Jump to content

What to do at QB?


What is your preference for the QB spot?  

51 members have voted

  1. 1. What is your preference for the QB spot?

    • Keep Drew Lock as the starter for 2021
      19
    • Draft a rookie in the 1st round and make him the starter
      13
    • Trade for/sign an established vet (Stafford, Wentz, Ryan)
      13
    • Trade for/sign a journeyman vet (Fitz, Tyrod) to compete with Lock
      6


Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, thebestever6 said:

Apparently Watson is close to settling things are about to get really interesting. Carolina and Philly are reported to still be interested. Got to imagine we would be too.

Honestly, if he goes to Philly I'd love to grab Hurts he offers a different dynamic than Lock and Teddy. Him with Williams in the backfield may be magical.

Tall glass of no thanks 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, Dbrog24 said:

Watson though, that could be very interesting right now with the Rodgers stuff going on with us. Idk though...part of me just feels Watson is going to be trouble no matter where he goes now. These allegations indicate a habit and habits don't change easily. Certainly doesn't fit with what the Broncos have been building with "high character" guys

Watson's behaviour, if accurate and there appears to be independent evidence to corroborate the law suits, has all the hallmarks of the actions of a sexual predator. Predators do not change. Anyone who touches Watson after this should be ostracised. If the Broncos make any approaches for Watson then there should be condemnation from the fans and a refusal to play with him by the players, along with calls for the immediate sacking of Paton. I would prefer to see Kendall Hilton as the Broncos starting QB for the next 15 years than to ever see Watson in a Broncos uniform. 

If the Broncos sign Watson then they will lose a fan of nearly 40 years, I will have a big bonfire in my backyard to remove all the Broncos materials from my home and I will condemn them at every opportunity.

Edited by jolly red giant
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jolly red giant said:

Watson's behaviour, if accurate and there appears to be independent evidence to corroborate the law suits, has all the hallmarks of the actions of a sexual predator. Predators do not change. Anyone who touches Watson after this should be ostracised. If the Broncos make any approaches for Watson then there should be condemnation from the fans and a refusal to play with him by the players, along with calls for the immediate sacking of Paton. I would prefer to see Kendall Hilton as the Broncos starting QB for the next 15 years than to ever see Watson in a Broncos uniform. 

If the Broncos sign Watson then they will lose a fan of nearly 40 years, I will have a big bonfire in my backyard to remove all the Broncos materials from my home and I will condemn them at every opportunity.

Even if this goes to civil court (where the threshold for guilty is MUCH lower) and he were to be found innocent?

I agree that where there’s smoke there’s usually fire, but IF he is found innocent by the courts then it’s not up to the courts of public opinion to decide his fate anyway based off of allegations. remember it was false allegations that led to AJ Johnson being out of foot ball for a couple of years. Brian banks comes to mind. And these were all women drummed up by the Texans owners lawyer in retaliation for him wanting to force his way out, so we can’t say that there’s no motive. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, broncos_fan _from _uk said:

Even if this goes to civil court (where the threshold for guilty is MUCH lower) and he were to be found innocent?

I agree that where there’s smoke there’s usually fire, but IF he is found innocent by the courts then it’s not up to the courts of public opinion to decide his fate anyway based off of allegations. remember it was false allegations that led to AJ Johnson being out of foot ball for a couple of years. Brian banks comes to mind. And these were all women drummed up by the Texans owners lawyer in retaliation for him wanting to force his way out, so we can’t say that there’s no motive. 

Watson is not going to set foot in a court - every tiny scrap of dirty linen will come out if he does. The reason for the silence at the moment is the expectation that Watson's lawyers are talking to Buzbee in an effort to play off the plaintiffs (and pay-off that will undoubtedly involve significant sums of money, a non-disclosure agreement and no admission of guilt). 

This case is different to AJ - that was one woman and Johnson was found not guilty. As a side note - statistics show that less than 20% of rape and sexual assault cases are ever reported to any authorities (that includes the cops, rape crisis centres, counsellors etc). Of the cases reported to the cops - less than 8% ever get to court and of those that go to court less than 6% ever result in a conviction. As a rapist you stand a less than 1 in 100 chance of conviction. Most rape cases come down to 'she says' / he says' and without corroborating forensic evidence or witness testimony there is almost never a conviction. In contrast - less than 2% of all rape allegations reported to the cops are false allegations - of these less than 6% ever get to court and when they do the cases invariably collapse very early on. You are 200 times more likely to be falsely convicted of murder than you are to be falsely convicted of rape (and in the US a lot of the false rape convictions have an undertone of racism involved).

