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

5 hours ago, jolly red giant said:

The title of this thread is 'what to do at QB?' - there are other threads dealing with other aspects of the team. 

I want the Broncos to win every game they play -

I want the Broncos to go out and fight hard and compete in every game they play -

I want to see the Broncos become the dominant team in the NFL -

I hate to see the Broncos losing -

I cannot understand fans who want to see their team lose to get a better draft pick -

I would be upset if my team consciously attempted to lose to get a higher draft pick -

I want a GM, when he has the opportunity, to throw a dart at a player in a position who is the most crucial in any team sport globally, in the hope and expectation that he finds a QB who can play for 15 years and have the team as competitive as possible.

(the NFL is peculiar in comparison to soccer for example - where teams who lose get relegated to a lower division - it means every team has to fight for every game, which is not the case in the NFL. In my view this clouds the view of American NFL fans. Of course this all comes down to money - the NFL is a highly lucrative and profitable franchise - and the owners would not give up their revenue stream. The opposite is the situation in soccer where the vast majority of teams require a generous backer to keep them financially afloat).

There is no conflict between wanting to win every game and wanting a solution at QB. I don't care how Paton manages to sort out the problem - be that trading for a QB, signing a free agent (maybe Wilson next year - maybe Burrow in 4 years), or drafting the QB. All carry a risk but sometimes you have to take risks to compete.

At the moment it appears pretty clear that Lock is a busted flush - he appears so far behind Bridgewater that it looks like, at best, he will be a journeyman back-up bouncing around from team to team. 

We know what we have with Bridgewater - a good, but limited, game-manager - who could produce very well given the roster that Denver now have. He might even go deep into the play-offs - but it is very unlikely he is the long-term answer at QB. 

Paton's job is to build a roster capable of being a contender every year and hopefully winning a SB or two - that is why he was given a six year contract. He was fortunate that Elway had two very good drafts before he took over - and now has the benefit of some good offensive weapons, a good and young OL, and a HC who is a genius with the defence. However, to be a long-term success he needs to fix the lack of a franchise QB - something that has been a basket-case since the SB win. And the biggest problem is that there are a lot of teams who look like they have found heir long-term QB - so without one there is no way that the Broncos can compete every year.

If Paton manages to get Rodgers then it immediately makes the Broncos real SB contenders for the next 2/3 years - and it is a perfect window given the age profile and talent of the current roster. It gives him 3 years to find the long-term solution to the QB position. If he doesn't get Rodgers then he will have an opportunity to get Watson - who would be the long-term solution, but only at expense of utterly tarnishing the long-term image of the Broncos in the eyes of an awful lot of people. 

If Paton doesn't get either of the above two, then it rolls back to the fact Fields fell into his lap and he chose to pass on him. PS2 looks like he is going to be a great CB - but he is not a QB. And if Fields develops into a franchise QB then Paton's standing as a GM is utterly shot - he is left with a team that doesn't have a good QB and has to compete with teams who have the likes of Mahomes, Herbert, Murray, Jackson, Allen, Prescott, Mayfield, Burrow, Rodgers, Watson, Lawrence, Wilson, Brady, even Tannehill, Stafford, Ryan, Carr and possibly Tua, Lance, Fields, Jones, Wilson starting at QB (and I'm sure I've missed a couple). His tenure as GM is a bust - the Broncos become a team of also-rans - and it would come down to a decision to take a CB over a QB in his first draft. If Fields (and Jones) turn out to be busts then he looks like a smart GM who knew what he was doing. Time will tell what kind of a GM Paton will be seen as and what impact that decision will have on the long-term fortunes of the Broncos.

I read your posts but I think your fixation with QB is misplaced.

History proves that it's far easier for a great team to win a SB with a mediocre (sometimes even bad) QB than it is for a great QB to win a SB with a mediocre team.

What Paton seems to be building is a potentially great team. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, AKRNA said:

I read your posts but I think your fixation with QB is misplaced.

History proves that it's far easier for a great team to win a SB with a mediocre (sometimes even bad) QB than it is for a great QB to win a SB with a mediocre team.

What Paton seems to be building is a potentially great team. 

Paton had a better year one draft and free agency than I ever expected. This was my most exciting draft post results since 2006 just reading every player profile watching all of the videos so hyped for this class. I feel Paton knows what he's doing. I also think he has some sort of faith in this coaching staff keeping Lock and adding bridgewater seemed calculated given the experience in the system. 

