Jump to content

What to do at QB?

AnAngryAmerican

By AnAngryAmerican
in Denver Broncos

 Share

What is your preference for the QB spot?  

56 members have voted

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

    • Keep Drew Lock as the starter for 2021
      21
    • Draft a rookie in the 1st round and make him the starter
      15
    • Trade for/sign an established vet (Stafford, Wentz, Ryan)
      14
    • Trade for/sign a journeyman vet (Fitz, Tyrod) to compete with Lock
      6

Recommended Posts

ClockWorkOrange

ClockWorkOrange

Posted
Posted

I am questioning why people are so high on Rodgers coming to Denver... Here are the variables that I am seeing.  Please help me understand this better.

  • Has all world QB Talent, but has not lead his team to a SB appearance in the last decade... Why?
  • Would cost the Broncos something in the range of 3 firsts essentially setting the team back years in draft capitol
  • Likely only has two years left in the tank if everything goes right and he does not take a hit or slow down.
  • Would cost 40mil against the salary cap costing us 3-4 starters in opportunity signings
  • Has a history of character issues.  Family issues, teammate reports, and likely leaked all these trade rumors on draft night for personal gain or to get back at the GM causing chaos for his team.   I certainly do not see him as a Team First guy...

With the variables I am seeing I do not see this as a net gain.  I mean in GB where they did not have to give up massive draft capitol to acquire him, he was not able to get it done in the last 11 years in a weak division. Why do we think he can do it in Denver given everything we have to give up.  We would also be giving up on a guy that was one of the most explosive QBs in college football history and he did it in the SEC.  And for a negligible cap hit.  

Net loss in giving up on Lock for Rodgers:

  • Trade likely 3 first and a starter
  • Take on an estimated additional 37 mil in cap space which = 3 or 4 starters.
  • Possible locker room impact of taking on a me-first leader
  • Detracts from team culture that says... if you work hard for the team that the team will give you every chance to succeed.  Team investing in its own players...  

I do not get it...

Just a reminder.... Lock struggled his freshman and sophomore years.... He then got comfortable and threw for 99 TDs to 38 Ints in the SEC, had the second most yards in SEC history, and dominated against the best competition in college... and the stats go on and on... 4th best passer rating in SEC history.... 138.8 QB rating over 4 years and was in the 150s his junior and senior years ... He has one of the best QB stats line in college history and he did it in the SEC. If he can get comfortable he can dominate ... Here is a clip from his college scouting report. " His field vision is advanced, too, as he moves his eyes to work through progressions and does not lock onto his primary target.". He will be fine making his reads when he gets comfortable....

Help me understand... 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jolly red giant

jolly red giant

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, ClockWorkOrange said:

I am questioning why people are so high on Rodgers coming to Denver... Here are the variables that I am seeing.  Please help me understand this better.

  • Has all world QB Talent, but has not lead his team to a SB appearance in the last decade... Why?
  • Would cost the Broncos something in the range of 3 firsts essentially setting the team back years in draft capitol
  • Likely only has two years left in the tank if everything goes right and he does not take a hit or slow down.
  • Would cost 40mil against the salary cap costing us 3-4 starters in opportunity signings
  • Has a history of character issues.  Family issues, teammate reports, and likely leaked all these trade rumors on draft night for personal gain or to get back at the GM causing chaos for his team.   I certainly do not see him as a Team First guy...

With the variables I am seeing I do not see this as a net gain.  I mean in GB where they did not have to give up massive draft capitol to acquire him, he was not able to get it done in the last 11 years in a weak division. Why do we think he can do it in Denver given everything we have to give up.  We would also be giving up on a guy that was one of the most explosive QBs in college football history and he did it in the SEC.  And for a negligible cap hit.  

Net loss in giving up on Lock for Rodgers:

  • Trade likely 3 first and a starter
  • Take on an estimated additional 37 mil in cap space which = 3 or 4 starters.
  • Possible locker room impact of taking on a me-first leader
  • Detracts from team culture that says... if you work hard for the team that the team will give you every chance to succeed.  Team investing in its own players...  

I do not get it...

Just a reminder.... Lock struggled his freshman and sophomore years.... He then got comfortable and threw for 99 TDs to 38 Ints in the SEC, had the second most yards in SEC history, and dominated against the best competition in college... and the stats go on and on... 4th best passer rating in SEC history.... 138.8 QB rating over 4 years and was in the 150s his junior and senior years ... He has one of the best QB stats line in college history and he did it in the SEC. If he can get comfortable he can dominate ... Here is a clip from his college scouting report. " His field vision is advanced, too, as he moves his eyes to work through progressions and does not lock onto his primary target.". He will be fine making his reads when he gets comfortable....

