What to do at QB?

[germ-x]

1 minute ago, germ-x said:

 

Edited February 19, 2021 by germ-x

[germ-x]

$30M over 2 years is nothing at the QB position.  This is an over exaggeration.

If you’re trading for him to begin with it’s not for 2 years it’s for a decade.  The guy is like 23.  You’re trading for him with the expectation that you’re going to pay him $25+M a year for the next decade.

 

[germ-x]

Trading for 23 year old Sam Darnold won’t be a short term outlook.  Just like Watson.  You believe he’s the future.

The debate isn’t about the money or 5th year option....that’s peanuts at the QB position over 2 years.  It’s about if he’s the long term solution and you only make that move if he is.

[Broncofan]

11 minutes ago, germ-x said:

Lol.  2 years $30M guaranteed is cheap as hell.  What is happening in this forum?

It’s cheap if you have a level of performance you can bank on.   Darnold has a huge ceiling but his floor is still really low.  
 

If he’s a bust the 25M in 2022 is a complete albatross.   If he was a sure thing he wouldn’t be traded away or cost so little in relative terms price wise.  

[broncofan48]

1 minute ago, Broncofan said:

It’s cheap if you have a level of performance you can bank on.   Darnold has a huge ceiling but his floor is still really low.  
 

If he’s a bust the 25M in 2022 is a complete albatross.   If he was a sure thing he wouldn’t be traded away or cost so little in relative terms price wise.  

He either busts and gets paid the $30M for the next 2 years, or he’s good enough to get a new contract, and while that might be expensive it would be a good problem to have 

[Broncofan]

5 minutes ago, broncofan48 said:

He either busts and gets paid the $30M for the next 2 years, or he’s good enough to get a new contract, and while that might be expensive it would be a good problem to have 

No one argues the price is fine if Darnold succeeds.   But the 25M guarantee makes it a much riskier prop than when the option wasn’t guaranteed except for injury.   It’s that simple.  
 

If the risk wasn’t significant Darnold’s market and price would be very high.   If he’s going for a day 2 pick it’s a reflection of the recognition that the risk is very real.  Having less guarantees associated the risk just makes it a no brainer.   Now you’re tying a lot more risk.into the equation with failure.  That’s all.  
 

Its a moot point as we don’t even know if he’s available.   And Watson is a far better scenario regardless.   It was just a no brainer scenario in terms of low risk before the CBA changed the option rules with this class. 

Edited February 19, 2021 by Broncofan

[germ-x]

Just now, Broncofan said:

It’s cheap if you have a level of performance you can bank on.   Darnold has a huge ceiling but his floor is still really low.  
 

If he’s a bust the 25M in 2022 is a complete albatross.   If he was a sure thing he wouldn’t be traded away or cost so little in relative terms price wise.  

No it’s not.  It’s a salary outside of the top 10 at the position for 2021 and probably even more so for 2022.

If you don’t believe in Darnold I get it.  But that should be the argument.  His $30M over 2 years isn’t an issue.  It’s over a 2 year span of incredibly cheap, actually. 

[Broncofan]

6 minutes ago, germ-x said:

No it’s not.  It’s a salary outside of the top 10 at the position for 2021 and probably even more so for 2022.

If you don’t believe in Darnold I get it.  But that should be the argument.  His $30M over 2 years isn’t an issue.  It’s over a 2 year span of incredibly cheap, actually. 

If he’s an outright bust then the 30M is far worse than the 1/5M.   That risk if busting is real.  I say that as someone who gets why we’d look there.  It’s just the risk before was 1/5M guaranteed and a non-guaranteed 1/20 the year after; so the baseline risk changes.   That's not an opinion; it's hard fact.   

The pre-2021 scenario - 5M guaranteed money risk

The scenario now - 30M guaranteed money risk.

You’re only presenting the positive outcome to justify the change in risk.  When the negative outcome came with a lot lower risk in prior years.   Dismissing the risk doesn’t change the fact it’s different than last years option.   

Edited February 19, 2021 by Broncofan

[broncofan48]

1 minute ago, Broncofan said:

If he’s an outright bust then the 30M is far worse than the 1/5M.   That risk if busting is real.  I say that as someone who gets why we’d look there.  It’s just the risk before was 1/5M guaranteed and a non-guaranteed 1/20 the year after    

You’re only presenting the positive outcome to justify the risk.  When the negative outcome came with a lot lower risk in prior years.   Dismissing the risk doesn’t change the fact it’s different than last years option.   

It’s only one year, and if Darnold busts and he’s not deserving of a new contract, then the team won’t be competing and will be back to square 1 the year after he leaves.   

[broncofan48]

Also not 100% sure what the contract situation is in 2022 but how many of the younger guys will even be up for a renewal at that point?  
 

Sutton?  I’m sure I’m missing some but if the contract won’t keep Denver from keeping talent home I think it’s worth it, even if Darnold busts 

[Broncofan]

9 minutes ago, broncofan48 said:

It’s only one year, and if Darnold busts and he’s not deserving of a new contract, then the team won’t be competing and will be back to square 1 the year after he leaves.   

