said Tebow is better than Gabbert, not that Gabbert is crap and can't get better.

by Mr Shush :: Tue, 03/20/2012 - 6:03am

Gabbert almost certainly will improve - he was the worst quarterback in football last year, so he can hardly get any worse. That said, I would be willing to bet at even money that he will not develop into even an average NFL starter. He reminds me far too much of David Carr, except without even the nice deep ball that was Carr's main redeeming feature. If the Jaguars are lucky, he'll suck hard enough for them to cut their losses after this season. If they're unlucky, he'll make like Sanchez, and play just well enough to keep his starting job without ever actually being any good.

by JIPanick :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 12:07pm

Well, shoot. I don't like this.

by Bernie (not verified) :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 12:11pm

Why would he choose the Broncos over the 49ers?

by jonnyblazin :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 12:17pm

Because he's Peyton Manning, all he cares about is piling up stats, not winning. He's not Tom Brady, after all.

by Kal :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 3:46pm

Which would be a cutting comment if Brady hadn't spent the last 5 years piling up stats and not winning.

by Johnny Socko (not verified) :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 4:31pm

I hereby submit Kal's reply for the post hall of fame. Bravo!

by InTheBoilerRoom :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 4:56pm

I actually interpreted jonnyblazin's post as a clever dig at the Manning-is-a-selfish-stat-padder, Brady-is-a-winner camp. If that isn't what he was going for, then the irony is even more wonderful.

by Eddo :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 5:05pm

I, too, thought johnnyblazin's post was sarcastic.

by sundown (not verified) :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 5:21pm

I'm hoping it was, but spend too much time on sports boards to be overly optimistic. At least here there's some hope.

by erniecohen :: Tue, 03/20/2012 - 7:06am

Well, Brady is 53-11 and Manning is 49-15, which just goes to show that there is a positive correlation between piling up stats and winning.

by Johnny Socko (not verified) :: Tue, 03/20/2012 - 9:35am

Herein lies the beauty of Kal's response. He rebuffed one absurd commentary with an equally absurd counter argument.

by trill :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 12:17pm

My guess is that Fox/Elway gave him carte blanche. They'll probably run the same single-back, 11 or 12 personnel offense he ran in Indy. Not sure how fit they are to do that without some significant free agent or draft acquisitions at RB, WR and TE (Dallas Clark maybe?).

Harbaugh may have wanted to stick with what was working for him last year - lotta 2 and 3 TE sets and more of a 60/40 run-pass ratio.

by JFP :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 12:38pm

I wanted to see Manning in San Fran so we could possible see a Pats/49ers, Brady/Manning (the other one) SB.

Although I'm not sure I could take the hype.

by Rafi89 :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 12:40pm

AFC West, tons of cap, coach willing to adjust to a qb's skill set.

by Will Allen :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 12:44pm

Because he has a better chance of winning a championship in the AFC, in a division with a team managed by A.J. Smith, another team with an unproven GM, and another team with Matt Cassell as starting qb. Financially, the 49ers would have to offer more money to make it equal to the Broncos, given the higher taxes in California. The Broncos may have a better offensive line than the 49ers. They have more cap room.

The 49ers undoubtedly have the better roster right now, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they provided Manning the better path to hoisting the trophy over the next three years.

by Eddo :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 12:54pm

Are taxes a big issue? I doubt Manning will actually move to the new city, and a lot of sports organizations are based in places like Delaware (see "Los Angeles Dodgers, a Delaware Company") to minimize taxes.

by Jimmy :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 1:02pm

Yes, like Manchester United. (I love pointing that out to United fans, it shouldn't be as funny as I find it, but it is!)

by Will Allen :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 1:11pm

I think California's top marginal income tax rate, which would have been paid on all bonuses and game checks paid on home games, is about 10.5 percent, and Colorado's is about 4.5 percent. At Peyton Manning's income level, that is not a trivial sum of money, maybe, what, 1.5-2 million dollars over the next 3 years? I know the inclination is to say, "Hey, why would a guy with a net worth that might be north of 150 million care about an extra one or two million paid in taxes over the next three years?" I'm not saying it is the deciding factor, but in my experience people with a lot of money often view paying an extra million in taxes as something to be reckoned with. Lots of pro athletes like going to Florida and Texas teams because there is no state income tax. It is something that gets factored in these matters.

by Carlos unverified (not verified) :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 2:28pm

the taxes comment is hilarious.

Pro athletes owe taxes on their salary in every state they play in, in proportion to their salary earned there.

Same goes for partners in consulting and law firms, fwiw.

by FrontRunningPhinsFan :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 2:41pm

But it makes a difference if 8 of your games (home) are in a state with no income tax rather than one where there is.

And more importantly all bonuses.

by Rafi89 :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 2:49pm

That's hilarious in that their schedule can effect their take-home pay.

by Will Allen :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 2:56pm

Yes, that is what I wrote, in posting........

"I think California's top marginal income tax rate, which would have been paid on all bonuses and game checks paid on home games, is about 10.5 percent....."

by Will Allen :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 2:58pm

delete repeat

by cheer :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 1:31pm

Being a Delaware corporation has nothing to do with employee income taxes. Many, many (most?) corporations in the US are incorporated in Delaware (and so say "A Delaware Company") but the employees pay income tax based upon where they work/live (normally you pay taxes on where you live as a resident and where you work as a non-resident if the two are different, but it can get complicated).

by RowdyRoddyPiper :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 2:30pm

As mentioned above, it's not a tax issue, it's a matter of corporate law, especially as it pertains to the handling of bankruptcy. You still have to pay state taxes in states where you do business on revenues generated in that state.

by Eddo :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 4:12pm

Thank you to everyone for clarifying my (lack of) knowledge on tax issues.

by speedegg :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 12:23pm

Philip Rivers be careful what you wish for, 'cause that wish will tank your coaching staff. Great going.

by Dave0 :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 11:25pm

oh no... what will san diego fans do without their worthless lousy coaching staff?

by Karl Cuba :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 12:23pm


by Passing through (not verified) :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 5:26pm

I was really looking forward to Karl Cuba's reaction to this.

by Karl Cuba :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 9:20pm

My eloquence is a virtue that many aspire to.

by Puddin Patterson (not verified) :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 12:24pm

ok, so, why does Tebow need to be traded? Quinn just signed with the Chiefs.

by RickD :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 12:31pm

Why does Tebow need to be traded?

a) he's not very good
b) the fans think otherwise

Better trade him now before fate intervenes and forces the Broncos to start him again.

by Steve in WI :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 12:35pm

Exactly. I think this is a brilliant move by Denver. Even the most irrational Tebow fans have to admit that Manning is a better QB (at least based on his entire career up through 2010 - it's still to be seen how he performs this year of course). You can't really get mad at your franchise for taking the opportunity to get a future Hall of Fame QB. And now they have a good excuse to trade Tebow - heck, they can spin it as a positive and say that Tebow deserves the chance to go elsewhere rather than sit behind Manning for the next few years.

by Greg F (not verified) :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 12:43pm

Completely agree. Although I wouldn't have gone to Denver if I were Manning, I absolutely love this from Elway and Fox's position. You get the hall of fame prototypical QB that you want, and it gives you an excuse to get ride of the guy you hate but the fans love.

by BJR :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 1:25pm

It also prevents a scenario where Peyton gets off to a slow start in Denver, and the nutters start calling for Tebow again. Best get him out of town whilst they can.

by ebongreen :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 5:05pm

The problem with trading Tebow is that you'll need to find a GM who's willing to put with Tebow-as-locker-room-lightning-rod.

What GM in his right mind is going to want to even sign Tebow, much less trade for him, after the holy fracas he caused in Denver? Behind what quarterbacks can he be reasonably expected to sit and play second string?

How many starting quarterbacks are going to be able to handle Tebow beatifically breathing down their neck? How many locker rooms can stand the media circus?

I'll give you one, and only one, that comes to mind as my perfect fit: Washington. They, presumably, will be drafting RG3, walking in as a mega-celebrity and highly-mobile QB in his own right. It's a perfect Snyder move, too, who never met a high-visibility player he didn't want to sign. Rexy and John Beck are nothing about whom to write home, at least not using language your mother would approve, so why the heck not?

by Vicarfish :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 12:42pm

Belichick to turn him into a tight end

by Phil Osopher :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 12:55pm

McDaniels darfted him too. I could see NE trading Mallett to Browns for 3rd next year and 5th rounder this year. Then trading a couple of low or conditional mid round picks for Timmy Tebow and having as an H-back, QB to throw off defenses here and there, and general locker room awesomeness.

Plus, Browns get a real live (maybe) starting NFL QB for draft picks they can afford. Aside from his horrible demeanor, Mallett was a giant prospect that fell on draft day due to his attitude. Browns need attitude. It fits. And he is tall, Browns fans like tall and accept anybody at QB

McDaniels loves Tebow. He could be a spot player like he was under McCdaniels before. NE wins, Browns win, Denver wins.

