What to do at QB?

[lomaxgrUK]

At the end of the day, people who get paid very good money (without any doubt) did their due diligence on all of the QBs available at our pick in the draft. For whatever reason, they felt they weren't good enough.

I don't think Aaron Rodgers came into that thought process. If you think you have a 21 year Franchise QB available, you take him and don't look back. 

That is not me saying I agree with the decision. I haven't done a single second of research about a single QB in the draft. I am just saying that I don't think our FO is going to have Aaron Rodgers as an excuse for missing on Fields/Jones if they come good. 

[jsthomp2007]

22 hours ago, AnAngryAmerican said:

You have to remember @AKRNA predicts Teddy to be an All Pro this year. So his position is biased by that presupposition.  

Stop hate'n and start participat'in...twinkle twinkle baby...twinke twinkle

[BroncoBruin]

Okay I saw the “QBs are more available than CBs” thing. It’s very dumb, but it’s also so clearly a half-assed justification for taking Surtain over Fields, you can’t take it seriously. 

They didn’t view Fields as a franchise QB, really all there is to it. The guy they liked was Lance. 

[BroncoBruin]

21 hours ago, Scoundrel said:

The supposed reasoning for Paton passing on Fields is just blindness. Felt a duty to give Lock a real shot? Duty to who or what? Lock himself or Elways legacy? The fans? Most didn’t want him. It’s your job now your career is on the line. He didn’t have a duty to anyone. Not sure I’m buying that as I think he really thought he had a shot at Aaron.

Yeah that was just more bull****, like comparing the scarcity of QBs and CBs. There’s nothing Paton can say that looks good though. We ended up with Plan D at quarterback. He knows it, we all know it. Wish he’d only emphasize how great Surtain can be. 

[AnAngryAmerican]

The Peter King piece is troubling as regards Paton. 

As I’ve said virtually from the get-go, the biggest concern with Paton has been the fact he has been with one franchise under the same GM for a long time has has routinely built a strong, at times, very strong, roster, but one that has always lacked a franchise QB. Really, the concerns with both Fangio and Shurmur are along the same lines. 

Joe Ellis, who ultimately made the decision to hire Paton, despite supposed input from Elway, Fangio, PR guy Smyth and McDaniels lackeys and yes-men era holdovers Russell and Thewes, could have very enacted one last blow to the team before his long overdue “retirement” by hiring Paton. 

It appears to me that the vast majority of this organization’s deep-rooted ineptitude will only go away when a new owner who brings in a fresh set of eyes and new people buys the team (though it could create new, different problems, look no further than the Carolina Panthers). 

Either way, it appears another mediocre season is upon us. 

Edited August 11, 2021 by AnAngryAmerican

[AkronsWitness]

5 hours ago, BroncoBruin said:

Okay I saw the “QBs are more available than CBs” thing. It’s very dumb, but it’s also so clearly a half-assed justification for taking Surtain over Fields, you can’t take it seriously. 

They didn’t view Fields as a franchise QB, really all there is to it. The guy they liked was Lance. 

Meanwhile, the Broncos still are in a QB competition between two lackluster options and all I'm seeing is how incredible Fields looks at Bears camp that everyone is drooling over him.

Yay

Put one on the board for the 'your overthinking it' crowd

[champ11]

10 hours ago, AnAngryAmerican said:

The Peter King piece is troubling as regards Paton. 

As I’ve said virtually from the get-go, the biggest concern with Paton has been the fact he has been with one franchise under the same GM for a long time has has routinely built a strong, at times, very strong, roster, but one that has always lacked a franchise QB. Really, the concerns with both Fangio and Shurmur are along the same lines. 

Joe Ellis, who ultimately made the decision to hire Paton, despite supposed input from Elway, Fangio, PR guy Smyth and McDaniels (lackeys and yes-men) era holdovers Russell and Thewes, could have very enacted one last blow to the team before his long overdue “retirement” by hiring Paton. 

It appears to me that the vast majority of this organization’s deep-rooted ineptitude will only go away when a new owner who brings in a fresh set of eyes and new people buys the team (though it could create new, different problems, look no further than the Carolina Panthers). 

Either way, it appears another mediocre season is upon us. 

can you link it? 

[broncos_fan _from _uk]

I read the king piece, what’s the troubling part? The fact that he thinks all pro caliber CBS are more rare than run of the mill QBs? It’s obvious that they didn’t view Fields and Jones as franchise QBs (there are those here who disagree with that assessment). 
 

is the best long term strategy to take who you view as a potential small upgrade to what you have at QB (something that comes out every year) or to take a potential all pro at the 4th most important position in modern football? 
 

I don’t disagree with the logic even though I may disagree with the assessment of fields (I had him as #3 QB in this draft)

as for the glowing reports on fields they sound a lot like the reports of most rookies when they go to a QB poor team (save for Denver, who’s media takes a special pride in ruining QBs) let’s see how the kid does his second season (as Lock, Mayfield, Young, and sooo many others have shown that a flashy rookie season means nothing)

 

[AnAngryAmerican]

3 hours ago, champ11 said:

can you link it? 

