What’s your offer for Deshaun Watson?

[AKRNA]

5 hours ago, Zukhyubern said:

Yeah and I guess that’s what I’m wondering: do they know this? It’s obviously conventional wisdom and the more prudent choice to trade him before the draft. But maybe they really just are stupid and stubborn enough to wait. 
 

let’s say they stay firm on not trading him, try and make big FA acquisitions and draft moves etc only to have Deshaun double down and force their hand? In that scenario is it more likely that they TRIPLE down and wade through a holdout? Or are they left with no choice but to take what they can get and trade him to a team that he chooses for less compensation?

Houston holds all the cards in this one. Watson's under contract through 2025. This is his last "cheap" year. He'll count only $16 mil against the cap. Next year that number jumps to $40 million.

Watson's only one year away from the big bucks. He'll shut up and play. 

[germ-x]

In baseball terms....you give up the farm.  He’s that good.  

It actually blows my mind how much Denver fans are against targeting Watson.

No one has complained about what Denver gave up for Elway and the amount of money he was paid over 16 years. 

Denver paid Manning nearly $100M over 4 years after a severe neck injury. 

I don’t know that Watson is quite in Elway or Manning’s class, but he’s easily a top 5-8 QB in the league right now and is only 25.  This team hasn’t won **** without an elite QB.

 

 

[champ11]

10 hours ago, germ-x said:

In baseball terms....you give up the farm.  He’s that good.  

It actually blows my mind how much Denver fans are against targeting Watson.

No one has complained about what Denver gave up for Elway and the amount of money he was paid over 16 years. 

Denver paid Manning nearly $100M over 4 years after a severe neck injury. 

I don’t know that Watson is quite in Elway or Manning’s class, but he’s easily a top 5-8 QB in the league right now and is only 25.  This team hasn’t won **** without an elite QB.

 

 

there's a chance that a massive trade for Watson backfires, but i'd say we're about 95% guaranteed to be completely irrelevant this season with Drew back after we take a defensive player at #9. and it's gonna stay that way until we get a legitimately good QB. obviously a discussion to be had about how much you give up for DW, but getting a deal done would be the best thing to happen to this franchise since.....idk, the Talib/Ware day of free agency or of course the PFM signing 

[jolly red giant]

On 2/15/2021 at 2:35 PM, thebestever6 said:

What happened since 2008 means nothing we have a new GM in Paton. And our scouting department seemed to change in 2018 really irrelevant.

I went and had a look at the Vikings drafting from 2006 (when Paton started with the Vikings) to 2017 -

Out of the 24 players drafted by the Vikings in the first and second rounds - 11 became starting calibre players. So while it is still better than Elway's record - it is still less than half of the draft picks that became starting players for the Vikings and only 5 were kept beyond their rookie contracts.

If the Broncos were to trade 3 firsts and 3 seconds for Watson - then it is likely that we would at most be losing out on 3 starters not 6.

What was very noticeable was the number of trades (particularly trading down) that the Vikings engaged in over that period - they had a lot of picks in the third and fourth rounds.

Edited February 16, 2021 by jolly red giant

[thebestever6]

7 minutes ago, jolly red giant said:

the Broncos were to trade 3 firsts and 3 seconds for Watson - then it is likely that we would at most be losing out on 3 starters not 6.

I think depth matters too though especially along the trenches. And that's assuming those picks don't turn into more picks which is likely to happen given they liked getting more. Also grabbed Diggs in round 5. I'd like to see the collaborative effort of our improved scouting department and Paton.

[jolly red giant]

3 hours ago, thebestever6 said:

I think depth matters too though especially along the trenches. And that's assuming those picks don't turn into more picks which is likely to happen given they liked getting more. Also grabbed Diggs in round 5. I'd like to see the collaborative effort of our improved scouting department and Paton.

Of course depth matters - and you get the depth in the mid to late rounds.