This has to happen, its too perfect

“You have to learn the rules of the game. And then you have to play better than anyone else.”
-Albert Einstein

"Judge a man by his questions rather than by his answers"

by Mr Shush :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 1:04pm

I think a Florida franchise that wanted Tebow for his marketing potential and was prepared to give him a chance at quarterback would be willing to pay more, but I could be wrong.

by Phil Osopher :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 1:00pm

double post...sorry

by Ben :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 1:03pm

The Patriots really do make a lot of sense. It would be one of the few places where there would be virtually no call for Tebow to play QB.

by RickD :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 1:10pm

The Pats already have three QBs. And they have plenty of depth at TE. He'd be buried on the depth chart behind Gronk and Hernandez, and it's not like he'd offer anything as a blocker.

I'm also far from convinced that Tebow is done playing QB. Or at least, trying to.

by BJR :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 1:16pm

New England already runs of the very best offences in the league. Why on Earth would they adjust it to include Tim Tebow?

by commissionerleaf :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 2:05pm

He's a backup QB with potential trade value. Ergo, he will be traded.

by TV_Pete (not verified) :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 3:25pm

Tebow may have trade potential (to KC, NE, or Miami/Jax), but I doubt they would get much above a 3rd for him.

I think Denver could keep him. Denver does not have a backup QB right now. Denver does know if Manning can take a hit after his year off and surgery.

Tebow has some glaring needs for development (accuracy, decision-making, release time, throwing style). Manning may be able to coach him and make Tebow a better QB over the next 2-3 years. Some QB in GB, Rodgers, didn’t start a game during his initial contract and that seemed to work fairly well for his development. I think a similar path for Tebow would serve him well and would keep the fans and team excited.

Tebow would be a fine QB/H-Back for change of pace when needed. I doubt Manning will be running many QB sneaks in the immediate future. Can we say, “Bounty?”

I’m sure Manning would not be intimidated by having Tebow as a backup (and occasional change of pace QB for short-yardage situations). I suspect Tebow is professional enough to handle the distraction. My real question is whether Fox and Elway are truly willing and supportive of Tebow developing into more of a passing QB.

Tebow reminds me of a FB/H-Back version of Vick in Atlanta. Timmy does not have the same character risks, but does not have the likelihood to break a 70-yard running TD. However, there is little doubt that Tebow helps put fans in the stands, gets merchandising sold, and brings a great deal of excitement and attention. The team (defense and offense) around Tebow may also be more enthusiastic and motivated to play for/with Tebow.

by rageon :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 3:42pm

From a pure football perspective, I see no harm in keep him. He has enough physical talent that if (a huge if) he can improve his passing, he could be a very good player.

But it's not going to be that simple. Elway wants him gone. I think there's virtually no chance he is on the roster by the end of the draft.

by jfsh :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 12:24pm

Four quarters of no-huddle offense at mile-high altitude is going to be brutal for incoming defenses.

by RickD :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 12:33pm

Four quarters of no-huddle offense at mile-high altitude would be brutal for the 36-year old QB!!

by CraigoMc (not verified) :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 12:34pm

Or the roughly 1500 lb of human being that would be responsible for protecting him.

by jfsh :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 12:42pm

True, but the Broncos players will be much more accustomed to the altitude than a visiting team. And offensive players generally get less tired over the course of the game, including the linemen (at least to my eyes and based on what I've read). There's a reason why d-linemen sub in and out constantly while the o-line plays the whole game (barring injury).

I actually think a lot, although not all, of Tebow's fourth-quarter magic was defensive exhaustion - this was certainly true against the Jets, who stuffed him all night long, but were obviously gassed by the end of the game. Tebow is probably particularly exhausting to play against as a defense, but I imagine Peyton's no-huddle would be pretty tiring too.

by RickD :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 12:55pm

I agree that the no-huddle offense is harder on the defense than on the offense, but it can still be a lot of work for the offense. There's a reason no team runs the no-huddle all game long.
I also agree that the Broncos would be more acclimated to the altitude than any visiting team. But even with all of that, I don't think Peyton Manning or the O-line would be up for it. Not for an entire game.
But I am sure that Manning will use it fairly often, and with success. I'm just happy he didn't go to the Jets or Dolphins.

by Eddo :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 1:00pm

The no huddle that the Colts (and Patriots) have run a lot of lately isn't really a "hurry-up" no huddle; it's literally just running plays without a huddle, so that the defense is unable to substitute guys. I don't believe they actually run any more plays than they would if they did huddle(*), and since offensive lineman play every snap, when healthy, the negatives introduced to the offense are much less severe.

(*) However, they would wind up running more plays because they'll (likely) be more successful, and have to punt less frequently.

by grafac :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 1:01pm

No huddle does not equal hurry-up.

by RickD :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 1:05pm

Well, yes and no. The purpose is to not allow the defense the time to substitute players. So that precludes time outs and other actions between plays that give the defense time. So even if they're not trying to snap the ball as quickly as possible, they're not taking as much time as they could.

by Kal :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 4:00pm

Incorrect; they have exactly the same amount of time between snaps that anyone else does. No more, no less. They can choose to take as much time as well. And we see this too; games with Manning actually were shrunk somewhat as their offense didn't take any extra time but the opponents milked things as much as possible to reduce the number of drives Manning had.

by Tracy :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 4:37pm

It's true that the Manning/Colts version of the no-huddle offense tended to use the entire play-clock between plays, but in order to do this, the O-Line has to spend the bulk of the play clock lined up in a proper stance, in order to allow Manning to snap the ball immediately if he catches the defense in a substitution. I don't think you'll find many people willing to argue that lining up in a football stance for the duration of the play-clock is no more tiring than huddling between plays.

by RickD :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 5:13pm

If that's how the Colts did the slow no-huddle, then I haven't seen it. I know that when the Pats do the slow no-huddle, they just take as much time as feels natural. The purpose is to keep the defense in the same personnel package, not to burn as much time as possible.

by RickD :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 5:10pm

If they use the entire clock, then it doesn't matter that they're going no-huddle. The defense would still have the time to put in substitutes. That kind of defeats the purpose of going no-huddle.

Incorrect; they have exactly the same amount of time between snaps that anyone else does.

Have fun with that. But it's not like you're correcting me. I didn't say that going to a no-huddle offense changed the rules about the play clock.

by DavidL :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 5:24pm

They use the entire clock as a matter of course, but because they spend most of the time between plays on the line of scrimmage, with all offensive players set, the center has the ability to snap the ball at any given moment, and is pretty much guaranteed to do so if the QB notices a defender trying to get off the field.

by Kal :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 5:26pm

If they use the entire clock, then it doesn't matter that they're going no-huddle. The defense would still have the time to put in substitutes. That kind of defeats the purpose of going no-huddle.

No, you're wrong. If you do not huddle or substitute the defense is not allowed to pause for huddling or substitution either. If the defense tries to sub while the offense is lined up that's a free 5 yard penalty for 12 men on the field. The rule is simple: if the offense huddles, the defense gets a chance to huddle. If the offense substitutes the defense gets a chance to do that as well. If they do neither, the defense gets to play chicken.

Have fun with that. But it's not like you're correcting me. I didn't say that going to a no-huddle offense changed the rules about the play clock.

Actually you implied that. In any case that's clearly wrong and there's no difference in time. The only difference is the amount of time that everyone stays in their stance, and even that's not a requirement; linemen can break stance as well.

No huddle allows you to do hurry up, but it doesn't require it. And the amount of time a no-huddle offense takes to run a play does not appear to be statistically different from a huddling offense, though no-huddles do eliminate delay of games for the most part.

by BaronFoobarstein :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 7:11pm

Technicality, but I think the defense is permitted to substitute even when the offense doesn't huddle/substitute, but they're in danger of the non-huddling offense snapping the ball while the defense is still doing their substitutions and being caught with the wrong number of players or badly out of position.

by Kal :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 7:36pm

Yes. With a huddle a defense is allowed to sub and the offense must wait until the defense is set. With no-huddle a defense can only sub if they're feeling lucky, basically.

by RickD :: Tue, 03/20/2012 - 12:49am

Have fun with that. But it's not like you're correcting me. I didn't say that going to a no-huddle offense changed the rules about the play clock.

Actually you implied that.

I certainly did not. Cite a single word that implies that I thought going to a no-huddle offense "changes the rules about the play clock." This is a particularly dim straw man to build.

You may have inferred that, but don't blame me for your inability to parse.

This is what I said:
"So even if they're not trying to snap the ball as quickly as possible, they're not taking as much time as they could."

How you read that to mean that the play clock is shorter is beyond me. Try reading this bit again:
they're not taking as much time as they could
with a special emphasis on could

by Kal :: Tue, 03/20/2012 - 1:55am

Here's what you said, RickD:
"So that precludes time outs and other actions between plays that give the defense time"

The implication - no, the outright STATEMENT - is that actions between plays give the defense more time. Which is untrue. They don't give more time - they give specific ruling. If you substitute, you must allow the defense to substitute. If you huddle you must allow the defense to huddle. There's nothing about extra time in either of those statements. Nor does the no-huddle remove said time; it simply means that the defense no longer has the right of huddle or substitution. They have pretty much all the time they want, mind you. Just not the right to do so.