The Watson case is completely different. It is known that he used instagram to trawl for masseuses - that he hired over 40 female masseuses over a period of a few months (during a pandemic) - that 23 women filed lawsuits against Watson with claims ranging from inappropriate sexual behavoiur to sexual assault (one woman withdrew her lawsuit because she didn't want her name disclosed publicly). We also know that prior to the earliest case of women involved in the lawsuit, there was another masseuse who was hired by Watson - that she reported to members of her family, her close friends and a therapist what had happened and established evidence of a pattern of behaviour from Watson long before the lawsuits were filed (and this woman is not involved in any of the lawsuits). We also know that 2 months prior to the incidents involved in the lawsuits that Watson's management was notified by at least two other women reporting Watson's behaviour and requesting financial compensation. We also know that Watson's management company repeatedly warned Watson to stop trawling instagram for masseuses - and that Watson did not stop. We also know that the cops are engaged in a criminal investigation and have interviewed a number of women about allegations and that there appears to be evidence of instagram messages from Watson to a number of the women involved in the lawsuits. We also know that sexual activity occurred in at least some of these encounters as Watson's lawyers have claimed that such activity was consensual.

Watson's bahaviour has all the hallmarks of a predator - despite being warned to stop, he continued to act in a predator fashion with a significant number of women. The problem for any team that recruits Watson is that he appears to have shown predatory behaviour and has shown that, even when repeatedly warned to stop, he has been unable or unwilling to stop. And this does not even approach the nature of Watson's attitude towards women - and the right of all women to engage in work without any threat of inappropriate sexual behaviour or sexual assault.

No team should touch Watson after this episode - but given the macho nature of the NFL and the fact that the NFL generally views such behaviour as relatively minor in comparison to other issues - I would not be surprised to see someone willing to put Watson on a roster (probably after a year's suspension). If they do they are opening up a whole can of worms for themselves - and the Broncos should want no part of this.

Edited by jolly red giant
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, jolly red giant said:

As a side note - statistics show that less than 20% of rape and sexual assault cases are ever reported to any authorities (that includes the cops, rape crisis centres, counsellors etc). Of the cases reported to the cops - less than 8% ever get to court and of those that go to court less than 6% ever result in a conviction. As a rapist you stand a less than 1 in 100 chance of conviction. Most rape cases come down to 'she says' / he says' and without corroborating forensic evidence or witness testimony there is almost never a conviction. In contrast - less than 2% of all rape allegations reported to the cops are false allegations - of these less than 6% ever get to court and when they do the cases invariably collapse very early on.

Your stats are biased. They are based on the assumption that every allegation is true. The total number is from a survey conducted by a NGO (non governmental organization) at 3 colleges that asked questions such as “have you ever regretted a one night stand” and “have you ever had sex while drunk” and counted that as rape. They then projected out for every woman in the untied states. That’s where we get the 1 in 4 number. 
 

then they looked at the total number of reports and found that to be 1/5 of their projected number and concluded that must mean 80% go unreported.

then making the assumption that all reported rapes where true they looked at convictions (as you said it’s usually he said she said) and got the 8% and 6% figures. Again all based upon a bad premise.

Compare that to the 2% number. It’s not 2% of allegations are false. It’s that 2% are demonstrably false. Using the same bad arguments as above I could argue that since only 6% are demonstrably true then 94% of all rape allegations are false. See how absurd that sounds? 

So we have 6% are demonstrably true and 2% are demonstrably false. 92% we don’t know. We can assume they are all true but that is just as bad as assuming they are all false.

There needs to be actual studies conducted but that will never get IRB approval (I tried as an undergrad). Mainly because the people who approve the conduction of these studies are profiting from the fear and publishing trash like this: 

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/38607065-how-to-destroy-a-man-now-damn

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6546314-how-to-destroy-a-man-in-one-easy-step?ac=1&from_search=true&qid=N8YRo9jUwL&rank=1

im not saying he’s innocent. I’m not saying that the Broncos should trade for him. I AM saying that if the man is found not guilty that we should let this ruin his life. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Would much prefer Watson to Rodgers if the comp is in the same ballpark. Rodgers a better option than the status-quo but the window to compete is short with Rodgers, indefinite with Watson

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, broncos_fan _from _uk said:

Your stats are biased. They are based on the assumption that every allegation is true. The total number is from a survey conducted by a NGO (non governmental organization) at 3 colleges that asked questions such as “have you ever regretted a one night stand” and “have you ever had sex while drunk” and counted that as rape. They then projected out for every woman in the untied states. That’s where we get the 1 in 4 number. 
 

then they looked at the total number of reports and found that to be 1/5 of their projected number and concluded that must mean 80% go unreported.

then making the assumption that all reported rapes where true they looked at convictions (as you said it’s usually he said she said) and got the 8% and 6% figures. Again all based upon a bad premise.

