Jump to content

What to do at QB?


What is your preference for the QB spot?  

35 members have voted

  1. 1. What is your preference for the QB spot?

    • Keep Drew Lock as the starter for 2021
      16
    • Draft a rookie in the 1st round and make him the starter
      6
    • Trade for/sign an established vet (Stafford, Wentz, Ryan)
      10
    • Trade for/sign a journeyman vet (Fitz, Tyrod) to compete with Lock
      4


Recommended Posts

37 minutes ago, broncosfan_101 said:

This is 100% the thing. For a guy with 46 SEC starts, you should absolutely see *some* kind of growth as a player between professional start #1 and professional start #20. There’s none. Nothing. 

I just wanted to see more high level splash plays from him that got me excited about the talent level. Like I'd be fine with bad games and bad decisions if he was throwing dimes / stepping into the pocket and making big time throws. We've seen very few of those moments and so many inaccurate misses in moments that felt like he could have really showed us something. Like Sunday he got out of the pocket in the 4th quarter (i think this was last drive) and one hopped it to an open Hamilton...like....if you are a stud you make that throw. Of course not judging on one throw, but there have been a lot of moments like that this year 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, broncosfan_101 said:

Also. A lot of people are (rightly) saying that Vic/Elway are heading into a make-or-break season, and are making the connection that this will be must-win 2021. But what if there’s another way forward? What if they don’t necessarily go for the must-win season, but they go for the ‘here is the tangible path towards 2022 being the year we get back to the playoffs’? What if that path is trading up for Zach Wilson, and hoping you’ve got a Justin Herbert type player? If that’s the play, you’re in a situation much like LAC, where the results this year don’t matter nearly as much as the process. I don’t know, it could be a way to buy themselves another year. 

That's my thinking too. In such a scenarios, they can pitch to the new owner that that things are trending in the right direction. And I think applies to both keeping Lock or drafting a rookie in the first round making him the guy from day 1. The mistake they can't make is draft a rookie in round 1 and then say "it's a camp competition between him and Lock," the rookie has to be named the starter literally minutes after Goodell announces his name at the draft. 

Another problem I see with the veteran journeyman route with a camp competition is that is cuts Drew's legs out from under him almost immediately and it creates a QB controversy where it's the only thing that the Denver media and fan base talk about from March to September (the media already largely has this problem, The Fan is non-stop Broncos QB talk from 6am to midnight). Drew has a bad game and we put in, say, Fitz, then we muddle along until the 38 year old gets hurt and Drew is back, puts together a solid four or five game run to end the year and then we're right back here in 12 months. I can completely envision that scenario happening. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, bMiller031 said:

Allbright had an interesting AMA hour on Twitter and said, from what he’s hearing, it’s likely Lock + a vet FA signing. The vets he listed were Minshew (who I like), Foles, and Dalton.  If Darnold is available, which is a big TBD now, the FO will be all over that but trading for other established starters (Stafford and Ryan) will be cost prohibitive (both as a cap figure and trade comp) and is unlikely. Apparently the FO (like many on here) don’t see any of the QBs besides Lawrence as day one rookie starters.

I'll keep saying it, that's the worst decision they could make but given the outright ineptitude of this franchise for the last five-plus years I cannot say I'm surprised. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I only see two options:

1) Sign a veteran to truly compete with Lock. If Lock wins the job, we roll with him as the starter. Fitzmagic & Winston seem like the best options. Brissett sounds interesting too. He had a decent 2019 and has some athleticism.

2) Take Fields or Wilson & make him the guy. This is contingent on having a realistic chance of snagging one of them.

I don't think option 2 is very likely, nor will it help short-term. I don't like the word deserve in this context, but for lack of a better word, Fangio & Lock deserve a chance next year. This doesn't mean we give the job to Lock. He needs to compete with another QB that threatens his starting job.

Edited by Joe_is_the_best
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, AnAngryAmerican said:

I'll keep saying it, that's the worst decision they could make but given the outright ineptitude of this franchise for the last five-plus years I cannot say I'm surprised. 

Agreed.  When the decision making process is driven by things other than what's in the best interest of the organization (i.e. how can the GM/HC keep their jobs, how can we maximize advertising revenue, etc.) you're on the fast track to perennial dysfunction.

It's difficult enough to win when everything is aligned at the four most important positions (Ownership, GM, HC, & QB) and almost impossible with either A) outright dysfunction/incompetence (Ownership & QB) or B) guys looking out for #1 (GM & HC). 