And what would more time be if not something to do with the play clock?

And the no-huddle often takes as much time as it could when not being run in a hurry up. Oregon's famous for doing this, but so is Manning.

Don't blame me for your inability to write or your lack of understanding of the rulebook.

by RickD :: Tue, 03/20/2012 - 3:44pm

Geez, Kal, you are grasping for straws.

When I typed "time outs and other actions between plays that give the defense time" by "other actions between plays" I obviously meant "things like timeouts" like when the clock stops because the ball carrier goes out of bounds, official timeouts for measurements, etc. If you throw a long bomb and the receiver has to go back 40 yards to the line of scrimmage, that gives the defense time to make a substitution.

And by "giving the defense time" I am talking about actual, physical time. I'm not saying a damned thing about the play clock. Why on Earth would you think I was talking about the play clock?

So basically, you've read an idiotic interpretation into what I've written, and somehow that's my fault.

And no, repeatedly claiming that I "implied" something that I didn't actually write is not much of an argument.

Telling me that I have a lack of understanding of the rulebook is f*cking precious. Given that you have no evidence of this other than your misreading of what I wrote, I have to think that you're just mad, in more than one sense of the word.

Why don't you just admit that you misread what I wrote? Why do you have to repeatedly double down on a nonsensical interpretation?

Grow up already.

And stop beating your wife. (Your entire argument makes about as much sense as a "When did you stop beating your wife?" argument.)

by CoachDave :: Tue, 03/20/2012 - 4:51pm

It's amazing how you seem to be in these pedantic arguments week after week at yet, it's never your fault.

I'm sure you're a blast at parties.

Who am I kidding...as if anyone would invite you to a party. Well, at least not twice.

by Kal :: Tue, 03/20/2012 - 7:15pm

ike when the clock stops because the ball carrier goes out of bounds, official timeouts for measurements, etc. If you throw a long bomb and the receiver has to go back 40 yards to the line of scrimmage, that gives the defense time to make a substitution.

Except that the playclock doesn't change. So it doesn't give the defense any extra time; an offense can certainly push it so that this isn't an issue and the above problems apply. Especially on incompletes.

And by "giving the defense time" I am talking about actual, physical time. I'm not saying a damned thing about the play clock. Why on Earth would you think I was talking about the play clock?

I'd think that because it's the only thing that matters as far as time for substitutions. There is very little dead time between plays. And it's one of the things that the no-huddle allows you to manipulate well. Why wouldn't you be referring to the play clock?

So basically, you've read an idiotic interpretation into what I've written, and somehow that's my fault.

Yes, because it was your bad writing and your poor understanding of the rules. When someone makes an argument out of ignorance and then fails to communicate it properly that tends to be an issue with the writer. That you seem to do this every single week here seems to be fairly indicative of this; either you deliberately obfuscate in order to troll or you're simply not able to communicate what you mean well or you're simply talking about things you don't actually understand. Take your pick.

Why don't you just admit that you misread what I wrote? Why do you have to repeatedly double down on a nonsensical interpretation?

Because even if I assume you're talking about the time it takes between the end of the play and when the playclock winds again, you're still wrong. Manning in the no-huddle when he wanted to could end a play with a long pass and get lined up for the new one within 6 seconds; do you think that gives enough time for a defense to reasonably substitute and reset while calling a play?

Plus, who would talk about 'the time it takes between plays' and not be talking about the playclock, the most important issue of time between plays?

In any case it doesn't matter; you are simply incorrect. A no-huddle offense can essentially deny a defense any chance of substitution if played well unless the defense or external factors (2 minute warning, injury, end of quarter, etc) cause a stoppage of play. Long passes or plays out of bounds that stop the clock don't matter here.

Grow up already.
And stop beating your wife.

I really appreciate the dichotomy here. Kudos! Stay classy, RickD.

by Guest789 :: Thu, 03/22/2012 - 10:09pm

I've lurked this site for quite a while, and excluding superfans and the like, RickD is definitely the most insufferable person here.


“Treat a man as he is, and he will remain as he is. Treat a man as he could be, and he will become what he should be.”

by Anonymous wtf (not verified) :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 7:03pm

If the offense is lined up, the defense can't risk subbing players. As soon as the players going out on defense are about to hit the sideline (players going in have to wait for this), the offense can snap the ball leaving some part of the defense terribly out of position.

by MC2 :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 12:40pm

I think Manning to the Niners would have been a perfect fit, and I predict that both sides will end up regretting that they didn't do whatever it would have taken to make it work.

As for the Broncos, while I was never a Tebow guy, I also felt that their problems went far beyond the QB position, and unless they manage to completely overhaul basically the entire roster (at least on the offensive side), I still don't think they're necessarily even the favorites to win the AFC West, let alone serious contenders to win it all.

by Will Allen :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 12:51pm

I think the Broncos may have a better offensive line than the 49ers, and nobody who has not seen the Broncos all-22 film should try to evaluate their receivers while paired with Tebow's passing skills. Yeah, the 49ers have a better roster, but the Broncos will have a decent chance at a championship if they get a Peyton Manning who resembles the Peyton Manning of the past, and if they win a championship, there will be no regrets.

by MC2 :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 1:04pm

I'm evaluating them less on the basis of what they looked like with Tebow, and more on the basis of what they looked like early in the year, with Kyle Orton. While Orton is obviously no Manning, I've always felt he was a decent QB (except for his rookie year), and the fact that the offense was a complete train wreck prior to the installation of the Tebow gimmickry does not bode well for Manning. In fact, I suspect that the "improvement" of Thomas and Decker after Tebow took over was mainly due to defenses totally ignoring them, more so than any actual development.

In any event, this will be an interesting experiment. There was a lot of talk last year about whether the Colts' offense would have been any good even with a healthy Manning, and if anything, I think Manning is now going to a team with an even worse supporting cast than the one that he just left. If he can win a championship with these pieces, he will truly deserve to be called the greatest QB of all time.

by Karl Cuba :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 1:07pm

A healthy Clady is better than Joe Staley but the rest of the 49ers line is better. Beadles, Walton, Franklin versus Iupati, Goodwin and Davis. Neither team seems to be settled at right guard though.

I really rate Decker and Thomas though, especially Thomas and I can see why he'd want to work with those two.

Denver made the divisional round of the playoffs with Tebow completing less than 50% of his passes, I can see how Manning thinks that he can improve on that and have a very good shot at the Superbowl in an AFC that's a little weaker than the NFC. There's a long way to go with the draft and many injuries that will affect the next season but it looks to me like New England and Denver have a very good chance of representing the AFC next year. Houston have lost large parts of their outstanding offensive line; Baltimore have lost a number of their cogs, guys like Grubbs and Jarret Johnson; and Pittsburgh are fighting to rejuvenate their defense.

In the San Francisco he'd have had to contend with Green Bay, the Saints, the Bears with their remodeled offense (All new playbook with 67% less crazy, in stores now!), the ascending Lions, a Philly team that remains stuffed with talent and the reigning champion Giants led by his little brother.

However, I still think he might have made the wrong decision. If he'd chosen the 49ers he'd have had a top three defense, top three special teams and I'm pretty sure that the offense would have become pretty damn good too. It would have been pushing towards the sort of full spectrum dominance that I thought would never be seen again in the free agency era. A bit of a shame.

by Will Allen :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 1:21pm

Hey, I was hoping he'd go to the Niners, because I thought it would provide the most entertainment. However, I suspect that Manning has done his film work, and has reason to believe that the Broncos competitive situation, with that roster, is pretty good. There is such a huge chunk of last season that requires really in depth film work to even begin evaluating, given the weirdness at the qb position, that I think the Denver situation is fascinating as well.

by Independent George :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 1:43pm

I think the Niners were a better fit for him professionally, but I think he was very conscious about what effect being in the NFC would have on Eli. Besides the possibility of facing each other in round 1 of the playoffs, right now you can also pencil in Brees and Rodgers for the NFC Pro Bowl before the season even starts. Given all of the (premature, even in my opinion as an Eli fan) talk of Eli's HOF credentials, I think really wanted to avoid overshadowing him over the next few seasons.

by commissionerleaf :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 8:16pm

Here's the thing.

The 49ers make a lot of sense for all the wrong reasons. They made flashy receiver hires (of players known for dropping passes and loafing), have a great defense (that may not stay together even this year, let alone next offseason, due to cap issues) and an offensive line that is, while not 2010-Colts terrible, still very capable of getting an immobile QB killed.

