QB Options 2024

[NYRaider]

1 hour ago, Jeremy408 said:

 the broncos should sign him since he's so good in that scheme lol

He'd probably put up better numbers than Wilson

[ronjon1990]

Russell Wilson was such an insufferable diva that Denver was willing to commit  1/3 of their entire cap to just be rid of him, and we got folks saying he wouldn't clash with AP? Sean Payton was cool hanging out with Gregg Williams and plenty of super divas in New Orleans and literally couldn't stand Wilson. 

I don't care how expensive of a backup QB that would be, if he still had the talent @Jeremy408 is claiming, you keep him. Cutting him does literally nothing good for Denver from a financial standpoint. The only benefit is not having to deal with him anymore. In a league where QBs are hard to come by, nobody is ditching talented QBs like that. Period. It's not a thing. 

Edited March 5 by ronjon1990

[Styrian Raider]

I think we have to accept, that every QB (not only the ones in the draft) who is available for us will come with some concerns / red flags.
Maybe the least critisized QB in here is Drake Maye, and he is just not available for us.

Following video sums it up:

But seriously:
I think we will end up with JJ, Nix or Penix tbh

 

[massraider]

45 minutes ago, ronjon1990 said:

Cutting him does literally nothing good for Denver from a financial standpoint

Simply not true. It literally saves them 37 mill next year.  

[NYRaider]

17 minutes ago, massraider said:

Simply not true. It literally saves them 37 mill next year.  

Isn't it $17M?

Regardless it gets them out of a huge deal long term but kills them the next two years.

[Jeremy408]

47 minutes ago, ronjon1990 said:

Russell Wilson was such an insufferable diva that Denver was willing to commit  1/3 of their entire cap to just be rid of him, and we got folks saying he wouldn't clash with AP? Sean Payton was cool hanging out with Gregg Williams and plenty of super divas in New Orleans and literally couldn't stand Wilson. 

I don't care how expensive of a backup QB that would be, if he still had the talent @Jeremy408 is claiming, you keep him. Cutting him does literally nothing good for Denver from a financial standpoint. The only benefit is not having to deal with him anymore. In a league where QBs are hard to come by, nobody is ditching talented QBs like that. Period. It's not a thing. 

1. This https://www.si.com/nfl/broncos/news/broncos-threat-russell-wilson-bench-injury-guarantees

2. something I wanna make sure is put in writing: I knew that Russell Wilson wasn't going to do well on the Broncos, even when everybody was making it seem like we were screwed in the AFC West, because we had to play them just like I don't think Sean Payton's gonna be very good on the Broncos, even though everybody else thought we were screwed going into this season. It was always a stupid deal to give an aging quarterback to pay a crazy amount of money(more than his former team was willing to pay) And invest draft capital to do so(very similar to how I think it's very stupid to  trade a first round pick or a head coach. Why did the Broncos do these things because the Broncos are dumb. I think something that gets swept into the rug because we're raider fans is how napped the Broncos are in terms of their front office woes as well. The reason why we look at them in a more positive light able to make functional decisions is because they landed Peyton Manning all those years back, so it made them competitive, which makes it seem like they actually know what they're doing. That's why they would dump Russell Wilson, and pay his contract. 
 

3. we're not paying Russell Wilson $245 million. We're not trading players or draft capital what I'm simply proposing is that we sign him for a veteran minimum. Why do we do this because Juan he can still play and two if there's any problems with with him, you can just get rid of him. It doesn't negate us from drafting a quarterback at all. It just doesn't put us in a situation where  the quarterback isn't ready we don't have to deal with the crowd to switch quarterbacks and the guy before he's not ready. It also allows us to maybe trade down and draft somebody like pics rather than maybe having to trade potentially the house to get a quarterback that we don't know is going to be any better in penix or who else or else would be available at 13 for sure. 

[NYRaider]

1 minute ago, Jeremy408 said:

1. This https://www.si.com/nfl/broncos/news/broncos-threat-russell-wilson-bench-injury-guarantees

2. something I wanna make sure is put in writing: I knew that Russell Wilson wasn't going to do well on the Broncos, even when everybody was making it seem like we were screwed in the AFC West, because we had to play them just like I don't think Sean Payton's gonna be very good on the Broncos, even though everybody else thought we were screwed going into this season. It was always a stupid deal to give an aging quarterback to pay a crazy amount of money(more than his former team was willing to pay) And invest draft capital to do so(very similar to how I think it's very stupid to  trade a first round pick or a head coach. Why did the Broncos do these things because the Broncos are dumb. I think something that gets swept into the rug because we're raider fans is how napped the Broncos are in terms of their front office woes as well. The reason why we look at them in a more positive light able to make functional decisions is because they landed Peyton Manning all those years back, so it made them competitive, which makes it seem like they actually know what they're doing. That's why they would dump Russell Wilson, and pay his contract. 
 

