What to do at QB?

[AKRNA]

13 minutes ago, AnAngryAmerican said:

So I’m confused, what’s the basis of the argument? You need a great defense even if you have a HOF QB to win? I think that’s always been the case. 

Are you arguing against trading for Stafford/Watson? If so there are stronger arguments against such a move than asking how many QBs won rings with great defenses while on their rookie contracts. 

The argument against Watson is simply the cost. You have Watson, with his a large salary, but you give up some young talent and give away 3 first round draft picks to surround him with talent.

With Stafford the argument against I laid out earlier - because of his cap hit and giving away 1.9+ you miss your chance to add starters in free agency and a day 1 rookie contributor whose rights you control for 5 years. And you give up all that for QB in his 30s, you’re all in for the next 3-4 years, hoping you can get over the Maholmes hump in the AFCW/AFC. 

No, I've already been pretty clear about my objections to both Watson (cost) and Stafford (cost/timing). 

I'm trying to get a handle on what folks refer to when they talk about the QBOTF. To me, in the age of FA, it really doesn't mean anything anymore, especially when it comes to winning. It's the QB of the present that matters. So far, rookie deals and FA short term hired guns seems the way to go. 

I just get lost in the QBOTF discussion. Once teams make that big commitment, 2nd deal, to lock up their QBOTF they don't seem to win SB's anymore.

[AnAngryAmerican]

10 minutes ago, AKRNA said:

No, I've already been pretty clear about my objections to both Watson (cost) and Stafford (cost/timing). 

I'm trying to get a handle on what folks refer to when they talk about the QBOTF. To me, in the age of FA, it really doesn't mean anything anymore, especially when it comes to winning. It's the QB of the present that matters. So far, rookie deals and FA short term hired guns seems the way to go. 

I just get lost in the QBOTF discussion. Once teams make that big commitment, 2nd deal, to lock up their QBOTF they don't seem to win SB's anymore.

Wouldn’t Stafford count as a hired gun? 

Your point about once teams have paid the QB market value the SBs become scant is very valid. However, having that QB, even at exorbitant cost, keeps you relevant. Seattle and  Green Bay are but two examples of teams who’ve remained very, very relevant since paying their QB. Wilson went to another SB (which SEA should have won, they outplayed NE in that game). 

Rodgers has been to 4 NFCCGs since winning the SB.

The Steelers have always been in the playoffs when Ben has been healthy and went to a 3rd SB after winning their earlier 2.

We paid Peyton $19m per and went to 2, winning 1. 

My point is the elite QB is the path to a chance. Winning it all of course depends on other factors including a supporting cast. But, fact of the matter is, no QB = no chance. That’s why this forum and fanbase at large is in a tizzy for Watson/Stafford. 

Edited January 28, 2021 by AnAngryAmerican

[bMiller031]

21 minutes ago, AnAngryAmerican said:

Just say those 3 firsts end up being each a Pro Bowl level CB, EDGE and RT plus we give up Fant/Jeudy/Sutton, that’s just WAY too expensive for me, good as Watson is. 

I don't disagree but the latent consideration is that no fewer than 1 of those 1sts is going to address the QB position w/o Watson... so the trade is effectively 2 1sts (2022 + 2023) plus a Fant/Jeudy type.  Most likely those picks land in the 20s (hopefully, right?).  No guarantee those guys are pro bowlers or even impact guys. 

[grizmo78]

One thing to consider in the "cost" for Watson as well is the fact that he just signed his new contract (so he will be signed through 2025) and his signing bonus is already paid by Houston! While we will be on the hook for his salary/cap hit, the upfront 27k is all cash we don't have to spend right away (which tends to be one of the bigger barriers for teams, especially ours). 

[Broncofan]

1 minute ago, AnAngryAmerican said:

Wouldn’t Stafford count as a hired gun? 

Your point about once teams have paid the QB market value the SBs become scant is very valid. However, having that QB, even at exorbitant cost, keeps you relevant. Seattle and  Green Bay are but two examples of teams who’ve remained very, very relevant since paying their QB. Wilson went to another SB (which SEA should have won, they outplayed NE in that game). 

Rodgers has been to 4 NFCCGs since winning the SB.

The Steelers have always been in the playoffs when Ben has been healthy and went to a 3rd SB after winning their earlier 2.