The Broncos have a young, improving roster, a franchise left tackle, two very decent receivers, lots of cap space to put/hold a team together, and a weak division (maybe weaker than the Matt Flynn/Kevin Kolb NFC West). The Broncos are (Tebow aside) a very traditional, drop-back passing offense, which Manning will no doubt shift toward the single back offense he ran in Indianapolis.

by Will Allen :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 8:24pm

I do like the notion of the Broncos giving up a first rounder, the 25th pick, to sign Mike Wallace.

by justanothersteve :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 9:13pm

I so want to see this happen. A WR trio of D Thomas, Decker, and Wallace with Peyton at QB could be scary-good.

by Karl Cuba :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 9:46pm

"have a great defense (that may not stay together even this year, let alone next offseason, due to cap issues)"

OK, I'm going to call shenanigans on this one. The entire starting defense is resigned for next year. The entire starting defense, plus the nickel back, the back-up edge rusher, all the back up linemen and the niners' preferred 4th cornerback for the last six games. Do you really think that the potential loss of Larry Grant (back up MLB behind WILLIS and BOWMAN), Reggie Smith (I'd excuse you a 'who?' there) and Shawntae Spencer (deactivated for the last six weeks) count as 'not staying together this year'?

I don't think that you do because you've been round here a while and don't appear to be an irreconcilable idiot. The only two starters whose contracts expire next year are Sopoaga, Goldson and Brown, so I reckon that the 49er defense will be OK for two years at the very least.

They also have $23 million under the cap (though Goldson has not signed his tender yet which will eat $6.3m if he doesn't sign a long term deal). The 49ers are not in cap hell, they're not even toasty warm yet. Sopoaga already has a sizable cap hit so I doubt bringing him back will be a problem.

I'd also take some issue with your perspective on the offensive line, they have a hole at right guard but the other four starters are pretty solid. What they need is an offseason to learn the system that they only had three weeks to learn last year, I doubt that I'm being over optimistic that that will result in improved performance from them.

After Washington offered big money for Morgan what were they supposed to do? I've not seen the figures for Manningham's deal yet but I'd be amazed if it was flashy money on a two year deal. They gave Moss a 'let's see what you can do' deal and will probably revisit the position in the draft.

by rageon :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 2:04pm

I've seen enough of your comments to suspect you're smart enough to have not overlooked Chris Kuper by accident -- seeing as Kuper is a very, very good lineman. I was assuming he would recover from his leg injury. Is not the case?

by Karl Cuba :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 3:14pm

Well that's a very nice way of suggesting that I'm far too well informed to have forgotten about a guard from the conference that I pay less attention too. The reality is that I had indeed forgotten him entirely, so not so smart. I had looked at Denver's depth chart, which was my only reference available. After you brought him up I watched a youtube clip of his injury, which left me feeling ill. I have no idea when he'll play or how quickly he'll be back to full strength. If I was fully up to speed with the health of every interior lineman from every team I think I'd be a rather sad individual (or sadder individual).

I will stand by my comment, while Clady is better than Staley, Iupati is one of the best young guards in the NFL, Goodwin was very dependable last year and Davis improved enormously in his second season. I don't have a very high opinion of Beadles, though that will be influenced by him getting abused by Manny Lawson when playing right tackle on a rainy field in London.

by Eddo :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 12:56pm

I'm not sure. The Broncos, after all, did just make the playoffs despite below-average QB play.

by Kal :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 4:09pm

So did Seattle in 2010.

Making the playoffs when you barely take your crappy division isn't that special. Nor is beating a hugely injured team - barely - and then getting creamed by the first good team you faced.

by Eddo :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 5:03pm

Oh, of course not. Just saying that there must be some good parts on a roster to even finish 8-8 with crappy QB play.

I would argue the same for Seattle.

by bravehoptoad :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 2:00pm

The decision could also be about money. The Broncos had a lot more cap room than the 49ers.

by Greg F (not verified) :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 12:45pm

With everyone talking about Peyton possibly bringing Saturday and Clark with him to Denver, one player has been completely forgotten in this process. Painter to Denver for backup QB!

by slipknottin :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 12:46pm

Manning said all along he preferred to play in the AFC. Know the teams better and there's a much smaller chance he plays against his brother in either the regular season or postseason. The Mannings absolutely do NOT like playing against each other. Which is why the redskins were knocked off the list so early in the process

by johonny (not verified) :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 12:53pm

I start asking myself, was Chad Henne so bad? Looks like another season of Moore and whatever poor sucker got overdrafted n the first round for the Dolphins :(

by Noah Arkadia :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 1:17pm

I kind of get the feeling that Miami fan pressure drives a lot of team decisions. I'm not sure if it's the same everywhere. Fact is Miami fans hated Henne and now he's gone.

I wish he hadn't, though, and now more than ever.

We are number one. All others are number two, or lower.

by grafac :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 1:05pm

Who has the largest chance of being on a NFL roster three years from now, Manning or Tebow?

by xtimmygx :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 1:19pm

I'd guess Tebow. Tebow will have a long career as a backup QB or gimmick type player. He has all the rah rah attitude that GMs/coaches want in their locker room. Barring injury, I'd say both have a near 100% chance of still being in the NFL in three years. I'd say that given Peyton's age and the fact that he will be a starting QB playing more snaps than I presume Tebow will, the chance of Manning being injured is higher.

by drobviousso :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 1:28pm

What is it with this guy and horses?

by Theo :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 5:08pm

Maybe you don't want to know.

by Raiderjoe :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 5:28pm

Other Clot gerat J..Unitas also big horse fan. After J. Thomas discard him, Unitas go to Chargers.

by Raiderjoe :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 1:32pm

Yes!!!!!!! Raiders now get shot to beat P..manning two tjmes seadon. Will relish opportinitu to see this. Goin.to get drunk tongijt in celebrstion..

T. Tenow will jave to walk on water somehwrre else. Jacksonville good plave because B. gabbert stinkbomb qb. Looks lost on field like S. Pisarkiewicz former 1st rd pick St. Louis Vardinals

by BJR :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 1:39pm

I was keenly awaiting RJ's rose-tinted take on matters.......

Really, is there any Raiders fan out there that isn't sick to the stomach with this? They mortgage the house mid-season for the corpse of Carson Palmer and miss the playoffs anyway, then watch on as their biggest rivals pick up arguably the games greatest ever QB as a free agent three months later. Lol.

by commissionerleaf :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 1:53pm

For all we know, Carson is a better deal than Peyton at this point. Both have arm strength related injury issues now, and I know that in 2005, I was not alone in thinking that Carson and Peyton would be the class of the NFL for ten years. Didn't work out, but Carson looked pretty good throwing downfield in Oakland, and his receivers are young. With Champ declining (Finally... this is not a knock on Champ), and the Raiders losing #1 CB's two years in a row, Denver-Oakland games could feature a lot of points.

by Raiderjoe :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 2:40pm

Raiders goig to be a-ok
Going to win AFC Wets. Manning-led Brocnos playig for 2nd.place amd wild card spot. Goimg to be so mucj fun now seeig Raiders beat Nroncos. No more excuses, Broncos fans.

by Lothar (not verified) :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 6:38pm

'No more excuses Broncos fans'? ( I translated that from RJ speak ).
Didn't the Broncos win the AFC West last year? Didn't the Raiders have a chance to win it in the end and blow it...again?
I get a kick out of RaiderJoe.

by moore2112 (not verified) :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 11:30pm

that was the only sentence typed correctly. if you translated it, it would be more like, "no mird ekcuss vromvos fsns

by dmstorm22 :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 2:01pm

The Vardinals actually sounds like a cool name for a team.

by The Hypno-Toad :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 1:44pm

I'm cautiously optimistic about Manning's prospects to stay healthy and contribute in a big way.
I'm incautiously ecstatic to have an actual NFL QB on the team.

by Will Allen :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 1:52pm

I think Harbaugh is going to have a great head coaching career, and I think Munchak might as well, if Bud Adams doesn't live so long as to ruin his prospects, but John Fox may be the perfect head coach for Peyton Manning at this stage of Manning's career.

by rengewnad (not verified) :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 2:06pm

Me (Bronco fan): "Hey (Raiders fan office-mate)! Manning is going to the Broncos!"

Him: "... really??? F@#&. No. Really? F@#&, F@#&, F@#&, F@#&!"

by bubqr :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 2:10pm

The picture up on ESPN of Peyton with a Denver jersey is very, very disturbing. Even more disturbing than him choosing Denver.

by Raiderjoe :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 2:38pm

Coreect if wrongbut isn't 18 retired in denver for frank tripucka?

by Ben :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 2:41pm

As usual, you are correct, but Tripucka has said he'd have no problem with Denver letting Manning wear 18.

by commissionerleaf :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 2:43pm

RJ is still amazing.

by xtimmygx :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 2:47pm

I heard on ESPN this morning that Manning has officially retired #18 for himself, and will be looking to wear #16. This was on some dumb segment where they were looking at the pros and cons of the 3 options, and a con that was listed was that SF didn't have #16 available.

by bubqr :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 2:13pm

Oh, and I don't think the Jaguars will try to trade for Tebow - If so, they would have dragged the negociations with HEnne a bit more IMO.

by rageon :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 2:14pm

The talk is that Tebow will only fetch a mid-round (at best) pick in a trade. How can this be? He went in the late first round, and if Denver hasn't taken him, I can't imagine he would have fallen that much further. So let's say he was at that time evaluated as a late-first/early-second round talen. Since then, he sat the bench one season (like most QBs in that draft position), and then, well, there was last year. Denver last year was basically the biggest sports story of the year. I'm not convinced that what he did last season made people think worse of him. If anything, you started to see some of the doubters come around a little bit. But nevertheless, I'm supposed to believe his value is now 4 rounds lower? Because of last season? That makes no sense to me.

by FrontRunningPhinsFan :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 2:21pm

I could be wrong but I seem to remember most pundits putting a 3rd round grade on Tebow in the draft, and that McDaniels in his hubris drafted him far, far too early.

by trill :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 2:21pm

"But nevertheless, I'm supposed to believe his value is now 4 rounds lower? Because of last season? That makes no sense to me."

