The Broncos... looking at a possible 1st Overall pick.

A lot of people are saying that we should keep Tebow since we already drafted a QB, and draft Fairley 1st overall, if we end up with that pick.

I don't know if anybody noticed... but Tebow played... THE RAIDERS!!!! They suck! They just happen to not suck as much as we do at the moment.

Let's see how Tebow does againt a weak Houston D, and the Chargers. Now, if the Chargers have something to play for, we should get an idea of Tebow's ability against a real NFL defence.

I think that if we get a crack at Luck, we have to take it. Look at the franchise QBs out there and look at where they were drafted. Brady is a huge exception.

McNabb (5), Vick (1), Manning (1), Eli Manning (1), Rivers (4), Ryan (1), Rodgers (20s...but projected top2), Roethlisberger (7), Stafford (1), Bradford (1), Cutler (11)(I know, I know).

Brady, Brees, Flacco (he's kind of a big game whiffer though), Schaub (same deal), Cassell, Henne... much later picks.

I mean, sure there are as many misses as hits in the top10 for QBs...Couch, Leaf, Young, Leinart, Carr, Smith, Harrington, Russell (that shouldn't count though based on Al Davis being retarded.)...but the fact remains that if you want an ELITE/Top 10 in the league QB, you pretty much have to have a top10 pick.
I've been a Broncos fan all my life (since 1988) and in that time the highest player I can remember drafting is Cutler... and he could have been that QB we were looking for just outside the top10. (Jury is still out on him big time).

Someone above cited the Lions as the example, taking WRs even though they didn't need them... they missed, missed, missed (Rogers was made of glass tho...talent didn't fail him) and then BAM Calvin Johnson!

The Broncos have never really had a shot at a number 1 pick (other than Elway, and that was a trade).  It's not an exact science at the top, but if you want to have that elite QB, which is necessary to win in the NFL, you have to take him top10. How can the Broncos pass up a shot at Luck, who is said to be the best pro QB prospect in ages?

Everyone is saying Fairley is the safe pick, but Dline bust as much as QBs. Richard Seymour...taken after Big Money... That's like comparing Manning and Leaf. If you miss, it sets you back another 3-4 years. But if you nail it, you're playoff bound for the next 5-10, and you can build towards a Superbowl. I personally think that's where Denver would be now had they kept Shanny and hired Nolan as D co-ordinator without McD ever coming over, but I digress. (Wow is it frustrating to be a Denver fan right now...I'm getting derisive text msgs from BILLS fans!!!)

All this said, I think that you can make the case for taking a shot at Andrew Luck (if we have the number#1 pick) with a simple baseball analogy. It's the bottom of the ninth, bases are loaded, two outs, trailing 3-0. You have a choice. You can have 3 .300 average players coming up to the plate (Crawford, Jeter, Mauer) or you can have an A-rod/Hamilton ball masher coming up followed by a normal catcher and second baseman. Wouldn't you rather the guy who is going to be most likely to blast a Grand Slam? Rather than have to rely on 3 singles to win it? I know I would. I think with a #1 pick for the first time in franchise history, you don't choke up on the bat and trade down because of a "need". You swing for the fences.

This is totally out of character for me, because I am a Defence/Running game type of guy. (I know, I know...HOW am I a Broncos fan?) If I thought Denver was SERIOUS about building a dominant D, then I would keep Tebow, draft Petersen or Akamura or Fairley, and keep drafting D every year, 3RDs out of every first 4RDs until the unit was 2000 Ravens dominant, and let Tebow, Moreno manage the clock and run a lot. However, I can't see Denver ever committing to becoming that type of smashmouth team. So I say, swing for the fences if Luck declares and we have the 1st.