Help me understand... 

1. Not getting to the SB says more about GB than about Rodgers - it was the same when Farve was the QB.

2. People over-estimate the impact of the draft capital - these FRPs would likely be in the mid- to high 20s at best. Among those we have picked in that range is the last decade or so include: Robert Ayers, Tim Tebow, Sylvester Williams, Bradley Roby, Shane Ray, Paxton Lynch. So it might cost 3 FRPs - but that, at most, is likely to be one starter and one depth player.

3. Rodgers has indicated that he wants to play into his 40s - we might only get a couple of years - but we might get 4-5 years of being a contender.

4. He will cost - but we have a young roster many of whom have multiple years on rookie contracts. If there was ever a time to get a franchise QB on a big contract it is right now.

5. By all accounts his family have 'issues' - and I haven't seen a huge amount of stuff from team mates. Now there is no doubt the guy is calculating and has an ego - but you have to have some sort of an ego to be a francise QB. You don't get to that position by being a nice guy and trying to help everyone else. Also Schefter has stated that his report on draft night did not come from Rodgers or GB, but was compilation of info already in the public domain. In fact Schefter could be accused of hyping up a story to get some attention on draft night.

6. Lock had red flags when he came out of college. He was initially touted as a top 10 pick and then slipped all the way into the second round. The biggest problem is that there is no indication that Lock has or is capable of fixing the issues he had coming out of college. I will refer back to the video from Tim Jenkins that I posted previously where Jenkins did a comparison between Bridgewater and Lock - Bridgewater is streets ahead of where Lock is at and we all know the limitations in his game.

Now - i would love it if Lock proved he could become a starting calibre QB in the NFL. Unfortunately I don't think he can. He has been in the NFL for two years and still has not fixed some basic flaws in his game. He has yet to show that he has the brain or the maturity to play the game in the NFL. And one of his big issues has been his inability to go through his progressions. This is not a slight on Lock - he will probably go on to have a long career as a half decent back-up and earn multiple $millions in the process - but we need a lot more than that if we are going to compete against Mahomes and Herbert in the AFCW.

The most annoying thing through all of this is that a QB - who was initially touted as the No.2 pick - fell right into our laps at 1.9 and Paton made a decision to pass on him when practically everyone knew the one glaring hole on our roster was at QB. Fields night never become an NFL calibre QB - but at the very least he would have lit a fire under Lock's behind and Lock would have either had to put-up or shut-up. If both turned out to be NFL starters then we would be in the lucky position of being able to trade one of them for significant draft capital. and we only need one to come through. If Fields become a franchise QB for the Bears then we could be spending the next 15 years still trying to find a QB and looking back fondly on 2021 with a 'what if' (and Paton will be long gone in the meantime).

Edited by jolly red giant
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ClockWorkOrange

ClockWorkOrange

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, jolly red giant said:

 

2. People over-estimate the impact of the draft capital - these FRPs would likely be in the mid- to high 20s at best. Among those we have picked in that range is the last decade or so include: Robert Ayers, Tim Tebow, Sylvester Williams, Bradley Roby, Shane Ray, Paxton Lynch. So it might cost 3 FRPs - but that, at most, is likely to be one starter and one depth player.

 

Wait what?  You lost me on point 2... So you're basically saying that Surtain, Jeudy, Fant, Bolles, don't matter... Chubby, Miller.... They do not make a difference...

People do not over value the draft they undervalue the draft.  Every dominant franchise that ever existed built their team from the draft.  Not only is it about talent, building team chemistry by developing your own players, but it's about NFL economics and cap space... I will even add a 5th variable.  Its the team that drafts well that is able to attract high value FA at a lower cost due to the chance of winning... Dude please take that back...

PFF did this piece on the draft where they said something similar to what you said and then got ripped apart statistically due to the falsehood of that narrative.   In this PFF pointed out teams that drafted poorly to make this argument...  The only truth to this line of thinking is.  If you draft poorly then you would be better trading picks for high price FAs that are a sure thing... But that is starting from a failure data set and does not match the history of good teams.