Look at the game film, then it'll make perfect sense. I dunno about four rounds lower (the remaining money on his contract may have something to do with that estimate), but Tebow is far from being an average NFL starter. His ability to run buys him time in the pocket, but he's just SO slow coming off his first read and seeing the rest of the field. Even if a team wants to ape last year's Broncos offense, their 3rd and 4+ conversion rate is going to be shit. Not a recipe for success.

by Will Allen :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 2:23pm

Lots of people thought Tebow would go in the the third round or later, and we'll never know for sure where he would have dropped if the Broncos had passed.

Tebow isn't worth anything in a trade because A)he didn't show anything as a passer last year, and, just as importantly, B)it is widely believed that the Broncos will cut him, rather than put up with the Tebow circus on a team now led by Peyton Manning, if they don't make a trade. Trying to trade a guy when nobody believes you'll keep him on your roster is not a position of negotiating strength.

by rageon :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 2:30pm

I absolutely agree that they have killed their own position, as they will not go into next season with him. So perhaps that does explain some of it.

Part of the reason I just don't see the drop in value is that for a team with no established QB (like the Dolphins), it wouldn't cost a ton and he's basically a machine that prints money.

by RowdyRoddyPiper :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 2:44pm

Stephen Ross already has a machine that prints money. It's called the Related Companies. He wants a team that wins football games, or at least that's what I think he wants despite all evidence to the contrary. Also, you can't judge Tebow's value based on where he was drafted. Just because one sucker over-paid for it doesn't mean that's where is value is. He's not progressing, he's not a traditional NFL QB and I don't think he's going to revolutionize the league (especially when you have 4, yes 4!!! guys going over 5,000 yards) where passing offense is now king of the hill. I think any team that is desperate enough to take Tebow is also sure enough that he's not the answer to give up anything of value for him.

by FrontRunningPhinsFan :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 2:48pm

I don't think the Dolphins would want him. It caused quite an uproar in south florida last season when Ross decided to honor the national championship Gator team when Denver played in Miami.

Apparently he didn't think about the fact that the Hurricanes play IN the Dolphins stadium, almost everyone from Miami IS a Hurricanes fan, and nearly all Hurricanes fans HATE the Gators.

There was such a backlash you'd think he learned his lesson... Its just dumb enough to happen.

by RickD :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 3:21pm

Yeah, I remember thinking that was weird. Honoring Tebow in Jacksonville would have made sense. In Miami? Not so much.

by Will Allen :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 2:49pm

That machine is one 2-14 season away from breaking down, and you start Tebow on a team that puts him into a position where he has to throw a lot, getting to two wins may be a stretch.

by Jimmy :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 6:35pm

The best thing that could happen to Tebow is that he gets sat behind an elite QB like Manning. Learn as much as you can, speed up your release and general mechanics and get ready to start in a year or two. Learn to read the defense off one of the best in NFL history. For my mind this signing makes the most sense if Tebow can learn as much as possible.

by akn :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 6:51pm

Yes, that worked wonders for Sorgi and Painter.

by commissionerleaf :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 8:04pm

Yeah, Manning isn't known to teach very much. All his energy goes into preparing himself and his guys. He isn't going to be giving lessons to second and third stringers. He'd rather practice play-action 500 more times with his center and RB1.

by Aaron Brooks Go... :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 9:51pm

Other than that QB clinic he hosts every summer.

by Mr Shush :: Tue, 03/20/2012 - 6:19am

I don't think any amount of teaching from anyone would enable Tebow to do those things well. If you want him to play quarterback, you're pretty much going to have to accept that he is what he is, tailor a cheap offense to his strengths, sign a backup with a broadly similar skill-set (Vince Young) and win with defense and special teams.

by Jimmy :: Tue, 03/20/2012 - 8:08am

I never said I thought it would work, I do think Tebow should embrace the opportunity instead of trying to force his way out of town.

by Mr Shush :: Tue, 03/20/2012 - 10:46am

Fair enough. I didn't really get the impression he was, though - I think his nuttier fans are doing that for him all by themselves.

by AJ (not verified) :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 2:25pm

this was not a good decision. I agree with sf, but I wish i could go into manning's head and see why denver and tennessee were there in the first place? in terms of personnel, he rejected kc and seattle which were both better fits personnel wise and wanted him. I still can't understand what it is about denver.

O line, thomas, miller, and dummerville are the only real areas of strengh on this team. The secondary is old and awful, the linebackers are unknowns and last we say of this defense, they were leaving tight ends and receivers wide open in ne and were getting blasted off the door.

Obviously, the talent around him in denver is an upgrade over what he's had the last few years, but seriously, how much longer can he expect to carry a team? I thought as he aged, he would understand the need to rely less and less on him being superman and more on the defense and special teams. I don't understand it at all and as a manning fan, i'm very bummed.

by Will Allen :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 2:45pm

A defense with two good edge pass rushers can turn around the defensive secondary pretty rapidly. Peyton Manning anywhere in the vicinity of what Peyton Manning has been, with good protection, really doesn't need an outstanding receiver corps to put up a lot of points. Very few defenses have enough depth in the secondary to maintain coverage in the face of a great qb with a lot of time to survey the field, against all but the worst receiver corps, and Bronco receiver corps is not bad.

I liked the Chiefs roster better as well, but it is not a crazy decision by Manning, especially if he liked Elway and Fox to work with more than Pioli and Crennel.

by RowdyRoddyPiper :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 2:47pm

His passes will travel further at altitude. This is tongue in cheek, but only half way. I can imagine Manning taking this into consideration quite seriously.

Also do you think Peyton wants to go work with the guy that drafted Brady...mwhahahaha

by wardh2o (not verified) :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 3:56pm

Often a family man will chose a job based on the quality of the location for raising a family. Denver is a great place to live for a young family. The weather is great. Lots a nearby recreational opportunities like fishing, hunting, skiing, hiking, etc. I agree that SF has by far the better team, but the Broncos with Manning have a chance to be competitive and he and his family get to live about a mile closer to heaven.

by JasonK :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 6:41pm

I suspect that ownership, management, and coaching have more to do with Peyton being comfortable with a team than does current personnel.

by Will Allen :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 2:36pm

Now for the most trivial aspect of this trade. Adam Weber, who was on the Broncos' practice squad last year, and moved to the active roster when Brady Quinn left, is a good athlete, a pretty smart guy, a reasonably big guy, and very, very, tough physically. He has also had, until he got to the Broncos, really horrible or inconsistent coaching since he left high school. I think there is chance that by the time he has learned the Peyton Manning preparation method, in about 3 or 4 years, when he is 27 or 28, he may be ready to be an above average NFL quarterback, or maybe more than that. He may have the potential to be a Rich Gannon type, and that's pretty good.

by jonnyblazin :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 5:57pm

Just like Sorgi and Painter, right?

by Will Allen :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 6:12pm

Nope, not much like them at all, or at least not much like Sorgi (never saw Painter in college). Sorgi was the typical Wisconsin qb prior to Russell Wilson; average, at best, athlete by NFL qb standards, but the recipient of very sound and consistent coaching. Weber is an above average athlete, pretty intelligent by all accounts, but had bad and/or inconsistent coaching until he entered the NFL.

by justanothersteve :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 9:06pm

You got that right. The history of QB at Wisconsin pre-Wilson is mediocre at best. On one list I saw Sorgi didn't make the top 5 (though he may have ranked #6 or #7), though those listed don't make you yearn for Badger days of QB yore; 4-1 was Randy Wright, Scott Tolzien (Wilson's immediate predecessor), Brooks Bollinger, and topped by Darrell Bevell. Yes, the bar for stellar QB play is pretty low in Madison. And I used to live there. http://www.examiner.com/wisconsin-badgers-football-in-madison/top-5-badg...

by CoachDave :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 2:48pm

The Broncos are $40MM under the cap.

John Fox will basically hand the offense to him and say "knock yourself out".

He doesn't have to play his brother, nor be in the NFC.

And he doesn't have to play for Harbaugh, a well noted world class a-hole with control issues.

This decision was a no brainer...either it was going to be the Titans or the Broncos in my book and Tenn is extremely far away from being competitive.

by bravehoptoad :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 3:51pm

And he doesn't have to play for Harbaugh, a well noted world class a-hole with control issues.

WTF? No one who's every played for him has said that. Are you just making stuff up?

Peter King: His brain tells him San Francisco. His heart tells him Denver.

So it's true...his move to Denver was a "no-brainer." If he'd been using his brain, he'd have gone to SF.

by dmstorm22 :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 3:58pm

I think his brain could tell him Denver also.