Compare that to the 2% number. It’s not 2% of allegations are false. It’s that 2% are demonstrably false. Using the same bad arguments as above I could argue that since only 6% are demonstrably true then 94% of all rape allegations are false. See how absurd that sounds? 

So we have 6% are demonstrably true and 2% are demonstrably false. 92% we don’t know. We can assume they are all true but that is just as bad as assuming they are all false.

There needs to be actual studies conducted but that will never get IRB approval (I tried as an undergrad). Mainly because the people who approve the conduction of these studies are profiting from the fear and publishing trash like this: 

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/38607065-how-to-destroy-a-man-now-damn

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6546314-how-to-destroy-a-man-in-one-easy-step?ac=1&from_search=true&qid=N8YRo9jUwL&rank=1

im not saying he’s innocent. I’m not saying that the Broncos should trade for him. I AM saying that if the man is found not guilty that we should let this ruin his life. 

I really don't want to derail the thread - but I do think it is necessary to take up what you are claiming.

Firstly - it is necessary to look at the two books you link to. The first was written by a business psychologist (whose job in part it is to assist companies dealing with allegations of sexual harassment and sexual misconduct) - it was self-published and has not and will not be peer-reviewed. The second was written by an attorney and was published by a vanity publishing house - again - not peer-reviewed. The premise of both of these books is that women consciously abuse the legal system to attack men. This is demonstrated by the blurb on the back cover of the book by Owen Esquire which states 'men's rights have to be protected as well as women's right's'. The issue of domestic violence is not about 'rights' - it is about power and the exercise of power by one person in a relationship over another. All acts of sexual and physical violence in relationships are power based. Furthermore, the judicial system in the USA is an adversarial system (as it is in Britain and Ireland) that lends itself to only acting on foot of serious allegations. 

I have carried out extensive research into the topic of sexual violence using a range of reports and research (not just in the USA but from Europe as well). I did this as part of a campaign in Ireland for the repeal of an anti-abortion constitutional amendment where anti-abortion groups were attacking the right of victims of sexual violence to abort a foetus that resulted from rape (including claims by the anti-abortion groups that false rape allegations were common). The most significant research into rape is the research conducted by police departments and by rape crisis centres. I would have to dig out my research to provide the links to the various reports but the statistics that I have provided are based on extensive studies by statutory bodies and peer-reviewed institutions and I am not in a position to do find the information I put together at the moment.

The research demonstrates that the number of false rape allegations are a very small fraction of the number of rapes reported to the authorities - and that those false allegations rarely proceed beyond the investigation phase. The research also demonstrates that only a minority of rapes cases are reported to the police and that only a small fraction of those ever proceed to trial. 

There is an utter misapprehension that women indiscriminately make accusations of rape against men - again the research shows that this is most definitely not the case. In fact women are very reluctant to ever make any allegations for a variety of reasons.

I did some brief googling - and RAINN report the following about the USA :

13% of all students experience rape or sexual assault through physical force, violence, or incapacitation (among all graduate and undergraduate students).

Among graduate and professional students, 9.7% of females and 2.5% of males experience rape or sexual assault through physical force, violence, or incapacitation.

Among undergraduate students, 26.4% of females and 6.8% of males experience rape or sexual assault through physical force, violence, or incapacitation.

These statistics come from David Cantor, Bonnie Fisher, Susan Chibnall, Reanna Townsend, et. al. Association of American Universities (AAU), Report on the AAU Campus Climate Survey on Sexual Assault and Sexual Misconduct (January 17, 2020).

To demonstrate how the false allegation claims are blown out of proportion - here is an article from Neal Davis law firm in Houston who specialise in defending people accused of sexual crimes.  The article is entitled 'False Campus Rape Accusations Are Common' and outlines 35 alleged cases of false allegations of rape from all over campuses in the USA - mostly from 2016-2017 but including cases dating back to 1990, 1991, 2005, 2009, 2013 and 2014. 

https://www.nealdavislaw.com/blog/sex-crimes/false-campus-rape-accusations

Now - for context - there are approximately 20 million college students in the USA - the research shows that potentially 13% of them are victims of sexual violence - that would be a total of 2,600,000 victims of sexual violence in campuses in the USA with that number rotating every four years. Compare that figure to the 35 cases of false allegations that Davis references dating from 1990. Can you reasonably claim that 35 cases of false claims in those circumstances amount to 'False Campus Rape Accusations Are Common'?

I will briefly repeat what I said earlier - Watson's behaviour displays all the hallmarks of a predator and he should never play another down in the NFL.

Edited by jolly red giant
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

In a bubble you take Watson 9 out of 10 times over Rodgers at this point of their careers. However even if Watson gets cleared of his situation I think he’s probably facing a suspension and his best chance at getting a new team would be to get released by Texans. 

