What to do at QB?

[grizmo78]

If PS2 / Stokes swap is part of the deal you have to consider that the equivalent of 2 first round picks... That's what the difference was between Pick 9 and Pick 29. No chance I'm also including more than 2 more FRP.

I'd say Rogers is probably worth around the equivalent of 3 1st rounders. If the Packers want the picks + Lock/Bridgewater + Patrick? That's fine and probably ideal for us. If they wan't players involved, then be prepared to take less "value". Again, PS2 is the equivalent of the #9 pick. Jeudy is the equivalent of a 1st rounder. Fant has lived up to his 1st round pick and I'd say is equivalent of a 1st rounder as well. Sutton is no question our #1 WR and a Pro Bowler, idc if he's coming off an injury, and is equivalent of a 1st rounder (would be more if not for his contract coming up). Those are the valuations, so if they want 3 firsts, take your pick how you want them.

I will say, of the players I mentioned above, I would much rather deal Chubb than them despite having less depth behind him. IMO he's an above average player who is going to get paid like a perennial 1st team pro bowler.  

Also, while I think Tim Patrick is a nice player, he's both over valued by Broncos fans, and undervalued by @CWood21/others by calling a player who received a 2nd round tender a fringe roster spot. He's a great #3 WR (not slot) and is probably valued around a 4th/5th rounder. 

[AnAngryAmerican]

2 minutes ago, grizmo78 said:

If PS2 / Stokes swap is part of the deal you have to consider that the equivalent of 2 first round picks... That's what the difference was between Pick 9 and Pick 29. No chance I'm also including more than 2 more FRP.

I'd say Rogers is probably worth around the equivalent of 3 1st rounders. If the Packers want the picks + Lock/Bridgewater + Patrick? That's fine and probably ideal for us. If they wan't players involved, then be prepared to take less "value". Again, PS2 is the equivalent of the #9 pick. Jeudy is the equivalent of a 1st rounder. Fant has lived up to his 1st round pick and I'd say is equivalent of a 1st rounder as well. Sutton is no question our #1 WR and a Pro Bowler, idc if he's coming off an injury, and is equivalent of a 1st rounder (would be more if not for his contract coming up). Those are the valuations, so if they want 3 firsts, take your pick how you want them.

I will say, of the players I mentioned above, I would much rather deal Chubb than them despite having less depth behind him. IMO he's an above average player who is going to get paid like a perennial 1st team pro bowler.  

Also, while I think Tim Patrick is a nice player, he's both over valued by Broncos fans, and undervalued by @CWood21/others by calling a player who received a 2nd round tender a fringe roster spot. He's a great #3 WR (not slot) and is probably valued around a 4th/5th rounder. 

I’d rather deal a defensive starter (Chubb) than an offensive starter unless the offensive player is an interior OL. I’ve heard Glasgow mentioned, why I’m not sure, but okay, but between Risner/Muti/Cush/Meinerz I think we can find 3 viable starters and have a rotational backup if Glasgow was included. 

With Vic we can get away with losing a defensive stud rather than deprive Aaron of you a young weapon. I’d also deal Patrick or Hamler well before Sutton, Jeudy or Fant. 

 

[Broncofan]

1 minute ago, grizmo78 said:

If PS2 / Stokes swap is part of the deal you have to consider that the equivalent of 2 first round picks... That's what the difference was between Pick 9 and Pick 29. No chance I'm also including more than 2 more FRP.

I'd say Rogers is probably worth around the equivalent of 3 1st rounders. If the Packers want the picks + Lock/Bridgewater + Patrick? That's fine and probably ideal for us. If they wan't players involved, then be prepared to take less "value". Again, PS2 is the equivalent of the #9 pick. Jeudy is the equivalent of a 1st rounder. Fant has lived up to his 1st round pick and I'd say is equivalent of a 1st rounder as well. Sutton is no question our #1 WR and a Pro Bowler, idc if he's coming off an injury, and is equivalent of a 1st rounder (would be more if not for his contract coming up). Those are the valuations, so if they want 3 firsts, take your pick how you want them.

I will say, of the players I mentioned above, I would much rather deal Chubb than them despite having less depth behind him. IMO he's an above average player who is going to get paid like a perennial 1st team pro bowler.  

Also, while I think Tim Patrick is a nice player, he's both over valued by Broncos fans, and undervalued by @CWood21/others by calling a player who received a 2nd round tender a fringe roster spot. He's a great #3 WR (not slot) and is probably valued around a 4th/5th rounder. 

Yes, let's be clear on Patrick - he's giving around Rd4 value.  Nothing more.   

Patrick & Bridgewater combined might be the equivalent of a 3rd rounder....maybe.  

Surtain vs. Stokes definitely counts as a 1st, so if Paton is offering 2022 1st/2nd, Surtain/Stokes & Bridgewater (with or without Patrick), I don't see anyone beating it, nor the need to surpass the offer.   It also meets the criteria of keeping us competitive to win now.    I'd be on board with it. 

If we needed to deal 3 1sts and Bridgewater/Patrick, I'd be fine with that too.  But 2 firsts + Surtain/Stokes & Bridge is about as high as I go (Patrick doesn't bother me enough to let him get in the way of the deal).