The AFC is largely seen as the weaker conference by some measure. The 49ers might have been the better team with Manning than Denver, but with SF, he would have to compete with Green Bay, New Orleans, Detroit, Chicago, Atlanta, Philadelphia, a rising Panthers team and of course, the defending champs.

In the AFC, it really is like Houston, New England, Baltimore and Pittsburgh. I think the AFC is definitely more easily winnable, but the Broncos just aren't as good as the 49ers.

by CoachDave :: Tue, 03/20/2012 - 5:11pm

No, I'm not making stuff up...beyond naming names...I'll just point to his repeated "dickish" public issues this guy has created at Stanford, w/ the PAC-10 office, with Jim Schwartz, Sean Payton, etc. and just imagine if that's what he's like in public...imagine what he's like behind closed doors.

by Karl Cuba :: Tue, 03/20/2012 - 5:49pm

After a 13-3 debut season I think that most 49ers fans would let him piss off Jim Schwartz every day and still not care one little bit.

by bravehoptoad :: Tue, 03/20/2012 - 7:58pm

He's a dick because rival coaches don't like him? Dude. Really. Check out what his players, current and former, say about him. They practically glow.

by Sophandros :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 3:11pm

Regarding Tebow, what if they trade him to Carolina to be Newton's backup?

Sports talk radio and sports message boards are the killing fields of intellectual discourse.

by Kal :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 4:15pm

That would make a fair amount of sense. He's not remotely as good as Newton but could still at least run the offense in a similar way. Plus they just got Tolbert, so trading something like Stewart or DWill for Tebow makes sense for both teams.

Interesting thought.

I'd also laugh given Newton and Tebow's history.

by Rafi89 :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 4:27pm

Sure, and they should pick up Dennis Dixon as well! Then they could come out with sets with all 3 of them on the field at the same time! I dunno if I'm joking or not.

by Sifter :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 4:43pm

Philly could have done this if they'd kept Vince Young and traded for Tebow. Vick, Young, Tebow is a pretty holy trinity of super hot college QBs.

by Kal :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 4:46pm

Yeah, I think that would have been a shoo-in for a BCS #1 preseason ranking.

by Rafi89 :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 6:14pm

As an FYI: I laughed out loud at this comment.

by resident jenius :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 5:01pm

I could get behind that if the pick was low enough (6th or 7th round) and Tebow was willig to restructure to a back-ups contract. I think a goal-line package of Newton, Tebow and Stewart in the backfield would be killer to defend against.

by ChicagoRaider :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 3:36pm

I guess my question is why a QB with a questionable neck wants to play in the same division as Richard Seymour. Seymour does not fear 15 yard penalties.

by Ben :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 4:40pm

Except he doesn't have a questionable neck... The big question is whether his arm strength will return.

by ChicagoRaider :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 6:17pm

I heard he was cleared by doctors. Did they say that the fixed neck as as-good or better than the original?

by akn :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 6:54pm

No doctor would ever claim he could make someone better than pre-injury.

by tuluse :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 8:06pm

Not even Alex Murphy's doctors?

by commissionerleaf :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 8:17pm

Tommy John?

by Shattenjager :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 9:02pm

The doctor's name was Frank Jobe.

by akn :: Tue, 03/20/2012 - 9:46am

And Dr. Jobe himself denied that it made pitchers better. He attributed the increase in velocity after the surgery to a combination of two things:

1. Increased focus on conditioning after surgery
2. Tommy John surgery is done on a ligament that has been frayed and damaged over a long period of time (i.e., over years). If a healthy pitcher with a perfectly good ulnar collateral ligament had the procedure, he doubted velocity would improve.

by BaronFoobarstein :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 8:21pm

Rudy Wells!

by justanothersteve :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 3:41pm

There's still an amazing domino effect going on here. Along with the Tebow implications, will Alex Smith go back to the 49ers or have they burned that bridge? How do Hasselbeck and Locker feel in Tennessee?

I am one of the few who think there will be some competition for Tebow in a trade, but I don't see him going for anything better than a #3. Miami. Jax. Maybe some team with an attendance problem (Cards?).

by Kal :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 4:17pm

I suspect strongly that we'll have Alex Smith sign today or tomorrow. That unless Miami goes nuts and pays him franchise-level money he'll go back and take his 8mil and be a pissed 49er.

by Karl Cuba :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 4:32pm

Reports are that Smith and his team are negotiating their little socks off with the Dolphins.

The question for the 49ers is to what extent is Kaepernick capable of replicating Smith's performance for $8m less per year, which could be spent on a long term deal for Bowman.

by dmstorm22 :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 5:34pm

They could have really used Jason Campbell. They put their eggs in the Manning basket, and it might bite them.

by Will Allen :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 4:07pm

If Alex Smith feelings are so hurt that he even has slight reluctance in going back to be the starting qb for that roster, then Alex Smith is a bleepin' fool.

by zenbitz :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 7:16pm

serious. It's not like the niners brass was interviewing Matts Flynn and Hasselback. It's PEYTON MANNING. If Alex Smith doesn't realize that he is not currently and will never be as good as Peyton, well, he's deluded.

by TMI (not verified) :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 4:44pm

Is it possible that Peyton chose Denver because there wasn't a young QB on the roster?

Tennessee & SF just last year invested relatively high picks on QBs. Maybe he believed that in a year or 2, either team might decide to give their young guy a chance.

No such problem in Denver.

by The Hypno-Toad :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 6:28pm

Wait... What?

by The Hypno-Toad :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 6:45pm

Okay, never mind, brain caught up with reality now.

by Karl Cuba :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 9:23pm

I'm assuming you looked into a mirror and got Hypo-toaded.

by The Hypno-Toad :: Tue, 03/20/2012 - 1:22am

It happens more frequently than I'd like to admit... You'd think that with my eyes making this horrible noise all the time, I'd remember not to look at them in the mirror.

by dbostedo :: Tue, 03/20/2012 - 8:39am

[robotic voice] That noise is not horrible ... it's wonderful. [/robotic voice]

by Danish Denver-Fan :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 5:39pm

The trade value of Tebow is absolutely irrelevant. The Broncos would GIVe picks to get rid of Tebow.

Brilliant move, this. It was the only way to get rid of Tebow in a controllable fashion - PR wise.

by Shattenjager :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 6:17pm

I don't think even this is going to work perfectly. My sister still lives in Colorado and she says that people at her job have been complaining all day because "Tebow is better than Manning."

by Danish Denver-Fan :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 6:20pm

Oh absolutely - it'll still be messy. But this is the only way the Broncos aren't kicked out of town for getting rid og Tebow.

by Shattenjager :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 6:46pm

It's at least the best chance they've got.

by Lothar (not verified) :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 6:47pm

Yep, heard this from a few customers at work today. It'll pass. A few of the right-wing radio talkers who had adopted Tebow purely due to his devout beliefs will make a fuss for a little while but I think once OTAs start, they'll be the silent few. The vast majority of people are very excited, with some reservations, as they should be. I liked Tebow, appreciated what he was able to do with as little as he has, but that freaking circus needs to leave town ASAP. I couldn't take it anymore.
Rumors have Tebow to NE for Mallett. If true, I'll take that in a heartbeat.

by Mr Shush :: Tue, 03/20/2012 - 6:47am

I'm sort of simultaneously horrified and intrigued. Um . . . what's the outline of the "case" for Tebow > Manning?

by Danish Denver-Fan :: Tue, 03/20/2012 - 7:17am

Well for one thing Manning hasn't won a game in 14 months.

by Mr Shush :: Tue, 03/20/2012 - 9:06am

Ah, of course. The Broncos would have done better to sign Orlovsky instead. Putzes.

by Tim R :: Tue, 03/20/2012 - 10:12am

Although not John Beck

by Mr Shush :: Tue, 03/20/2012 - 10:45am

True enough. But Gabbert - absolutely Gabbert.

by Shattenjager :: Tue, 03/20/2012 - 10:52am

It's entirely based on politics and religion, not football.

by Mr Shush :: Tue, 03/20/2012 - 11:08am

In a way, I suppose that's almost reasonable. If you genuinely don't feel winning should be the overwhelmingly primary goal of the franchise, it plausibly makes sense to favour a player who advances your political or other views over one who will enable your team to win more games.

However, I imagine that's an unimportant enough constituency for the Broncos that their opposition won't make Elway's life too uncomfortable.

by Shattenjager :: Tue, 03/20/2012 - 11:37am

It is a very large constituency, particularly in Colorado. One organization in Colorado Springs has a particular habit of getting involved in such things, most notably the television series Dancing with the Stars (the existence of which still perplexes me, but anyway). (I will not say anything else about them--Rule 1.) During the season, a couple of different polls found something like 40-45% of people who knew about Tebow said that his "success" was a result of "divine intervention."