Edited by ClockWorkOrange
Link to comment
Share on other sites
AKRNA

AKRNA

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, ClockWorkOrange said:

I am questioning why people are so high on Rodgers coming to Denver... Here are the variables that I am seeing.  Please help me understand this better.

  • Has all world QB Talent, but has not lead his team to a SB appearance in the last decade... Why?
  • Would cost the Broncos something in the range of 3 firsts essentially setting the team back years in draft capitol
  • Likely only has two years left in the tank if everything goes right and he does not take a hit or slow down.
  • Would cost 40mil against the salary cap costing us 3-4 starters in opportunity signings
  • Has a history of character issues.  Family issues, teammate reports, and likely leaked all these trade rumors on draft night for personal gain or to get back at the GM causing chaos for his team.   I certainly do not see him as a Team First guy...

With the variables I am seeing I do not see this as a net gain.  I mean in GB where they did not have to give up massive draft capitol to acquire him, he was not able to get it done in the last 11 years in a weak division. Why do we think he can do it in Denver given everything we have to give up.  We would also be giving up on a guy that was one of the most explosive QBs in college football history and he did it in the SEC.  And for a negligible cap hit.  

Net loss in giving up on Lock for Rodgers:

  • Trade likely 3 first and a starter
  • Take on an estimated additional 37 mil in cap space which = 3 or 4 starters.
  • Possible locker room impact of taking on a me-first leader
  • Detracts from team culture that says... if you work hard for the team that the team will give you every chance to succeed.  Team investing in its own players...  

I do not get it...

Just a reminder.... Lock struggled his freshman and sophomore years.... He then got comfortable and threw for 99 TDs to 38 Ints in the SEC, had the second most yards in SEC history, and dominated against the best competition in college... and the stats go on and on... 4th best passer rating in SEC history.... 138.8 QB rating over 4 years and was in the 150s his junior and senior years ... He has one of the best QB stats line in college history and he did it in the SEC. If he can get comfortable he can dominate ... Here is a clip from his college scouting report. " His field vision is advanced, too, as he moves his eyes to work through progressions and does not lock onto his primary target.". He will be fine making his reads when he gets comfortable....

Help me understand... 

I'm also curious what we'd do with our offensive scheme if we pick up Rodgers. Do you put Rodgers on a fast track learning curve or, to maximize his effectiveness, do you adopt GB's scheme? 

Anyway, your points are all valid and really should be considered in the greater scheme. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Broncofan

Broncofan

Posted
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, ClockWorkOrange said:

Wait what?  You lost me on point 2... So you're basically saying that Surtain, Jeudy, Fant, Bolles, don't matter... Chubby, Miller.... They do not make a difference...

 

The picks you cited actually reinforce the point - Surtain, Jeudy, Miller & Chubb are picks in the 5-12 range.  

Let's look at our 1st-round pick history overall instead of cherry picking on either side:

2011 - 1.2 Von Miller

2012 - passed as traded down

2013 - 1.28 - Sly Williams

2014 - 1.31 - Bradley Roby

2015 - 1.23 - Shane Ray

2016 - 1.26 - Paxton Lynch

2017 - 1.20 - Garrett Bolles

2018 - 1.5 - Bradley Chubb

2019 - 1.20 - Noah Fant

2020 - 1.15 - Jerry Jeudy

2021 - 1.9 Patrick Surtain Jr.

What we see - the only successful picks we've made with true franchise-impact core guys - are picks 20 and below.   And in Fant/Bolles' case, they weren't impact guys their first 2 years of the rookie deal, either.    

And here's the thing - the overall whiff rate of picks in the 20's is lot higher than top 10 picks.   It's not just an indictment on Elway's struggles with late round 1sts (although his whiff rate in Day 2 from 2013-2018 rightly earned the fan's despair).    Even the picks that worked out in the 20 range - they haven't been year 1-2 impact guys, either, even though we all see Fant & Bolles as key pieces to our future.    When you look at that price vs. getting a QB upgrade with a talent like A-Rod, well, I get @jolly red giant's point completely.

The overvaluing of pick statement comes from the premise that if you have A-Rod with this team, DEN is picking in the 20's, maybe even high-20's.   And the track record of success in the league overall is VERY different in the back tier of Rd1.   Giving up 2 1sts in that range isn't even close to the same type of price as giving up 1.9 and another 1st (even if it's in the 20's), as a comparison.

