Jump to content

What’s your offer for Deshaun Watson?


Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, Broncofan said:

 

HOU had the 30th ranked D, a bottom 10 OL, and the 32nd based running game.

They had Fuller miss half the season.   They have no TE's.   

Again, they're probably the worst team in the league without Watson, and it's not that close.   

And to expand on @broncos67 's point, in 2019 - HOU had a bottom 10 D, bottom 10 OL, a run game that's bottom half.  And Watson's play took them to the playoffs.

For 2021-2, it's going to be harder with the pick capital being discussed.   But after then, the window goes wide open again.  And for 2021, his contract is 10.5M cap-wise, and we have a 4th place schedule.

Our 4th place schedule and average QB play, we likely go 8-8 in 2021 (9-8 with DET being game #17).   A top 6 QB, we could easily go 11-6 or better.     We get JAX & NYJ & DET (if we go 17 games) as our 3 at-large teams, and NFC East, and AFCN.   With LAC/LV still in flux, with this schedule this isn't a bold statement at all.    And once we're past 2022, and our pick capital is back - Watson's still only 27 years old, with 6-8 years of prime play, if not longer, on the horizon.   

I also would think if Fangio doesn't do well with Watson, and everything they have in place right now, then he is gone.  Then you probably get Eric Bienemie as the next HC, which Watson wants....AND, Bieneme is a former Buff...it all just makes sense to me.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, AnAngryAmerican said:

Look, I’m not saying Watson is not a great QB but even great QBs need supporting casts.

I don’t think we’re well-coached team right now, do you? We have a HC who is a good DC and a good OL coach. That’s about all. 

But we’d have to give up at least 2 good young players and a crap ton of premium picks to get Watson, I say no. 

Of course a QB needs a supporting cast - and we have one - we have an OL that is potentially going to be very good for the next 3/4 years - we have a really good WR core and good TEs. We will probably need to retool the RB position - but that is the easiest to fix. We are in a very strong position on the offensive side of the ball. Some work needs to be done on defence - but we have the best in the business for maximising the output from limited talent.

I would also disagree with your assessment about the coaching staff - while there are issues with Fangio, there are ways to fix them - and I see a team going out every week that is ready to fight - that is a credit to the coaching staff. We are strong on the defensive side of the ball - as you say, we have a good OL coach. Many would criticise Shurmur, but it is clear his offence is quite complex and we had a young offence with no preseason to install the offence. I think it will be a lot better next year. The problem for the last two years on offence is down to an incredibly young offence and poor QB play (and not just from Lock), compounded by the lack of a pre-season in 2020.

As for what to give up for Watson - I would have no problem giving up three 1s and three 2s for Watson with players. I would add Chubb to the deal precisely because I think he will be gone after the end of his rookie contract - he will command way more money than his value to the team. On top of that - I think Fangio will find replacements and will rebuild the defence.

Ideally we wouldn't have to pay that value - but even if we did I would regard it as being worth it. And - his contact is set for 6 years and will be small money for a franchise guy going forward. Watson could have as big, if not bigger, impact on the Broncos as getting Manning - it would help the pursuit of free agents - and - it would make us competitive against Mahomes the Chiefs. We could spend a decade trying to find a QB through the draft or repeatedly signing journeymen and be a basement product in the AFCW. 

It would be great if Lock turned out to be a decent QB - while top 10 would be great, if he was even in the top half I think that the Broncos could put a good enough cast on offence and defence to make it work. The problem is that we have no evidence that he is capable of making that leap. Furthermore, we would have to give up a huge amount of draft capital to get the likes of Wilson or Fields with no guarantee that they won't flame out as busts. We know what Watson can do - and it is very rare that you get the opportunity to ****** such a player from another team - it just does not happen. 