It's not actually that they don't think winning should be the goal--it's that they think "god" is on Tebow's side and thus they will win with him.

by Independent George :: Tue, 03/20/2012 - 11:48am

Is that really it, though? Kurt Warner is every bit as religious, and when he played, he was every bit as public about his religion. So why does Tebow inspire such a media frenzy but not Kurt Warner?

by bravehoptoad :: Tue, 03/20/2012 - 12:11pm

Warner was never (while in the public eye) as young and pretty as Tebow. Also never won a Heismann or a national championship.

by justanothersteve :: Tue, 03/20/2012 - 12:11pm

There have been plenty of very openly religious people on pretty much every major franchise in every major sport. You might as well ask why does a video go viral or why is an average talent like Justin Bieber a star or why back in the 70's everybody bought a pet rock. You could analyze pop culture phenomena your entire life and it wouldn't help. These things happen. All you can do is accept it and go from there.

by Shattenjager :: Tue, 03/20/2012 - 12:24pm

Trying to explain that without a Rule One violation is difficult.

I think it comes down to the aforementioned Colorado Springs religious-political organization. They have become much, much more concerned with the entertainment industry (sports included) in the last decade. (A star always gets the most coverage, because s/he is considered most interesting, when s/he hits the scene, so it's when they arrived that's relevant for this discussion. Tebow arrived a decade after Warner.) It identified Tebow as its star early on and has pushed him ever since. Warner did not have anything comparable.

It also matters a great deal that Tebow is much better looking and unmarried--that's another entire avenue of attention he gets that Warner, having been married since 1997, never got.

by tuluse :: Tue, 03/20/2012 - 12:35pm

I think Warner also had an interesting story that didn't involve religion at all (the whole grocery bagger to NFL MVP story line), so basically there was more to talk to about with Warner.

Also, it seems to me that Warner was outward with his religion than Tebow, but this could easily just be a product of how the media treated each of them.

by Mr Shush :: Tue, 03/20/2012 - 12:56pm

"It also matters a great deal that Tebow is much better looking and unmarried--that's another entire avenue of attention he gets that Warner, having been married since 1997, never got."

So you're saying it's not about Kurt Warner, it's about Tammy Warner?

by Aaron Brooks Go... :: Tue, 03/20/2012 - 1:41pm

Kurt Warner outwardly had talent and skill, so his success was explainable in a logical construct. Tebow does not. Therefore his success must be a reflection of faith, because it is not logical.

by Will Allen :: Tue, 03/20/2012 - 11:56am

Where's Cecil B. DeMille when you need him; this has the makings of an Epic Biblical Action Flick! John Elway as Judas Iscariot! Peyton Manning as Pontius Pilate! Demaryius Thomas as Saint Peter! Merrill Hoge as a pharisee!

We all know who Belichik is......

by Theo :: Tue, 03/20/2012 - 12:16pm

I seriously question someones sanity if he thinks that. It makes no sense on so many levels it's not even funny anymore.
Quinn could be next though, since he's in Kansas City now. One good game and it's Devine Quinntervention.
On a side note. Can we have a Manning topic and a Tebow topic if we continue this thread in another one?

by Mr Shush :: Tue, 03/20/2012 - 12:35pm

But that's 40-45% of people who have heard of Tebow, not 40-45% of people who buy Broncos merchandise or what-have-you, right? Surely most actual Bronco fans would rather have Manning? No? Please?

by Shattenjager :: Tue, 03/20/2012 - 1:15pm

Probably, but I'm betting it's a lot closer than you might think.

by The Hypno-Toad :: Tue, 03/20/2012 - 1:34pm

Mercifully, after an outburst of wailing and gnashing of teeth among the startling number of evangelical Broncos fans I know (12 years of religious school in the Denver area will do that, I guess) there seems to be a settling down going on, where people realize that Peyton Freaking Manning is coming to the Broncos.

by Mr Shush :: Tue, 03/20/2012 - 2:26pm

Maybe they should look at it this way: Peyton Freaking Manning is coming to the Broncos, therefore God really must be a Bronco fan.

by Independent George :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 7:11pm

Well, to be fair, Tebow was better than Manning last season, and there is a non-zero chance that he could be better than him this season (that is, Manning playing four games and then being forced to retire due to injury).

I don't think that's likely, and I assume that the Broncos coaches and team doctors have a much better idea of those chances than I do, but it is within the realm of possibility.

by The Hypno-Toad :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 6:32pm

The Broncos would GIVe picks to get rid of Tebow.

This. Exactly this. I've been talking to some Tebow faithful on facebook and around Denver, and trying to explain this in a slightly less (honest? confrontational?) way.

by Kal :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 7:44pm

Try to sell it to them not as the Broncos getting rid of Tebow, but as Tebow going on a mission to convert even more teams to Tebowmania. They'll understand.

by commissionerleaf :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 8:05pm

Tebow to 49ers.

by Will Allen :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 8:21pm

Representing the Niners at the San Franciso Pride parade!

by bigtencrazy (not verified) :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 8:33pm

May his finish not be a Favrian finish filled with pain, frustration and despair.


Oh, sorry. Back to Manning.

Good luck fella!!!

by AJ (not verified) :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 8:42pm

I still feel like denver offers next to nothing compared to sf beyond having elway and massive cap. The offensive weapons are almost a wash between thomas vs crabtree and davis. Defense is pretty one sided in favor of sf even if you factor in the natural course of regression.

The ultimate point was-manning CAN potentially make denver very successful but that also assumes hes going to play at his level for sustained numbers of years. The pt really should have been...manning needs to go to a team that has talent where doesnt have to win the games by himself all the time. The last decade proved that manning led colts teams really cant win with manning doing everything. In fact, the year they won the sb was the one year his defense and running game didn't complete faceplant. You would think year after year of being a one man team he would've gone for something different but instead, i really can't c denver being anything other than another 1 man team with slightly more talent.

by Will Allen :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 10:39pm

People have a tendency to go overboard. Yes, the Niners have a better roster. No, that doesn't mean the Broncos are "next to nothing" by comparison. A defense with two excellent edge pass rishers can potentially fix their other problems fairly quickly. Unless you've graded both teams out on all thier film last year, I'd be careful in asserting that the Niners offensive line is significantly better. If the Broncos get Mike Wallace, which II would think is a possibility, the Niners could be within shouting distance of the Niners receiver corps, or even just as good, depending on what Randy Moss is these days. The Niners best defensive player is 32, and the day is going to come, probably withing the next two years, when that guy, Justin Smith, cannot maintain the energy level he regularly does for an entire game.

I like the Niners roster better. I also think that Peyton Manning is likely pretty astute in the film room, and if the Broncos were next to nothing, I doubt he;d be signing with them.

by Karl Cuba :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 11:07pm

Will, I'd take Thomas and Decker over Crabtree, Manningham and Moss in a heartbeat. However, the best defensive player on the 49ers is a guy named Willis.

by Will Allen :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 11:19pm

I'm really fascinated with the experiment that is going to be run in Denver this year, as to what happens to an offensive line and receiver corps when a guy who throws like he should be still running a college spread offense is replaced by a Football Mainframe, with at least adquate throwing ability.

As to the Niners defense, I love Willis, but it is just about impossible for any linebacker to be as valuable as a defensive lineman who dominates the opponent from either the inside or outside.

by dmstorm22 :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 11:51pm

I love Willis, and I think San Fran has four to five very good to great defensive players (Aldon Smith, Carlos Rogers - at least for them in 2011 - Navarro Bowman, Willis and Justin).

I totally agree with you though. If you rewatch the two playoff games for the 49ers from this past year, Justin Smith was the most dominant guy on teh field. I haven't really keyed in on who was trying to block him, but no one on the Saints, who have three good interior o-lineman, could. The Giants fared a little bit better. Just a monster.

by Independent George :: Tue, 03/20/2012 - 8:01am

I think you have it backwards - the Giants got utterly destroyed by Justin Smith. The Saints actually fared decently against him.

by Aaron Brooks Go... :: Tue, 03/20/2012 - 8:51am

And by decently, you mean a double-team by two All-Pros more or less balanced him out.

by Will Allen :: Tue, 03/20/2012 - 9:22am

There were plays when Carl Nicks fought Smith to a draw one on one. That's why Nicks just became pretty wealthy.

by Independent George :: Tue, 03/20/2012 - 10:03am

I would call that a considerable improvement over getting flattened regularly, with or without help.

by RickD :: Tue, 03/20/2012 - 3:27pm

There's no shame in judicious use of a double team. It's how the Giants kept Wilfork in check during the Super Bowl.

by dmstorm22 :: Tue, 03/20/2012 - 12:43pm

Maybe I have to rewatch it, but I remember the Saints, considering who they were putting up against Smith, to have a lot more trouble than I expected. I don't remember him playing substantially better against the Giants, which was suprising considering the lesser quality of their guards.

by Independent George :: Tue, 03/20/2012 - 12:55pm

I think you need to re-watch the NFC Championship game, particularly the second half. After a slow start, Smith completely demolished everyone who had the misfortune to match up against him. I've never seen a single defensive lineman completely take over a game like that before.

by dmstorm22 :: Tue, 03/20/2012 - 2:48pm

I'll rewatch it again. I remember being more impressed with Smith in the NO game, and everyone in that front in the NYG game, but it appears I am wrong.

by bigtencrazy (not verified) :: Tue, 03/20/2012 - 2:59pm

Reggie White did that a few times in a Packer uniform. It's pretty incredible to see a 300 lb offensive lineman go flying because White got leverage with his famous 'club' move. And I do mean flying. The O-lineman would be caught off-balance and White would throw him aside like it was nothing.

by RickD :: Tue, 03/20/2012 - 3:29pm

Reggie White should have won the Super Bowl MVP for what he did to Max Lane.

