What to do at QB?

[thebestever6]

Just now, BroncoBruin said:

Lol. Tebow wasn’t in the same universe as Kaepernick as an NFL quarterback and I’m someone who viewed Kaep as a backup/spot starter for the rest of his career. There are no parallels. Tebow flamed out because he couldn’t play quarterback. No other reason.

I'll agree to disagree you just agreed Kap was a backup I think Tebow should of warranted a backup job. I get it you're a Zach Mettenberger and Christian Ponder fan. 

The guy Minnesota picked that year had like a 7 year career Joe Webb he had no cult following that was the difference to me.

[thebestever6]

Nevermind Joe Webb is still playing and Tebow still has better career numbers. 

[BroncoBruin]

Joe Webb willingly played wide receiver and returned kicks when it was clear he had no shot at QB. Tebow never considered playing anything but QB. It’s really laughable to compare Tim to Kaep who had a legitimate stretch of quality play as a starting QB at one point 

[Broncofan]

Tim Tebow was one of the greatest college QB's ever - in the top 10 all-time IMO.    He was also a terrible NFL QB.   He had a total of 14 starts, and his arm talent wasn't NFL-caliber.

Kaep started 58 games, and let's face it, he would have played a lot more seasons (maybe he starts, maybe not) had he not been blackballed.   He was only a dangerous QB for about 3 seasons, because he had flaws.  But he actually played very well for 2-3 seasons.  You can't really say that for Tebow.  And I say that as a fan who wanted no part of Kaep because of his flaws, when he was available.  He was also clearly better than the bottom 5-6 QB's starting every year when he wasn't playing post-kneeling.

Tebow was a great story.  He deserves a spot in the College Hall of Fame.    But he was also not NFL-level caliber.  It happens.    Kaep wasn't nearly as good of a college player - but he at least was NFL-caliber at his peak.    That happens, too.  

 

Edited March 23, 2021 by Broncofan

[thebestever6]

It's dumb to even argue Tebow so I'm done lol. But I'm not saying tebow is good at all I'm just saying he was better than a lot of backup guy in that time frame. 

You take a Brandon weeden or a Tom Savage those guys couldn't play or run efficient offenses they just sucked . Tim couldn't run an offense either it literally was like angels in the outfield fourth quarter when he was here.  But I'd take him for a handful of games if a starter went down over those guys just because he's capable of a spark.

Guys like Brock Osweiler or Aj mccaron who can manage an offense, play winning football and have a spark here or there are like the baseline for preferring them over tim.

Josh Johnson is another league journeyman who flammed out too soon I thought before he sparked washington late a couple of seasons back. He should of been on a roster but was out of the league a couple years.

[BroncoBruin]

Well there is a level of ineptitude at QB when you get past the top 45-50 guys that it really doesn’t matter how you stack them, they’re going to be terrible and actively lose you games. At the very least, this Broncos team needs to avoid a scenario where they’re stuck with one of those guys.

I’m starting to wonder what the floor is for QB4 (either Fields or Lance) in this draft. My gut tells me 8. What if Miami and Cincinnati just don’t want to trade down? Would Philly pass on Lance/Fields to go Pitts/WR? A move up to 7 ahead of Carolina would not be very costly if the Lions would go for it.

Edited March 23, 2021 by BroncoBruin

[thebestever6]

1 hour ago, BroncoBruin said:

’m starting to wonder what the floor is for QB4 (either Fields or Lance) in this draft. My gut tells me 8. What if Miami and Cincinnati just don’t want to trade down? Would Philly pass on Lance/Fields to go Pitts/WR? A move up to 7 ahead of Carolina would not be very costly if the Lions would go for it.

I wouldn't touch fields he moved off his first read 7 times last year I read somewhere those QBs never seem to translate.

[jolly red giant]

Sorry - but I think there is a little re-writing of history here relating to Kaepernick. In his last season with the 49ers he played in 12 games, starting 11 of them. He had just come off three separate surgeries, to his shoulder, thumb and knee. He suffered loss of muscle mass during rehab and that is why he couldn't beat out Gabbart. His stats for the season were 196-331, 2241 yds, 16 TDs and 4 INTs - as well as 486 yds rushing with 2 TDs. Those are not bad stats. 

He was benched against the Bears after the Bears D pummeled the 49ers OL and he was 1-5 for 4yds and 5 sacks. He actually kept three drives going with his rushing as he tried to escape the pass rush. The two FGs the 49ers scored were while Kaepernick was on the field. Its not like Gabbert did any better 4-10 for 35yds, in a game the 49ers lost 26-6 and Gabbert couldn't even pick up yds in garbage time - indeed he gave up a safety at the end of the game. Now - Kaepernick wasn't great that last season - but that 49ers team was awful which is why Kelly was sacked. 