3. we're not paying Russell Wilson $245 million. We're not trading players or draft capital what I'm simply proposing is that we sign him for a veteran minimum. Why do we do this because Juan he can still play and two if there's any problems with with him, you can just get rid of him. It doesn't negate us from drafting a quarterback at all. It just doesn't put us in a situation where  the quarterback isn't ready we don't have to deal with the crowd to switch quarterbacks and the guy before he's not ready. It also allows us to maybe trade down and draft somebody like pics rather than maybe having to trade potentially the house to get a quarterback that we don't know is going to be any better in penix or who else or else would be available at 13 for sure. 

Acquiring a potential franchise QB to build around for the next decade > 1 year of washed Russell Wilson

[Jeremy408]

4 minutes ago, NYRaider said:

Acquiring a potential franchise QB to build around for the next decade > 1 year of washed Russell Wilson

Not what I said. Read 3. Carefully

[NYRaider]

3 minutes ago, Jeremy408 said:

Not what I said. Read 3. Carefully

Again, I'd wager any amount that Russ is going to sign somewhere that gives him some GTD money in 2025. So the scenario that you can just sign him as insurance and move on immediately if you land your young QB doesn't make sense. Just seems like a weird locker room dynamic to have as well. And he sucks so it's all mute regardless. There's only one veteran QB worth pursuing and that's Kirk.

[ronjon1990]

46 minutes ago, Jeremy408 said:

2. something I wanna make sure is put in writing: I knew that Russell Wilson wasn't going to do well on the Broncos, even when everybody was making it seem like we were screwed in the AFC West, because we had to play them just like I don't think Sean Payton's gonna be very good on the Broncos, even though everybody else thought we were screwed going into this season. . 
 

3. we're not paying Russell Wilson $245 million. We're not trading players or draft capital what I'm simply proposing is that we sign him for a veteran minimum. Why do we do this because Juan he can still play and two if there's any problems with with him, you can just get rid of him. It doesn't negate us from drafting a quarterback at all. It just doesn't put us in a situation where  the quarterback isn't ready we don't have to deal with the crowd to switch quarterbacks and the guy before he's not ready. It also allows us to maybe trade down and draft somebody like pics rather than maybe having to trade potentially the house to get a quarterback that we don't know is going to be any better in penix or who else or else would be available at 13 for sure. 

We both balked at Wilson and Payton, no disagreement there. 

However, I don't believe Russell Wilson is capable of high level play at this point. If anything, I think he's barely capable of middle of the pack play, and that was with someone better than Luke Getsy calling the offense. Hate Payton all we want, his ability as a schemer makes Getsy's track record look like a Chump. 

Sure, we could get rid of him, assuming he doesn't ask for a ton of guaranteed money- and I'm far from convinced he won't. But nobody ever just "gets rid" of anyone these days. We certainly don't. He'd be a locker room cancer and headache the entire time. 

Further, I don't want a rookie mentored by him, nor do I think he would actually mentor anyone. Dude is a walking billboard for Narcissistic Personalities Anonymous. How he went from nearly universally beloved to one fo the most hated men in football over just a few seasons once his head was firmly placed up his own *** is nothing short of incredible, and seemingly gets worse and worse with each new story about him that comes out. That alone would keep me away from him. 

And if you don't think the crowds would eviscerate Mr. Unlimited and push hard for a rookie to start, you honestly need to hook me up with whatcha got. We saw it last year, and at least Jimmy is likeable and had some plausible deniability as being injured and hamstrung by Josh McDaniels and his endless ineptitude. The minute Russ takes a bunch of unnecessary sacks running around behind our relatively porous OL, throws too many hero balls, and proceeds to end press conferences with "Raider Nation, let's raid", the crowd would turn on him quicker than NYRaider flips on QBs. And if you don't think Russ would immediately start selling out his teammates to save his own ego, you're just insane. Dude is a headcase from hell. 

Beyond that, if we acquired Russ and attempted to move down, if for some unforseen reason we manage to miss on grabbing a QB, AP and Telesco could kiss any goodwill goodbye. It is 1000× more palatable to go ahead with O'Connell and say "We're loading up for next year and a QB" than to knowingly go into the year with Russell Wilson and his drama as our incumbent starter by proxy. 

[ronjon1990]

1 hour ago, NYRaider said:

Isn't it $17M?

Regardless it gets them out of a huge deal long term but kills them the next two years.

It does get them away from him, for sure. 

But yep, it crushed them financially for a bit. And it negated any hope of renegotiating his deal to lower that hit. They could've kept him as a super expensive backup or even just on the roster to try and rework the contract. It did them very little good to immediately cut the cord- didn't add jack to their ability to sign anyone. 

That speaks volumes about how desperately they just wanted him gone. And volumes about just how impossible he apparently is to deal with. 

