What to do at QB?

[ClockWorkOrange]

4 hours 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. 

I do not know... I think Rodgers is going to want to do things his way and we will likely need to change the offensive system, playbook language, and over all offensive scheme to adapt to him... I did not think of that to be honest.  

Edited May 14, 2021 by ClockWorkOrange

[ClockWorkOrange]

7 hours ago, jolly red giant said:

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).

I got derailed a bit by #2 but I am reading through the rest now...

#3 Let me ask you this.  Even if we value picks differently.  Are you really willing to bet three first on AR being able to play till 40?

#4 I would argue that his massive contracts are why he does not have great talent around him and also it is why I am worried about taking that on...  Does this worry you?

#5 The report that came out on draft night started with Schlereth and I saw a twitter text between AR and him.  It has since been pulled but I saw the text and I think it is clear that AR leaked that rumor to push his agenda.  Who else would it benefit?  Assume for a minute that he did leak it.  Would you be okay having a guy that would do that to his team on draft night lead the broncos?

Sorry about hyper focusing on #2... I have watch many teams try to buy their franchise QBs through trade and I think history would advise against it... I will take a look at similar trades from a historical perspective and get back to you... 

Thanks for taking the time to respond with a thoughtful response... 

Edited May 14, 2021 by ClockWorkOrange

[BroncoBruin]

A few points on the Rodgers stuff:

Am I really supposed to think less of Rodgers as a player because a third string tight end dropped an onside kick that went right into his hands, that if he secures ends the game and sends Rodgers to a second Super Bowl? That's the reason he hasn't been to two. His cap figure had nothing to do with a fringe roster guy having butter fingers. And you can go through the list of crazy playoff losses, pretty easy to come to the conclusion he's been unlucky. 

You're not betting three 1st round picks (importantly late ones that carry less value as Broncofan demonstrated) on Rodgers being able to play at 40. You'd be betting one 1st. If he's still a high level QB who gives this team a championship window in his age 38 and 39 seasons, I'd consider that worth the entire price but I'm willing to compromise and say it's worth two 1st round picks. So yes, I'd gamble on that. It's less ridiculous than gambling on Drew Lock or Teddy Bridgewater taking this team to a SB while the defense is at its peak (Von Miller, Kyle Fuller and Kareem Jackson are all on expiring contracts this year). At the end of the day, I want this team to chase Super Bowls when they have their opportunities to. Give me 2-3 great opportunities to win a championship over having a nice little well built 10-7 team that stays relevant but does nothing in January every year. 

And I really don't care that he has a bad relationship with his bible thumping family, they seem like genuinely awful people and I don't begrudge anyone for cutting themselves off from toxic relationships. I've heard enough ex-Packers and current Packers who have been unabashed in how much they love Rodgers and would go to war for him to think he'd be just fine.

As far as Lock goes, he's played a ton of high level football over the last 6 years and at no point has he improved as an anticipatory thrower. That's a huge concern. He's a "see it, throw it" passer. Great for big guys like Sutton and Patrick, wastes guys like Jeudy. 

[BroncoBruin]

And if he played on his current deal after a trade, his cap hits would be more in the 25 range, not 40. He may want a new deal, but it would likely coincide with a cap spike in the next couple years. And it's also easier to pull off the financial wizardry required to keep a team together (see Tampa) when we're talking about a first ballot Hall of Fame QB guys want to play for. 

Edited May 15, 2021 by BroncoBruin

[BroncoBruin]

6 hours 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. 

Rodgers started in a traditional WCO for 11 years (after developing behind Favre in this scheme for three years). It would be a really easy transition for Rodgers and a lot easier than when Peyton signed in Denver and both Peyton and the existing infrastructure had to come together. 

Edited May 15, 2021 by BroncoBruin

[BroncoBruin]

I think one thing that's getting less talk than it deserves is that there's a specific 2021 window in play here from a roster standpoint. It's the last year every player drafted in this 2018-2020 youth reset will be cheap. After this season, Chubb and Sutton will both be on the books for significant money. We also have five high level veteran defensive players on expiring contracts in Von Miller, Kareem Jackson, Kyle Fuller, Bryce Callahan and AJ Johnson. Might be a smooth transition replacing a couple of those guys, but all four? There's a strong chance this is the best group Fangio will be able to put together in Denver. I'd like to take advantage of that with an elite QB, not experiment with a QB competition. 

I'm glad there's some disagreement on this as it makes the dynamic on the forum more interesting. I guess I'm just more willing to take these risks to get another ring, because I don't see the current path to maximizing this roster into serious contention otherwise. We may not have a shot at a SB for decades, past success is no guarantee. Rodgers puts us right in the mix for at least 2021 and 2022, from there you're dependent on health and some good fortune, just like anyone else. But the point is you have a real shot. 

[The Helicopter]

18 hours ago, ClockWorkOrange said:

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?

I also want to know if he's Canton material or not. I think we gotta get him to find out...

[jolly red giant]

Given the fact that people close to Rodgers (ex-players like Kuhn and AJ Hawk) are coming out over the past couple of days talking about he wants to be in GB and he has to be in GB - the odds have very much tipped in favour of Rodgers doing a deal with the Packers.

He wants a contract that guarantees him money until Love is into his option year so that the Packers can't dump him after a year or two - and probably a very restrictive trade clause and a say in who they draft over the next couple of years.

If that happens then Paton is left with a large amount of egg over his face for letting Fields fall through his fingers - and has to decide on the prospect of chasing an alleged sexual predator to try and save his bacon.

[AnAngryAmerican]

All of our starting/key contributor offensive skill position players are either 1st or 2nd round picks - Sutton (2), Hamler (2), Jeudy (1), Fant (1), Gordon (1) and Williams (2) and 4 of our OL - Bolles (1), Risner (2), Cush (3), Meinerz (3) - are top-3 round picks. Meinerz will likely either replace Glasgow next year or, possibly, play RG with Glasgow moving to center if Cush keeps struggling. 