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

This strategy of waiting till before the draft to trade Rodgers doesn't make sense to me.  That is one less year that we would have him.  His value is going to drop every year so makes sense to trade him now.  

I would be astounded if trading for Rodgers this year is even a consideration. I guess it's possible if they wanted to keep him on the bench until he can become proficient in the system but that's about it.

Trying to change systems at this late date to accommodate Rodgers would be foolish beyond belief.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, BroncoBruin said:

Rodgers played in this system for more than a decade. It wouldn’t be a problem. 

He played in Shurmers system?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, AKRNA said:

He played in Shurmers system?

It's all classic WCO. He knows more about that offense than any other QB in the league, and there isn't anyone close. 11 years as a starter, 14 years total. It would be a really easy adjustment. Of all the reasons to not want Rodgers, this one is probably the silliest. 

Edited by BroncoBruin
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/12/2021 at 11:05 PM, AKRNA said:

I would be astounded if trading for Rodgers this year is even a consideration. I guess it's possible if they wanted to keep him on the bench until he can become proficient in the system but that's about it.

Trying to change systems at this late date to accommodate Rodgers would be foolish beyond belief.

Be ready to be astounded then. 

Everything I've been hearing seems like Aaron is just waiting for the Green Bay FO to blink. They will also wait it out, probably into training camp, so they can say to their fans (and shareholders) "hey, we did everything we could to keep him." Even some of the beat writers in Wisconsin think it's just a matter of time. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, BroncoBruin said:

It's all classic WCO. He knows more about that offense than any other QB in the league, and there isn't anyone close. 11 years as a starter, 14 years total. It would be a really easy adjustment. Of all the reasons to not want Rodgers, this one is probably the silliest. 

You're losing me a bit here. Shurmers offense isn't' close to a "Classic" WCO. Does anyone even run that anymore? Scangs tried it here and got fired.

Every coach seems to have his own version of the WCO now. If you're suggesting the transition from a Scangs "Classic" version to a Shurmer version is a "piece a cake" we'll have to agree to disagree. Formations differ, terminology is different, what plays out of what formations, which route tree on which play, audibles at the LOS, line calls,.....................

There's a ton of information to absorb for any QB, whether he's played in a similar system or not. It would not be a "really easy adjustment" for any QB.

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

You're losing me a bit here. Shurmers offense isn't' close to a "Classic" WCO. Does anyone even run that anymore? Scangs tried it here and got fired.

Every coach seems to have his own version of the WCO now. If you're suggesting the transition from a Scangs "Classic" version to a Shurmer version is a "piece a cake" we'll have to agree to disagree. Formations differ, terminology is different, what plays out of what formations, which route tree on which play, audibles at the LOS, line calls,.....................

There's a ton of information to absorb for any QB, whether he's played in a similar system or not. It would not be a "really easy adjustment" for any QB.

I’m talking about what we should probably refer to as the Holmgren tree rather than the Shanahan tree. 

It would not be a problem for Rodgers at all. All the concepts and terminology will be familiar to him. Yes, every coach will run things a little differently, emphasize certain concepts and add some wrinkles but Rodgers will know all of it. This is a pretty silly thing to worry about. He’d be ahead of Lock and Bridgewater in understanding the offense within two weeks 

Edited by BroncoBruin
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, AnAngryAmerican said:

Be ready to be astounded then. 

Everything I've been hearing seems like Aaron is just waiting for the Green Bay FO to blink. They will also wait it out, probably into training camp, so they can say to their fans (and shareholders) "hey, we did everything we could to keep him." Even some of the beat writers in Wisconsin think it's just a matter of time. 

Unless they think the value depreciates a ton if they wait until next offseason, I'm not sure I'd be in a rush to move him. Will get a better 2022 pick if they move him in the offseason, so the team they trade him to is more likely to pick in the teens than high 20s. 

Edited by BroncoBruin
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, thebestever6 said:

I don't see Rodgers getting traded soon whatever team gets him will be picking in the 20s It would be pre draft niners offer imo.

I don’t think the comp is going to be anywhere near SF for 1.3.  Who are we bidding against?  A mid-summer trade for a high-cap guy that has made his displeasure very public.  It’s really just a DEN trade or drag it into the season and very few FOs have the stomach for that. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, bMiller031 said:

I don’t think the comp is going to be anywhere near SF for 1.3.  Who are we bidding against?  A mid-summer trade for a high-cap guy that has made his displeasure very public.  It’s really just a DEN trade or drag it into the season and very few FOs have the stomach for that. 

They'd let him retire the year and pre draft the suitors with higher picks may be involved.

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...