What to do at QB?

[thebestever6]

1 hour ago, champ11 said:

oh he's a couple tiers above Flacco. he's very good. but HOF...no. not without the team success. his numbers are certainly impressive tho. i'd move a first for him 

No doubt he's a better tier than Flacco but factoring a first plusss. There's just no way I'm spending that on someone who you don't know will make a a playoff team. I don't think the detroit offense was lacking talent as it's labeled by fans.

[Broncofan]

47 minutes ago, thebestever6 said:

No doubt he's a better tier than Flacco but factoring a first plusss. There's just no way I'm spending that on someone who you don't know will make a a playoff team. I don't think the detroit offense was lacking talent as it's labeled by fans.

From his 2011-15 years, you can definitely argue they had talent - they had Megatron.   DET made the playoffs 3 of those years, and ppl may forget the 3 playoff losses, DET got dismantled by better teams 2x (NO 2011 & SEA in 2016), and lost the heartbreaker 24-20 to DAL.    He wasn't the reason why they lost those games.

From 2016 onwards, though, it's a gong show of supporting cast.  By DVOA - bottom 10 WR corps for every year except 2019 (missing Golladay killed them this year), bottom 12 OL play 4 of 5 years, bottom 12 run game for 4 of the 5 years (and the only 1 year they weren't bottom half, they were 16th, and were bottom 8 in 3 of 5 years).  The eye test and other metrics support the above statements.  And of course, the big bugaboo, horrific coaching (Matt Patricia for last 3 years speaks for itself).  

Stafford's not elite at Watson's level of play, not at all.   And his 2011-15 years, he had help.  That's also why they made the playoffs 3 of those 5 years.  But the last 5 years, it's been Stafford carrying that O.    And if the above doesn't convince you, let's underscore it again:

Stafford's been a playoff QB when you give him weapons 3 of his 5 years, and his record is either 9-2 or 10-1 (depending on who you cite) when you give him a 100-yard rusher.  

If ppl want to argue 1.9 is too steep for Stafford, no problem.  If they want to argue at age-33 and back/rib issues the last 2 years, it's too risky to give 1.9, that up if you don't know he can last 5 years - fair enough.   The issue is that IND is definitely offering 1.21, and maybe SF 1.12.  So that's the price.   Too steep for the age/risks?  Sure, let's have that convo.   

But let's not confuse the narrative that Stafford isn't a good QB, or hasn't been surrounded by a bad team, or bad weapons, for the last 5 seasons.      The data and eye test the last 5 years clearly says this isn't the case.

Watson would be my plan A, but realistically, we're outgunned, and I understand the argument for the price being uber-steep (I'd do it for an elite age-25 guy like Watson, who's again likely priced at below-market salaries, given how the cap is going).   Given that's not likely, so long as the medicals say Stafford can play 4-5 years at peak, and his absolute bargain-level 2/43M contract for top 8-12 play, I'm still on-board Stafford as plan B.

Edited January 26, 2021 by Broncofan

[jsthomp2007]

1 hour ago, Broncofan said:

From his 2011-15 years, you can definitely argue they had talent - they had Megatron.   DET made the playoffs 3 of those years, and ppl may forget the 3 playoff losses, DET got dismantled by better teams 2x (NO 2011 & SEA in 2016), and lost the heartbreaker 24-20 to DAL.    He wasn't the reason why they lost those games.

From 2016 onwards, though, it's a gong show of supporting cast.  By DVOA - bottom 10 WR corps for every year except 2019 (missing Golladay killed them this year), bottom 12 OL play 4 of 5 years, bottom 12 run game for 4 of the 5 years (and the only 1 year they weren't bottom half, they were 16th, and were bottom 8 in 3 of 5 years).  The eye test and other metrics support the above statements.  And of course, the big bugaboo, horrific coaching (Matt Patricia for last 3 years speaks for itself).  

Stafford's not elite at Watson's level of play, not at all.   And his 2011-15 years, he had help.  That's also why they made the playoffs 3 of those 5 years.  But the last 5 years, it's been Stafford carrying that O.    And if the above doesn't convince you, let's underscore it again:

Stafford's been a playoff QB when you give him weapons 3 of his 5 years, and his record is either 9-2 or 10-1 (depending on who you cite) when you give him a 100-yard rusher.  

If ppl want to argue 1.9 is too steep for Stafford, no problem.  If they want to argue at age-33 and back/rib issues the last 2 years, it's too risky to give 1.9, that up if you don't know he can last 5 years - fair enough.   The issue is that IND is definitely offering 1.21, and maybe SF 1.12.  So that's the price.   Too steep for the age/risks?  Sure, let's have that convo.   