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2021/08/08/fmia-nfl-training-camp-tour-patrick-mahomes-peter-king/?cid=fmiatw

[AnAngryAmerican]

1 hour ago, broncos_fan _from _uk said:

I read the king piece, what’s the troubling part? The fact that he thinks all pro caliber CBS are more rare than run of the mill QBs? It’s obvious that they didn’t view Fields and Jones as franchise QBs (there are those here who disagree with that assessment). 
 

is the best long term strategy to take who you view as a potential small upgrade to what you have at QB (something that comes out every year) or to take a potential all pro at the 4th most important position in modern football? 

Those are fair points.

I, however, have to look at this way - throughout the 2000s we had a player who, for my money, was the most complete CB in the history of the modern game, one who was elite at every single aspect of his game, and we went to one AFCCG during his prime years. And that's despite having a HOF HC, an elite OL, an elite running game and more than adequate talent at the skill positions.

What held us back? Middling to mediocre QB play with Plummer, Cutler, Orton and Tebow (and, for two years, McDaniels as GM/HC/OC).

Despite everything I just mentioned, we were routinely kept out of the Super Bowl by the likes of Indy, New England and Pittsburgh, all of whom had future Hall of Famers as QBs. 

If Paton didn't like Fields, then he should just say so.

[AKRNA]

11 minutes ago, AnAngryAmerican said:

Those are fair points.

I, however, have to look at this way - throughout the 2000s we had a player who, for my money, was the most complete CB in the history of the modern game, one who was elite at every single aspect of his game, and we went to one AFCCG during his prime years. And that's despite having a HOF HC, an elite OL, an elite running game and more than adequate talent at the skill positions.

What held us back? Middling to mediocre QB play with Plummer, Cutler, Orton and Tebow (and, for two years, McDaniels as GM/HC/OC).

Despite everything I just mentioned, we were routinely kept out of the Super Bowl by the likes of Indy, New England and Pittsburgh, all of whom had future Hall of Famers as QBs. 

If Paton didn't like Fields, then he should just say so.

Actually, what held us out was an abysmal defense. It's extremely rare for a team without a top 10 minimum D to succeed in the NFL and we went years without one.

[AnAngryAmerican]

25 minutes ago, AKRNA said:

Actually, what held us out was an abysmal defense. It's extremely rare for a team without a top 10 minimum D to succeed in the NFL and we went years without one.

Not for the entirely of it. 

Per Pro Football Reference, Broncos team defense points allowed league rank:

2004: 9th; 2005: 4th; 2006: 9th 2007: 28th; 2008: 30th; 2009: 12th; 2010: 32nd; 2011: 24th

As you can see, in four (half) of Champ's prime, pre-Peyton years, we were ranked in the top-12, not bad. The end of Mike's tenure saw a drop off, as did Mac's second year after he fired Nolan and Fox's first season (the Tebow year) were the outliers, although the 2011 defense was better than what those stats show, from what I remember; Von won DROY and we won games with a good defense and running game with Tebow completing just a few passes at key moments. 

[1234567]

1 hour ago, AnAngryAmerican said:

Those are fair points.

I, however, have to look at this way - throughout the 2000s we had a player who, for my money, was the most complete CB in the history of the modern game, one who was elite at every single aspect of his game, and we went to one AFCCG during his prime years. And that's despite having a HOF HC, an elite OL, an elite running game and more than adequate talent at the skill positions.

What held us back? Middling to mediocre QB play with Plummer, Cutler, Orton and Tebow (and, for two years, McDaniels as GM/HC/OC).

Despite everything I just mentioned, we were routinely kept out of the Super Bowl by the likes of Indy, New England and Pittsburgh, all of whom had future Hall of Famers as QBs. 

If Paton didn't like Fields, then he should just say so.

I often wonder how things would have turned out had Cutler not had such an awful attitude. He was such a close swing and a miss; even went to a pro bowl in his final year under Shanny. Of course, then we likely would have missed out on the PFM era. I like to imagine a scenario where Shanahan didn’t get fired AND we still ended up with Manning a few years later. Would have been an interesting pairing. 

[AnAngryAmerican]

20 minutes ago, 1234567 said:

I often wonder how things would have turned out had Cutler not had such an awful attitude. He was such a close swing and a miss; even went to a pro bowl in his final year under Shanny. Of course, then we likely would have missed out on the PFM era. I like to imagine a scenario where Shanahan didn’t get fired AND we still ended up with Manning a few years later. Would have been an interesting pairing. 

I actually think Cutler’s career would have looked a lot different if he had remained in Mike’s offense.  

[1234567]

44 minutes ago, AnAngryAmerican said:

I actually think Cutler’s career would have looked a lot different if he had remained in Mike’s offense.  

It certainly had a much nicer looking trajectory to it when he was here. Physically, he was always the prototypical West Coast QB. Who knows, with some continued success he may have even developed into a decent leader as well. Chicago is/was a hard place to stay positive in. Pretty much any QB who's played there in the last 10 years will attest to that.