What’s your offer for Deshaun Watson?

[1234567]

11 minutes ago, Broncofan said:

 

 

If you want to question the price to acquire Watson, no issue at all.   But questioning his character / fortitude because he wants out of Houston is an awful, terrible take.    Watson played the good soldier far more times than non-HOU fans realize - it's just HOU's ownership and FO have literally gone full gong show, in a very short time, and brought this upon themselves.

I'll make it easy and recap what brought Watson to this point from another thread:

 

The 2 story links on Easterby are just eye-opening.  And they've also led to the following:

-JJ Watt, who's endured even more struggles in HOU, but never once thought about leaving - finally wanted out.   He's literally the heart of this franchise, even more than Watson, after Hurricane Katrina.   And he wants out.

-Former and current players are holding zero ill will for Watson - and the former players are usually ones who call out present-day players for not appreciating what they have.   And yet other than Brett Favre (which is ironic, since he forced his way out of GB to MIN, but seems to have forgotten that), they're all behind Watson.  Lifelong Texan greats like Andre2K.

-Finally, even the HOU fanbase, the ones who usually turn against players who want to leave, don't show anything but love to Watson, and don't blame him.   You don't have to take it from me, the hardcore guys like @ET80 will confirm this.

 

Again, I get the price is really high.   But Watson's talent is top 5 now.  And the reasons why he wants to leave aren't an indictment on Watson.  It's literally all on Cal McNair & VP Jack Easterby.   But since you asked, do the reading, check the links, and see for yourself.   If you want to debate the price, by all means - it's a discussion worth having.     Making Watson's character or fortitude because he wants to leave?   Any sane player with a pulse would.   

Well after reading all the material you supplied, now I'm certain Watson is a spoiled cry baby. 

 

 

Lol, kidding. That's definitely enlightening. See, that's why we ask these questions! I'll say this much; after reading this, if Denver were to trade the entire farm for him, I wouldn't be as mad. I dunno tho bruh, that would be a LOT to give up for one guy. Guess we'll see what happenes.

[thebestever6]

1 hour ago, 1234567 said:

Lol, kidding. That's definitely enlightening. See, that's why we ask these questions! I'll say this much; after reading this, if Denver were to trade the entire farm for him, I wouldn't be as mad. I dunno tho bruh, that would be a LOT to give up for one guy. Guess we'll see what happenes.

It boggles my mind people would give up what Houston wants.

3 first's and 3 seconds that's like 6 starter caliber players that are needed to replenish the defense. Plus they want a high quality defensive starter that's 7 players. Plus Watson at 25 mill per year that's another decent starter or two.

So that's 9 total players Watson no doubt would make our offense top 5 most likely but at what cost. How bad does the D fall off bottom 12? I'd rather maintain that top 10 defensive status. 

And my last point is you really don't need a Watson to make this offense tick it would be more of a luxury than anything. This offense has weapons everywhere they honestly need a point guard, distributor type that keeps it on schedule, and makes a big throw here and there to be a top 15 unit imo. I don't think the cost is worth 10 spots I just don't. Not to mention we have no clue how Watson even performs in the playoffs because of Bill o'brien's coaching meltdowns. I mean all I read is Deshaun led Houston to a 24 point lead over KC no credit for Bill o'brien there which I always find interesting and Bill o'brien messed up that lead lol. 

And he tore both acls and holds on to the ball more than any other qb in the league. This trade could backfire in a huge way it feels like a luxury with all the assets given up. Houston takes no risk you're paying for Watson's career year this year and the fact he can sustain that for another 10 years. That's very risky and bold.

[broncos67]

12 hours ago, thebestever6 said:

It boggles my mind people would give up what Houston wants.

3 first's and 3 seconds that's like 6 starter caliber players that are needed to replenish the defense. Plus they want a high quality defensive starter that's 7 players. Plus Watson at 25 mill per year that's another decent starter or two.

So that's 9 total players Watson no doubt would make our offense top 5 most likely but at what cost. How bad does the D fall off bottom 12? I'd rather maintain that top 10 defensive status. 

And my last point is you really don't need a Watson to make this offense tick it would be more of a luxury than anything. This offense has weapons everywhere they honestly need a point guard, distributor type that keeps it on schedule, and makes a big throw here and there to be a top 15 unit imo. I don't think the cost is worth 10 spots I just don't. Not to mention we have no clue how Watson even performs in the playoffs because of Bill o'brien's coaching meltdowns. I mean all I read is Deshaun led Houston to a 24 point lead over KC no credit for Bill o'brien there which I always find interesting and Bill o'brien messed up that lead lol. 