Draft picks are how you build a team for sustained success.   But not all 1st round picks are created equal.    The point that A-Rod likely devalues the 1st round picks isn't really a controversial point, nor is the success rate going way down once you are in the 20's (and the further back you go, the effect increases).

The criticism that teams throwing 1st round-picks for guys who aren't real difference-makers - THAT is a very valid point.   But if you are getting A-Rod, you're getting the biggest difference-maker possible for our team.  That's not an acquisition that I'd lose sleep on for 2022-23 1sts, and presumably one very good player.   The impact far outweighs the returns for picks in the 20's.   History across the league, not just with Denver's history, bears this out.   2-3 years ago, I'd support your point - I've posted ad nauseum in other offseasons how the team wasn't ready to compete, so any stopgap $ was a waste of resources.  But now, the window is opening up, and upgrading the QB significantly, it's well worth it now.

 

TL:DR - if A-Rod comes to Denver, and we're playoff teams, and go even just to the AFC Division round - we're talking 25+ slot or higher.   The value of those picks is significantly lower to team building than the picks we've used to build our current team.   

 

Edited by Broncofan
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cutler06

Cutler06

Posted
Posted
53 minutes ago, ClockWorkOrange said:

Wait what?  You lost me on point 2... So you're basically saying that Surtain, Jeudy, Fant, Bolles, don't matter... Chubby, Miller.... They do not make a difference...

People do not over value the draft they undervalue the draft.  Every dominant franchise that ever existed built their team from the draft.  Not only is it about talent, building team chemistry by developing your own players, but it's about NFL economics and cap space... I will even add a 5th variable.  Its the team that drafts well that is able to attract high value FA at a lower cost due to the chance of winning... Dude please take that back...

PFF did this piece on the draft where they said something similar to what you said and then got ripped apart statistically due to the falsehood of that narrative.   In this PFF pointed out teams that drafted poorly to make this argument...  The only truth to this line of thinking is.  If you draft poorly then you would be better trading picks for high price FAs that are a sure thing... But that is starting from a failure data set and does not match the history of good teams.

I believe he was pointing out the draft picks we'd end up trading would ALL be in the mid-to-late 20's and none of the players you pointed out were drafted that late in the 1st

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Broncofan

Broncofan

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 minute ago, Cutler06 said:

I believe he was pointing out the draft picks we'd end up trading would ALL be in the mid-to-late 20's and none of the players you pointed out were drafted that late in the 1st

Sure, condense my reply into 2 lines.  😆

Edited by Broncofan
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dbrog24

Dbrog24

Posted
Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, AKRNA said:

I'm also curious what we'd do with our offensive scheme if we pick up Rodgers. Do you put Rodgers on a fast track learning curve or, to maximize his effectiveness, do you adopt GB's scheme? 

Anyway, your points are all valid and really should be considered in the greater scheme. 

Luckily Rodgers is one of the few in the league who has his own scheme. It isn't GBs or Shurmers, it's Rodgers. My wife is a huge GB fan so I saw almost every game of theirs the past few years and Rodgers audibles for different plays and completely runs the offense himself once they actually get onto the field (I'm sure the playbook was ultimately made by McCarthy or Lafleur though). Point being, I don't think that would become much of an issue for us unless we had some pretty poor receivers. Luckily we have one that made a probowl, one who could run any route coming out of college, another vet, and another young dude who's super speedy and can focus on some straight routes. 

The other good part about this would be Rodgers makes pedestrian WRs or TEs look pro-bowl worthy which excites me with our actually talented group. He should have some pretty decent protection up front too and can help fix some of our issues with our OL last season (no one was making reads or on the same page). Not only this, many of Rodger's plays don't end up even being plays. I can't tell you how many times last season he saw someone lineup wrong, make a quick snap and get a free play out of it, or just point it out and get a crucial first down. This excellence and attention to detail is exactly what I feel our group of former leaders respond well to. From my experience, it's been the less talented players or ones who are only worried about their own stats who usually respond poorly to a leader like this. I mean...look at Brady. He's an ******* but his teammates absolutely love him. It only works because he's so good.

Edited by Dbrog24
Link to comment
Share on other sites
AKRNA

AKRNA

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, Dbrog24 said:

Luckily Rodgers is one of the few in the league who has his own scheme. It isn't GBs or Shurmers, it's Rodgers. My wife is a huge GB fan so I saw almost every game of theirs the past few years and Rodgers audibles for different plays and completely runs the offense himself once they actually get onto the field (I'm sure the playbook was ultimately made by McCarthy or Lafleur though). Point being, I don't think that would become much of an issue for us unless we had some pretty poor receivers. Luckily we have one that made a probowl, one who could run any route coming out of college, another vet, and another young dude who's super speedy and can focus on some straight routes. 

