What’s your offer for Deshaun Watson?

[broncofan48]

1 minute ago, BroncoBruin said:

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

I really liked the coin flip and dice analogy somebody made in this thread earlier 

[BroncoBruin]

4 minutes ago, broncofan48 said:

I really liked the coin flip and dice analogy somebody made in this thread earlier 

Yeah that was me and I really think it fits. You can put all your eggs in the basket of a complete team that you can keep for a couple years before guys leave to get paid and your draft luck declines. And you give yourself a great shot that way certainly, a better shot than you’d have otherwise. But no matter how much talent you have you’ll still be subject to the weirdness of high intensity playoff football. You’ll always need a lucky bounce or two no matter what. If you don’t get them, that next year (if you haven’t already lost a lot of talent) becomes must-win.

Or you can give yourself as many chances as possible which is what you get with the quarterback. That margin for error is so much greater when you have the best player on the field at the most important position. And defenses can overachieve in playoff runs, we saw that with the 2006 Colts.  

[BroncoBruin]

The only reservation I have with Watson is his playing style is not sustainable if he wants to play at a high level into his 30s. I worry about him more than a guy like Lamar who is so adept at avoiding contact and keeping his feet. Deshaun is so damn reckless with his body. I recall the “Drew Lock game” in 2019 where Watson is getting lit up at the goal line trying to score in garbage time. That shows great heart. It’s also very stupid. He’s going to need to adjust his game a bit. He can’t hold the ball as long as he does and try to run through guys when he escapes. 

[French Fan]

5 hours ago, BroncoBruin said:

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

 

Average offense win championship .8 wins with no better than 11.

If you look the winning team , SB 44-41-39-38-33-32-31 the O was better than the losing Team.

But in these 7 SB , 39-38-31 the defense also was better.

So he remains only 4 SB of 20 when The O dominates D.

Conversely , 17 of 20 losing team have The O inside TOP 10. And 9 had D inside TOP 10 and 4 lose against a TOP 10 D.

Only 4 Teams TOP 10 lose against a non TOP 10 Offense in 20 years.

Conclusion. You want a winning season each year ? Take an elite QB . You want a chance at SB ? Built Defense. The odds are better.

Your window to win it all is the same ...3 years max with O or D. But at the end . DEFENSE WIN SB.

It's only my opinion of course.

[The Helicopter]

The winning SB QB list is more impressive than the loser list...

[Broncofan]

On 2/16/2021 at 2:59 PM, Broncofan said:

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.

 

12 hours ago, French Fan said:

Average offense win championship .8 wins with no better than 11.

If you look the winning team , SB 44-41-39-38-33-32-31 the O was better than the losing Team.

But in these 7 SB , 39-38-31 the defense also was better.

So he remains only 4 SB of 20 when The O dominates D.

Conversely , 17 of 20 losing team have The O inside TOP 10. And 9 had D inside TOP 10 and 4 lose against a TOP 10 D.

Only 4 Teams TOP 10 lose against a non TOP 10 Offense in 20 years.

Conclusion. You want a winning season each year ? Take an elite QB . You want a chance at SB ? Built Defense. The odds are better.

Your window to win it all is the same ...3 years max with O or D. But at the end . DEFENSE WIN SB.

It's only my opinion of course.

No one would argue that if you get to the SB, a more balanced team has a better shot than a purely O-driven team.   History has shown this.   

But if you look at the Final 4 stats - what it shows is that to even get to the Final 4 - having a great QB makes it a lot easier path, as balanced teams have the best shot of getting to the AFCG/NFCG (and you don't get to the SB without getting to final 4).   

The SB data shows that if a top D can make it to the SB - they have a great chance of winning.   But the point @BroncoBruin alluded to - individual teams can't keep their D elite, top 2-3 for more than 2-3 years at a time.    Anything less, and they usually need to be a more balanced team. They can remain top 10 D's for longer - but that generational-level, can-overcome-a-bad-D, is rarely sustainable to where they can even make it to the Final 4 again, let alone a SB. 

SEA's 2013 and PIT's 2008's D remained top 3 for 3 seasons (SEA) and 2 of 3 seasons (PIT) - what got them to remain contenders was their O's caught up - they became top 5 O's the very next year, and remained in the top 10 almost every year.  Having a great QB helps keeps O's in top 5-10 status for a much longer time.  That point is also indisputable.    