Right, but they're out 25M - and because it's guaranteed, they're likely doubling the time we commit to Darnold.   Again, if he's the guy - no problem, that's a good situation.  But even if Darnold shows he's not the guy next year, this almost certainly guarantees we stick it out and hope 2022 is different.  It just magnifies the cost of the worst-case scenario, when that cost (outside of the pick price) was literally non-existent before.

Again, no one argues if it works, this is all fine.  I'm right there with you.  It's why I was OK with it at the right price (3.8).   But we all recognize this didn't come without risk Darnold wouldn't work out, either.   It's just now the downside is now far greater with Darnold failing, that's all.  We're just committed to 1 more year, and 25M we can't get out of, if the bust scenario happens.  And we're likely committing to the full 2 years even if Darnold does nothing to show the light is coming on this year.    Before the CBA, it was a 5M risk.  Now it's a 30M risk, and we are tied for 2 years.    

It's a moot point until we hear he's on the market, and I get the positives are why ppl look to this.  It's just the downside got a lot more expensive if Darnold outright busts (and the only reason he's being dealt, and not for a big return, is the recognition it's a legitimate scenario) for whoever takes him on than it was before, as recently as even last year.   That's all.  Moving on.

Edited February 19, 2021 by Broncofan

[germ-x]

Just for some perspective on what QBs get paid in the NFL.  Denver committed to $25M guaranteed for a 30+ year old Case Keenum.

Again, the argument with Darnold has nothing to do with money.  His $30M guaranteed at 23 years old is peanuts in today’s NFL.

This needs to move away from salary and toward whether he’s the long term answer or not. 

[thebestever6]

Ever since the Jags signed Bortles to that short term two year deal I've had a different outlook on qb contracts. 

Sam Darnold would be in that same category but his ceiling is higher than Bortles ever had.

[broncofan48]

16 minutes ago, Broncofan said:

Right, but they're out 25M - and because it's guaranteed, they're likely doubling the time we commit to Darnold.   Again, if he's the guy - no problem, that's a good situation.  But even if Darnold shows he's not the guy next year, this almost certainly guarantees we stick it out and hope 2022 is different.  It just magnifies the cost of the worst-case scenario, when that cost (outside of the pick price) was literally non-existent before.

Again, no one argues if it works, this is all fine.  I'm right there with you.  It's why I was OK with it at the right price (3.8).   But we all recognize this didn't come without risk Darnold wouldn't work out, either.   It's just now the downside is now far greater with Darnold failing, that's all.  We're just committed to 1 more year, and 25M we can't get out of, if the bust scenario happens.  And we're likely committing to the full 2 years even if Darnold does nothing to show the light is coming on this year.    Before the CBA, it was a 5M risk.  Now it's a 30M risk, and we are tied for 2 years.    

It's a moot point until we hear he's on the market, and I get the positives are why ppl look to this.  It's just the downside got a lot more expensive if Darnold outright busts (and the only reason he's being dealt, and not for a big return, is the recognition it's a legitimate scenario) for whoever takes him on than it was before, as recently as even last year.   That's all.  Moving on.

I mean I get what you’re saying but what me and @germ-x are saying is that it’s really not that much money in the grand scheme and isn’t going to negatively affect the team.  If he busts were looking for a QBOTF again and who cares if there’s one year where we have an overpaid Sam Darnold.  We been paying James that much to not even play.   I think it’s a no brained IF you believe that Darnold can turn it around.  Well worth the risk even $30m guaranteed if he is worse than Lock is worth taking the chance IMO

[Broncofan]

14 minutes ago, broncofan48 said:

I mean I get what you’re saying but what me and @germ-x are saying is that it’s really not that much money in the grand scheme and isn’t going to negatively affect the team.  If he busts were looking for a QBOTF again and who cares if there’s one year where we have an overpaid Sam Darnold.  We been paying James that much to not even play.   I think it’s a no brained IF you believe that Darnold can turn it around.  Well worth the risk even $30m guaranteed if he is worse than Lock is worth taking the chance IMO

I hear that - but as of last year, it wasn't even any risk - that's all I've been saying.   If Darnold's the answer for whoever gets him, then no one will question the price.   If he's not the answer, though, doubling the years and the cost 6x (from 1/5M to 2/30M), it won't matter 5 years from now - but in 2022, I guarantee the fanbase on the team that does have Darnold, if he's not the answer, will despair.  It's entirely fair to say that long-term, this risk/price fades.   It's just that before this year, it literally had no risk outside of the draft pick.  It actually made it a no-brainer even if you were only half-sold on Darnold.   The increase in risk means you have to be more sold on him.   If you are, great, it doesn't really factor in.  If you're half, or not sold - then yeah, it's going to sting a lot more than before.

I think we've beaten this to death, and it's just a hypothetical...so moving on (I promise lol).   I'll just go on record as saying I really hope we get Watson, so all of the above discussion is truly moot.  😁

 

Edited February 19, 2021 by Broncofan