We paid Peyton $19m per and went to 2, winning 1. 

My point is the elite QB is the path to a chance. Winning it all of course depends on other factors including a supporting cast. But, fact of the matter is, no QB = no chance. 

The other part you're alluding to - everyone wants a SB ring, and rightfully so.   But winning a SB ring is hard, and in a team sport, it's not all on the QB.   I don't think anyone thinks Peyton's era was a failure - winning 1 SB was good enough.

But everyone loves the Peyton era because we won a SB and we were legitimate contenders year in and year out from 2012-15.   In that respect, I like to look at how many AFCG & NFCG championships teams get to.    It helps remove the effect Brady had in removing other worthy QB's, and creates a much wider sample size.    And if you were a final 4 team, generally speaking it's not a fluke.

If you accept those premises, man, you get this kind of portrait since 2010 (so 11 games each, and 44 QB's):

Tom Brady - 9

A-Rod - 5

Peyton Manning, Patrick Mahomes - 3

Drew Brees, Russell Wilson, Big Ben, Matt Ryan, Joe Flacco, Mark Sanchez (LOL, only guy to go 0-2 here) - 2 

Brett Favre, Josh Allen, Eli Manning, Jared Goff, Andrew Luck, JimmyG,  Cam Newton, Colin Kaepernick, Jay Cutler, Alex Smith, Carson Palmer, Nick Foles, Case Keenum, Blake Bortles (Eli, Cam, Goff, CK, JimmyG & Foles winners, rest L's - no SB winners except Eli & Foles) - 1

What does that list show?   It shows the cream of the crop, of course - but also, if you really look at that list - it shows a few random flukes (Sanchez riding a great D and weak AFC conference for 2 shots, both L's), and if the QB play isn't sustained - you also teams that just drop off hard (Bortles lol).   

The draft is the easiest way to find your QB, and at greatest value - but it's not the only way (Peyton, Brees).   But finding a foundation QB who can give you top 12 play, is also the way to get multiple shots.   I think many would predict we'll see Allen climb the ladder.     

Saying there's one way to find QB is an oversimplification - but when the opportunity presents itself to get a difference maker, they don't come around that often either.   I realize the Q with both Watson & Stafford is the cost - and that's fair.  But when you look at that list - ask yourself if you think Lock is that kind of player, or Stafford is.   And while a 1st is an issue, we're not in can't miss range, either. 

 

[Broncofan]

1 hour ago, AnAngryAmerican said:

Just say those 3 firsts end up being each a Pro Bowl level CB, EDGE and RT plus we give HOU Fant/Jeudy/Sutton, that’s just WAY too expensive for me, good as Watson is. 

 

1 hour ago, bMiller031 said:

I don't disagree but the latent consideration is that no fewer than 1 of those 1sts is going to address the QB position w/o Watson... so the trade is effectively 2 1sts (2022 + 2023) plus a Fant/Jeudy type.  Most likely those picks land in the 20s (hopefully, right?).  No guarantee those guys are pro bowlers or even impact guys. 

The flip side - if Watson's play elevates the O as we'd expect - then the picks become 20's picks.   The odds you hit and get reasonable value, goes way-down.    1.9 has a good shot of finding an impact player, but it's not even a certainty in this class.    1.20 (playoff level) gets REALLY iffy.    We forget that once Peyton had us in AFCG's, our pick whiff rate went way up in Rd1.   

That's also one of the reasons HOU should value NYJ's offer the most, as they're still in a full rebuild - Watson speeds it up, but unlikely he gets them even to .500 from that atrocity of a team (a 4-5 win QB is elite, but if you are 1-15/2-14....you get the idea).   MIA he could easily keep MIA picks in the 20's for years to come from 2021 onwards.

I say all the above with the most important point - Watson isn't a realistic option IMO, we're not even top 3 in terms of ammunition from interested teams.   I would gladly eat crow if we landed Watson with even the offer that's being debated.   It's kinda funny that we're back & forth on this, IMO when it's not even close to the value NYJ & MIA can offer (I get why we're back and forth, but MIA is not in our position).

