The direction of the Broncos in the near future.

[BroncoSojia]

1 hour ago, wackywabbit said:

K. You evaluate Flacco much differently than me. Clearly (some) people who matter think he's a clear upgrade over Case Keenum, who put up very good number in a great situation in Minnesota.

Regardless of that, what exactly is the cost that you are worried about? That 4th round pick? There is no long term money. The $18.5M in one-year salary matters less than a late round pick in terms of how it affects a teams ability to compete with a salary cap that is over 10 times that. If, as you put it, a "Tebow-esque" QB can beat out Flacco, than shouldn't whatever young QB the Broncos bring in be able to do the same?

You can't evaluate a move without considering the cost and there really isn't much here. When the Redskins traded for Alex Smith at the same stage of his career, they gave up a 3rd round pick AND a quality young corner AND gave him $71M guaranteed. That is the kind of move that can actually set back a team. If Flacco hurts his back in traning camp and never takes a snap, then the Broncos can move on in 2020, paying him 0 additional money, and would be able to forget the move in 2021.

NFL personnel people make blunders all the time. FWIW, I do not believe that he is. Flacco and Keenum has had similar stats over recent years. The main reason some people consider Flacco better is because of his perceived better arm strength and better passing downfield. The only problem is that Flacco's numbers in that category (YPA, YPC, ANY/A) are all bottom 5 over the last 4 years. Hell according to this article, https://brickwallblitz.com/2019/02/22/the-2018-19-deep-ball-project-part-1-3/ Keenum was a better deep passer than Flacco was last year!

 

So we gave up a 4th and took on $18 mill for a QB that's maaaaybe an slight upgrade (more like a lateral move) over the one we already had. Keenum is still getting a boatload of money on a contract that no one is going to trade for. If we cut him that's $7 mill in dead cap. This was a horrible trade.

[bzane]

Well, okay, I for one think that John Elway is a splendid fellow, and almost as good at running a football team as he was at quarterbacking!

 

And I wish him well- to the point where I, as a Giants' fan, would be willing to let him have Eli Manning (slight upgrade over Flacco, who was a slight upgrade over Keenum, who was a slight upgrade over Lynch, who begat Osweiler.....), in the hope that lightning might strike twice for Denver, and this for the low-low price of only the Broncos' next three first-round draft picks!

Go Eli! Go Denver! All the way, Elway!

[Jakuvious]

32 minutes ago, wackywabbit said:

Uh... both the Rams and Eagles traded from outside the top 5 to get their QBs. The Rams went from 15 to get got Goff. Wentz has also never been in the playoffs. So, Trubisky is the only example of reward for "struggling"? Yea... he's not the reason they were in the playoffs. 

So again, I don't understand what people mean by "rebuilding" and what examples can be provided for it executed properly?

Identifying a QB you love and making an aggressive move for him is smart move, but it has nothing to do with rebuilding. Clearly being a terrible team the year before hasn't been a requirement to getting that guy.

They both had losing seasons the year before and after grabbing their franchise QBs. The year before left them in a position to get them, and the year after reflected their willingness to accept growing pains from them. Does the Rams going 4-12 in Goff's rookie year not count as a rebuilding season to you? The Eagles going 7-9 in 2015 and 2016 while they changed coaches and QBs. The Colts transition from Manning to Luck and the roster/staff changes that coincided. I will admit I thought the Rams 4-12 season was pre-Goff, not post-Goff, so my bad there.

You're confusing rebuilding with tanking. It doesn't mean intentionally losing. It means accepting that you aren't going to be good enough right now and shifting your moves towards future building instead. Like starting a rookie QB and ending last in the division or having a losing season instead of grabbing a retread to keep treading water. It isn't about getting a reward for struggling, it's accepting the fact that you're going to struggle either way, and pushing your investment towards the future instead of the present. It's about making moves as a team that wants to compete in 2-3 years, as opposed to the moves of a team that think they can compete now.

And getting and developing a young QB is an absolutely huge portion of rebuilding. The reason you never see the Patriots rebuilding is because they have Brady. As soon as he retires, they'll have to. As long as they have had Brady, even if the rest of the roster has had issues, it's not a rebuild because he'll keep them competitive during.