And he tore both acls and holds on to the ball more than any other qb in the league. This trade could backfire in a huge way it feels like a luxury with all the assets given up. Houston takes no risk you're paying for Watson's career year this year and the fact he can sustain that for another 10 years. That's very risky and bold.

I think a lot of people are underestimating the need for a good QB to be consistently competitive in the NFL. We're in a division with Mahomes, Herbert, and a good Raiders team. Watson is a proven asset. You're looking for ways to justify Drew Lock over a proven asset. Houston is going to ask for the moon, but they aren't going to get it. You're also assuming that all of the picks that are sent would be picks we hit on. That's obviously not going to be the case.

Watson is the option that makes the Broncos competitive in the AFCW for the next 10 years. Drew Lock has not displayed that he can be that option. Not even close. Denver has to swing for the fences if they want to catch the Chiefs. That's just reality. You aren't going to catch them with bunt singles and a Top 20 QB.

[jolly red giant]

12 hours ago, thebestever6 said:

It boggles my mind people would give up what Houston wants.

3 first's and 3 seconds that's like 6 starter caliber players that are needed to replenish the defense. Plus they want a high quality defensive starter that's 7 players. Plus Watson at 25 mill per year that's another decent starter or two.

So that's 9 total players Watson no doubt would make our offense top 5 most likely but at what cost. How bad does the D fall off bottom 12? I'd rather maintain that top 10 defensive status. 

And my last point is you really don't need a Watson to make this offense tick it would be more of a luxury than anything. This offense has weapons everywhere they honestly need a point guard, distributor type that keeps it on schedule, and makes a big throw here and there to be a top 15 unit imo. I don't think the cost is worth 10 spots I just don't. Not to mention we have no clue how Watson even performs in the playoffs because of Bill o'brien's coaching meltdowns. I mean all I read is Deshaun led Houston to a 24 point lead over KC no credit for Bill o'brien there which I always find interesting and Bill o'brien messed up that lead lol. 

And he tore both acls and holds on to the ball more than any other qb in the league. This trade could backfire in a huge way it feels like a luxury with all the assets given up. Houston takes no risk you're paying for Watson's career year this year and the fact he can sustain that for another 10 years. That's very risky and bold.

Let's look at the 3 first rounders and 3 second rounders that you claim would be starting calibre players -

In ten years from 2008 the Broncos picked 26 players in the 1st and 2nd rounds -

Of these 26 players -

5 became long-term starters for the Broncos - Clady, Thomas, Miller, Wolfe and Bolles

2 were starters but not resigned after the end of their rookie contracts - Franklin, Beadles

4 were up and down but contributed significantly and were not resigned after their rookie contracts - Royal, Moreno, Moore, Williams, Roby, 

1 contibuted during 1 season and was not resigned - Oswelier

The rest were busts - Ayers, McBath, Smith, Quinn, Tebow, Ball, Latimer, Ray, Sambrailo, Lynch and Walker.

 

So - out of 26 players the Broncos got 7 starting calibre players - a strike rate of a little over 1 in 4. So your 6 starting calibre players from those 6 picks could be as few as 1 1/2. Elway has done better in the last 3 drafts - Chubb, Sutton, Fant, Risner, Jeudy and Hamler (with Lock being meh) - the jury is still out on a couple of these and I suspect that Chubb won't be resigned after his rookie contract (after the 5th year option). The draft can be a crap-shoot and while first and second rounders have a better chance of success - there are no guarantees. Of last years defence - only Miller, Chubb and Walker were drafted by the Broncos in the first two rounds, Jackson was a first rounder for the Texans, Dawson and Attachou were drafted in the second round, but not by the Broncos and neither saw out their rookie contract. So of the starters on defence last season - 3 were first round draft picks and there were no second rounders. In fact of the starting 11 there were more UDFAs than first or second round picks.

 

As for not needing Watson to make the offence tick - you are right - a mid-ranking QB would make it tick. But Watson would make this offence hum like Mahomes does to the Chiefs. Take Mahomes out of that Chiefs offence and while it might 'tick' - it wouldn't be anything like the well oiled machine that it is and it wouldn't be anything like as successful as it is.