Edited January 28, 2021 by Broncofan

[jsthomp2007]

1 hour ago, Broncofan said:

 

The flip side - if Watson's play elevates the O as we'd expect - then the picks become 20's picks.   The odds you hit and get reasonable value, goes way-down.    1.9 has a good shot of finding an impact player, but it's not even a certainty in this class.    1.20 (playoff level) gets REALLY iffy.    We forget that once Peyton had us in AFCG's, our pick whiff rate went way up in Rd1.   

That's also one of the reasons HOU should value NYJ's offer the most, as they're still in a full rebuild - Watson speeds it up, but unlikely he gets them even to .500 from that atrocity of a team (a 4-5 win QB is elite, but if you are 1-15/2-14....you get the idea).   MIA he could easily keep MIA picks in the 20's for years to come from 2021 onwards.

I say all the above with the most important point - Watson isn't a realistic option IMO, we're not even top 3 in terms of ammunition from interested teams.   I would gladly eat crow if we landed Watson with even the offer that's being debated.   It's kinda funny that we're back & forth on this, IMO when it's not even close to the value NYJ & MIA can offer (I get why we're back and forth, but MIA is not in our position).

I think Stafford is far more realistic, and we don't have to break the bank to do it.  I also think he fits the Denver culture a bit better...he seems like more of the type you find fly-fishing in Decker, or drinking too many beers at the Great American Beer Festival.  

[jolly red giant]

Has the NFL gone mad - just seen the stuff that the Packers front office are mulling over the future of Rodgers.

By the way - I'm in favour of getting Stafford. 1.9 is a bit steep - maybe getting Stafford and 2.41 would be doable but if push comes to shove I think he improves the offence significantly.

[The Helicopter]

We just need to resign Tim Tebow because Houston would probably take him for Watson straight up.

[broncosfan07]

Seems very reasonable.

[The Helicopter]

As a fan, I would love to see Watson and Mahomes face-off three times a year.

[AnAngryAmerican]

1 hour ago, broncosfan07 said:

Seems very reasonable.

I don't think the contract/salary is the hurdle, it's the draft picks + player compensation that has to be spent to do the trade. 

[grizmo78]

We keep talking about things from the Houston perspective, of who can offer the best package, but we don't look at it from other team's perspectives, specifically the NYJ. Being at the #2 pick, they have the same benefit Houston would, of picking between Fields and Wilson as their next QB. That might lead them to limit how much capital they are willing to move on from to obtain Watson. Ie might prefer Fields with all their picks than losing an additional 2 first rounders+ for Watson. 

Miami on the other hand isn't guaranteed their top 2 QB options in the draft and might be more willing to move on from additional capitol to secure Watson. But, at pick 3, they are guaranteed one of Fields or Wilson, and/or also drafted Tua last year they could feel better about rather than losing additional draft resources. This could limit how much they are willing to offer for Watson as opposed to their alternatives. 

From there, it would be a toss up between Carolina, Denver and SF of who could offer the best package based on the addition of young players to a picks package. All of which don't have the same benefit of NYJ or MIA and could be willing to increase their offer higher.

Edited January 29, 2021 by grizmo78

[jsthomp2007]

28 minutes ago, grizmo78 said:

We keep talking about things from the Houston perspective, of who can offer the best package, but we don't look at it from other team's perspectives, specifically the NYJ. Being at the #2 pick, they have the same benefit Houston would, of picking between Fields and Wilson as their next QB. That might lead them to limit how much capital they are willing to move on from to obtain Watson. Ie might prefer Fields with all their picks than losing an additional 2 first rounders+ for Watson. 

Miami on the other hand isn't guaranteed their top 2 QB options in the draft and might be more willing to move on from additional capitol to secure Watson. But, at pick 3, they are guaranteed one of Fields or Wilson, and/or also drafted Tua last year they could feel better about rather than losing additional draft resources. This could limit how much they are willing to offer for Watson as opposed to their alternatives. 

From there, it would be a toss up between Carolina, Denver and SF of who could offer the best package based on the addition of young players to a picks package. All of which don't have the same benefit of NYJ or MIA and could be willing to increase their offer 

that is unless you think Wilson or Fielda is better than Watson.

[broncosfan07]

1 hour ago, AnAngryAmerican said:

I don't think the contract/salary is the hurdle, it's the draft picks + player compensation that has to be spent to do the trade. 

No doubt but for that kind of salary it’s not that crippling to the future of the team.