As regards taking the knee - don't forget that the NFL paid Kapernick to settle the lawsuit he filed against the NFL owners.

Now - back to the point I made and that others have reiterated. The NFL by and large ignores claims of sexual misconduct, domestic violence etc - which at the same time throws its toys out of the pram when a player makes what was initially a rather mild political statement about police brutality by taking a knee during the national anthem (a stand that is actually protected by the first amendment of the US constitution). 

A number of years ago myself and my son went to a college game in Dublin between Penn State and UCF. We ended up in the middle of thousands of Penn State fans in the upper tier of Croke Park. When the American national anthem started we didn't stand up - and we got dogs abuse from the Americans beside us. I haven't stood for the Irish anthem since I was a teenager, after I came to the realisation that those who promote 'nationalism' and 'patriotism' in Ireland are generally the same people who promote inequality, discrimination, racism, misogyny etc. If I wasn't going to stand for my own anthem then there was no way I was going to stand for an American one, particularly after the US airforce broke Irish neutrality laws by repeatedly flying a military jet over the stadium before the game. In all the years I have refused to stand for the Irish anthem, I have only ever been accosted once and that was by an IRA supporter who I knew and I told to f*ck-off.

I love American sports, I think most Americans are great people, I think America has the potential to be a fantastic country, I would love to visit America and take my time travelling around seeing the place properly (although that is unlikely to ever happen). But one thing many Americans need to realise is that they are not the only people with a country (although, technically, unless you are native American, you are likely to be in America because someone in your family was either an economic immigrant or kidnapped and shipped to the country as a slave), America is not the only place with a flag and a constitution. The Irish constitution contains a neutrality clause - the US government blackmail the Irish government (who are more than happy to acquiesce) on a daily basis by landing military aircraft on Irish soil at Shannon Airport. It is illegal for these planes to carry weapons or armaments of any description, yet US troops regularly walk around the airport (and sometimes in nearby towns) armed with weapons. The Irish cops are supposed to search the planes for weapons when they land, but they never do because the Irish government doesn't want to upset the US government and impact on US FDI in Ireland. In the last two months the US military have broken Irish covid rules on 9 separate occasions by busing US troops for overnight stays on local hotels without any quarantining or testing. Again - nothing gets done.

What is the point of this tangent?

While I love watching American Football - and I would love to have had an opportunity to play it when I was younger - it is a sport riddled with discrimination, misogyny, etc. (the misogyny around the Legends League is mindboggling). The fact that teams will happily sign players with a history of violence and/or abuse against women, but will balk at signing someone for kneeling during a piece of music (not matter how important this piece of music is perceived) demonstrates where American Football is at at the beginning of the third decade of the 21st century. Not alone have the NFL done their best to ignore cases of abuse (and there is a very long list), they have actively attempted to cover it up (as in the case of Kareem Hunt). 

There are now 14 lawsuits filed against Watson, with apparently up to 24 accusers at this stage. While Watson is entitled to due process, these accusations have all the hallmarks of predatory behaviour and given the now sheer volume of claims it is hard to see how Watson can walk away from them. What is shocking is that Ian Rapoport said on McAfee's show that, despite these claims, none of the teams in for Watson were considering dropping out over the allegations (McAfee pressed him on this and he didn't deny the Bears and Dolphins and said there were 4-5 teams still in for Watson). Furthermore, it is saying something about Easterby with hi religious background and his so-called expertise in 'character development' that the Texans would happily put Watson back on the field. At the end of the day the profit making product is more important than dealing with issues such as violence against women.

I was all in for Watson two weeks ago - now - I want no part of him. Lets trade for Foles, roll with Lock and see where it goes.

[thebestever6]

5 minutes ago, jolly red giant said:

was all in for Watson two weeks ago - now - I want no part of him. Lets trade for Foles, roll with Lock and see where it goes.

This is the biggest incident since Hernandez imo. I mean such a high profile player has anyone had 24 charges and not been guilty? I try not to ore judge but damn.

[Broncofan]

50 minutes ago, jolly red giant said:

. What is shocking is that Ian Rapoport said on McAfee's show that, despite these claims, none of the teams in for Watson were considering dropping out over the allegations (McAfee pressed him on this and he didn't deny the Bears and Dolphins and said there were 4-5 teams still in for Watson). Furthermore, it is saying something about Easterby with hi religious background and his so-called expertise in 'character development' that the Texans would happily put Watson back on the field. 