But let's not confuse the narrative that Stafford isn't a good QB, or hasn't been surrounded by a bad team, or bad weapons, for the last 5 seasons.      The data and eye test the last 5 years clearly says this isn't the case.

Watson would be my plan A, but realistically, we're outgunned, and I understand the argument for the price being uber-steep (I'd do it for an elite age-25 guy like Watson, who's again likely priced at below-market salaries, given how the cap is going).   Given that's not likely, so long as the medicals say Stafford can play 4-5 years at peak, and his absolute bargain-level 2/43M contract for top 8-12 play, I'm still on-board Stafford as plan B.

Whoa!! 7% of of the games he played in he had the support of a 100 yard rusher?  Bring him to Denver, and upgrade our backfield just a bit...not to mention the WR/TE/OL help.

Also...it is Detroit.  Detroit has had Barry Sander and Megatron and still couldn't win.  They've had great players, but they are Detroit.  I don't know the science, but the Lions could have a pro bowler at every position and they would figure out how to lose.  

[Broncofan]

54 minutes ago, jsthomp2007 said:

Whoa!! 7% of of the games he played in he had the support of a 100 yard rusher?  Bring him to Denver, and upgrade our backfield just a bit...not to mention the WR/TE/OL help.

Also...it is Detroit.  Detroit has had Barry Sander and Megatron and still couldn't win.  They've had great players, but they are Detroit.  I don't know the science, but the Lions could have a pro bowler at every position and they would figure out how to lose.  

The other part - Stafford made the playoffs 3x from 2011-15.   

DET hasn't been in the playoffs since then.  And before then, the last time they made the playoffs.....1999.   Last time they won a playoff game....1991.  So Barry Sanders won 1 playoff game in his career, as context.  Megatron never won one.  Maybe it's team, not the individual player (I get the QB is the most influential guy, but that's ridiculous levels of futility that goes beyond 1 guy).

The only QB that's led that org to playoffs in over 20 years.

Supported by a 100-yard rusher 11x over 10 years, and bottom half OL/run game and WR's for almost every year since 2015. 

Horrific coaching.

 

Now picture him with our OL, our receiving corps, and as bad as Fangio is as a game manager is, his ability to max out the D is a given.   And then add in that Stafford is the 14th highest paid QB in 2022, and 19th highest paid QB in 2023 - and that number only goes lower when Lamar Jackson gets extended, and in 2023, when Kyler Murray, Josh Allen & Baker Mayfield get paid. 

I get 1.9 hurts - and there's no way you offer this if you don't think Stafford can hold up for 4-5 years at peak form.   But if he can...yes, I'm totally on board.   And that's me saying no to Matt Ryan, Sam Darnold for 2.9,  Wentz , or the Eli Manning / Philip Rivers in past years, backups like Brissett / Foles / Trubisky / Minshew, etc.  It's not like I'm just saying yes to anyone.   Watson (but we can't get him) & Stafford are the 2 vets I'd be all in on (Winston intrigued me, but I think it's very likely he's staying in NO, and Fitz/rookie if we saw a guy that was worth it, but that was before we knew Watson/Stafford would become available - Watson/Stafford are clear levels up on the prior vet options we had - remember my main skepticism with Stafford was him becoming available, and if he could hold up long-term, not the ability). 

If Stafford is judged to be peak form and projectible to stay that way for 4-5 years - then yes, I'd live with 1.9.   I wouldn't go much past that, though - but because I don't see that teams ahead of us want Stafford (CAR too far away to take an age-33 starter, and the other guys have their guy or will get Watson or the top 3 rookie-contract QB's), we also hold the most valuable key piece.  It's not a coincidence we're listed in the top 3 in Vegas sites, and the leader in some, for his services.  

Edited January 26, 2021 by Broncofan

[jsthomp2007]

4 minutes ago, Broncofan said:

The other part - Stafford made the playoffs 3x from 2011-15.   

DET hasn't been in the playoffs since then.  And before then, the last time they made the playoffs.....1999.   Last time they won a playoff game....1991.  So Barry Sanders won 1 playoff game in his career, as context.  Megatron never won one.  Maybe it's team, not the individual player?

A 100-yard rusher 11x over 10 years. 

Horrific coaching.