The Broncos don't need to tank. They don't need to go 2-14 or anything like that. But if they're going to go 6-10, they're better off doing so with a young QB and roster that can at least improve in that time, than with a veteran core. No one is blasting the Bills, or Jets or Browns for their losing seasons because there is potential for growth next year. But when the Broncos go 6-10 with half their starters in their late 20s or 30s, and a QB who is not going to get better, there's no promise from that losing season. It's just a lost season.

[BroncoSojia]

17 minutes ago, Jakuvious said:

They both had losing seasons the year before and after grabbing their franchise QBs. The year before left them in a position to get them, and the year after reflected their willingness to accept growing pains from them. Does the Rams going 4-12 in Goff's rookie year not count as a rebuilding season to you? The Eagles going 7-9 in 2015 and 2016 while they changed coaches and QBs. The Colts transition from Manning to Luck and the roster/staff changes that coincided. I will admit I thought the Rams 4-12 season was pre-Goff, not post-Goff, so my bad there.

You're confusing rebuilding with tanking. It doesn't mean intentionally losing. It means accepting that you aren't going to be good enough right now and shifting your moves towards future building instead. Like starting a rookie QB and ending last in the division or having a losing season instead of grabbing a retread to keep treading water. It isn't about getting a reward for struggling, it's accepting the fact that you're going to struggle either way, and pushing your investment towards the future instead of the present. It's about making moves as a team that wants to compete in 2-3 years, as opposed to the moves of a team that think they can compete now.

And getting and developing a young QB is an absolutely huge portion of rebuilding. The reason you never see the Patriots rebuilding is because they have Brady. As soon as he retires, they'll have to. As long as they have had Brady, even if the rest of the roster has had issues, it's not a rebuild because he'll keep them competitive during.

The Broncos don't need to tank. They don't need to go 2-14 or anything like that. But if they're going to go 6-10, they're better off doing so with a young QB and roster that can at least improve in that time, than with a veteran core. No one is blasting the Bills, or Jets or Browns for their losing seasons because there is potential for growth next year. But when the Broncos go 6-10 with half their starters in their late 20s or 30s, and a QB who is not going to get better, there's no promise from that losing season. It's just a lost season.

I agree with the Chiefs fan. Blech. 

[wackywabbit]

21 minutes ago, Jakuvious said:

They both had losing seasons the year before and after grabbing their franchise QBs. The year before left them in a position to get them, and the year after reflected their willingness to accept growing pains from them. Does the Rams going 4-12 in Goff's rookie year not count as a rebuilding season to you? The Eagles going 7-9 in 2015 and 2016 while they changed coaches and QBs. The Colts transition from Manning to Luck and the roster/staff changes that coincided. I will admit I thought the Rams 4-12 season was pre-Goff, not post-Goff, so my bad there.

You're confusing rebuilding with tanking. It doesn't mean intentionally losing. It means accepting that you aren't going to be good enough right now and shifting your moves towards future building instead. Like starting a rookie QB and ending last in the division or having a losing season instead of grabbing a retread to keep treading water. It isn't about getting a reward for struggling, it's accepting the fact that you're going to struggle either way, and pushing your investment towards the future instead of the present. It's about making moves as a team that wants to compete in 2-3 years, as opposed to the moves of a team that think they can compete now.

And getting and developing a young QB is an absolutely huge portion of rebuilding. The reason you never see the Patriots rebuilding is because they have Brady. As soon as he retires, they'll have to. As long as they have had Brady, even if the rest of the roster has had issues, it's not a rebuild because he'll keep them competitive during.

The Broncos don't need to tank. They don't need to go 2-14 or anything like that. But if they're going to go 6-10, they're better off doing so with a young QB and roster that can at least improve in that time, than with a veteran core. No one is blasting the Bills, or Jets or Browns for their losing seasons because there is potential for growth next year. But when the Broncos go 6-10 with half their starters in their late 20s or 30s, and a QB who is not going to get better, there's no promise from that losing season. It's just a lost season.

So it's not about intentionally losing, it's about unintentionally losing? Seriously, I don't see any actionable strategy here.

As I said, trading for Flacco does nothing to stop you from drafting your QBoTF. The last team with Flacco just did it. Is the actionable item that you need to clear the room of veteran QBs so that the rookie QB gets handed the starting job right away?

