What to do at QB?

[BroncoBruin]

2 hours ago, thebestever6 said:

Albright has mentioned multiple times the fact that Detroit wanted Lock in a counter offer was the deal breaker so I'm not spinning it how I wanna spin it.

Nope. He later walked back on that and said it was “one of” the issues, along with moving Jeudy and not getting back the 2nd round pick. You can’t definitively say it was the dealbreaker and the fact that Ben dropped this argument is a pretty good indicator that it wasn’t.

Allbright is a good source of info, but it’s a mistake to treat everything he says as gospel. He spins information a lot. Keep in mind the show is like the official Broncos radio program. 

Edited May 10, 2021 by BroncoBruin

[bMiller031]

1 hour ago, Broncofan said:

The issue is Denver wanted a 2nd rounder back.   The value alone is the deal breaker.   Carolina offered 1.8 straight up.    And obv we know about the LAR offer. 

And didn’t DET make the LAR deal to accommodate Stafford?  1.8 in the current draft is significantly more valuable than 2 future firsts in the 20s.

[Broncofan]

8 minutes ago, bMiller031 said:

And didn’t DET make the LAR deal to accommodate Stafford?  1.8 in the current draft is significantly more valuable than 2 future firsts in the 20s.

Yup, in the end DET did Stafford a solid.     I mean, they might also prefer the deeper draft classes than 1.8 (especially since they owned 1.7).    Either way, though, DEN's draft package was a clear distant 3rd pick-wise.   Lock had zero to do with that decision.

[AnAngryAmerican]

2 hours ago, thebestever6 said:

Oh I know that was an issue as well but apparently when Detroit made a counter offer with Lock involved that was a problem too. Well see a couple more months till TC.

I wouldn't be shocked to land Rodgers while still grooming Lock for post Rodgers. Apparently NFL took the Mahomes vs Rodgers to open the season off the table and is replacing it with ravens chiefs. So I don't think it's a matter of it Rodgers is traded but when and where.

That’s interesting. Wonder if that was the plan for the Sunday night opener (usually Giants/Cowboys) because I assume Tampa will play the Thursday night opener. It’ll be curious to see how many prime time games Green Bay gets, it’ll be the max (7) if Rodgers stays but they won’t be the same draw if he’s in Denver (or wherever). 

[Cutler06]

10 hours ago, fattlipp said:

Yeah it’s not the NBA, cutting = trading in the NFL.

Without getting any return value, other than cap space 🙄

[Cutler06]

9 hours ago, BroncoBruin said:

Well, winning a Super Bowl bought Elway five years, so I’m not sure about that.

But you'd HAVE to win a SB and losing that much talent doesn't bode well in doing that.

[BroncoBruin]

4 hours ago, Cutler06 said:

But you'd HAVE to win a SB and losing that much talent doesn't bode well in doing that.

We’re talking about a package consisting primarily of future assets. 2022 and 2023 first round picks are not going to hinder a team’s chances of winning a Super Bowl this year or next year. 

[Cutler06]

2 minutes ago, BroncoBruin said:

We’re talking about a package consisting primarily of future assets. 2022 and 2023 first round picks are not going to hinder a team’s chances of winning a Super Bowl this year or next year. 

No, what AKRNA  and I were referring to was a Packer dreaming of an offer of Surtain, Sutton, Noah, Jeudy and a 1st, only one future asset there. 

 

If we're offering just draft picks,  perhaps add a player like Darby or Jewell and I'm in. 

[BroncoBruin]

1 minute ago, Cutler06 said:

No, what AKRNA  and I were referring to was a Packer dreaming of an offer of Surtain, Sutton, Noah, Jeudy and a 1st, only one future asset there. 

 

If we're offering just draft picks,  perhaps add a player like Darby or Jewell and I'm in. 

Okay, I guess I missed that context. That deal is obviously not happening so it's not even worth discussion. If a deal happens they'd get one good piece at best. And Teddy/Lock + that piece won't come close to matching the value of Rodgers. 

Edited May 10, 2021 by BroncoBruin

[Cutler06]

1 minute ago, BroncoBruin said:

Well that's obviously not happening so it's not even worth discussion. If a deal happens they get one good piece at best. And Teddy/Lock + that piece won't come close to matching the value of Rodgers. 