 

[thebestever6]

18 minutes ago, jolly red giant said:

Let's look at the 3 first rounders and 3 second rounders that you claim would be starting calibre players -

In ten years from 2008 the Broncos picked 26 players in the 1st and 2nd rounds -

Of these 26 players -

5 became long-term starters for the Broncos - Clady, Thomas, Miller, Wolfe and Bolles

2 were starters but not resigned after the end of their rookie contracts - Franklin, Beadles

4 were up and down but contributed significantly and were not resigned after their rookie contracts - Royal, Moreno, Moore, Williams, Roby, 

1 contibuted during 1 season and was not resigned - Oswelier

The rest were busts - Ayers, McBath, Smith, Quinn, Tebow, Ball, Latimer, Ray, Sambrailo, Lynch and Walker.

 

So - out of 26 players the Broncos got 7 starting calibre players - a strike rate of a little over 1 in 4. So your 6 starting calibre players from those 6 picks could be as few as 1 1/2. Elway has done better in the last 3 drafts - Chubb, Sutton, Fant, Risner, Jeudy and Hamler (with Lock being meh) - the jury is still out on a couple of these and I suspect that Chubb won't be resigned after his rookie contract (after the 5th year option). The draft can be a crap-shoot and while first and second rounders have a better chance of success - there are no guarantees. Of last years defence - only Miller, Chubb and Walker were drafted by the Broncos in the first two rounds, Jackson was a first rounder for the Texans, Dawson and Attachou were drafted in the second round, but not by the Broncos and neither saw out their rookie contract. So of the starters on defence last season - 3 were first round draft picks and there were no second rounders. In fact of the starting 11 there were more UDFAs than first or second round picks.

 

As for not needing Watson to make the offence tick - you are right - a mid-ranking QB would make it tick. But Watson would make this offence hum like Mahomes does to the Chiefs. Take Mahomes out of that Chiefs offence and while it might 'tick' - it wouldn't be anything like the well oiled machine that it is and it wouldn't be anything like as successful as it is.

 

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

[thebestever6]

28 minutes ago, broncos67 said:

I think a lot of people are underestimating the need for a good QB to be consistently competitive in the NFL. We're in a division with Mahomes, Herbert, and a good Raiders team. Watson is a proven asset. You're looking for ways to justify Drew Lock over a proven asset. Houston is going to ask for the moon, but they aren't going to get it. You're also assuming that all of the picks that are sent would be picks we hit on. That's obviously not going to be the case.

Watson is the option that makes the Broncos competitive in the AFCW for the next 10 years. Drew Lock has not displayed that he can be that option. Not even close. Denver has to swing for the fences if they want to catch the Chiefs. That's just reality. You aren't going to catch them with bunt singles and a Top 20 QB.

No I'm not the Qb doesn't have to be Drew I never stated that. And chasing division does is what got the AFC east in trouble. It's dumb and naive . 

Also I am factoring the pick think because we aren't even factoring the fact that Paton likes trading down for more picks   So losing out on 6  starters is a fair statement to me.

Edited February 15, 2021 by thebestever6

[Broncofan]

Re: the picks & future starters - keep in mind that our recent success has also been a product of picking in the 5, 10 & 15 spots (and then picking in the top 40 range for Rd2 in 2018-19).    With a last place schedule this year, any type of QB surge and we should be at 8-8 - with a QB as elite as Watson, 10-6 (or 11-6 if we play 17 games), is very much in reach with our schedule.   That translates to picks in the 20's and then in the mid 50's Rd2.    The Sutton/Risner picks don't happen with a drop that far.   And even the hit rate for Rd1 goes way down once you get into the 20's.    So while the value of 2021's picks are known -  we're very much likely overvaluing the picks in the future beyond 2021 if we have a true elite QB, as the draft position we're giving up is far less valuable.     

Again, the price being discussed for Watson is steep - but projecting the last 3 years' draft results for 2021-23 is likely an overestimate of our future drafts, simply by draft position alone.   You give Fangio a good O, he will get the most out of the D personnel he's given.    His failings as a HC in game management aside, we can recognize how good he is at building a D.   We may not have an immediate path to SB contention - but playoff-level would be very do-able.    And since Watson's only 25, true SB contention becomes a far easier prop in 2023+, and Watson still in his prime.