The other good part about this would be Rodgers makes pedestrian WRs or TEs look pro-bowl worthy which excites me with our actually talented group. He should have some pretty decent protection up front too and can help fix some of our issues with our OL last season (no one was making reads or on the same page). Not only this, many of Rodger's plays don't end up even being plays. I can't tell you how many times last season he saw someone lineup wrong, make a quick snap and get a free play out of it, or just point it out and get a crucial first down. This excellence and attention to detail is exactly what I feel our group of former leaders respond well to. From my experience, it's been the less talented players or ones who are only worried about their own stats who usually respond poorly to a leader like this. I mean...look at Brady. He's an ******* but his teammates absolutely love him. It only works because he's so good.

So, now that we're finally looking at some consistency with the same OC you'd want to scrap it and have everyone learn the Rodgers system and terminology? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dbrog24

Dbrog24

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, AKRNA said:

So, now that we're finally looking at some consistency with the same OC you'd want to scrap it and have everyone learn the Rodgers system and terminology? 

Honestly...yes. Our offense was abysmal last year. The consistency with our OC was really only a big deal if we are dealing with the Lock scenario, and if don't trade for A-Rod, I definitely would love to continue to attempt to build on what we were trying to do previously. I personally am just not convinced that the system we were using before is even good enough to succeed in the NFL (see: our offense, Jets offense for multiple years). His amazing season with the Eagles had more to do with Chip than him IMO.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jsthomp2007

jsthomp2007

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, ClockWorkOrange said:

I am questioning why people are so high on Rodgers coming to Denver... Here are the variables that I am seeing.  Please help me understand this better.

  • Has all world QB Talent, but has not lead his team to a SB appearance in the last decade... Why?
  • Would cost the Broncos something in the range of 3 firsts essentially setting the team back years in draft capitol
  • Likely only has two years left in the tank if everything goes right and he does not take a hit or slow down.
  • Would cost 40mil against the salary cap costing us 3-4 starters in opportunity signings
  • Has a history of character issues.  Family issues, teammate reports, and likely leaked all these trade rumors on draft night for personal gain or to get back at the GM causing chaos for his team.   I certainly do not see him as a Team First guy...

With the variables I am seeing I do not see this as a net gain.  I mean in GB where they did not have to give up massive draft capitol to acquire him, he was not able to get it done in the last 11 years in a weak division. Why do we think he can do it in Denver given everything we have to give up.  We would also be giving up on a guy that was one of the most explosive QBs in college football history and he did it in the SEC.  And for a negligible cap hit.  

Net loss in giving up on Lock for Rodgers:

  • Trade likely 3 first and a starter
  • Take on an estimated additional 37 mil in cap space which = 3 or 4 starters.
  • Possible locker room impact of taking on a me-first leader
  • Detracts from team culture that says... if you work hard for the team that the team will give you every chance to succeed.  Team investing in its own players...  

I do not get it...

Just a reminder.... Lock struggled his freshman and sophomore years.... He then got comfortable and threw for 99 TDs to 38 Ints in the SEC, had the second most yards in SEC history, and dominated against the best competition in college... and the stats go on and on... 4th best passer rating in SEC history.... 138.8 QB rating over 4 years and was in the 150s his junior and senior years ... He has one of the best QB stats line in college history and he did it in the SEC. If he can get comfortable he can dominate ... Here is a clip from his college scouting report. " His field vision is advanced, too, as he moves his eyes to work through progressions and does not lock onto his primary target.". He will be fine making his reads when he gets comfortable....

Help me understand... 

Great CWO is back, now I have to read things again

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ClockWorkOrange

ClockWorkOrange

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Broncofan said:

The picks you cited actually reinforce the point - Surtain, Jeudy, Miller & Chubb are picks in the 5-12 range.  

Let's look at our 1st-round pick history overall instead of cherry picking on either side:

2011 - 1.2 Von Miller

2012 - passed as traded down

2013 - 1.28 - Sly Williams

2014 - 1.31 - Bradley Roby

2015 - 1.23 - Shane Ray

2016 - 1.26 - Paxton Lynch

2017 - 1.20 - Garrett Bolles

2018 - 1.5 - Bradley Chubb

2019 - 1.20 - Noah Fant

2020 - 1.15 - Jerry Jeudy

2021 - 1.9 Patrick Surtain Jr.