This year's QB carousel is mad - and even if Watson doesn't happen there is a chance that Wilson or Prescott becomes available and we should be all over both to make this team competitive again.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jolly red giant said:

 

This year's QB carousel is mad - and even if Watson doesn't happen there is a chance that Wilson or Prescott becomes available and we should be all over both to make this team competitive again.

Agree with the rest you posted, although league average QB shouldn’t be our goal - with Mahomes & now Herbert - the baseline to compete for the long run is a much better level of play than average.   That’s part of why LV is kicking offers on Carr - upgrading on his baseline is the goal there.   It’s also what makes Lock status quo harder.   Being serviceable won’t be enough (although that would be a clear improvement), the bar needs to be even higher, especially once a rookie deal ends. 
 

For the last part quoted above - I don’t think they are nearly as feasible scenarios for us as Watson’s situation.

Re: Wilson - nothing said he wants to be traded.  He’s called for help on the OL.   IMO we aren’t likely seeing him go this offseason.  Unlike Watson he’s got a much more finite shelf life as he’ll be 33 by the end of next season.    Not nearly as appealing given our window needs to be long to justify the deal (just like how Stafford needed to be at peak for 4-5 years to justify what’s likely a lower price).  

Re: Dak, he has to agree to sign the tag for a trade to happen.  And by signing, he doesn’t control who Dallas trades him to.   He doesn’t have to sign until July.   He owns all the leverage by not signing because Dallas can still negotiate a long term deal but can’t trade him while unsigned.   This increases his chances that Jerry Jones caves - it’s what he’s literally done with his top guys and Dak’s the guy who’s likely to stay at peak for far longer then any of the others before him (Elliott, Cooper, Lawrence).   Most importantly - all of this likely goes down well after the draft.  That alone is why I think Dak is destined to play in Dallas 1 more year under a 2nd tag or he’s extended.   The trade scenario is so rare for tagged players because of the leverage players have.   

All of which to say - by far our most do-able scenario to get a top level QB is Watson.  And even then we’re not in the lead....yet.   MIA really owns the hammer if Watson is ok to go there.  And CAR made a stronger offer for Stafford it’s fair to say they would go all out offer wise to get Watson   .  The key may be Miami’s attachment to Tua and Watson’s unwilling to go to Carolina (presumably for same reasons why he’s unwilling to go to NYJ - too far away with the trade parameters done).  But we clearly have a shot and even the beat guys are saying we’re now in the mix, once HOU decides to field offers.     

 

Edited by Broncofan
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, jsthomp2007 said:

I also would think if Fangio doesn't do well with Watson, and everything they have in place right now, then he is gone.  Then you probably get Eric Bienemie as the next HC, which Watson wants....AND, Bieneme is a former Buff...it all just makes sense to me.  

I think the converse is even more likely if we end up fortunate enough to get Watson - with a 4th place schedule, Fangio might save his job with a great QB like Watson.  Then you get Fangio maximizing the D out, and the O is now top 10 with Watson there.

We could end up with a John Fox-type situation with Peyton with Fangio-Watson.  Fox takes care of the D, Peyton the O - obv Watson is not Peyton V2 in the coordinator aspect, but the impact with the rest of the O is similar.   I also point that example out because much like Fox's failings at playoff time, if Fangio's game management weaknesses don't improve (either with external help / delegation, or on his own <less likely>), then down the line, we could see a change.  But I actually think Watson probably improves Fangio's chances of staying as HC.   We know he can get the most out of the D even when there are talent limits.   The O should thrive, and that's a recipe for success - especially combined with a 4th place schedule for 2021.

Edited by Broncofan
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Broncofan said:

I think the converse is even more likely if we end up fortunate enough to get Watson - with a 4th place schedule, Fangio might save his job with a great QB like Watson.  Then you get Fangio maximizing the D out, and the O is now top 10 with Watson there.