I've always sided against giving up draft capital for stopgap vets - because they don't move the needle to help the team become a sustained contender.   In Watson's case, though, he brings the team to sustained level contention on O, and again - his contract will in all likelihood be viewed as below market as early as 2023 (and sooner if the TV deal brings in more revenue than projected).    If it's just Lock & Chubb, I can definitely live with the 2021 1st/2nd, and the 2022 1st/2nd that's been thrown around.   

Edited February 15, 2021 by Broncofan

[broncos67]

3 hours ago, thebestever6 said:

No I'm not the Qb doesn't have to be Drew I never stated that. And chasing division does is what got the AFC east in trouble. It's dumb and naive . 

Also I am factoring the pick think because we aren't even factoring the fact that Paton likes trading down for more picks   So losing out on 6  starters is a fair statement to me.

It's not dumb and naive if the QB is a proven quantity who happens to be a Top 7-10 QB in the league. The AFCE teams of the past made bad decisions on young QBs, washed vets, etc...and it landed them nowhere. Or they settled for mediocre QB play. Watson is none of those things. It can be argued how much is too much, but Watson is a different caliber than an unproven or average starter.

Also, we have no idea what Paton does or doesn't like to do. He's never been GM. He may have worked under Spielman, but that may not mean he's following the exact blueprint. Maybe Paton values consistent QB play in his decision making? 

[thebestever6]

2 minutes ago, broncos67 said:

It's not dumb and naive if the QB is a proven quantity who happens to be a Top 7-10 QB in the league. The AFCE teams of the past made bad decisions on young QBs, washed vets, etc...and it landed them nowhere. Or they settled for mediocre QB play. Watson is none of those things. It can be argued how much is too much, but Watson is a different caliber than an unproven or average starter.

Also, we have no idea what Paton does or doesn't like to do. He's never been GM. He may have worked under Spielman, but that may not mean he's following the exact blueprint. Maybe Paton values consistent QB play in his decision making? 

He's stated that he'd like to trade down and aquire picks you can find the qoute very easily. 

And it's dumb to try to chase the chiefs success that's how you compound mistakes

[Zukhyubern]

I think it's foolish to assume that because Paton has sought to trade down in the past that means that will be his primary gameplan going forward. He's not going to choose against trading draft capital for a true elite QB simply because it means no picks to trade down with. It's also silly to me to think that aggressively pursuing an elite franchise QB is simply "chasing the Chiefs," when having a franchise QB is the most essential and also elusive element of a successful NFL team. C'mon now, your logic here is not sound. 

I think it's totally valid to be weary of giving up that much capital but the point of what @jolly red giant and @broncosfan is that despite being valuable as capital those pics are very far from being sure bets. So you're usually better off in sacrificing that risk for a proven commodity that will instantly improve the team. It's a huge pill to swallow but that's where I'm also at. I think if Paton and Elway are smart they can find a happy medium and still have resources to improve the team while lacking top draft picks. 

That said I'm actually curious if the Texans might wait until after draft day to move Watson. Seems unlikely they would miss out on the opportunity to bulk up on picks this draft but seeing how inept they are it wouldn't be totally shocking. Let's say we trade down in this draft for future picks to add to the arsenal for Watson while also gaining a decent haul in pics this year to improve the roster? Prob won't happen but definitely something I'm intrigued by...

Edited February 15, 2021 by Zukhyubern

[Broncofan]

1 hour ago, Zukhyubern said:

 

That said I'm actually curious if the Texans might wait until after draft day to move Watson. Seems unlikely they would miss out on the opportunity to bulk up on picks this draft but seeing how inept they are it wouldn't be totally shocking. Let's say we trade down in this draft for future picks to add to the arsenal for Watson while also gaining a decent haul in pics this year to improve the roster? Prob won't happen but definitely something I'm intrigued by...

Houston would be best served to trade before the draft.    Once the draft is done, there are at least 3-4 other teams that bow out of the bidding.    Watson having a no-trade clause obviously doesn't allow the entire field to place their bids in - but it's almost certainly a guarantee that the pool of teams Watson would consider going to would shrink.    And the key part - the pick value for the teams in question becomes highly variable - and Watson only improves said team's chances of winning and dropping draft position in future years.    Right now Houston knows they're getting 2 top 40 picks from this draft with us, for example.    