Top 20 O's have won a SB when paired a top 3 D 4-5x.   Balanced teams win SB's more than lopsided, O-based teams - but for individual teams, getting to the final 4 with any regularity is becoming a QB-based proposition.   The first post quoted above gives all the details, but it's pretty clear to see.   And the trend is becoming even more O based of late.    That's not a personal opinion, it's reinforced by the actual data.   If we look at the data since Denver won in 2015, and not included in my article & your graph:

__________________________________________________

2016 - NE #2 O, #16 D - beats ATL #1 O, #19 D  (AFCG/NFCG finalists - PIT #3 O, #9 D; GB - #4 O, #21 D)

2017 - PHI #7 O, #5 D - beats NE #1 O, #31 D (AFCG / NFCG finalists -  JAX #15 O, #2 D; MIN #5 O, #1 D)

2018 - NE #5 O, #19 D - beats LAR #2 O, #16 D (AFCG / NFCG finalists -  KC #1 O, #27 D; NO #4 O, #8 D )

2019 - KC #3 O, #14 D - beats SF #7 O #2 D (AFCG/ NFCG finalists - TEN #6 O, #18 D; GB #8 O, #15 D)

2020 - TAM #3 O, #5 D - beats KC #2 O, #22 D  (AFC/NFCG finalists - BUF #5 O, #12 D, GB #1 O, #17 D)

What we're seeing - top 10 O's make up literally 19 of the 20 final 4 teams the last 5 years.  The DEN 2015 formula is just so rare nowadays.  And we see by the teams - the only teams that repeat have great QB's (that PIT team made it to final 4 4x with Big Ben, winning 2x, and NO has been there 2x with Brees).   The 5 one-and-done teams - TB with Brady for 1 year, 1 team with a long-term QB (ATL & Ryan), 1 with a QB who's just entered top 10 the last 2 years (Tannehill), and 2 with journeymen (MIN/JAX with Keenum / Bortles).   The outliers that haven't sniffed sustained playoff success after their single deep playoff run - ATL (whose team got old in a hurry), and the teams that had journeymen (MIN - Keenum, JAX - Bortles).

_________________________________________________________________

And to further cement the point, here's the fate of the top 3 D's each of the last 5 years:

2016 - DEN (9-7, #28 O), ARI (7-8-1, #22 O), NYG (11-5, #21 O - loses WC)

2017 - MIN (11-5, #5 O, loses NFCG), JAX (11-5, #15 O, loses AFCG); ARI (8-8, #29 O)

2018 - CHI (12-4, #15 O, loses WC), BUF (6-10, #31 O), MIN (8-7-1, #18 O)

2019 - NE (11-5, #11 O, loses WC), SF (13-3, #7 O, loses SB), PIT (8-8, #31 O with no Big Ben)

2020 - PIT (12-4, #22 O, loses WC), NO (12-4, #7 O, loses Divisional Game),  WAS (7-9, #31 O, loses WC)

So what we see with great D's that don't have good O's - they really struggle to even make playoffs, and don't go far in playoffs (JAX is the one exception, and they weren't 20's level bad, either).  Every other team with a bad O was one-and-done or missed the playoffs.    Balanced teams do best, for sure (duh) - MIN 2017 had the #5 O, SF 2019 had the #7 O, NO 2020 the #7 O.   There are still many ways for teams to get to the final 4 and SB in a single year.   What we are seeing more & more, though - great O's with OK to decent D's go furthest, and we're seeing great O's overcome average & slightly below average D's more & more.  And what drives the O remaining at high levels - great QB play.  And for teams to keep coming back - QB play drives this far more, since D's don't remain top 3 seldom beyond 2-3 years, as @BroncoBruin alluded to.   We see a lot of turnover above, which reinforces the difficulty D's have in remaining at that elite, can-overcome-bad-O level.

FTR I backed Tampa hard this playoffs every round - because they had both a top 5 O & top 5 D.  The only matchup that worried me was NO (beacuse they were equally matched up, and actually had better matchups in key areas), so I backed them in the SB hard as well vs KC an Mahomes.   Balance is best in a single-game matchup.  If you match up a balanced team vs. an O-based lopsided team for 1 game, I'll favor balance (barring injury / HFA / short rest vs. bye, etc).    But I also recognize the overall trend that if your team want to stay in perpetual contention, QB sure makes it a lot easier, to help make O play catch up, and stay that way.   The O upgrade is what fuelled Tampa's rise (they were already a top 10 D last year, the O was #23).  