We all know we're adding a couple of picks to any deal for Rodgers, just can't be depleting the roster to acquire him

[BroncoBruin]

9 minutes ago, Cutler06 said:

We all know we're adding a couple of picks to any deal for Rodgers, just can't be depleting the roster to acquire him

Well they wouldn't be. The package would be built around the multiple first round picks. One core piece at best. 

But even if they did pick off 2-3 pieces from our core, the Broncos would still be better off than where they're at now. The difference between a below average starting QB and an elite QB is that massive. It would make winning a title a lot harder (but still more realistic than with Teddy/Lock at QB), but again, that proposed deal is garbage and obviously not happening.

Fans need to understand that with guys like Von, Callahan and Fuller on one year deals, the time to strike is this year. We're not winning a championship or even advancing far in the playoffs with Lock or Checkdown Teddy. Zero chance. So if that's the direction people want to go, it means they believe this team isn't capable of winning a title under any circumstances right now and they need to continue to acquire assets to get there. And if that's the case, I'm not sure when a championship window would open again because there are some difference maker vets who have 1-2 years left of high level production and the young guys will be getting paid soon. It's only going to get harder and we'll still need a quarterback. 

Edited May 10, 2021 by BroncoBruin

[BroncoBruin]

37 minutes ago, Cutler06 said:

No, what AKRNA  and I were referring to was a Packer dreaming of an offer of Surtain, Sutton, Noah, Jeudy and a 1st, only one future asset there. 

 

If we're offering just draft picks,  perhaps add a player like Darby or Jewell and I'm in. 

And looking back, AKRNA's post I quoted does seem to be a response to the three 1st round pick package mentioned by CWood, not the dream package from the homer Packers fan (but maybe I’m wrong). Personally I have no problem trading three 1st rounders to go for a championship with a loaded team. It's a mistake not to maximize your windows when they're open.

Edited May 10, 2021 by BroncoBruin

[Cutler06]

3 minutes ago, BroncoBruin said:

And looking back, AKRNA's post I quoted was responding to the three 1st round pick package mentioned by CWood, not the dream package you're referring to. I have no problem trading three 1st rounders to go for a championship with a loaded team. It's a mistake not to maximize your windows when they're open.

Well, mixed conversations then. While i believe we can give good value for Rodgers, not sure a 38yo is worth 3 1sts, but I'd consider it. If that were the case trading 3 1st for #3 (if Lance was the target) would've been the better way to go IMO. Even with Rodgers, 2-3 SB appearances would be very optimistic IMO given the talent levels on some of the competition, with no guarantee to win even one. It would be nice to be in that conversation though and those 3 1sts would be late 20's so there is that. 

 

Even so, it feels like the Packers, while they feel like they have leverage, really don't have nearly the negotiating position they think the do, I'd be prepared to give good value but not going to overpay.

[BroncoBruin]

7 minutes ago, Cutler06 said:

Well, mixed conversations then. While i believe we can give good value for Rodgers, not sure a 38yo is worth 3 1sts, but I'd consider it. If that were the case trading 3 1st for #3 (if Lance was the target) would've been the better way to go IMO. Even with Rodgers, 2-3 SB appearances would be very optimistic IMO given the talent levels on some of the competition, with no guarantee to win even one. It would be nice to be in that conversation though and those 3 1sts would be late 20's so there is that. 

 

Even so, it feels like the Packers, while they feel like they have leverage, really don't have nearly the negotiating position they think the do, I'd be prepared to give good value but not going to overpay.

Their leverage is waiting things out with Rodgers. They can drag this out into late July if they want. June 2nd opens a window to a trade being doable but they don’t need to be in a rush. Rodgers can roll into camp in August and they’d be fine. And if he doesn’t, well they’re pretty screwed anyway. There would be more urgency on the Broncos’ side. 

In the end, Rodgers will dictate how this situation plays out. If he holds firm, I think they would eventually trade him.

[jolly red giant]

9 hours ago, thebestever6 said:

Albright has mentioned multiple times the fact that Detroit wanted Lock in a counter offer was the deal breaker so I'm not spinning it how I wanna spin it.

The deal breaker wasn't Lock - it was the two first round picks and the third rounder that the Rams gave Detroit.