Your argument against spending the 6 picks on Watson was that it would deprive the Broncos of 6 starting calibre players - the reality is that it is more like 2-3 starting calibre players and a couple of depth players. 

Getting a QB like Watson for that price (along with Lock, Chubb and even Jeudy - I think Chubb is gone anyway and Jeudy has a lot of growing up to do before he becomes a seriously good WR) - and I would have no problem doing that deal - getting Watson would not be a Herschel Walker . If you look back at the teams that won the SB over the past 30 years - all bar 5 of them had a Watson level QB at the helm - including Elway and Manning for the Broncos. The 5 exceptions were Warner, Difler, Johnson, Flacco and Foles (and you could make a strong case for Warner not to be included in that list). And only 2 of those QBs were in the past 20 years. Now Brady may have distorted this a bit - but some of his rings also came against franchise QBs.

If you want to win a SB then you need a franchise level QB as the first piece of the puzzle. It would be great if Lock turned out to be that piece - but we know Watson is that good.

[Broncofan]

2 hours ago, jolly red giant said:

 

If you want to win a SB then you need a franchise level QB as the first piece of the puzzle. It would be great if Lock turned out to be that piece - but we know Watson is that good.

The wide angle part to this - looking at SB winners doesn't paint enough of a picture of how much easier it is to get to serious contention for the SB when you have the high-level QB.   If you widen it to final 4 appearances (AFCG/NFCG), this is the list you get since 2010 (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 (back when he was still decent), 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

That list really shows that outside of Mark Sanchez, the only way you go deep in the playoffs repeatedly - you get franchise-level QB play.    Average-level QB play only gets you the odd time there (Sanchez notwithstanding).   I think the fact we got there in 2015 with Peyton being so bad, it's clouded DEN fans from the overall perspective that you can get to a SB different ways - but if you want to keep being a contender, it's a LOT easier with a true franchise-level QB.

The other part that we need to recognize - with Mahomes & now Herbert in our division - we can't likely just be content with top 9-12 level QB play.   Getting a Baker Mayfield result is likely not good enough.    And that makes drafting a rookie, or hoping Lock works out, a lot iffier.    We all have concerns about Lock, and even the most optimistic Bronco supporters recognize the outright bust potential - but we also should recognize that the ceiling is likely nowhere near what Watson already brings.    If we're in another division, the need to get top 5-6 level play to match Mahomes, and possibly Herbert (he's not there yet, but his ceiling is definitely elite, sad to say) doesn't exist.   But it exists with us in 2021, and will for the foreseeable future.  There's no coincidence in why LV isn't necessarily content to keep the status quo with Derek Carr - because he's just not at that level that matches what KC now has, and LAC might have very shortly.  

The price is steep, no doubt.  But Watson's level of play is exactly what we need to counter KC, and likely LAC.   It's not just top 12 QB play anymore.   And those opportunities to get a known quantity who's already top 5-6, they come around once a generation.  It's why the buzz is there, and why I'd support a move to get him without reservation (ideally with only Lock/Chubb and the picks).   And his age-25 status and long contract at what I absolutely believe will be below-market rates for top-10 QB play (let alone top 5-6), that gives us a sustained window to contend that's well beyond those years with lost picks (realistically, can expect 8-10 years peak play barring serious injury), well, sign me up.

Edited February 16, 2021 by Broncofan

[1234567]

1 hour ago, Broncofan said:

I think the fact we got there in 2015 with Peyton being so bad, it's clouded DEN fans from the overall perspective that you can get to a SB different ways - but if you want to keep being a contender, it's a LOT easier with a true franchise-level QB.

I think this is a really, really good point. That 2015 defense was a top 5 all-time level D. When you look at historically great defenses in this league, it's extremely rare to see them maintain that level of dominance for more than a season or two. It's just too hard to keep the band together once all their contracts start renewing.  

[Broncofan]

7 minutes ago, 1234567 said:

I think this is a really, really good point. That 2015 defense was a top 5 all-time level D. When you look at historically great defenses in this league, it's extremely rare to see them maintain that level of dominance for more than a season or two. It's just too hard to keep the band together once all their contracts start renewing.  