 

[Broncofan]

7 minutes ago, AnAngryAmerican said:

I’d rather deal a defensive starter (Chubb) than an offensive starter unless the offensive player is an interior OL. I’ve heard Glasgow mentioned, why I’m not sure, but okay, but between Risner/Muti/Cush/Meinerz I think we can find 3 viable starters and have a rotational backup if Glasgow was included. 

With Vic we can get away with losing a defensive stud rather than deprive Aaron of you a young weapon. I’d also deal Patrick or Hamler well before Sutton, Jeudy or Fant. 

 

If Sutton is going, then there's no Surtain/Stokes swap.   Jeudy IMO is off the table given the $ implications, and the fact Sutton is going to be pricey - and again, the point about Patrick/Sutton providing the same role, makes zero sense to keep those 2 and deal Jeudy.  It doesn't help us win games to have 2 similar style guys who should play the same position.  Realistically keeping Sutton, Chubb & A-Rod is not how we stay competitive for A-Rod's next years - and Paton isn't doing this just for 2021, he's got 2021, 2022 & 2023 in mind (as a minimum).    It doesn't have to be Sutton, but if any WR is going, it should be either Sutton or Patrick - Patrick's worth to GB is obviously a lot lower in a deal.

I get GB won't just take guys who are about to be expensive either, but I don't see that Paton, whose resumé is all about roster construction, would sign off on keeping the expensive talent and trading away the cheap talent.   I'd think we'd see 3 1sts gone (and Bridge, nothing else) or 2 1sts plus Surtain/Stokes swap (because Stokes is cheap too), before including Jeudy or Surtain straight up.

Edited May 6, 2021 by Broncofan

[AnAngryAmerican]

6 minutes ago, Broncofan said:

If Sutton is going, then there's no Surtain/Stokes swap.   Jeudy IMO is off the table given the $ implications, and the fact Sutton is going to be pricey - and again, the point about Patrick/Sutton providing the same role, makes zero sense to keep those 2 and deal Jeudy.  It doesn't help us win games to have 2 similar style guys who should play the same position.  Realistically keeping Sutton, Chubb & A-Rod is not how we stay competitive for A-Rod's next years - and Paton isn't doing this just for 2021, he's got 2021, 2022 & 2023 in mind (as a minimum).    It doesn't have to be Sutton, but if any WR is going, it should be either Sutton or Patrick - Patrick's worth to GB is obviously a lot lower in a deal.

I get GB won't just take guys who are about to be expensive either, but I don't see that Paton, whose resumé is all about roster construction, would sign off on keeping the expensive talent and trading away the cheap talent.   I'd think we'd see 3 1sts gone (and Bridge, nothing else) or 2 1sts plus Surtain/Stokes swap (because Stokes is cheap too), before including Jeudy or Surtain straight up.

The point about Sutton and Patrick is one I meant to include, they’re similar players who fill one role. Sutton has expense + injury while Patrick is cheap and healthy but not as accomplished. 

If the deal is 3 1sts (either picks alone or picks + players) + one of the QBs, I think you just do it.

Getting Aaron is going to cost us something valuable, be that a young offensive weapon, Chubb/Surtain or just 3 firsts, but it’s worth the price. 

[Broncofan]

8 minutes ago, AnAngryAmerican said:

The point about Sutton and Patrick is one I meant to include, they’re similar players who fill one role. Sutton has expense + injury while Patrick is cheap and healthy but not as accomplished. 

If the deal is 3 1sts (either picks alone or picks + players) + one of the QBs, I think you just do it.

Getting Aaron is going to cost us something valuable, be that a young offensive weapon, Chubb/Surtain or just 3 firsts, but it’s worth the price. 

My only amendments would be Surtain isn't likely going on his own without Stokes back (because then it's worth 2 mid-20's firsts, and we also need to think how to roster the secondary when likely 1, if not 2 of the top 4 CB's leave), and Jeudy/Fant being off the table, given you can't replace their role (Fant is unlikely to be the guy the Pack target, since they have Robert Tonyan, aka Baby Kittle - great nickname lol).

[jolly red giant]

2 hours ago, AnAngryAmerican said:

I’d rather deal a defensive starter (Chubb) than an offensive starter unless the offensive player is an interior OL. I’ve heard Glasgow mentioned, why I’m not sure, but okay, but between Risner/Muti/Cush/Meinerz I think we can find 3 viable starters and have a rotational backup if Glasgow was included. 

With Vic we can get away with losing a defensive stud rather than deprive Aaron of you a young weapon. I’d also deal Patrick or Hamler well before Sutton, Jeudy or Fant. 

 

I agree about Chubb - I don't think the Broncos could afford to extend him with Rodgers hitting the cap numbers.

Again - I don't think Sutton will be part of the package for the reasons you mentioned - and I have said recently that Jeudy could be dealt. He would have another 4 years on a rookie contract - and I think he is immature and has shown no signs of growing up. I get the route running and separation stuff - but he has to learn to focus on his game, keep his mouth shut and catch the ball.