 

The other explanation is that both HOU and the other teams realize what tactics are being used here - this is a case that's being tried through social media, with Watson's choosing to responding via the usual legal means - which honestly is smart.   Trial by social media isn't how Watson's team is going to address this.    If Watson is found guilty of the allegations that show battery - he'll lose in court, and his career is done.   If no criminal charges are laid, and he's found to have only solicited the MT's via civil case hearing , he'll survive - and those teams will still want him.     If the civil charges are outright dismissed/lost (and obv no criminal charges) - then he'll still always carry the stigma of paying for extras (which is really a US-only phenomenon to be judged on, but it's real), but it won't be a career-threatener, and even those who said "I won't touch him" - will change their minds.   We've seen it time & again.

If Watson is guilty of the most serious claims (the forced oral sex x2 - with the complaint noting no physical force used, and him on his back, only instructions) - in this era, he's not going to return to play.   5-10 years ago, maybe.   Now, there's no way.   So there's no way, no how that any team should go after him now.   But teams do their own research, and track themselves - so the fact the Texans would still take him back - speaks volumes.   

By all means, every team should be on avoid.   But we've been down this road before, and we've seen how it turns out - sometimes it's a career-ender, and it's done.  Other times, by the time the process is done, there's a clear path to return back to football.  One key difference - this is the first time that the lawyer is trying to use social media to try the case - before the court proceedings play out.   The reaction of "if there's so many, he must be guilty" thinking is exactly the goal of trial by media first.   The problem with that statement - all but 2-3 of them state he solicited women, and got turned down.   That's not a crime.   But the sheer volume is making ppl jump to conclusions.   The 2-3 more serious claims are also filled with physical inconsistencies than normally seen, and that's from the plaintiff's version - before you get into the actual response from Watson's side, and the nature of he-said/she-said reports.

If Watson's sexually battered women, he won't return, nor should he.    If he's only solicited them, with no battery, or even less inocuous - he's playing again, and as crazy as it sounds - likely in 2021, provided HOU doesn't get stubborn on dealing him if he's cleared to return.   And I would have zero problem with that - if you really believe in due process, you can't really say you've made up your mind to never touch him.  Not touching him now, sure.  Not going after him ever?   That's the reason why it's being presented this way.

Edited March 23, 2021 by Broncofan

[thebestever6]

I just can't help but feel bad for Houston fans man the question going through my mind is can everything revert to the way it was before this incident and the answer is no. Either Watson was set up and sabatoged he'll be real picky with his no trade clause and he won't show up to an organization that ruined his life.

 

Or two he's guilty and we don't see him again or a long time . odds are 2022 is a pipe dream . There's no in between here. And the lawyer saying he lives on the street as the mcnairs but wouldn't recognize them in public I just got weird vibes from that statement. To double down like that was strange.

[thebestever6]

At the same time I don't buy Watson switched because of covid . Like first thing I'm asking is you went from one personel misseause to 25 this past year? Odd

[jolly red giant]

3 minutes ago, Broncofan said:

One key difference - this is the first time that the lawyer is trying to use social media to try the case - before the court proceedings play out.   The reaction of "if there's so many, he must be guilty" thinking is exactly the goal of trial by media first.   The problem with that statement - all but 2-3 of them state he solicited women, and got turned down.   That's not a crime.   But the sheer volume is making ppl jump to conclusions.       

If Watson's battered women, he won't return, nor should he.    If he's only solicited them, with no battery, or even less inocuous - he's playing again, and as crazy as it sounds - likely in 2021, provided HOU doesn't get stubborn on dealing him if he's cleared to return.   And I would have zero problem with that - if you really believe in due process, you can't really say you've made up your mind to never touch him.  Not touching him now, sure.  Not going after him ever?   That's the reason why it's being presented this way.

My understanding is that Watson and his agent were in negotiations with the first claimant and her lawyer and no agreement could be reached. If it had then it is likely that there would have been a NDA and we wouldn't have heard of the other claims. Buzbee went public after the negotiations collapsed and then other women began to come forward. It should also be noted that Watson did respond to the claims and on social media.

