What to do at QB?

[Cutler06]

One thing that surprises me is the praise Teddy gets for those 4th down endeavors, yet why were we in those 4th down situations to begin with ?? That first 3rd down throw was well behind the receiver, did anyone bring that up ?? Just seems like this wasn’t near the “50/50” competition it was advertised as

[AkronsWitness]

7 minutes ago, Cutler06 said:

One thing that surprises me is the praise Teddy gets for those 4th down endeavors, yet why were we in those 4th down situations to begin with ?? That first 3rd down throw was well behind the receiver, did anyone bring that up ?? Just seems like this wasn’t near the “50/50” competition it was advertised as

It sure seemed like the coaching staff wanted to give teddy every chance to look good and succeed in that last preseason game. Tin foil hat or not, its just interesting to see how the playcalling changed from Teddy to Drew and Pat Shurmer is a clown.

[lomaxgrUK]

Whilst I don't subscribe to the (frankly, weird) sense of total doom from a lot of Bronco fans re: Teddy, it's not entirely unfounded.

From a probability standpoint, there is nothing better to increase your chances of winning on a consistent  basis than having a franchise QB. Everyone knows this.

That said ... There aren't many of them kicking around, are there? There is as much logic to say you can get to a Superbowl with a above average - good QB and an excellent overall team than there is of going through the process of obtaining a Franchise QB to get to a Superbowl. You don't have to go back far at all to see how the 49ers were so, so close to winning a Superbowl with an above-average QB.

Of course, the 49ers are an example of how being without a franchise QB can lead to success falling off a cliff, given that they have now tried to draft their own franchise QB.

Basically - I just don't know how people can be so adamant on either side of the coin, given that it's been proven you can win consistently with a franchise QB but also win without one.

[Orangecrush151]

As wel as why are people crowning teddy like he is such a great game manager, he almost had same amount of picks as lock last year and because he dinks and dunks only his comp % looks good. But cmon we need to maximize our talent and although jeudy and hamlet can take those deep 5 yard passes that teddy throws and yac them to oblivion I want big plays not just catch n runs to pad his stats

[jolly red giant]

Jenkins did an update on the Vikes game with the coaches tape rather than tv coverage - and downgraded several of Teddy's plays because Teddy checked down rather than hit an open receiver who was deeper. 

Teddy did play much better in the Seahawks game - but was helped by Vic's willingness to got for it on 4th down - without that his numbers would not have been nearly as good. Indeed - seeing as it was 4th down - Teddy may have been forced to make the good play in order to avoid a turnover on downs (when he had actually checked down / missed the receiver on 3rd down).

And while Teddy might be a game manager who hasn't thrown an INT in pre-season - Lock hasn't thrown an INT either.

Edited August 24, 2021 by jolly red giant

[AKRNA]

1 hour ago, AkronsWitness said:

Im basically asking what is the point of starting a guy who you know doesnt have a high enough ceiling to make real noise. Your going up against Pat Mahomes and Justin Herbert, your going into battle against them with Teddy Bridgewater who has never thrown 15 TDs in a season before? So if you know Teddy (at best) leads you to a respectable season of 8-9 wins, why choose him especially when you know there is no way he can be your starter again next year.

I would like to think that Lock has to be the guy simply because he still has upside to unlock and if he unlocks it, you wont have to draft a QB in the 1st next year.

But, I don't know those things, neither do you. 

What I know of Teddy I posted. Also, you can blame @lomaxgrUK for a bit of my opinion. He posted that Williams pass pro vid. Teddy played his part as well as any QB could. I just don't see the limitations you do, not even close.

[jolly red giant]

15 hours ago, AnAngryAmerican said:

Sounds to me like bringing in future Hall of Famer Kirk Cousins! It all makes sense.

Would you be surprised if he sacked Vic and made Shurmur the HC? - At this stage I wouldn't.

[grizmo78]

2 hours ago, jolly red giant said:

Jenkins did an update on the Vikes game with the coaches tape rather than tv coverage - and downgraded several of Teddy's plays because Teddy checked down rather than hit an open receiver who was deeper. 

Teddy did play much better in the Seahawks game - but was helped by Vic's willingness to got for it on 4th down - without that his numbers would not have been nearly as good. Indeed - seeing as it was 4th down - Teddy may have been forced to make the good play in order to avoid a turnover on downs (when he had actually checked down / missed the receiver on 3rd down).

And while Teddy might be a game manager who hasn't thrown an INT in pre-season - Lock hasn't thrown an INT either.

FYI: Jenkins' added the Broncos vs Seahawks analysis to his youtube channel too if you/anyone wanted to also check that one out. 

[broncofan48]

24 minutes ago, grizmo78 said:

FYI: Jenkins' added the Broncos vs Seahawks analysis to his youtube channel too if you/anyone wanted to also check that one out. 

Who is this Jenkins you speak of?   Haven't had a chance to watch anything but highlights so would enjoy checking it out

[AnAngryAmerican]

2 hours ago, jolly red giant said:

Would you be surprised if he sacked Vic and made Shurmur the HC? - At this stage I wouldn't.

With Paton, nothing would surprise me at this point. 

[AnAngryAmerican]

3 hours ago, lomaxgrUK said:

Whilst I don't subscribe to the (frankly, weird) sense of total doom from a lot of Bronco fans re: Teddy, it's not entirely unfounded.

From a probability standpoint, there is nothing better to increase your chances of winning on a consistent  basis than having a franchise QB. Everyone knows this.

That said ... There aren't many of them kicking around, are there? There is as much logic to say you can get to a Superbowl with a above average - good QB and an excellent overall team than there is of going through the process of obtaining a Franchise QB to get to a Superbowl. You don't have to go back far at all to see how the 49ers were so, so close to winning a Superbowl with an above-average QB.