Edited by bMiller031
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, bMiller031 said:

Allbright had an interesting AMA hour on Twitter and said, from what he’s hearing, it’s likely Lock + a vet FA signing. The vets he listed were Minshew (who I like), Foles, and Dalton.  If Darnold is available, which is a big TBD now, the FO will be all over that but trading for other established starters (Stafford and Ryan) will be cost prohibitive (both as a cap figure and trade comp) and is unlikely. Apparently the FO (like many on here) don’t see any of the QBs besides Lawrence as day one rookie starters.

 

16 minutes ago, AnAngryAmerican said:

I'll keep saying it, that's the worst decision they could make but given the outright ineptitude of this franchise for the last five-plus years I cannot say I'm surprised. 

Regardless of who's the driving force behind it, Elway's greatest failing philosophy-wise during the post-SB era has been the drive to look at present-year as the main focus for the draft, especially after the 2016 season, where it was painfully obvious the team needed to think long-term, and not just "this year".     That's a philosophy that successful teams rarely employ, given that very few rookies end up being impact contributors year 1 (outside of RB/ILB).  Even if they start, they're usually average at best - thinking about a guy's impact year 2-5 is far more realistic, and usually provides a much higher ceiling overall.    The disastrous 2017 draft was based on getting guys to have a year 1 impact - and failed miserably as a result (especially when combined with an emphasis on raw tools over skills - witness Carlos Henderson's speed over Godwin/Golladay Rd3).   It's just discouraging to see the same mistake now being applied to the 2021 season.

I'm not against passing on QB Rd1 - if the guy isn't there where we pick, so be it.  But it shouldn't be an assessment on whether a QB can start Day 1.    That's the most myopic foundation for assessing draft value.   If anything, Lock's presence should allow the team to think about a guy who might need half or longer before taking the reins.   Mahomes needed a full year before starting.   The plan with Herbert was at least half a season of tutelage.   Josh Allen was an abomination year 1.    Lamar Jackson took a full year.   Now I get it, not all these cases apply to the present draft class - but the notion that a QB has to be ready to start Day 1 and help the team win that early - it's so out of touch with QB evaluation nowadays.   It's a really bad reflection of Elway's QB evaluation skill set - the one area he just hasn't figured out.  And it's definitely the problem with keeping GM & HC's who are trying to keep their job - they aren't interested in what can help the team thrive in 2022, if they're not around after 2021.     Sigh....

Edited by Broncofan
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, AnAngryAmerican said:

That's my thinking too. In such a scenarios, they can pitch to the new owner that that things are trending in the right direction. And I think applies to both keeping Lock or drafting a rookie in the first round making him the guy from day 1. The mistake they can't make is draft a rookie in round 1 and then say "it's a camp competition between him and Lock," the rookie has to be named the starter literally minutes after Goodell announces his name at the draft. 

Another problem I see with the veteran journeyman route with a camp competition is that is cuts Drew's legs out from under him almost immediately and it creates a QB controversy where it's the only thing that the Denver media and fan base talk about from March to September (the media already largely has this problem, The Fan is non-stop Broncos QB talk from 6am to midnight). Drew has a bad game and we put in, say, Fitz, then we muddle along until the 38 year old gets hurt and Drew is back, puts together a solid four or five game run to end the year and then we're right back here in 12 months. I can completely envision that scenario happening. 

I don't agree with the second paragraph (I agree with the first, if they go this route). At the end of the day, Lock hasn't done enough to warrant us not bringing in a more established backup QB. Lock also has a ton of swagger and confidence in himself (might be the best thing he has going for him), so I think this won't impact him as much as, say, Paxton Lynch. It matters what backup we bring in. Fitz is a worse option in that he would be a 1-year stopgap. Jameis, for example, could have multiple years here in the right scenario. 

At the end of the day, QB is the most important player on the team. Drew has been injured both of his years in the league, and we've had Brandon Allen, Jeff Driskel, Kendall Hinton, and Brett Rypien play QB for us. It's not logical to go into the season without someone behind him, he's not good enough to be trusted in that way.

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

If anything, Lock's presence should allow the team to think about a guy who might need half or longer before taking the reins. 

There’s really only one scenario that I would 100% be opposed to, and that’s drafting a QB round one, but keeping Drew Lock on the roster. That’s a great way to sow dysfunction in a QB room, and I don’t think it’s healthy for either of their progress. Especially if you’re drafting a raw kid like Lance, you need an experienced vet who can really help the guy watch film, identify, diagnose. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, broncosfan_101 said:

There’s really only one scenario that I would 100% be opposed to, and that’s drafting a QB round one, but keeping Drew Lock on the roster. That’s a great way to sow dysfunction in a QB room, and I don’t think it’s healthy for either of their progress. Especially if you’re drafting a raw kid like Lance, you need an experienced vet who can really help the guy watch film, identify, diagnose. 