That group, even if we lose one in the  trade for Aaron, instantly makes this team a Super Bowl contender when he arrives. 

The point about changing the offense to Aaron’s offense, so what? A) he’s a better OC and much smarter than Shurmur anyway and B) just like when Peyton arrived, you get instant buy-in from everyone, not just the offense. To borrow a John Fox line, he raises all boats.

I’m a bigger fan of Drew than most here (and most of the fanbase at large) but I am 10000000% on board with getting Aaron if we can. 

[BroncoBruin]

15 minutes ago, AnAngryAmerican said:

All of our starting/key contributor offensive skill position players are either 1st or 2nd round picks - Sutton (2), Hamler (2), Jeudy (1), Fant (1), Gordon (1) and Williams (2) and 4 of our OL - Bolles (1), Risner (2), Cush (3), Meinerz (3) - are top-3 round picks. Meinerz will likely either replace Glasgow next year or, possibly, play RG with Glasgow moving to center if Cush keeps struggling. 

That group, even if we lose one in the  trade for Aaron, instantly makes this team a Super Bowl contender when he arrives. 

The point about changing the offense to Aaron’s offense, so what? A) he’s a better OC and much smarter than Shurmur anyway and B) just like when Peyton arrived, you get instant buy-in from everyone, not just the offense. To borrow a John Fox line, he raises all boats.

I’m a bigger fan of Drew than most here (and most of the fanbase at large) but I am 10000000% on board with getting Aaron if we can. 

Shurmur comes from the same WCO background Rodgers played in for 14 years but even if that wasn’t the case, I find it hilarious that people give a **** about Pat Shurmur, a competent but not great OC. We’re talking about Aaron Rodgers.

[AnAngryAmerican]

26 minutes ago, BroncoBruin said:

Shurmur comes from the same WCO background Rodgers played in for 14 years but even if that wasn’t the case, I find it hilarious that people give a **** about Pat Shurmur, a competent but not great OC. We’re talking about Aaron Rodgers.

Shurmur is an Andy Reid disciple, more than any other, was there from 1999 to 2008. and the Reid offense, even if Shurmur isn’t the best at executing it, is an ideal fit for a QB with Aaron’s skillset. 

Drew, on the other hand, is a better fit the Shanahan version is the WCO, which Vic firing Scangarello was a mistake. 

Edited May 15, 2021 by AnAngryAmerican

[thebestever6]

5 hours ago, jolly red giant said:

that happens then Paton is left with a large amount of egg over his face for letting Fields fall through his fingers - and has to decide on the prospect of chasing an alleged sexual predator to try and save his bacon.

I think Watson was more fan talk than anything eagles would be first imo

[ClockWorkOrange]

I am still struggling to see the long term upside in acquiring Rodgers... I think it creates a situation where we gain a two year window where we have a chance to win a SB and then will have another six year playoff drought as we recover from the trade value cost of losing 3 firsts and a player.  I do not like the immediate gratification approach to anything and prefer the slow and steady approach of building team depth by layering talent via the draft... I think Vic and Paton agree with this and will not make the trade to pick up Rodgers given the asking price value being more then around a first... maybe a first and a player they can live with out.  

With this said, I do see that Elway and company are facing a situation where they need to show immediate results if they want to maintain control of and employment by the organization given the ownership situation that is coming up over the next couple of years... 

Do you all think that the ownership situation changes the thinking behind acquiring Rodgers?  

[AKRNA]

9 minutes ago, ClockWorkOrange said:

I am still struggling to see the long term upside in acquiring Rodgers... I think it creates a situation where we gain a two year window where we have a chance to win a SB and then will have another six year playoff drought as we recover from the trade value cost of losing 3 firsts and a player.  I do not like the immediate gratification approach to anything and prefer the slow and steady approach of building team depth by layering talent via the draft... I think Vic and Paton agree with this and will not make the trade to pick up Rodgers given the asking price value being more then around a first... maybe a first and a player they can live with out.  

With this said, I do see that Elway and company are facing a situation where they need to show immediate results if they want to maintain control of and employment by the organization given the ownership situation that is coming up over the next couple of years... 

Do you all think that the ownership situation changes the thinking behind acquiring Rodgers?  

I agree with this. 

Personally, nothing I've seen from Paton would lead me to believe he's really interested in Rodgers. He's playing a long game and 38 YO QB's aren't really looking much towards the future.

I'd expect about the same offer he made for Stafford if that. 

Would it be great if Rodgers was a Bronco? Sure, that's not the question. That's a no brainer. It's what you're willing to give up for it. 

 

[BroncoBruin]

38 minutes ago, ClockWorkOrange said:

I am still struggling to see the long term upside in acquiring Rodgers... I think it creates a situation where we gain a two year window where we have a chance to win a SB and then will have another six year playoff drought as we recover from the trade value cost of losing 3 firsts and a player.  I do not like the immediate gratification approach to anything and prefer the slow and steady approach of building team depth by layering talent via the draft... I think Vic and Paton agree with this and will not make the trade to pick up Rodgers given the asking price value being more then around a first... maybe a first and a player they can live with out.  

With this said, I do see that Elway and company are facing a situation where they need to show immediate results if they want to maintain control of and employment by the organization given the ownership situation that is coming up over the next couple of years... 

Do you all think that the ownership situation changes the thinking behind acquiring Rodgers?  

You're assuming the worst possible outcome in one situation and the best possible outcome in the other. Basically, you're implying that three first round picks would be the difference between a long playoff drought and competing for championships over the next decade. That's very unrealistic.