How much blame belongs to George Paton?

[broncos67]

2 hours ago, lomaxgrUK said:

I agree with your point; DeShawn Williams is playing 50% of the snaps as a starting DE at the moment, so that isn't an easy hole to fill. We're going to need a good body to replace him.

I'd imagine we'd want to bring back one of our Tackles (likely Fleming, maybe Anderson if his price is ok). 

We're definitely cutting Glasgow which saves $11m, Darby is a definite cut candidate (saves $10m), Edmonds saves $6m, and Martin saves $4m if he doesn't show out for the rest of this year.

Our cap is going to be in a very, very good spot next year.

Yep, another reason this was a smart trade, IMO. My expectation is that Denver approaches the offseason looking for impact players on OL/DL. Fully expect us to try hard to trade down with our first come draft time and find a bunch of contributors along both lines. There's some solid R1 OL prospects I'm eyeing up though.

[Cutler06]

So speaking of FA's and the cap, anyone know what kinda cap space we'll have to play with next year ?

[broncos_fan _from _uk]

18 hours ago, Cutler06 said:

So speaking of FA's and the cap, anyone know what kinda cap space we'll have to play with next year ?

I don’t know the exact amount but I know we create $8M in space (with a $1M dead cap hit) by cutting chase Edmonds and Jacob Martin. Another reason why those two were added.

[jolly red giant]

1 hour ago, broncos_fan _from _uk said:

I don’t know the exact amount but I know we create $8M in space (with a $1M dead cap hit) by cutting chase Edmonds and Jacob Martin. Another reason why those two were added.

If Martin performs I could see him getting a team friendly contract.

[jolly red giant]

20 hours ago, Cutler06 said:

So speaking of FA's and the cap, anyone know what kinda cap space we'll have to play with next year ?

Currently we have about $18million - with 40 players signed. We have 6 RfAs or ERFAs that will probably be resigned - Locke, Griffith, Bassey, Waitman, Bobenmoyer and Hintion. After that Dre'Mont is the big FA we need to resign - and then Anderson, Fleming, Turner, Compton and Risner in no particular order.

We save $9million by cutting Glasgow - and as BFFUK pointed out, a further $6million by cutting Edmonds - and a further $2.5million by cutting Martin. That would bring it up to $35million. Cutting Darby would bring in another $10million.

[broncos67]

22 hours ago, jolly red giant said:

Currently we have about $18million - with 40 players signed. We have 6 RfAs or ERFAs that will probably be resigned - Locke, Griffith, Bassey, Waitman, Bobenmoyer and Hintion. After that Dre'Mont is the big FA we need to resign - and then Anderson, Fleming, Turner, Compton and Risner in no particular order.

We save $9million by cutting Glasgow - and as BFFUK pointed out, a further $6million by cutting Edmonds - and a further $2.5million by cutting Martin. That would bring it up to $35million. Cutting Darby would bring in another $10million.

And that's before any restructuring or cap increases take place. I would wager a guess that we'll be somewhere in the $50MM + range for available cap next year.

[The Helicopter]

Justin Fields is looking better this year…

[anewdawn]

48 minutes ago, The Helicopter said:

Justin Fields is looking better this year…

So glad someone brought this up!!  The thread relates to how much blame Paton gets.  Not picking Fields is still something I really can't get over.  I even think he would have worked out in Denver.  Clearly though he is a star on the rise and lets remember how terrible the bears offense was last year and it's still very very poor.  QB's like Fields. Hurts and Jackson just bring so much to the table.  Jackson and Hurts easily in the top 5-7 and Fields so climbing up the charts!  Honestly if I had the owner ears this would be what I question Paton on the most.  Yet the only good thing in perhaps not drafting him is having Fields been part of the trade package for Wilson.  Lmao could you imagine cuz I can actually see that.  Fields wins 7/8 games his opening year, we the stupid idiots who are in always win now mode make him part of the package for Russell!!!!!  

[broncos67]

1 hour ago, anewdawn said:

So glad someone brought this up!!  The thread relates to how much blame Paton gets.  Not picking Fields is still something I really can't get over.  I even think he would have worked out in Denver.  Clearly though he is a star on the rise and lets remember how terrible the bears offense was last year and it's still very very poor.  QB's like Fields. Hurts and Jackson just bring so much to the table.  Jackson and Hurts easily in the top 5-7 and Fields so climbing up the charts!  Honestly if I had the owner ears this would be what I question Paton on the most.  Yet the only good thing in perhaps not drafting him is having Fields been part of the trade package for Wilson.  Lmao could you imagine cuz I can actually see that.  Fields wins 7/8 games his opening year, we the stupid idiots who are in always win now mode make him part of the package for Russell!!!!!  

The issue with not taking Fields, IMO, has less to do with Fields and more to do with the team Paton inherited. Fangio was a lame duck. He wasn't going to draft a rookie knowing the coach was likely out the door. The NFL just doesn't work that way. Now, you could argue Paton should've fired Fangio, but he was hired at a weird time and I think it just threw everything a bit off cycle. 

[jolly red giant]

On top of the stuff about Wilson audibling into Seahawks plays - I have now seen reports that Hackett and Wilson have been at loggerheads over what type of offence to run, with Hackett wanted to bring the GB offence and Wilson wanting to run plays that he had success with in Seattle.

If this is the case then Hackett has to go - as an 'offensive guru' you don't force your offensive scheme onto the QB if the QB (that you have given up a sh*tload of draft picks for and paid a lot of money) doesn't want it - or doesn't have the skillset to run it - and from what I can see Wilson does not have the skillset (or the brains) to run it. It has taken 9 horrible games with Hackett calling the plays before there has been a change - and despite the loss Kubiak looked like he was getting more out of Wilson (the Broncos should have scored 23-27 points during the game except for drops by receivers).