What we see - the only successful picks we've made with true franchise-impact core guys - are picks 20 and below.   And in Fant/Bolles' case, they weren't impact guys their first 2 years of the rookie deal, either.    

And here's the thing - the overall whiff rate of picks in the 20's is lot higher than top 10 picks.   It's not just an indictment on Elway's struggles with late round 1sts (although his whiff rate in Day 2 from 2013-2018 rightly earned the fan's despair).    Even the picks that worked out in the 20 range - they haven't been year 1-2 impact guys, either, even though we all see Fant & Bolles as key pieces to our future.    When you look at that price vs. getting a QB upgrade with a talent like A-Rod, well, I get @jolly red giant's point completely.

The overvaluing of pick statement comes from the premise that if you have A-Rod with this team, DEN is picking in the 20's, maybe even high-20's.   And the track record of success in the league overall is VERY different.   Giving up 2 1sts isn't even close to the same type of price as giving up 1.9 and another 1st (even if it's in the 20's), as a comparison.

Draft picks are how you build a team for sustained success.   But not all 1st round picks are created equal.    The point that A-Rod likely devalues the 1st round picks isn't really a controversial point, nor is the success rate going way down once you are in the 20's (and the further back you go, the effect increases).

The criticism that teams throwing 1st round-picks for guys who aren't real difference-makers - THAT is a very valid point.   But if you are getting A-Rod, you're getting the biggest difference-maker possible for our team.  That's not an acquisition that I'd lose sleep on for 2022-23 1sts, and presumably one very good player.   The impact far outweighs the returns for picks in the 20's.   History across the league, not just with Denver's history, bears this out.   2-3 years ago, I'd support your point - I've posted ad nauseum in other offseasons how the team wasn't ready to compete, so any stopgap $ was a waste of resources.  But now, the window is opening up, and upgrading the QB significantly, it's well worth it now.

 

TL:DR - if A-Rod comes to Denver, and we're playoff teams, and go even just to the AFC Division round - we're talking 25+ slot or higher.   The value of those picks is significantly lower to team building than the picks we've used to build our current team.   

 

I do not buy that... Going threw of all those picks, only two were in the top, they are spread out all over the first round, and the majority had some impact on the team.  Even the worst of them played and contributed (well except Lynch that was just a miss..). Great teams value draft capitol and layer talent.  Sometimes it is not that the individual player makes it to the pro bowl, but rather the position rooms are full guys looking for next man up opportunities and keeping pressure on the starters... This makes the team resistant to injury concerns and puts pressure on the starters to put in that extra 2% to keep their starting role.  This also has the impact of not needing to over pay due to need when contracts run out.  Look at NE for example, they made a living picking talent off of the second half of the first round and even trading back to get more picks in the second or third... Prior to this desperation off season, they would not trade draft capitol for high priced players as they layer talent, and create the team depth that is mentioned above...   

As mentioned in my previous post dominant franchises build their teams from the draft.  Not only is it about talent and having more darts to hit, it's about building team chemistry by developing your own players, it's about NFL economics and cap space... I will even add a 4th variable.  Its the team that drafts well that is able to attract high value FA at a lower cost due to the chance of winning...   This is exactly what TB did over the last 4 years.  Not trading for high priced vets...

Fortunately Paton knows better than to give up picks for high priced vets... For example Detroit wanted a 1st, a 2nd, and drew Lock for Stafford...  Patan said no and only offered a first.  That is the kind a value we could find agreement on... Not the proposals that would be required to pick up AR...  

Even if we agree to disagree on the draft value conversation what about these other concerns?

  • Has all world QB Talent, but has not lead his team to a SB appearance in the last decade... Why?
  • Would cost the Broncos something in the range of 3 firsts essentially setting the team back years in draft capitol (perhaps agreeing to disagree on)
  • Likely only has two years left in the tank if everything goes right and he does not take a hit or slow down.
  • Would cost 40mil against the salary cap costing us 3-4 starters in opportunity signings
  • Has a history of character issues.  Family issues, teammate reports, and likely leaked all these trade rumors on draft night for personal gain or to get back at the GM causing chaos for his team.   I certainly do not see him as a Team First guy...

 

Edited by ClockWorkOrange
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing


×
×
  • Create New...