Jump to content

What to do at QB?


AnAngryAmerican

What is your preference for the QB spot?  

56 members have voted

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

    • Keep Drew Lock as the starter for 2021
      21
    • Draft a rookie in the 1st round and make him the starter
      15
    • Trade for/sign an established vet (Stafford, Wentz, Ryan)
      14
    • Trade for/sign a journeyman vet (Fitz, Tyrod) to compete with Lock
      6


Recommended Posts

43 minutes ago, Broncofan said:

It really can’t be understated how much Watson carried that team.   His playoff win it was all him again overcoming some very suspect BOB game management.   
 

I know it’s going to be argued Houston went 5-11.   Without Watson they are probably 1-15, 2-14 at best.   He’s already a 4+ W QB in the Josh Allen, 4-6 overall elite tier (Mahomes is #1 by himself LOL).   

I just saw the nearly 5,000 passing yards, 33 TD and 7 INTs this past year.  I know the TD aren't that much, but just seven INTs on a bad team, that seems great!  I think Lock throws at least one pick every game. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the "he'd cost so much in our team cap" argument.....

-First point, Watson's not costing 40M per year - in fact, he's costing just under 30M per year, albeit 2021 is priced so cheaply, it's better to say he's a 32-35M guy from 2022 onwards (yes 2023 has 37M lol, but every other year it's 32-35M):

2021 - 10.5M

2022 - 35M

2023 - 37M

2024 - 32M

2025 - 32M

_________________________

 

I get it, ppl will then say "it's still too high".    But I'm going to counter with the cap analysis that actually says that Watson's salary is very likely going to be a bargain contract as soon as 2022, 2023 at latest.  How does the cap argument say this?   

Well, the TV deal expires after 2021.   And that means a new TV deal is coming - and the TV deal is going to add a revenue stream that's literally untapped - the streaming market.   The old TV deal had a NFL Sunday Ticket that has prevented online streaming from being offered.   That all changes after 2021.  And that adds even more money to the pot for 2022 going forwards.  

Keep in mind the cap increases the NFL has enjoyed reflect the OLD TV deal.  And this was the pattern seen:

2015 - 143.3M (back when Peyton's 19M deal had to be restructured)

2016 - 155.3M

2017 - 167M

2018 - 177M

2019 - 188M

2020 - 198M

2022 - 185M Covid (but was supposed to be 210M)

2022 - 220M projected WITHOUT new TV deal additional revenue (assumes same income)

Because of online streaming revenue being a 0 pre-2022 - the cap increase is felt to be massive.  There's a reason why teams are lining up to extend QB's even 2 years ahead of deadline - HOU last year, BAL this year with Lamar Jackson, and next year, BUF/CLE/ARI with Josh Allen, Baker Mayfield & Kyler Murray.  They can all see the big bump coming - and if they extend now at what seem to be inflated numbers, the cap reality makes it a bargain by the the time that year comes around, if the cap increases as expected.      

It's why Matt Stafford was the highest paid QB on the day he signed his extension in 2017 - and now is the 14th/19th highest by salary, 4 years later.

Even if you are skeptical that new money is coming (but every sports economy analyst states this is the case not as speculation, but as a given) - the cap increase are so significant that by 2023, we're looking at a 230M+ cap.   If there is additional money added to revenue - the cap gets 50+ percent (?54? Can't remember).   So it's not crazy to project a 250M+ cap by 2023/24...or even more.

As a reference - if the cap is at 250M - Watson's salary's doesn't get past 15 percent, and it actually drops to sub-13 percent after 2023.   And that's for a guy playing at his peak.   

________________________________

There's zero doubt it would hurt our overall team for 2021 - 2 to get Watson. That's the argument that is impossible to refute.   It's just a matter of how much that price matters vs. the org's long-term gain (and in 2021, our incredibly easy schedule makes it still very doable with Watson at the helm).  But cap-wise, by 2023, I'd predict Watson's deal would be seen as an asset for his level of play, not a source of debate.   One only need look at A-Rod's 2021-2 contract, or even Matt Stafford's 2021-2 contract, to how it compares now, to how it was perceived at the time of signing, to reinforce this.