[Jeremy408]

55 minutes ago, NYRaider said:

Again, I'd wager any amount that Russ is going to sign somewhere that gives him some GTD money in 2025. So the scenario that you can just sign him as insurance and move on immediately if you land your young QB doesn't make sense. Just seems like a weird locker room dynamic to have as well. And he sucks so it's all mute regardless. There's only one veteran QB worth pursuing and that's Kirk.

How much guaranteed money are we talking? If it's not what scenario I'm talking about and the reality is the scenario is not the same. I wouldn't sign them under any other scenario so it's not a non issue. 

[Jeremy408]

6 minutes ago, ronjon1990 said:

We both balked at Wilson and Payton, no disagreement there. 

However, I don't believe Russell Wilson is capable of high level play at this point. If anything, I think he's barely capable of middle of the pack play, and that was with someone better than Luke Getsy calling the offense. Hate Payton all we want, his ability as a schemer makes Getsy's track record look like a Chump. 

Sure, we could get rid of him, assuming he doesn't ask for a ton of guaranteed money- and I'm far from convinced he won't. But nobody ever just "gets rid" of anyone these days. We certainly don't. He'd be a locker room cancer and headache the entire time. 

Further, I don't want a rookie mentored by him, nor do I think he would actually mentor anyone. Dude is a walking billboard for Narcissistic Personalities Anonymous. How he went from nearly universally beloved to one fo the most hated men in football over just a few seasons once his head was firmly placed up his own *** is nothing short of incredible, and seemingly gets worse and worse with each new story about him that comes out. That alone would keep me away from him. 

And if you don't think the crowds would eviscerate Mr. Unlimited and push hard for a rookie to start, you honestly need to hook me up with whatcha got. We saw it last year, and at least Jimmy is likeable and had some plausible deniability as being injured and hamstrung by Josh McDaniels and his endless ineptitude. The minute Russ takes a bunch of unnecessary sacks running around behind our relatively porous OL, throws too many hero balls, and proceeds to end press conferences with "Raider Nation, let's raid", the crowd would turn on him quicker than NYRaider flips on QBs. And if you don't think Russ would immediately start selling out his teammates to save his own ego, you're just insane. Dude is a headcase from hell. 

Beyond that, if we acquired Russ and attempted to move down, if for some unforseen reason we manage to miss on grabbing a QB, AP and Telesco could kiss any goodwill goodbye. It is 1000× more palatable to go ahead with O'Connell and say "We're loading up for next year and a QB" than to knowingly go into the year with Russell Wilson and his drama as our incumbent starter by proxy. 

 I mean to define a high level. Under my scenario, we're not asking him to be an all pro franchise QB. We're asking him to play like an nfl starting qb and not either go for 3 quarters without completing a pass or lead the league in INTs. I think russell can manage that with our weapons and I think it would be foolish did not address offensive line regardless of who's under center next year so thats expected to be addressed. 

In terms of the playcalling, there's reason to believe that Russell and Payton schematically aren't a very good fit(which was what I said last off-season but I was called delusional for that of course). Russell is improvisational player. Peyton runs a tight scheme that emphasizes checking the ball down and intermediate passing. A lot of quarterbacks that would not work on the Sean Payton system but that doesn't mean Sean Payton is a bad play caller or that player isnt a good quarterback. It's just a schematic difference. 

Under my scenario, he gets two years. That's not enough time to act out especially if we draft a quarterback who can replace it(which we were going to draft a quarterback to potentially start anyway or at the very least battle O'Connell for the starting job). 

In terms of all of the headcase stuff, I'm not gonna really speak against that because we don't know what happened in that locker room but ultimately the reality is this: Russell is 35 and willing to play for the veteran minimum. He knows this is his last chance; he has to. He doesn't well it's simple we cut him(or go after him in the first place). I think the misconception is that we should give him some kind of Kirk cousins deal(which I don't think her cousins deserves but that's another argument entirely). 

Also want to point out that this scenario only works out if you draft a Michael Penix type of player(when my opinion probably could start in the NFL) or JJ McCarthy that's so young that it doesn't even matter if he can play or not. This scenario doesn't work if you're trying to get like Bo Nix. 

[NYRaider]

23 minutes ago, Jeremy408 said:

How much guaranteed money are we talking? If it's not what scenario I'm talking about and the reality is the scenario is not the same. I wouldn't sign them under any other scenario so it's not a non issue. 

But if you're convinced he can still play then why wouldn't you? lol

[Jeremy408]

1 minute ago, NYRaider said:

But if you're convinced he can still play then why wouldn't you? lol

Because like ive mentioned a few times already. context is everything. Tampa Bay signed Baker to $10 million contract last year obviously they thought he could play but context dictated how much they were willing to pay. That is what I am referring to when potentially signing a Russell Wilson.