Again, elite QB or not,  all of the best/championship winning franchises: Pats, Eagles, Giants, Ravens, Colts, Packers, Broncos, Steelers, Packers.... I've never seen any of these teams avoid moves that would make them better so that they could unintentionally lose or what not to be good in 2-3 years. Even when they had bad seasons, it was because of unexpected injuries or the like. There was never a mentality that we can't compete for 2+ years. It was an unwelcome surprise when they had bad seasons.

[7DnBrnc53]

1 hour ago, BroncoBruin said:

The Paxton Lynch pick killed the franchise, everything else is pretty inconsequential compared to that miss. They wasted two years with a talented roster trying to develop him, and I really think last year part of their rationale in not taking a QB was that they were STILL clinging to hope that he'd figure it out. Three years down the drain because of one horrible draft pick. 

Lynch was a mistake right from the start, no question. QBspeak.com said that the team that drafts him will need a new QB in two to three years:

https://web.archive.org/web/20160310074554/http://qbspeak.com/2016/02/27/video-analysis-paxton-lynch-is-a-certified-bust/

That being said, I don't think that Kubiak really put any effort into developing him. He seemed to be way more interested in Siemian because they both had similar backgrounds as far as entering the league was concerned (late round picks).

Then, Elway seemed to be obsessed with giving him second chances in 2017 despite the fact that he wasn't good enough, and he should have been cut after training camp was over that year (they also had another promising QB in Kyle Sloter that they got rid of, and they also foolishly drafted Chad Kelly).

 

[Jakuvious]

20 minutes ago, wackywabbit said:

So it's not about intentionally losing, it's about unintentionally losing? Seriously, I don't see any actionable strategy here.

As I said, trading for Flacco does nothing to stop you from drafting your QBoTF. The last team with Flacco just did it. Is the actionable item that you need to clear the room of veteran QBs so that the rookie QB gets handed the starting job right away?

Again, elite QB or not,  all of the best/championship winning franchises: Pats, Eagles, Giants, Ravens, Colts, Packers, Broncos, Steelers, Packers.... I've never seen any of these teams avoid moves that would make them better so that they could unintentionally lose or what not to be good in 2-3 years. Even when they had bad seasons, it was because of unexpected injuries or the like. There was never a mentality that we can't compete for 2+ years. It was an unwelcome surprise when they had bad seasons.

It's about making moves that benefit the future more than the present. There are tons of ways that can manifest. Contract structures (not backloading contracts in order to improve the roster now), draft priorities (taking players that may not help immediately but can have a bigger impact later like a QB or a position that isn't a need now but will be in a year or two), not resigning players who will decline before the team is ready to compete, etc.

And I've said multiple times I'm fine with the strategy if they do draft a QBOTF. History just doesn't make me trust that that's Elway's plan. If Flacco is a tutor for a draft pick, I can accept that. If Flacco is a reflection of Elway thinking he can win the superbowl next year, and his draft is going to be focused on making that happen now, then they're fools.

[Jakuvious]

43 minutes ago, BroncoSojia said:

I agree with the Chiefs fan. Blech. 

The Chiefs lived this philosophy for like 20 years, so I'm pretty experienced in it. So much time trying to make it work with the Bonos and GrBacs of the league. And admittedly at it's peak, we got close a couple times when it worked with Montana and with Green. But the success was always fleeting because of team age, and when it didn't work it was absolutely miserable.

Now I think Elway might be better at the rest of the team building process than Carl Peterson was, but it's a similar concept.

[Jakuvious]

43 minutes ago, 7DnBrnc53 said:

Lynch was a mistake right from the start, no question. QBspeak.com said that the team that drafts him will need a new QB in two to three years:

https://web.archive.org/web/20160310074554/http://qbspeak.com/2016/02/27/video-analysis-paxton-lynch-is-a-certified-bust/

That being said, I don't think that Kubiak really put any effort into developing him. He seemed to be way more interested in Siemian because they both had similar backgrounds as far as entering the league was concerned (late round picks).

Then, Elway seemed to be obsessed with giving him second chances in 2017 despite the fact that he wasn't good enough, and he should have been cut after training camp was over that year (they also had another promising QB in Kyle Sloter that they got rid of, and they also foolishly drafted Chad Kelly).

 

So admittedly, I didn't follow it all that intently, but what exactly was the deal with Paxton Lynch? I was never big on him as a prospect, but it still always confused me how little actual playing time he got. Sometimes I think teams spend too long waiting for a QB to develop or thinking someone so-so can get it done (Tannehill, Stafford, Dalton, etc.) but it surprised me that they only gave Lynch like 4 starts.