Sorry for the long post - but it's easier to show the full picture.  The full picture overwhelmingly shows that the league is becoming O-driven.   And QB play is the easiest path for teams to remain in contention, to keep the O at a high level (balance on D helps for sure, but the path to D-first teams with bad O's to go far in playoffs is incredibly narrow - DEN 2015 is becoming quickly a dinosaur concept - look at the top D teams that went far - they still had great O's that year.  The data backs this up not just this year, but overall.

 

 

Edited February 17, 2021 by Broncofan

[broncosfan_101]

Matt Miller did a ‘what would it take?’ for all potentially interested teams, and he had DEN’s package as 2021 1st and 2nd, 2022 1st, 2023 2nd, Lock, and Hamler. 
 

Sign me up without thinking twice.

[jsthomp2007]

20 minutes ago, broncosfan_101 said:

Matt Miller did a ‘what would it take?’ for all potentially interested teams, and he had DEN’s package as 2021 1st and 2nd, 2022 1st, 2023 2nd, Lock, and Hamler. 
 

Sign me up without thinking twice.

I like Hamler though...but, we are stacked at WR. 

[Zukhyubern]

22 minutes ago, broncosfan_101 said:

Matt Miller did a ‘what would it take?’ for all potentially interested teams, and he had DEN’s package as 2021 1st and 2nd, 2022 1st, 2023 2nd, Lock, and Hamler. 
 

Sign me up without thinking twice.

No kidding.. that's a steal to be honest. Obviously that's a lot of draft capital but having it distributed like that pads the pain just a bit. And if the young players we give up are only Lock and Hamler then we run away with this one. 

[broncofan48]

14 minutes ago, jsthomp2007 said:

I like Hamler though...but, we are stacked at WR. 

I really like Hamler too, but that's a deal you gotta do

[PFM18]

56 minutes ago, broncosfan_101 said:

Matt Miller did a ‘what would it take?’ for all potentially interested teams, and he had DEN’s package as 2021 1st and 2nd, 2022 1st, 2023 2nd, Lock, and Hamler. 
 

Sign me up without thinking twice.

Whilst I would definitely take that, I'm almost certain Houston are holding out for at least 3 1st rounders and additional but without the 3 1st's no dice.

The problem is Houston knows Miami with 3 1st's in the next two years and the Jets with 4 are more than capable of offering this king's ransom type deal so are hoping either of them decides to stump up and make the deal.

At the moment they're playing the long game with Watson and think they'll hold their ground for a while longer yet. 

[jsthomp2007]

1 hour ago, PFM18 said:

Whilst I would definitely take that, I'm almost certain Houston are holding out for at least 3 1st rounders and additional but without the 3 1st's no dice.

The problem is Houston knows Miami with 3 1st's in the next two years and the Jets with 4 are more than capable of offering this king's ransom type deal so are hoping either of them decides to stump up and make the deal.

At the moment they're playing the long game with Watson and think they'll hold their ground for a while longer yet. 

Watson has a no trade clause in his contract.  If he wants to be in Denver, and not NYC or Miami, then he can certainly push the envelope towards Denver.  And, I keep reading he wants to be in Denver it seems like.  I am not sure how much Keenan Jackson is pushing for it, but I am sure the conversation is the budding offense of line in Denver, and the plethora of offensive weapons he would have.  

[BroncoBruin]

2 hours ago, broncosfan_101 said:

Matt Miller did a ‘what would it take?’ for all potentially interested teams, and he had DEN’s package as 2021 1st and 2nd, 2022 1st, 2023 2nd, Lock, and Hamler. 
 

Sign me up without thinking twice.

Would be nice but it’s probably going to cost the maximum amount of firsts and seconds a team can trade, which I think is three years worth. 

[paul-mac]

19 hours ago, broncofan48 said:

I really liked the coin flip and dice analogy somebody made in this thread earlier 

Some if you guys are really overrating Deshaun Watson. He’s not an elite QB in the same way as Brady or Rodgers. 

[jsthomp2007]

11 minutes ago, paul-mac said:

Some if you guys are really overrating Deshaun Watson. He’s not an elite QB in the same way as Brady or Rodgers. 

Watson threw for nearly 5,000 yards, 33 tds to just 7 ints...on a team where his best receivers are Cooks and Fuller.