 

Now picture him with our OL, our receiving corps, and as bad as Fangio is as a game manager is, his ability to max out the D is there.   And then add in that Stafford is the 14th highest paid QB in 2022, and 19th highest paid QB in 2023 - and that number only goes lower when Lamar Jackson gets extended, and in 2023, when Kyler Murray, Josh Allen & Baker Mayfield get paid. 

I get 1.9 hurts - and there's no way you offer this if you don't think Stafford can hold up for 4-5 years at peak form.   But if he can...yes, I'm totally on board.   And that's me saying no to Matt Ryan, Sam Darnold for 2.9, Eli Manning / Philip Rivers in past years, backups like Brissett / Minshew, etc.  It's not like I'm just saying yes to anyone.   Watson (but we can't get him) & Stafford are the 2 vets I'd be all in (Winston intrigued me, but I think it's very likely he's staying in NO, and Fitz/rookie if we saw a guy that was worth it, but that was before we knew Watson/Stafford would become available). 

If Stafford is judged to be peak form and projectible for 4-5 years - then yes, I'd live with 1.9.   I wouldn't go much past that, though - but because I don't see that teams ahead of us want Stafford (CAR too far away to take an age-33 starter, and the other guys have their guy or will get Watson or the top 3 rookie-contract QB's), we also hold the most valuable key piece.  It's not a coincidence we're listed in the top 3 in Vegas sites, and the leader in some, for his services.  

I wonder what his career would have been if he played for a team like, Dallas or Seattle or San Francisco...would he have gone to a Super  Bowl or two?

[Broncofan]

39 minutes ago, jsthomp2007 said:

I wonder what his career would have been if he played for a team like, Dallas or Seattle or San Francisco...would he have gone to a Super  Bowl or two?

Well, let's be clear - this isn't Watson-level ability.  This isn't Peyton 2012-14.   But it's not Cousins-level or Peyton-2015, either.   Think good version Matt Ryan (but maybe not quite MVP-level 2016, although that's the best-case - 2017-19 version more likely).    On a good team, I have no problem saying he's in the playoffs regularly, and he wins his share of games.   Stafford's comeback history with horrible teams, and his play vs. DAL in the one playoff game they had a chance, support this belief.  Beyond that, who knows.    Getting to a SB is hard.   So many things have to go right.  

The real question now though is can you get that level of play from Stafford for 4-5 years.   If so, sign me up.   If it's only 2 years....1.9 is too damn steep, even at below-market prices.   I hate saying it as I type it, but you just can't burn 1.9 on a 2-year player, even on a position as important as QB, and the below-market salary.   Given Stafford's going to be at-market salaries for years 3-5, you need at least 4-5 peak years to justify it.    That, and Paton's evaluation of Lock, likely decides whether we offer 1.9 or not.  Given IND would not hesitate to offer 1.21 and SF is in the mix with 1.12 - that’s the decision Paton faces.  

Edited January 26, 2021 by Broncofan

[jsthomp2007]

2 hours ago, Broncofan said:

Well, let's be clear - this isn't Watson-level ability.  This isn't Peyton 2012-14.   But it's not Cousins-level or Peyton-2015, either.   Think good version Matt Ryan (but maybe not quite MVP-level 2016, although that's the best-case - 2017-19 version more likely).    On a good team, I have no problem saying he's in the playoffs regularly, and he wins his share of games.   Stafford's comeback history with horrible teams, and his play vs. DAL in the one playoff game they had a chance, support this belief.  Beyond that, who knows.    Getting to a SB is hard.   So many things have to go right.  

The real question now though is can you get that level of play from Stafford for 4-5 years.   If so, sign me up.   If it's only 2 years....1.9 is too damn steep, even at below-market prices.   I hate saying it as I type it, but you just can't burn 1.9 on a 2-year player, even on a position as important as QB, and the below-market salary.   Given Stafford's going to be at-market salaries for years 3-5, you need at least 4-5 peak years to justify it.    That, and Paton's evaluation of Lock, likely decides whether we offer 1.9 or not.  Given IND would not hesitate to offer 1.21 and SF is in the mix with 1.12 - that’s the decision Paton faces.  

I'd say you have to trade back in the draft with a team with 1.19/1.2o pick to get in front of the Colts to send the pick to Detroit for Stafford.  At least moving back you are picking up some more draft picks.  I don't see why they can't do that? 

[Broncofan]

9 minutes ago, jsthomp2007 said:

I'd say you have to trade back in the draft with a team with 1.19/1.2o pick to get in front of the Colts to send the pick to Detroit for Stafford.  At least moving back you are picking up some more draft picks.  I don't see why they can't do that? 