We could end up with a John Fox-type situation with Peyton with Fangio-Watson.  I also point that out because if Fangio's game management weaknesses don't improve (either with external help / delegation, or on his own <less likely>), then down the line, we could see a change.  But I actually think Watson probably improves Fangio's chances of staying as HC.   We know he can get the most out of the D even when there are talent limits.   The O should thrive, and that's a recipe for success - especially combined with a 4th place schedule for 2021.

Sounds good.  I like Fangio...we will never have to spend much on defense because he will get the best of minimal talent.  However, it would almost be nice if someone like Shurmer took over the in game management stuff?? It's a thought since he  has HC experience.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

I messaged Allbright on Twitter asking him how Denver is the favorite according to Vegas. I said if 16 teams are going to be involved and Houston has stated they aren't trading him how do they come up with that?

And he said Vegas is trying to balance the books what does that mean?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Competing on the money side with Dak in 2022 might be more appealing to the front office than competing on the asset side with Watson now. It also gives you the opportunity to reach clarity on what Lock can be. I don’t think Dallas gets a deal done with Dak. That’s an interesting potential alternative. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, BroncoBruin said:

Competing on the money side with Dak in 2022 might be more appealing to the front office than competing on the asset side with Watson now. It also gives you the opportunity to reach clarity on what Lock can be. I don’t think Dallas gets a deal done with Dak. That’s an interesting potential alternative. 

Absolutely possible - but it's more of a 2022 alternative if Dallas just ends up re-tagging him.   The scenario of a sign-and-trade that's been proposed by Tannenbaum is just not realistic.   
 

Dak keeps all the leverage to get paid by not signing until July - so that pretty much eliminates the likelihood it happens, since teams will have made their 2021 plans (and Dallas is then left with no plan B's of their own).

Edited by Broncofan
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Broncofan said:

Absolutely possible - but it's more of a 2022 alternative if Dallas just ends up re-tagging him.   The scenario of a sign-and-trade that's been proposed by Tannenbaum is just not realistic.   
 

Dak keeps all the leverage to get paid by not signing until July - so that pretty much eliminates the likelihood it happens, since teams will have made their 2021 plans (and Dallas is then left with no plan B's of their own).

So you're implying Big D will be gunning for a QB in this years draft?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mcclain a reputable reporter said there's no chance Watson Ends up here so I think it's a pipe dream at this point.

 

I also saw James Palmer talking about our QB situation the other day and what I gather from it is either two things 1) Broncos have a higher opinion on Drew than the fanbase finished the year with a 7-2 td to int ratio the last 4 games was mentioned. 2) it's a smoke screen for their plans for the draft if you prop Drew up that could decoy your moves I guess?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Helicopter said:

So you're implying Big D will be gunning for a QB in this years draft?

I don’t think so - because Jerry Jones’ default position will be that he thinks he can get a long-term deal done with Dak.  But if Dak and Jones don’t bridge the gap then the deadline hits in mid July and then they do the dance for 1 more year - except next offseason he’s not getting tagged a 3rd time.    That’s the possible scenario where Dak hits FA next year.  But given the final result doesn’t get known until July I don’t see them drafting a QB early this time.     

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, thebestever6 said:

Mcclain a reputable reporter said there's no chance Watson Ends up here so I think it's a pipe dream at this point.

 

I also saw James Palmer talking about our QB situation the other day and what I gather from it is either two things 1) Broncos have a higher opinion on Drew than the fanbase finished the year with a 7-2 td to int ratio the last 4 games was mentioned. 2) it's a smoke screen for their plans for the draft if you prop Drew up that could decoy your moves I guess?

McClain has zero credibility when it comes to the Watson situation.  He’s only posting what the Houston FO wants posted.    He’s not accounting for what teams Watson’s camp will approve.  If it’s only up to Houston then it would carry more weight.   But it doesn’t.  
 

Before you ask further - McClain was famous for this quote below in early January that he’s had to back off hard from - because it was again just a pure front for the Houston FO, with no regard for Watson’s actions.    He’s posting the FO’s hopes - not the reality of the situation.   Much like how PHI beat reporters posted on offers that weren’t actually given for Wentz.  
 