Well, if you can get anything for Lock, and you draft a Rd1 QB, sure.   I'd totally be on board with a caretaker / rookie combo if we go that way - because Lock isn't a mentor lol.   But I don't know that his value is that high right now.   Honestly, I think the most likely scenario is Lock/vet - but if a guy falls from the top 4 and Elway's on board - well, you get the idea.   That's where you can end up with the rookie/Lock combo on Draft night - and then you've got to complete the back end to get the result you're talking about (Lock gone, and a vet caretaker brought in).  I don't think there is any scenario where DEN plans to trade Lock first, then draft a QB.   Lock/vet is still plan A - but guys can fall and change the plan; that's the only plausible scenario I see (and then yes, better to follow up & get what you can for Lock, but it's unlikely to be Lock leaving first, unless this is the biggest smokescreen job that we've never seen the FO do before).

This may be a moot discussion - we beat the Raiders, no chance we're sniffing the top 4 QB's (and Parsons, too).   Even if we do, we may not be in that position.    Hopefully that would mean Parsons is there for us - I'm good with a CB like Horn/Surtain (or if someone is really that much better in the draft eval, sure), but like I said before, the CB will have the lowest ceiling vs. a Parson MIKE or a QBOTF from the top 4.   But that's for the Draft thread lol....

Edited by Broncofan
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Broncofan said:

Well, if you can get anything for Lock, and you draft a Rd1 QB, sure.   I'd totally be on board with a caretaker / rookie combo if we go that way - because Lock isn't a mentor lol.   But I don't know that his value is that high right now.   Honestly, I think the most likely scenario is Lock/vet - but if a guy falls from the top 4 and Elway's on board - well, you get the idea.   That's where you can end up with the rookie/Lock combo on Draft night - and then you've got to complete the back end to get the result you're talking about (Lock gone, and a vet caretaker brought in).  I don't think there is any scenario where DEN plans to trade Lock first, then draft a QB.   Lock/vet is still plan A - but guys can fall and change the plan; that's the only plausible scenario I see (and then yes, better to follow up & get what you can for Lock, but it's unlikely to be Lock leaving first, unless this is the biggest smokescreen job that we've never seen the FO do before).

Either way, a vet like Fitz/Dalton should be brought in before the draft. So Lock + vet would already be in place, Elway doesn’t need to act super desperate on draft night to get one of the top guys. But if he can make it happen, now it’s Wilson/Lance + vet and you shop Lock for whatever you can get.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, broncosfan_101 said:

Either way, a vet like Fitz/Dalton should be brought in before the draft. So Lock + vet would already be in place, Elway doesn’t need to act super desperate on draft night to get one of the top guys. But if he can make it happen, now it’s Wilson/Lance + vet and you shop Lock for whatever you can get.

Given how uncertain the vet market is, and who drafts QB, it wouldn’t surprise me to see the caretaker market stay cold until after Draft Day.   Dalton didn’t sign until the week after Draft; Cam & Winston much later.  
 

There are so many dominoes that fall after the draft - the team that signs a vet early is likely paying well-above market compared to post-draft.   It’s shaping up to be one of the most fascinating offseasons for QB carousel (albeit with no big star power but more volume) in a while.   So many different scenarios for different teams (other than JAX lol).  

Edited by Broncofan
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, broncosfan_101 said:

This is 100% the thing. For a guy with 46 SEC starts, you should absolutely see *some* kind of growth as a player between professional start #1 and professional start #20. There’s none. Nothing. 

Also to be fair, any time he faced a team in the SEC that wasn't vanderbilt or Kentucky, they swept the floor with Lock's team.

 

I'd take Stafford in an absolute heartbeat.

 

get some CB help. 

Maybe some more DL depth. Voila. Playoff team

Link to post
Share on other sites

I also want to say I found an interesting stat by SportsInfoSolutions-

I am in no means giving Jeudy a pass for a Troy Williamson bust esque performance....BUT

Jerry Jeudy leads the league in uncatchable targets by 2 with Jeudy at 32 and Allen Robinson of Chicago at 30.

So he has 106 targets, 32 of those weren't catchable.

74 were catchable, he's caught 47 of them. 9 were dropped. Ceedee Lamb has dropped 8.

Once you break it all down, yes he had a terrible bust esque day, but overall this year, he hasn't really been that bad. Just has terrible QB's throwing him the ball.

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...