Now - could all these women be lying - absolutely. However, countless studies have shown that women rarely lie about instances like this and those that do have their lies exposed very easily. What must be noted is that a woman can feel very vulnerable when faced with a high profile individual who behaves in this manner and has a lot of money, public profile, power and a battery of lawyers behind them. Acts like this are not about sex - they are about one individual attempting to exercise power over another individual. We live in a society where such actions are largely regarded as acceptable, and they shouldn't be. Often it is only when someone else has spoken up that victims fell able to come forward. 

Watson may never be found guilty or even charged with a criminal offence - but the reality is that cases of sexual abuse are rarely if ever brought to a criminal court. Less than 30% of all rape cases are reported, less than 10% of those that are reported are every brought to trial and less than 10% of those cases ever result in a conviction. Now, some people argue that this demonstrates that most women lie about rape and sexual assault - but the reality is that most instances of such assaults happen in private, without witnesses and without any evidence apart from the word of the woman (or on the odd occasion, man) who is the victim.

Looking at the reports of the contents of the lawsuits - there is a clear pattern in the accusations, they come from a range of women, of different ages and of different lengths of experience of working as a masseuse. They demonstrate a pattern of a sexual predator and that is a major concern. 

At the end of the day this will be resolved one way or another - and the profit making product that is the NFL will protect its brand. However, I do not want Watson with the Broncos, no more than I would want any other player who abuses their position to exercise power over a woman through sexual misconduct or violence.

[jsthomp2007]

10 hours ago, Broncofan said:

Tim Tebow was one of the greatest college QB's ever - in the top 10 all-time IMO.    He was also a terrible NFL QB.   He had a total of 14 starts, and his arm talent wasn't NFL-caliber.

Kaep started 58 games, and let's face it, he would have played a lot more seasons (maybe he starts, maybe not) had he not been blackballed.   He was only a dangerous QB for about 3 seasons, because he had flaws.  But he actually played very well for 2-3 seasons.  You can't really say that for Tebow.  And I say that as a fan who wanted no part of Kaep because of his flaws, when he was available.  He was also clearly better than the bottom 5-6 QB's starting every year when he wasn't playing post-kneeling.

Tebow was a great story.  He deserves a spot in the College Hall of Fame.    But he was also not NFL-level caliber.  It happens.    Kaep wasn't nearly as good of a college player - but he at least was NFL-caliber at his peak.    That happens, too.  

 

Tebow went 3 for 10 in a game against the Chiefs throwing two touchdowns to beat the Chiefs.  That's just special in my opinion.  

[Broncofan]

7 minutes ago, jolly red giant said:

My understanding is that Watson and his agent were in negotiations with the first claimant and her lawyer and no agreement could be reached. If it had then it is likely that there would have been a NDA and we wouldn't have heard of the other claims. Buzbee went public after the negotiations collapsed and then other women began to come forward. It should also be noted that Watson did respond to the claims and on social media.

Now - could all these women be lying - absolutely. However, countless studies have shown that women rarely lie about instances like this and those that do have their lies exposed very easily. What must be noted is that a woman can feel very vulnerable when faced with a high profile individual who behaves in this manner and has a lot of money, public profile, power and a battery of lawyers behind them. Acts like this are not about sex - they are about one individual attempting to exercise power over another individual. We live in a society where such actions are largely regarded as acceptable, and they shouldn't be. Often it is only when someone else has spoken up that victims fell able to come forward. 

Watson may never be found guilty or even charged with a criminal offence - but the reality is that cases of sexual abuse are rarely if ever brought to a criminal court. Less than 30% of all rape cases are reported, less than 10% of those that are reported are every brought to trial and less than 10% of those cases ever result in a conviction. Now, some people argue that this demonstrates that most women lie about rape and sexual assault - but the reality is that most instances of such assaults happen in private, without witnesses and without any evidence apart from the word of the woman (or on the odd occasion, man) who is the victim.

Looking at the reports of the contents of the lawsuits - there is a clear pattern in the accusations, they come from a range of women, of different ages and of different lengths of experience of working as a masseuse. They demonstrate a pattern of a sexual predator and that is a major concern. 

At the end of the day this will be resolved one way or another - and the profit making product that is the NFL will protect its brand. However, I do not want Watson with the Broncos, no more than I would want any other player who abuses their position to exercise power over a woman through sexual misconduct or violence.

There’s absolutely no way Watson isn’t soliciting.   The difference between solicitation and sexual battery is a huge gulf.    That’s the distinction, and it’s a key one.   The breadth of claims point to solicitation.   The claims with battery have siginificant physical inconsistencies and that’s only the plaintiff side.    It’s where letting due process play out tells the tale.  

Edited March 23, 2021 by Broncofan