[germ-x]

No one knows what this deal could look like.  Broncos fans want it to lean in their favor and Packers fans want it in theirs, as @CWood21 has shown.

At the end of the day it really comes down to if Rodgers is willing to go to multiple teams that can start a bit of a bidding war.

As much as Packers fans don’t want to admit it.  Aaron Rodgers holds all the cards.  They’ll get what Rodgers allows and by that, if he hasn’t zeroed in on 1 team.  

The entire, “the starting point is X” from the Packers is laughable.  The Packers aren’t calling the shots.  Rodgers is and I don’t even agree with it.  It’s just the nature of sports now.

Edited May 7, 2021 by germ-x

[germ-x]

I’ll also add.  As a Bronco fan I want Rodgers.  He instantly makes Denver a top 5 team in the NFL......but I can’t stand Aaron Rodgers the person.  He’s an absolute clown and has been and is one of the most selfish athletes in sports and that’s saying something.  

My wife’s side of the family are mostly Packer fans and I’ve told them this for years and get hammered for it.  All of a sudden they all agree.

Good thing for Denver or any team trading for him he’s so near the end of his career entering a new organization that he can’t ruin the system the way he has in GB.  

[AkronsWitness]

1 hour ago, germ-x said:

I’ll also add.  As a Bronco fan I want Rodgers.  He instantly makes Denver a top 5 team in the NFL......but I can’t stand Aaron Rodgers the person.  He’s an absolute clown and has been and is one of the most selfish athletes in sports and that’s saying something.  

My wife’s side of the family are mostly Packer fans and I’ve told them this for years and get hammered for it.  All of a sudden they all agree.

Good thing for Denver or any team trading for him he’s so near the end of his career entering a new organization that he can’t ruin the system the way he has in GB.  

I'm more worried about the price it takes to get him. Everything I've been seeing is 2 firsts + Sutton + Teddy and maybe even more.

Idk man.....

I understand Rodgers gives the Broncos a legit shot at Superbowl for a few years but that is a STEEP price to pay for a 38 year old QB who maybe has 2-3 really good years left.

If he was 35 then yeah, but he's pushing 40. I'm not sure how comfortable I feel giving up all of those draft picks + great players like Sutton or Chubb in the process.

I don't want to keep beating a dead horse but that is another reason why I would have just taken Fields. I would have liked my chances of either Lock/Fields panning out to be a controllable franchise QB more than I like giving up the moon for a 3 year 'all or nothing's Rodgers stint.

Edited May 7, 2021 by AkronsWitness

[fattlipp]

Didn’t the Niners offer the #3, and 2 future 1sts and a 2nd...

that’s higher than the 9

Think it will take Surtain, Sutton, and 2 1sts... with maybe a 4th coming back...may they would throw in King...

.

 

Edited May 7, 2021 by fattlipp

[Cutler06]

40 minutes ago, fattlipp said:

Didn’t the Niners offer the #3, and 2 future 1sts and a 2nd...

that’s higher than the 9

Think it will take Surtain, Sutton, and 2 1sts... with maybe a 4th coming back...may they would throw in King...

.

 

Please show me where that was offered ?? Niners paid 3 number1's to get to number 3, to add 2 MORE 1's a a 2nd is just a bold LIE IMO. No way ant NFL team would pay 5 #1's, a #2 and a #3 for a 38yo QB....pipe-dreamin'

I did hear they offered the #3 pick but I need proof they offered the rest. Given that you brought that BS, obvious you just trolling here.

 

[BroncoBruin]

49 minutes ago, fattlipp said:

Didn’t the Niners offer the #3, and 2 future 1sts and a 2nd...

that’s higher than the 9

Think it will take Surtain, Sutton, and 2 1sts... with maybe a 4th coming back...may they would throw in King...

.

 

That hasn't been reported anywhere and for good reason. The 49ers don't have another first round pick until 2024. Not sure where you got that info from, but it's laughably wrong. 

[broncosfan_101]

1 minute ago, Cutler06 said:

Please show me where that was offered ?? Niners paid 3 number1's to get to number 3, to add 2 MORE 1's a a 2nd is just a bold LIE IMO. No way ant NFL team would pay 5 #1's, a #2 and a #3 for a 38yo QB....pipe-dreamin'

I did hear they offered the #3 pick but I need proof they offered the rest. Given that you brought that BS, obvious you just trolling here.

 

The rumoured offer was 1.3, Garoppolo, and “other picks and players.” In this situation, it’s pretty clear that “other picks and players” means “filler.” Remember the Bears offer for Russy Wilson that was three 1sts and two starters and everyone went nuts, only to find out the two starters were Hicks and Fuller (a 32 year old overpaid DL and a corner who was about to get cut)?? When part of the offer is specific and part of it isn’t, that generally means either the offering team wants to make their offer sound serious, or the receiving team wants to start up a bidding war. 
 

1.3 + Garoppolo + filler was the offer. 

[broncosfan_101]

We better get Rodgers, you guys, because I SURE AS HELL DON’T WANT ANOTHER 105 PAGES ABOUT THE QB POSITION OVER THE NEXT YEAR