[BroncoSojia]

2 minutes ago, Jakuvious said:

The Chiefs lived this philosophy for like 20 years, so I'm pretty experienced in it. So much time trying to make it work with the Bonos and GrBacs of the league. And admittedly at it's peak, we got close a couple times when it worked with Montana and with Green. But the success was always fleeting because of team age, and when it didn't work it was absolutely miserable.

Now I think Elway might be better at the rest of the team building process than Carl Peterson was, but it's a similar concept.

There's a Chiefs fan on a certain Broncos forum I post on that brings this up ALL the time. He talks about the Broncos and Chiefs having a role reversal from their respective teams in the 90s.

Where the Chiefs have the big arm franchise QB, and the Broncos are constantly bringing in veterans and band-aids.

[BroncoBruin]

1 hour ago, 7DnBrnc53 said:

Lynch was a mistake right from the start, no question. QBspeak.com said that the team that drafts him will need a new QB in two to three years:

https://web.archive.org/web/20160310074554/http://qbspeak.com/2016/02/27/video-analysis-paxton-lynch-is-a-certified-bust/

That being said, I don't think that Kubiak really put any effort into developing him. He seemed to be way more interested in Siemian because they both had similar backgrounds as far as entering the league was concerned (late round picks).

Then, Elway seemed to be obsessed with giving him second chances in 2017 despite the fact that he wasn't good enough, and he should have been cut after training camp was over that year (they also had another promising QB in Kyle Sloter that they got rid of, and they also foolishly drafted Chad Kelly).

 

This isn't right. 2016 was meant to be a redshirt year but they definitely wanted Lynch to become the guy in 2017, and the early installs of McCoy's offense in camp featured a heavy RPO element to accommodate Lynch's strengths (lol). The problem was Siemian was just competent enough the previous year and well-liked enough by his teammates that they couldn't just hand Lynch the job. But making it a competition meant Lynch never had a chance. I would have just played him from day one in 2016 and exposed him as quickly as possible. 

They probably could have done more to help Lynch, but at the end of the day, he was just a loser. 

[BroncoBruin]

1 hour ago, Jakuvious said:

So admittedly, I didn't follow it all that intently, but what exactly was the deal with Paxton Lynch? I was never big on him as a prospect, but it still always confused me how little actual playing time he got. Sometimes I think teams spend too long waiting for a QB to develop or thinking someone so-so can get it done (Tannehill, Stafford, Dalton, etc.) but it surprised me that they only gave Lynch like 4 starts.

They wanted to redshirt him in 2016 and have him take over in 2017. Siemian being better than expected sort of threw a wrench in that transition, but Lynch had every opportunity to win the job and it really was never close. It's not like Siemian was amazing in camp, but he ran the offense smoothly and made basic throws. Lynch was all arm strength. No accuracy, no touch, no pocket presence. I remember he would take off and scramble in 7-on-7 drills in training camp, and Vance would spin it as a positive thing. On top of that, he was reputed to not have much of a work ethic, kind of a beta personality and serious confidence issues. I know Sanders and DT talked about how they'd have to pick him up in the huddle after he'd miss throws. 

They just could never justify putting him on the field at a time when they felt they should be competitive. When they finally did that second year, he got hurt halfway into his first start (which featured an incredible stat line of 9-14, 41 yards, 1 INT). I think they would have allowed him to start the rest of the way as bad as the team was. It's sort of a shame but with three years of practices, lots of preseason flops and four disastrous regular season starts, they'd seen enough.

[Kiwibrown]

the bronocs are paying two back ups QB low end starter money.
that is a problem. 

Does Elway not want to get a great QB as it would tarnish his legacy as the greatest bronos QB ever?

[AlNFL19]

I liked where they were going and though they could surprise as a 2019-20 playoff team with a better quarterback than Keenum, but I think the Flacco trade killed some of my optimism. My WAR model ranked them 12th in the NFL as a team, despite a passing offense WAR of -1.31. However, I don't think Flacco improves that enough to make them a great team in the short-term. They absolutely have to be looking for a young franchise quarterback who can actually lead them to the playoffs. Heck, I'd even have traded for Carr before the Flacco move.

[BayRaider]

If Elway truly thinks he can win the SB this year or next year I want what he’s smokin.