That was also the absolute worst regular season O and worst regular season QB performance-wise (relative to their peers) to be a SB winner.    It's so unlikely to be sustainable (and we were literally 1 score away from losing every game, as well, with many key plays that preserved our W's).

[AKRNA]

14 minutes ago, Broncofan said:

That was also the absolute worst regular season O and worst regular season QB performance-wise (relative to their peers) to be a SB winner.    It's so unlikely to be sustainable (and we were literally 1 score away from losing every game, as well, with many key plays that preserved our W's).

I'm not sure that's true. The 2008 Steelers had the #! rated D but the offense sucked. I'm sure there's more examples but this one I remember.

You win lots of ball games when your D gives up less than 14 per game.

[Broncofan]

1 hour ago, AKRNA said:

I'm not sure that's true. The 2008 Steelers had the #! rated D but the offense sucked. I'm sure there's more examples but this one I remember.

You win lots of ball games when your D gives up less than 14 per game.

DEN was the 25th O by DVOA (#1 D) - BAL 2000 was 22nd (#2 overall D but with another great D at elite levels #1), TAM 2002 was 20th (#1 D) and PIT 2008 was 21st (#1 D).   DEN is clearly the worst O relative to their peers.   There hasn't been a team since 2016 that ranks similarly, so the link below helps confirm.

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2016/building-super-bowl-winner-part-i

Either way, though, DEN 2015, PIT 2008, TAM 2002 & BAL 2000 show that it's possible to get to the SB with a bad O and great D (but it's got to be almost generational elite) - but this is also not sustainable.   As soon as that D is even just a little less dominant, if the O isn't good - the house of cards falls apart.   

Edited February 16, 2021 by Broncofan

[jsthomp2007]

I think if you go back and read the forum ruled you will understand that the 1984 Broncos defense was better than the 2015 Broncos' defense.

[AKRNA]

4 hours ago, Broncofan said:

DEN was the 25th O by DVOA (#1 D) - BAL 2000 was 22nd (#2 overall D but with another great D at elite levels #1), TAM 2002 was 20th (#1 D) and PIT 2008 was 21st (#1 D).   DEN is clearly the worst O relative to their peers.   There hasn't been a team since 2016 that ranks similarly, so the link below helps confirm.

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2016/building-super-bowl-winner-part-i

Either way, though, DEN 2015, PIT 2008, TAM 2002 & BAL 2000 show that it's possible to get to the SB with a bad O and great D (but it's got to be almost generational elite) - but this is also not sustainable.   As soon as that D is even just a little less dominant, if the O isn't good - the house of cards falls apart.   

I'm not sure what you consider sustainable. In Bens' first 8 years the Steelers D was ranked #1 4 times, #2 once and #3 once. That's pretty sustainable.

In Wilsons first 5 years the Seahawks D was ranked #1 4 times and #3 once. In the NFL, thats sustainable.

[Broncofan]

3 minutes ago, AKRNA said:

I'm not sure what you consider sustainable. In Bens' first 8 years the Steelers D was ranked #1 4 times, #2 once and #3 once. That's pretty sustainable.

In Wilsons first 5 years the Seahawks D was ranked #1 4 times and #3 once. In the NFL, thats sustainable.

Both O’s you point out evolved to top 10 status as the QB’s emerged.   If you have a below average O even great D’s can’t bring teams to the big show.   That’s very much demonstrated.  
 

Your examples with Big Ben & Wilson though just reinforced how much easier it is when teams find top level QB play.   Thanks for highlighting it.  

Edited February 17, 2021 by Broncofan

[BroncoBruin]

Your window with an elite defense is 2-3 years. Your window with an elite QB is never completely shut.

It would be an incredible coup to have a Watson at QB / Fangio defense / Muncak offensive line combination. That’s a championship formula. 

Edited February 17, 2021 by BroncoBruin