Oh, but Desmond Howard made one kick return. (MVP voters are idiots.)

by Will Allen :: Tue, 03/20/2012 - 12:57pm

Smith spent a lot more of the game against the Giants lined up outside, because he was pushing back Diehl as if Diehl was on roller skates.

by dmstorm22 :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 10:43pm

Denver offers the AFC. Which a lot of people feel is easier than the NFC, and that the good teams in the AFC are all on their back-9 (Steelers, Ravens, Pats - at least as far as Brady is concerned). Manning is as well. But not having to face the NFC, with a slew of good teams is definitely a plus.

by tunesmith :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 10:54pm

I'll probably warm up to this over time - after all, it is Peyton Manning - but, just speaking as a long-time Broncos fan (not speaking for ALL long-time Broncos fans), this is tough to swallow.

Ever since Elway retired, there was all this wailing about who could ever replace John Elway, and we had this long history of quarterbacks that didn't fit. Brister, Griese... Jake Plummer wasn't bad but he wasn't great either. Then Shanahan got desperate with his personnel choices, and Cutler was a jerk.

So when Fox and Elway came in the front office, there was all this talk about building from the draft, and valuing our young talent, and things started getting exciting again. As a Broncos fan that wanted the Broncos to win last season, Tebow and his effect on the team was definitely exciting.

So just from the standpoint of Tebow being a quarterback that was drafted by Denver, had improved a lot already, had a good work ethic, and hadn't reached his ceiling yet, it's disappointing to see him (probably) go.

I also am dubious about Manning but will be happy to be proven wrong. Outside of his injury, he's been away from the game for a year, is older, and was starting to look mortal in his last active season, and I'm not sure if that was all because of the neck.

Tebow became a starting quarterback at one team, and I wouldn't bet against his chances at becoming a starting quarterback again. And if that happens, then it sucks to consider that it might be possible that Tebow wins more super bowls than Denver over the course of Tebow's career.

by Will Allen :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 11:13pm

If the guy who replaces Manning is no better than, oh, I dunno, Joe Flacco or Alex Smith, I'd say the Broncos have a better chance of hoisting a trophy than whatever team Tebow plays for. No, it is not impossible for Tebow to become an average NFL passer, and thus an above average NFL qb, but I'd be happy to give 5-1 odds against it. Look at what the teams who played Tebow twice did to him the 2nd time around.

by tunesmith :: Tue, 03/20/2012 - 3:19am

Hmm... Tebow's played Oakland twice, and won the second time. San Diego twice, and won the second time (and outscored them in the extra half in the game in between). KC he won, then lost. He lost to New England both times.

by Will Allen :: Tue, 03/20/2012 - 3:47am

Do we really need to get into whether quarterbacks win games?

by RickD :: Tue, 03/20/2012 - 3:32pm

Only if Skip Bayless shows up here for some reason.

Caught him on the radio this morning. Had the good sense to change to NPR before I drove into a tree.

by justanothersteve :: Mon, 03/19/2012 - 11:22pm

Cutler was the best post-Elway QB the Broncos had. He plays through losing a ton of weight and other physical problems due to undiagnosed diabetes, plays great, puts up with all the "He's not Elway" BS, and people still want to toss him under a bus simply because he let it known that he wasn't happy after being backstabbed by Josh McDaniels. It wasn't his fault the defense sucked when he was the QB.

by The Hypno-Toad :: Tue, 03/20/2012 - 1:20am

I've argued most of that same position since Cutler left. But in my opinion, while Cutler would have become the best post-Elway Bronco QB with another season or two, as it stands, I have to lay that dubious crown on Jake Plummer's head.
But yes, not primarily Cutler's fault he left, the mediocrity of the team had very little to do with his play, and due to being kind of a surly jackass, he was really unfairly judged by a lot of vocal fans.

by Mr Shush :: Tue, 03/20/2012 - 6:54am

"I also am dubious about Manning but will be happy to be proven wrong. Outside of his injury, he's been away from the game for a year, is older, and was starting to look mortal in his last active season, and I'm not sure if that was all because of the neck."

I'm really not convinced he was. To my eyes, Manning was still absolutely incredible in 2010, but the team had fallen to pieces around him. The offensive line, in particular, had gone from being merely pretty bad to absolutely shambolic. The non-QB elements of the 2010 Colts were probably worse than the 2011 Colts.

I have no idea how he'll come back from the injury, but Elway and Fox presumably do, given that they've seen him throw.

by Will Allen :: Tue, 03/20/2012 - 8:20am

I'll second that. I'd never seen a qb play at such a level, with such horrible offensive line play, or at least I'd never seen it since I was a wee child, and saw Tarkenton with the Giants.

by SandyRiver :: Tue, 03/20/2012 - 12:31pm

Agree with this, too, and the fun thing is that they are/were such different QBs. There's some similarities - both with quickness in reads, decisions, release, but after that... Manning the classic pocket QB with very strong arm and accuracy arguably as good as anyone who ever played the game, and who ran only when there was no alternative, and then only as far as is prudent. Francis' arm was about average, for an NFL QB, and while he was accurate, he'd never claim the precision bombing that has characterized Manning's career. However, Tarkenton - while not the best "running QB" - was IMO the best ever escape artist. Getting hold of him was like catching waterbugs with a teaspoon.

by Will Allen :: Tue, 03/20/2012 - 12:53pm

Another similarity, both sold play action unebelievably well. Tarkenton in particular hid the ball better than anyone I've seen. He'd fake a handoff behind Ron Yary and Ed White, two spectacular drive blockers, and then drift back, shoulders perpendicular to the line of scrimmage, with the ball held in his right (throwing hand), resting on his right hip, away from the line of scrimmage. Defenders would take forever to find the ball, and occasionally safeties would assume pass if they couldn't see the ball in the running back's hands, fail to come up, and sure enough, the running back would be past them. Chuck Foreman once scored on about a fifty yard run in a playoff game against the Rams in that manner.

What was great about Tarkenton's scrambling is that he kept his eyes looking downfield better than anyone I've seen.

by Ben :: Tue, 03/20/2012 - 9:46am

I'll third that, I guess. What a lot of people forget about the 2010 season was that the Colts were 6-6 before they won their last 4 to make the playoffs. That team was already coming apart at the seams, and it was Manning that was holding it together. last years 2-14 wasn't quite as shocking when looked at in that light.

To a non-Colts fan who hasn't watched Manning play week in and week out for the last 14 years, it's hard to overstate how many deficiencies he can cover up with his play.

by Bernie (not verified) :: Tue, 03/20/2012 - 10:37am

Not to mention that Reggie Wayne was his only healthy receiver at the end. Austin Collie, Anthony Gonzalez and Dallas Clark were lost for the season & Pierre Garcon missed about 6 weeks of the second half. His receiving corps consisted primarily of Wayne, Jacob Tamme and Blair white, with a smattering of Taj Smith thrown in. Throw in the fact the running game was in absolute shambles, and Manning still threw for 4700 yards, and 30 touchdowns. Not exactly on the downslope of his career.

by Kal :: Tue, 03/20/2012 - 2:11pm

Well, that was his worst year since 2003 as far as other stats - passer rating, ypa and ypc, DVOA and DYAR. It looked decent, but after 8 years of 40% DVOA or higher he dipped to 25%.

I think it was an anomaly as well - but it is a reasonable point of evidence that Manning is in his decline if you want to look at it that way.

by Bernie (not verified) :: Tue, 03/20/2012 - 6:11pm

Well, it's reasonable to assume he will be less productive purely for the fact that he's only human and 36 years old. Something has to give eventually. But I think a Manning in decline is a better prospect than a Tebow or a Sanchez in their prime.

by Will Allen :: Tue, 03/20/2012 - 6:24pm

I still can't get my mind wrapped around the notion that Peyton Manning, whose arm strength may be rapidly approaching normal,and might be mentally the best ever, was allowed to become a free agent, and I'm not ripping Irsay when I say that. It's just the strangest damned set of circumstances, and as I've said elsewhere, it is the greatest examination, of what superior qb play is worth, that we have ever had, if his health is good.

by Anonymous123421 (not verified) :: Tue, 03/20/2012 - 7:15pm

No, the Polians and Irsay totally mismanaged this process. Aside from their poor drafting the last couple of years, they signed Manning to that ridiculous deal in 2011 without verifying that he'd be healthy for the 2011 season. Who gives an injured player $20 mm to sit out 2011, with a $28 mm roster bonus due before free agency in 2012? Pure insanity...

Now, the Denver contract is how you structure one for a great player coming off a serious injury.

by Will Allen :: Tue, 03/20/2012 - 7:31pm

Yes, Condon controlled the process, that much is true.