SF at 1.12 probably prevents that.  If you want him you’re probably committing.   It’s not like SF is going to show their hand.   
 

More importantly Staffords roster bonus is due March 22.  This is happening way before draft trade talk of picks gets serious.    That happens around Draft Day.  
 

The Alex Smith trade happened week before SB (then deal was official on 1st day of new year).  Key difference being travel for medicals might be an issue.   I’d think it’s highly likely this is agreed to in principle even before March.  

Edited January 27, 2021 by Broncofan

[thebestever6]

3 hours ago, Broncofan said:

Stafford is judged to be peak form and projectible to stay that way for 4-5 years - then yes, I'd live with 1.9.   I wouldn't go much past that, though - but because I don't see that teams ahead of us want Stafford (CAR too far away to take an age-33 starter, and the other guys have their guy or will get Watson or the top 3 rookie-contract QB's), we also hold the most valuable key piece.  It's not a coincidence we're listed in the top 3 in Vegas sites, and the leader in some, for his services.  

Everything you said in your post quoting me is dead on I just don't like paying that steep of a price for the form a guy showed 2015 that's 5 years ago. I mean a 4th for Flacco was bananas and a first plus, and his back issues and of the season injuries, our division. I just think it be fool's gold.

[Broncofan]

47 minutes ago, thebestever6 said:

Everything you said in your post quoting me is dead on I just don't like paying that steep of a price for the form a guy showed 2015 that's 5 years ago. I mean a 4th for Flacco was bananas and a first plus, and his back issues and of the season injuries, our division. I just think it be fool's gold.

Flacco was washed (with clear signs of decline 2 years before) when Elway acquired him.  It’s why the move was so roundly panned the day it happened by so many posters, myself included.   Stafford still shows his peak level of play.   The 2 cases aren’t even close.    You don’t need to believe me - you can see it in his 2020 film.  
 

Watch the week 7 vs. ATL, week 10 vs. WFT and week 14 vs. CHI.  2 comeback wins, and a dominant W performance despite the WFT front 4 applying pressure all day.   And Week 10 & 14 was with no Golladay.    2 of those 3 games with 65 yards rushing or less.   And he did that with the 19th best OL and 21st in pass protection.    
 

All W’s carried by Matt Stafford.  He’s doing that with a Patricia led staff they thought playing old man AP and Swift and giving away if it’s a run or pass was sound football.  

The only issue is Stafford’s long term health.   A back fracture in the spinous processes (2019) isn’t long term.  Neither are rib injuries (2020).   But at 33 his medical and physical has to check out.  You need to make sure there isn’t a chronic issue he’s just so tough he fights through it - but puts playing into age-37 seasons at peak or near-peak levels iffier (but healthy guys do it regularly now).  But that is the issue - is he healthy enough to keep his peak level of play for 4-5 years. It’s not a question of his current level of play.   

Edited January 27, 2021 by Broncofan

[AKRNA]

I think @jsthomp2007 made the perfect point regarding QB, that being timing. If we were a top 5-10 defensive team and a 15-20 rated offense things would look different. If we felt like we were just one player (QB) away from a SB ring, like TB this year, acquiring a top rated FA QB would make lots of sense.

As is, not so much. Acquiring a new QB right now basically closes the book on Lock and we start over. That's a move I don't think we'd make. Giving him a 3rd year doesn't really cost us anything. It allows us to concentrate on different aspects of the team and gives Drew a chance to prove he's the guy. If he fails, look for a FA in 2022 to fill the spot. Our team may be just that one player away then

[jolly red giant]

Was reading something online (or listening - can't remember as I was half asleep - it might have been something on youtube) that made a valid point about Lock V Stafford.

The Broncos offence is a very young offence - with the exception of Glasgow and Gordon there is nobody on the offence that has more than 4 years experience - and most have 1-3 years experience. The argument was that if you have a young QB you need experience on the offence to help bring the QB along - players who can tutor the QB in what he is doing right and what he is doing wrong. Similarly - if you have a young offence you should have experience at QB to bring the young players along - point out what they are doing right etc.

We have a young QB and a young offence and neither are currently living up to their potential. With Stafford this offence would take a significant step forward. Furthermore, Lock could learn under Stafford - or if Lock wasn't to be part of the picture, Stafford could play a role in bringing along another rookie QB. While Stafford might not win the Broncos a SB - by drafting well we may have enough talent on the roster to do the job - or in a couple of years a young QB capable of taking over from Stafford and performing at the same if not a higher level.