 

Edited by Broncofan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As much as it could hurt mortgaging 2-3 years of high quality picks and flipping talented players on rookie deals...that move isn’t about the next 2-3 years. It’s about the next 10-12. You can either try to build a perfect team or you get the QB and guarantee yourself at least a shot every year. This has to be the best young QB to ever hit the market by a long shot, so this is even the rare opportunity where you don’t have to make tough evaluations. 

Edited by BroncoBruin
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, broncosfan07 said:

Pretty sure we don’t really have a choice but to try and get Watson if the Raiders are. Facing Mahomes, Watson, and Herbert 6 times a year might as well be a death sentence for this franchise the next decade.

The 2 advantages we hold over LV - Watson's already put us on the short list of teams to talk to.   We also offer a wider selection of the young players that HOU finds appealing.   In reality, I would be shocked if OAK outbid us.  It's more whether the other 3 teams listed on Watson's short list would pay up more  (NYJ, MIA, and with their 1.8 pick and a lot of young players like Brian Burns, Derrick Brown and Jeremy Chinn, CAR). 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

9 minutes ago, broncosfan07 said:

Pretty sure we don’t really have a choice but to try and get Watson if the Raiders are. Facing Mahomes, Watson, and Herbert 6 times a year might as well be a death sentence for this franchise the next decade.

I think there’s probably some gamesmanship with the Raiders and Broncos here in trying to drive the price up. 

Edited by BroncoBruin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Broncofan said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I wanted to highlight a common theme on why ppl are willing to make a really strong offer for Watson, and not necessarily stand pat with Lock, or pay a similar package in picks for a rookie as plan B:

 

1.  With Mahomes and now Herbert in the AFCW, it isn't enough to just have an "OK" QB - you need either a 2015-level complete team, or you need a top 6-8 QB to compete on a good overall squad.    I know the counter is that the picks reduce our ability to have the good/complete team - but let's accept the 2 years of 1sts/2nds if we are including Lock/Chubb +/- 1 more guy.   With Mahomes & now Herbert in the division, you don't need Matt Ryan 2017-19, you need Matt Ryan 2016 to compete.   Stafford offered that ceiling (although only a 20 percent outcome), at far cheaper - great.   But you need a high-ceiling guy, not just a high-floor guy.   That's why the JimmyG's, Cousins, or even Carr's don't work here (especially at 2nd contract cap costs, but more on that in another post).

2.  Lock's ceiling, and frankly most QB's ceilings - don't match what Watson already provides.   Frankly, not even a Baker Mayfield outcome would be good enough (guy who can play well vs. bad D's, thrives off run game & grerat OL play, but isn't good enough to carry the O on his own arm talent, and who relies on the run game to keep team  ahead / within 1-score).   You need the Josh Allen / Deshaun Watson outcome to compete now.

3.  The Raiders willingness to deal Derek Carr speaks to this - Carr is a very serviceable QB, but he's not at that elite tier.   The Raiders aren't likely going to give him away - but the fact they are willing to deal Carr speaks volumes here.    They have the safe, high-floor guy - and they realize it's not enough.

4.   Rookie-wise, we judge a Baker-level  or even a Carr-level outcome as acceptable.   But for us to compete, a rookie can't "just" be Baker or Carr - that doesn't compete in the long-run with KC & LAC.    That really narrows the range of rookies you feel comfortable in going after - but it also devalues them heavily vs. the known young QB who's already hit that range - that's Watson.

5.  The kicker - Watson's 25.  As alluded to above - you're getting Watson for 5 more years - but in reality, with the likelihood you extend him again,he's yours for 10+ years.  And he's playing at that high level that can hang with the Mahomes, the Herberts, etc.