If he was cleared I would still take Watson but I would probably want a contract clause and require him to get treatment/counseling.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, broncosfan07 said:

In a bubble you take Watson 9 out of 10 times over Rodgers at this point of their careers. However even if Watson gets cleared of his situation I think he’s probably facing a suspension and his best chance at getting a new team would be to get released by Texans. 

If he was cleared I would still take Watson but I would probably want a contract clause and require him to get treatment/counseling.

I’m not so sure. Watson’s legal troubles notwithstanding, Rodgers has led his team to back to back 13-3 record and NFCCG appearances. Watson put up Star Wars numbers and went 4-12 last year. And don’t give me the supporting  cast argument; Green Bay’s is better yes but not 9 wins better. 

I’ll take the proven winner, 3-time MVP and Super Bowl champion for 4-5 years at the same price. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, AnAngryAmerican said:

I’m not so sure. Watson’s legal troubles notwithstanding, Rodgers has led his team to back to back 13-3 record and NFCCG appearances. Watson put up Star Wars numbers and went 4-12 last year. And don’t give me the supporting  cast argument; Green Bay’s is better yes but not 9 wins better. 

I’ll take the proven winner, 3-time MVP and Super Bowl champion for 4-5 years at the same price. 

While Rodgers seems like the better choice, to bang on Watson (other than some very BAD choices he's made), you have to consider the difference between the two organizations. Houston has been a poorly run organization, made stupid trades, overpaying and undervaluing players, bad coaches (letting Kubiak go when he had them going in a good direction), sucky drafting while Green Bay has been pretty stable, good mgmt and a nice drafting history. Given that (just my opinion) but Rodgers, while not the dumbass a young and STUPID Watson has presented himself to be, the real question is what type of diva issues will Rodgers bring here given stronger competition (in the AFCW alone) he'll face here ??

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/11/2021 at 3:57 PM, broncosfan07 said:

He traded for someone that’s at best a backup, only 1 time in the last 20 years has a backup won a SB and it’s pretty obvious now that the reason why that SB was won is a HC in Indy now. 

I’m sorry but the days of getting by with simply average QB play are gone just like a 400 carry RB. Defenses may win championships but you don’t win championships if you don’t make the playoffs it is that simple. Bridgewater and Lock are nothing more than average, decent enough to keep you from being the Jags but bad enough to keep you from being a perennial playoff team. And I for one am sick of mediocre QB play, I am sick of these Osweiler, Lynch, Lock type QBs being drafted, I am sick of journeymen, over the hill QBs like Keenum, Flacco and Bridgewater being trotted out there as if I’m supposed to have any confidence in them. 

 

Paton should very well be concerned by the QB position because it has been pathetic and that is how he will be judged.

This exactly!  Over and Over again.  Lock and Bridgewater will fail without a doubt.  Lock is not going to improve drastically enough to make a difference and Bridgewater is mediocre at best.  Why we keep continuing this loop of insanity is beyond me.  For those people that believe we can win with the QB crew we currently have, you are in for disappointment.  Next year around this time we will be talking about how we should of at least tried to grab a QB in the playoffs.  We can debate back and forth all we want, but I will let the season do the speaking for me.  Without Rodgers we will not make the playoffs.  Yes we have a good core of players, we can't win with below avg QBs and horrible coaching.  Not being negative, just being realistic. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AnAngryAmerican said:

I’m not so sure. Watson’s legal troubles notwithstanding, Rodgers has led his team to back to back 13-3 record and NFCCG appearances. Watson put up Star Wars numbers and went 4-12 last year. And don’t give me the supporting  cast argument; Green Bay’s is better yes but not 9 wins better. 

I’ll take the proven winner, 3-time MVP and Super Bowl champion for 4-5 years at the same price. 

I think if you knew you’d get Watson clear of any legal issues for the next 10+ years it would depend on what each team is asking. I don’t think you can fault Watson for last year, O’Brien was an idiot who was not only a terrible coach but traded way the only real offensive threat they had for a washed up RB. But at the end of the day I don’t think it matters because I doubt Watson is getting traded anytime soon much less to Denver.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/10/2021 at 6:56 PM, BroncoBruin said:
I can imagine there’s some frustration from Paton, just with the timing of it all. He’s put together a hell of an offseason but the Rodgers stuff puts everything in a new context. I heard he wasn’t happy with the reaction to the Surtain pick and having to answer questions about the QBs that night.

I can understand his frustration but the league only giving DEN one primetime game is pretty telling.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bMiller031 said:

I can understand his frustration but the league only giving DEN one primetime game is pretty telling.

Feels like that's an indictment more on the ownership than the team itself.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...