Edited January 27, 2021 by jolly red giant

[broncos67]

9 hours ago, AKRNA said:

I think @jsthomp2007 made the perfect point regarding QB, that being timing. If we were a top 5-10 defensive team and a 15-20 rated offense things would look different. If we felt like we were just one player (QB) away from a SB ring, like TB this year, acquiring a top rated FA QB would make lots of sense.

As is, not so much. Acquiring a new QB right now basically closes the book on Lock and we start over. That's a move I don't think we'd make. Giving him a 3rd year doesn't really cost us anything. It allows us to concentrate on different aspects of the team and gives Drew a chance to prove he's the guy. If he fails, look for a FA in 2022 to fill the spot. Our team may be just that one player away then

But how many FA QBs that can actually move the needle ever come available? It's not many. I don't disagree with you, but the reality of the NFL is that QBs are always at a premium, and if you want an established one that's better than league average, you're most likely going to have to trade draft capital to do so.

[jsthomp2007]

2 hours ago, jolly red giant said:

Was reading something online (or listening - can't remember as I was half asleep - it might have been something on youtube) that made a valid point about Lock V Stafford.

The Broncos offence is a very young offence - with the exception of Glasgow and Gordon there is nobody on the offence that has more than 4 years experience - and most have 1-3 years experience. The argument was that if you have a young QB you need experience on the offence to help bring the QB along - players who can tutor the QB in what he is doing right and what he is doing wrong. Similarly - if you have a young offence you should have experience at QB to bring the young players along - point out what they are doing right etc.

We have a young QB and a young offence and neither are currently living up to their potential. With Stafford this offence would take a significant step forward. Furthermore, Lock could learn under Stafford - or if Lock wasn't to be part of the picture, Stafford could play a role in bringing along another rookie QB. While Stafford might not win the Broncos a SB - by drafting well we may have enough talent on the roster to do the job - or in a couple of years a young QB capable of taking over from Stafford and performing at the same if not a higher level.

This is a very reasonable argument.  This is true.  I mean, when we drafted Chubb, he had Von to turn to for help.  Who does Lock go to that is not a coach?  He has Rypien, who by all accounts seems more cerebral than Lock and probably can handle the Xs and Os in his advice to Lock, but that's different when you are in the game.  
 

Actually, Stafford with his experience could lift the play of the younger guys.  His quicker decision making because he has seen more in the NFL might lift up the OL.  And, the running game should improve because Stafford can carry a team as Broncofan pointed out.  

I also think culturally, Stafford will get the Broncos some winning records so we can end the consecutive season of losing records.  Before we won Super Bowl 50, I read that the Broncos has more Super Bowl appearance than losing record seasons.  We need to get back to that, because then you attract the better free agents.  

Lastly, I think Stafford could go to toe-to-toe with Mahomes, especially if we develop a top 5 defense.  If we can create a 2015 type of defense who can pressure Mahomes and the Chiefs, then we stand a chance, especially with Stafford who can handle some shootouts.  

[bMiller031]

11 hours ago, AKRNA said:

As is, not so much. Acquiring a new QB right now basically closes the book on Lock and we start over. That's a move I don't think we'd make. Giving him a 3rd year doesn't really cost us anything. It allows us to concentrate on different aspects of the team and gives Drew a chance to prove he's the guy. If he fails, look for a FA in 2022 to fill the spot. Our team may be just that one player away then

Fair.. but if Lock is the guy we think he is we’re going to regret letting a top 10-12 QB pass.

These opportunities are exceedingly rare and this is a unique buy-low opportunity bc of the unusually large number of available QBs this year (via trade, FA, or draft).  We owe it to the development of Jeudy, Fant, Sutton, and Hamler to not turn down an opportunity to improve QB this significantly (at a relatively low cost). If we whiff on Stafford there’s no guarantee we get one of the top 4 QBs in the draft w/o trading up (and, besides TL, even those 3 guys panning out is a 50-50 coin flip). If we miss out on Watson, Stafford, Wilson, Fields, and Lance our QB prospects get dark REALLY fast. We start NEEDing Lock to be the guy or turning to the Wentz/Goff/Dalton types while looking down the barrel of a weak 2022 QB draft class.

Even if we ACE the 1.9 pick with a non-QB stud (Devin White, Roquan Smith-type, etc.) we’re only marginally closer to contending while even a marginal improvement at QB gives us a great shot to move up 8-10 spots because it unlocks the most underutilized positional group on the roster.