Now - this goes back to Paton - you hire a rookie HC (I wanted Quinn - not Hackett) - you give up draft picks and players to get your QB (no problem with that one) - you then pay the QB $250m before he throws a pass (no problem with that one either) - but, if the story is true, you see your HC and your QB wanted to run different offences. What should you do - you should haul in your rookie HC and tell him to design his offence around what your QB wants and can do - not what the HC wants to do to prove he is an 'offensive guru'. In fact - if you are an 'offensive guru' you should be able to 'guru' your way to an effective offence with a QB like Wilson. 

That is on Paton - he should have acted as soon as the problem arose - and he needs to act now by sacking Hackett.

 

[AKRNA]

9 hours ago, jolly red giant said:

On top of the stuff about Wilson audibling into Seahawks plays - I have now seen reports that Hackett and Wilson have been at loggerheads over what type of offence to run, with Hackett wanted to bring the GB offence and Wilson wanting to run plays that he had success with in Seattle.

If this is the case then Hackett has to go - as an 'offensive guru' you don't force your offensive scheme onto the QB if the QB (that you have given up a sh*tload of draft picks for and paid a lot of money) doesn't want it - or doesn't have the skillset to run it - and from what I can see Wilson does not have the skillset (or the brains) to run it. It has taken 9 horrible games with Hackett calling the plays before there has been a change - and despite the loss Kubiak looked like he was getting more out of Wilson (the Broncos should have scored 23-27 points during the game except for drops by receivers).

Now - this goes back to Paton - you hire a rookie HC (I wanted Quinn - not Hackett) - you give up draft picks and players to get your QB (no problem with that one) - you then pay the QB $250m before he throws a pass (no problem with that one either) - but, if the story is true, you see your HC and your QB wanted to run different offences. What should you do - you should haul in your rookie HC and tell him to design his offence around what your QB wants and can do - not what the HC wants to do to prove he is an 'offensive guru'. In fact - if you are an 'offensive guru' you should be able to 'guru' your way to an effective offence with a QB like Wilson. 

That is on Paton - he should have acted as soon as the problem arose - and he needs to act now by sacking Hackett.

 

Those are good points, all things they should have known well before they gave up the farm for Wilson. Just conversational you know.

Paton: "Say Russ, before we trade a fortune in picks for you and sign you to a quarter billion dollar contract, what do you think about the GB pffense?

Russ: "It sucks, I won't do it. I'll sit down with Howdy Doody when I get some time and tell him what we're going to do".

 

[big_palooka]

On 11/25/2022 at 4:09 AM, jolly red giant said:

On top of the stuff about Wilson audibling into Seahawks plays - I have now seen reports that Hackett and Wilson have been at loggerheads over what type of offence to run, with Hackett wanted to bring the GB offence and Wilson wanting to run plays that he had success with in Seattle.

If this is the case then Hackett has to go - as an 'offensive guru' you don't force your offensive scheme onto the QB if the QB (that you have given up a sh*tload of draft picks for and paid a lot of money) doesn't want it - or doesn't have the skillset to run it - and from what I can see Wilson does not have the skillset (or the brains) to run it. It has taken 9 horrible games with Hackett calling the plays before there has been a change - and despite the loss Kubiak looked like he was getting more out of Wilson (the Broncos should have scored 23-27 points during the game except for drops by receivers).

Now - this goes back to Paton - you hire a rookie HC (I wanted Quinn - not Hackett) - you give up draft picks and players to get your QB (no problem with that one) - you then pay the QB $250m before he throws a pass (no problem with that one either) - but, if the story is true, you see your HC and your QB wanted to run different offences. What should you do - you should haul in your rookie HC and tell him to design his offence around what your QB wants and can do - not what the HC wants to do to prove he is an 'offensive guru'. In fact - if you are an 'offensive guru' you should be able to 'guru' your way to an effective offence with a QB like Wilson. 

That is on Paton - he should have acted as soon as the problem arose - and he needs to act now by sacking Hackett.

 

Isn't "letting Russ cook" what got him in this mess to begin with? Seattle tried building an offense around what he wanted to do and turned out, he wasn't that good at it. Pete had to pull the plug when the turnovers started mounting. 

I also wouldn't put much stock in Kubiak as a play caller for one game against the league's worst defense. In the end, he put the ball in the highly priced QBs hands on the final 3rd down. The 10 year vet made a rookie level mistake not keeping the clock running. 

Maybe Wilson just sucks and that's why Seattle had been shopping him dating back to 2018. Pete is an all time coach, someone should have looked at the trail of clues.

[BullsandBroncos]

There are some reservations to be made about Paton, especially about hiring Hackett, but let's not forget that anyone in their right minds makes the Russ trade. It was the right thing to do at the time 

[big_palooka]

2 hours ago, BullsandBroncos said:

There are some reservations to be made about Paton, especially about hiring Hackett, but let's not forget that anyone in their right minds makes the Russ trade. It was the right thing to do at the time 

Out of curiosity, was anyone else bidding against Denver for him?

[BullsandBroncos]

9 minutes ago, big_palooka said:

Out of curiosity, was anyone else bidding against Denver for him?

Washington and another team that's slipping my mind at the moment. Maybe Indy but I don't think so. It was Denver, Washington, and another team. John Lynch also said he would but there was no chance they'd trade him in division.

 

he also would only ok a trade to "good teams." 

Edited November 28, 2022 by BullsandBroncos