The fact DEN has 1.9 & 2.8 is something that is incredibly unlikely to repeat or improve pick wise for 2022’s picks - that 4th place schedule is already going to make our 2022 draft capital less valuable.   It would be hard to imagine our 2022/23 1sts/2nds look as attractive to the Texans with Watson on the team, as would 1.9/2.8 and 2022 1st/2nds....

The no-brainer move is to deal Watson pre-draft - history's shown the return usually goes down in value post-draft for a mega-deal for a star, when the pick return is delayed to the next year (as opposed to teams acquiring rookies, where the outcome ranges are incredibly wide).   Having said that, while we kinda all miss having BOB as the de facto GM there, there's no guarantee McNair & Easterby are smart enough to realize the above, either....

Edited February 15, 2021 by Broncofan

[Zukhyubern]

45 minutes ago, Broncofan said:

Houston would be best served to trade before the draft.    Once the draft is done, there are at least 3-4 other teams that bow out of the bidding.    Watson having a no-trade clause obviously doesn't allow the entire field to place their bids in - but it's almost certainly a guarantee that the pool of teams Watson would consider going to would shrink.    And the key part - the pick value for the teams in question becomes highly variable - and Watson only improves said team's chances of winning and dropping draft position in future years.    Right now Houston knows they're getting 2 top 40 picks from this draft with us, for example.    

The fact DEN has 1.9 & 2.8 is something that is incredibly unlikely - that 4th place schedule is already going to make our 2022 draft capital less valuable.   It would be hard to imagine our 2022/23 1sts/2nds look as attractive to the Texans with Watson on the team, as would 1.9/2.8 and 2022 1st/2nds....

The no-brainer move is to deal Watson pre-draft - history's shown the return usually goes down in value post-draft for a mega-deal for a star, when the pick return is delayed to the next year (as opposed to teams acquiring rookies, where the outcome ranges are incredibly wide).   Having said that, while we kinda all miss having BOB as the de facto GM there, there's no guarantee McNair & Easterby are smart enough to realize the above, either....

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?

[jsthomp2007]

1 hour ago, Zukhyubern said:

I think it's foolish to assume that because Paton has sought to trade down in the past that means that will be his primary gameplan going forward. He's not going to choose against trading draft capital for a true elite QB simply because it means no picks to trade down with. It's also silly to me to think that aggressively pursuing an elite franchise QB is simply "chasing the Chiefs," when having a franchise QB is the most essential and also elusive element of a successful NFL team. C'mon now, your logic here is not sound. 

I think it's totally valid to be weary of giving up that much capital but the point of what @jolly red giant and @broncosfan is that despite being valuable as capital those pics are very far from being sure bets. So you're usually better off in sacrificing that risk for a proven commodity that will instantly improve the team. It's a huge pill to swallow but that's where I'm also at. I think if Paton and Elway are smart they can find a happy medium and still have resources to improve the team while lacking top draft picks. 

That said I'm actually curious if the Texans might wait until after draft day to move Watson. Seems unlikely they would miss out on the opportunity to bulk up on picks this draft but seeing how inept they are it wouldn't be totally shocking. Let's say we trade down in this draft for future picks to add to the arsenal for Watson while also gaining a decent haul in pics this year to improve the roster? Prob won't happen but definitely something I'm intrigued by...

Is it a huge pill to swallow, or is it like stubbing your toe?  

[thebestever6]

1 hour ago, Zukhyubern said:

think it's foolish to assume that because Paton has sought to trade down in the past that means that will be his primary gameplan going forward. He's not going to choose against trading draft capital for a true elite QB simply because it means no picks to trade down with. It's also silly to me to think that aggressively pursuing an elite franchise QB is simply "chasing the Chiefs," when having a franchise QB is the most essential and also elusive element of a successful NFL team. C'mon now, your logic here is not sound. 

You totally took what I said out of context so I'm not even coming back to rebuttal nice spin on it !

[AnAngryAmerican]

I’ll give them 1.9, next year’s 1 and Chubb. (I wouldn’t want to do Chubb dirty like that but he’s a FA after next year so he only has to spend 1 year with dysfunctional Houston and he can take a COVID opt out). If they want Jeudy they can have him and send us a 2nd back. 

If they want more, they can go stick it in their ear. Watson is talented and young and cheap (relatively) but he also has an injury history, has one playoff win in his career and I worry about his NBA-esque demands about wanting say on/influence over FO/coaching/player personnel decisions. We don’t need another diva, even if they take Jeudy we don’t need another one.