As I said before - zero credibility.   It may end up going down that way - but McClain isn’t posting news - he’s fronting the Houston FO posture.  It’s a stare down between Watson’s approval list and them - that’s what he’s leaving out.   

Edited by Broncofan
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, thebestever6 said:

I messaged Allbright on Twitter asking him how Denver is the favorite according to Vegas. I said if 16 teams are going to be involved and Houston has stated they aren't trading him how do they come up with that?

And he said Vegas is trying to balance the books what does that mean?

The objective of all betting companies is to make profit - and in order to make profit they have to skew the odds in their favour - ideally on every single bet, but in a general sense through the totality of the different options they are offering. It is very unusual for bookies (or casinos) to lose money and usually if they do it is down to bad management (or too rapid expansion) of their business. There has been a dramatic change in the nature of the gambling business over the past 30 years. apart for the USA, other countries have seen a shift from small local betting shops or chains to large MNCs operating in an online environment. Online gambling, betting, casino, poker etc is now massive and massively profitable (and highly addictive and damaging for large numbers of people).

Bookies draft initial odds based on likely outcomes (they use a lot of algorithms these days). Subsequently, odds change based on the number of bets and the amount of money bet - the more money bet on a team the shorter the odds available. The shortened odds on the Broncos indicate that a lot of money has been bet on Watson being traded to the Broncos - the odds on the Broncos shorten and all or most other teams lengthen. The purpose of this is to increase the amount bet on other teams. The betting companies always try and manipulate the odds so that there will be a slice of profit off the top - a little like offering evens on red or black at roulette with occasionally the ball dropping into zero (this creates the profit for the house at roulette).

If 90% of the money was bet on the Broncos and Watson ended up with the Broncos then the bookies would take a massive hit - so they try and balance their book by shortening the Broncos odds to make them less attractive and lengthening the odds of other teams to make them more attractive, thereby getting a better balance of money on their book and increasing the potential for profit from the book.

I hope that makes sense to you.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/19/2021 at 6:56 PM, thebestever6 said:

Mcclain a reputable reporter said there's no chance Watson Ends up here so I think it's a pipe dream at this point.

 

I also saw James Palmer talking about our QB situation the other day and what I gather from it is either two things 1) Broncos have a higher opinion on Drew than the fanbase finished the year with a 7-2 td to int ratio the last 4 games was mentioned. 2) it's a smoke screen for their plans for the draft if you prop Drew up that could decoy your moves I guess?

 

On 2/19/2021 at 8:17 PM, Broncofan said:

McClain has zero credibility when it comes to the Watson situation.  He’s only posting what the Houston FO wants posted.    He’s not accounting for what teams Watson’s camp will approve.  If it’s only up to Houston then it would carry more weight.   But it doesn’t.  
 

Before you ask further - McClain was famous for this quote below in early January that he’s had to back off hard from - because it was again just a pure front for the Houston FO, with no regard for Watson’s actions.    He’s posting the FO’s hopes - not the reality of the situation.   Much like how PHI beat reporters posted on offers that weren’t actually given for Wentz.  
 

As I said before - zero credibility.   It may end up going down that way - but McClain isn’t posting news - he’s fronting the Houston FO posture.  It’s a stare down between Watson’s approval list and them - that’s what he’s leaving out.   

And to echo the point further - McClain is truly just the FO spokesperson pushing their position in public.   If the FO had all the leverage then his takes would have more reliability.  But they don’t here - so he’s just mirroring their private positions for public record.   
 

 

The bidding likely begins in earnest now.   And Watson’s no trade clause is certainly going to apply a different context than just what the Houston FO wants.  
 

Edit: the reply with the Rapsheet report on what’s been offered is inaccurate as per Allbright.  But the part about bids soon to being considered is legit.  
Edited by Broncofan
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...