Those are the football reasons to value Watson over a rookie Rd1 - especially when we likely have to pay a very similar (or close) pick price to move up to 1.2 to get the rookie we want.   Maybe we don't get him, someone else outbids us - that's out of our control.  But going after Watson is an A+ move football-wise.    As for the cap argument - I'll touch on the contract & cap impact Watson's contract has in the next post.

 

Not to mention, the Raiders are after Watson as well.  My brother-in-law is a Raiders fan and he is over the moon excited thinking they might get Watson.  

 

I think that has to go in the calculus of all the picks & players needed to get Watson.  It's not just that he will improve the team and make us a perennial playoff team, it also means Las Vegas doesn't get him.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, broncofan48 said:

Not to mention, the Raiders are after Watson as well.  My brother-in-law is a Raiders fan and he is over the moon excited thinking they might get Watson.  

 

I think that has to go in the calculus of all the picks & players needed to get Watson.  It's not just that he will improve the team and make us a perennial playoff team, it also means Las Vegas doesn't get him.  

I think we can match/outbid LV without going out of Paton's comfort zone, barring a ridiculous return for Carr from another team.   More importantly, Watson would have to agree to go there - LV hasn't even made the list, so that's a massive advantage - LV can't even get in the door if Watson isn't OK with it.    I would be very surprised if LV outbid us.   NYJ/MIA/CAR, on the other hand...

Edited by Broncofan
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, BroncoBruin said:

 

I think there’s probably some gamesmanship with the Raiders and Broncos here in trying to drive the price up. 

I think the only way you see a serious LV bid is a Carr trade that significantly raises their draft stock.   Until then, I tend to agree.   Even then, Watson's no-trade clause makes it moot if they don't get the green light.    The no-trade clause has a huge impact on the market here.

NYJ/MIA and to a lesser extent, CAR are the ones in control of the price market, given Watson's stated preference includes only those 4 teams (for now).   Watson being open to go to LV would be required to make them a serious bidder.

Edited by Broncofan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Broncofan said:

I think the only way you see a serious LV bid is a Carr trade that significantly raises their draft stock.   Until then, I tend to agree.   Even then, Watson's no-trade clause makes it moot if they don't get the green light.    The no-trade clause has a huge impact on the market here.

NYJ/MIA and to a lesser extent, CAR are the ones in control of the price market, given Watson's stated preference includes only those 4 teams (for now).   Watson being open to go to LV would be required to make them a serious bidder.

Oh I think we can, but the fact that they will probably make an offer means that Paton has to make a serious offer himself IMO.  Lowball is probably out of the question 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, thebestever6 said:

I think Wentz averages 23 million per year eagles already paid the signing bonus. Ready somewhere that's like the average 22nd starter in the league. He'd have so much better of a supporting cast here and would cost so much less than Watson. 

There are so many red flags with Wentz both on the field and in the locker room I’d really want no part of him unless he was backup cheap. Anyway I thought the idea of the Sirianni hire was to bring in a Reich guy to fix Wentz. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, BroncoBruin said:

There are so many red flags with Wentz both on the field and in the locker room I’d really want no part of him unless he was backup cheap. Anyway I thought the idea of the Sirianni hire was to bring in a Reich guy to fix Wentz. 

Eh their qb coach was hurts child hood coach or something. There are red flags but he did still show flashes last year even with fulgum as his number one

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just heard about this on both Denver sports radio stations. And during a 10 minute drive nonetheless.

After listening to this debacle I’ve warmed to the idea of including Jerry Jeudy in a potential trade for a QB.

Was he stoned or is he just plain stupid?

You can almost guarantee he’s going to be getting a UA notice soon as part of the NFL’s “random” drug testing program. 

What an embarrassment. 

https://www.totalprosports.com/2021/02/04/social-media-thinks-jerry-jeudy-was-high-as-he-trashed-broncos-qbs-on-espn-radio-tweets/

Edited by AnAngryAmerican
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...