Of course, the 49ers are an example of how being without a franchise QB can lead to success falling off a cliff, given that they have now tried to draft their own franchise QB.

Basically - I just don't know how people can be so adamant on either side of the coin, given that it's been proven you can win consistently with a franchise QB but also win without one.

While I agree with you that it does not have to be either/or, I think the beef from Broncos County comes from the fact that going with Teddy gives us nothing, neither short-term or long-term. 

There is a chance, albeit a very, very small one, that a team can win a Super Bowl with a game-manager surrounded by an elite roster. It also takes a very good HC and coaching staff, which we had in Gary, and which the 49ers had in your example. Do we have an elite coaching staff? I see a clown car driven by Vic with Shurmur in the passenger seat and Paton and Ellis in the back holding on for dear life; at least Ellis has the opportunity to exit the vehicle with a golden parachute next March. 

Furthermore, poor as Peyton's physical play (relative to the rest of his career, that is) may have been in 2015, his mind was as good or better than ever. Teddy is a football savvy dude, no argument there, but he's not Peyton freaking Manning.  I know we have some on this forum that think Teddy has All-Pro potential and we have a HC who just compared his pocket presence to Tom Brady. But I'm not ready to go there. 

The problem really is - we have a GM who learned average QB + good roster + experienced coaches = job security. Can't fire a guy if he consistently fields a winning roster. But how many rings does Paton have? How many does his mentor and former boss, Rick Spielman, have? How many does Vic have? How about Shurmur? ZERO. 

You have to go all the way down the coaching staff list to Ed Donatell (DC in name only) to find a coach on the staff that has a ring.

So what's the point? Are we going to be happy to be in mediocrity or are we going to take the Shanahan example - the Mike and Kyle versions - and swing for the fences (Mike throwing out the reliable Plummer for Cutler and Kyle throwing out the reliable Garappolo for Lance)? It appears the former. Welcome to being the Minnesota Vikings, gents, usually good, rarely bad, but never a champion. 

[champ11]

1 hour ago, AnAngryAmerican said:

With Paton, nothing would surprise me at this point. 

I can't believe you are so down on Paton. I feel like bringing him in is the first chance at positive progress for this org since Peyton left. This offseason overall was very strong (pending QB question of course). Also seems a stretch to peg Shurmur as his guy considering he didn't hire him. Connecting dots that may or may not be there.

Also...news flash. Becoming the Minnesota Vikings would be a HUGE upgrade from the org we have been lol. You gotta walk before you can run. Having a competent football team will be a massive improvement over what we have seen for 6 years. 

[broncofan48]

1 minute ago, champ11 said:

I can't believe you are so down on Paton. I feel like bringing him in is the first chance at positive progress for this org since Peyton left. This offseason overall was very strong (pending QB question of course). Also seems a stretch to peg Shurmur as his guy considering he didn't hire him. Connecting dots that may or may not be there.

Also...news flash. Becoming the Minnesota Vikings would be a HUGE upgrade from the org we have been lol. You gotta walk before you can run. Having a competent football team will be a massive improvement over what we have seen for 6 years. 

Yeah I'm optimistic on Paton, down on Vic and co for the most part.   I think part of Paton's issues are the looming ownership issues.    Who knows what direction ownership might go.   We've been spoiled with the hands off approach of Mr. B for years, but if a Jerry Jones buys the Broncos he could demand the signing of a Rodgers, or trading up for a QB to put butts in the seats.

 

All of our back and forths on here are kind of in limbo until the ownership gets resolved.

 

But the young quality depth that seemingly everyone is pointing to on this roster are partially due to Paton.   Hopefully he continues stockpiling talent, and stick around for awhile.   Just because MIN has yet to find a QB doesn't mean Paton is doomed to follow in those footsteps

[BroncoBruin]

Fangio and his staff deserve a ton of credit for the team’s depth. Guys are developing everywhere. 

[AKRNA]

2 hours ago, AnAngryAmerican said:

While I agree with you that it does not have to be either/or, I think the beef from Broncos County comes from the fact that going with Teddy gives us nothing, neither short-term or long-term. 

There is a chance, albeit a very, very small one, that a team can win a Super Bowl with a game-manager surrounded by an elite roster. It also takes a very good HC and coaching staff, which we had in Gary, and which the 49ers had in your example. Do we have an elite coaching staff? I see a clown car driven by Vic with Shurmur in the passenger seat and Paton and Ellis in the back holding on for dear life; at least Ellis has the opportunity to exit the vehicle with a golden parachute next March. 

Furthermore, poor as Peyton's physical play (relative to the rest of his career, that is) may have been in 2015, his mind was as good or better than ever. Teddy is a football savvy dude, no argument there, but he's not Peyton freaking Manning.  I know we have some on this forum that think Teddy has All-Pro potential and we have a HC who just compared his pocket presence to Tom Brady. But I'm not ready to go there. 

The problem really is - we have a GM who learned average QB + good roster + experienced coaches = job security. Can't fire a guy if he consistently fields a winning roster. But how many rings does Paton have? How many does his mentor and former boss, Rick Spielman, have? How many does Vic have? How about Shurmur? ZERO. 

You have to go all the way down the coaching staff list to Ed Donatell (DC in name only) to find a coach on the staff that has a ring.

So what's the point? Are we going to be happy to be in mediocrity or are we going to take the Shanahan example - the Mike and Kyle versions - and swing for the fences (Mike throwing out the reliable Plummer for Cutler and Kyle throwing out the reliable Garappolo for Lance)? It appears the former. Welcome to being the Minnesota Vikings, gents, usually good, rarely bad, but never a champion. 

Outside of the facts regarding SB rings I think I disagree with every thing else.