Is the Qb situation good enough?

[jsthomp2007]

6 minutes ago, thebestever6 said:

One thing that hasn't been discussed yet shockingly is the idea of landing leveon bell. A lot of posters have said they'd love to get Cousins and Barkley in the draft.  But what about a instant offense type rb with a young and up and coming qb through the draft? Maybe we give bell a 4 year 40 mill dollar deal?

I don't think Pittsburgh retains him. Skipping walkthroughs and complaining about the contract the week of a game I think both sides mutually part ways.

 

Too much of a diva in my opinion, and oft injured.  

[Broncofan]

1 hour ago, thebestever6 said:

One thing that hasn't been discussed yet shockingly is the idea of landing leveon bell. A lot of posters have said they'd love to get Cousins and Barkley in the draft.  But what about a instant offense type rb with a young and up and coming qb through the draft? Maybe we give bell a 4 year 40 mill dollar deal?

I don't think Pittsburgh retains him. Skipping walkthroughs and complaining about the contract the week of a game I think both sides mutually part ways.

 

Leveon Bell doesn't think 12M a year is enough.   He turned down a 4-year, 50M deal from PIT last year.   

A rookie draft pick taken early in Rd2 barely costs 8M total for his 4 year rookie deal.   By the time it's Rd3, it's less than 5M.   So, no, that's an awful idea.  That's before you get to the mileage argument (paying for a guy after he gets used as much as Bell has, RB has such a short shelf life nowadays, it's paying for past production).   It's why using RB's up in their rookie deal, and letting them walk if they get expensive, works for most teams, and why PIT is in no hurry to try and extend Bell now.

Honestly, going after Bell is a way worse idea than going after Luck - they're both no brainer passes, Bell for the value alone, Luck for the risk.   Our QB need is the only reason such crazy scenarios are being tossed around - desperation is driving the perception.   RB-wise, there's a reason Bell's not even being mentioned on our radar.  The $ and mileage aren't even remotely worth it.

[Broncofan]

2 hours ago, broncos67 said:

A couple things in response to some posts in here:

Trading 1.5 for Luck would be one of the worst moves we could make, IMO. The risk is too high. Why would anyone trust his shoulder at this point? We have no idea what Andrew Luck will be post injury. An injury, by the way, that has taken 2 years (and still going) to heal. McDaniels going to IND isn't an accident. I would be willing to bet he wants to work with Luck and if not, will get the chance to draft his own QB.

Second, I love Quenton Nelson, but if we draft him I hope it's after a small trade down. I think we'd be better served to pick up an extra pick and try and snag him vs. passing up Fitzpatrick or Chubb or an OT, who would represent better positional value. Personally, I'm of the opinion the Broncos will try and go with Connor McGovern. Elway eluded to better coaching and development. McGovern had some moments- I could see them giving him an audition. 

One thing that has been very intriguing to me is a trade with the Bills. It would be more drastic, but they have 1.21 and 1.22 this year and they covet a QB. I could see a trade for 1.21, 1.22, and either next years 1 or 2. It could very well happen if the Bills fall in love with a QB enough. 

FWIW, I am with you on McGovern starting - but keep in mind we may need him inside if Paradis isn't back to 2015-16 form, or if Leary's back flares up.   Long-term, any time a 28+ year old OL has back issues, you have to start thinking about the future - Leary's deal is only for 2018 guaranteed-money wise.  In looking to 2019, I doubt we have a roster crunch, the probability that McGovern works out completely AND Paradis is fine AND Leary holds up is very small.   As Dallas proved, having 6 starter-quality OL like they did in 2014-16 usually works itself out (no coincidence when they thought they could make do with 5 and 1 went down, that was a very different OL - 6-sack day for Adrian Claiborne of ATL). 

I agree we should consider moving down if we are thinking Nelson, FWIW.   The opportunity for major added value is there.  Sadly, Elway's penchant for locking in to his guy probably makes this a pipe dream. 

[thebestever6]

36 minutes ago, Broncofan said:

Leveon Bell doesn't think 12M a year is enough.   He turned down a 4-year, 50M deal from PIT last year.   

A rookie draft pick taken early in Rd2 barely costs 8M total for his 4 year rookie deal.   By the time it's Rd3, it's less than 5M.   So, no, that's an awful idea.  That's before you get to the mileage argument (paying for a guy after he gets used as much as Bell has, RB has such a short shelf life nowadays, it's paying for past production).   It's why using RB's up in their rookie deal, and letting them walk if they get expensive, works for most teams, and why PIT is in no hurry to try and extend Bell now.

Honestly, going after Bell is a way worse idea than going after Luck - they're both no brainer passes, Bell for the value alone, Luck for the risk.   Our QB need is the only reason such crazy scenarios are being tossed around - desperation is driving the perception.   RB-wise, there's a reason Bell's not even being mentioned on our radar.  The $ and mileage aren't even remotely worth it.

Leveon Bell is only 25 years old. And he is built like the type of rb And has the skills to play until he's 30 at a relatively high level. I didn't know he turned down 4 for 50. Maybe he played himself out of the market and gets less in free agency. Ala Demarco Murray.  

If anything it warrants a discussion because he could be instant offense for the next 3 years minimum. I think anything higher than 12 is crazy.  I'd honestly rather pay Bell 4 for 50 than Cousins 5 for 120.

[Broncofan]

16 minutes ago, thebestever6 said:

Leveon Bell is only 25 years old. And he is built like the type of rb And has the skills to play until he's 30 at a relatively high level. I didn't know he turned down 4 for 50. Maybe he played himself out of the market and gets less in free agency. Ala Demarco Murray.  

If anything it warrants a discussion because he could be instant offense for the next 3 years minimum. I think anything higher than 12 is crazy.  I'd honestly rather pay Bell 4 for 50 than Cousins 5 for 120.

You can get Sony Michel for 4/8.   You can get Rashaad Penny for 4/5M.   And unlike QB the RB production doesn't drive the rest of the team's success - you need to have a QB & OL to fuel team success.  That's been the argument all along, with unanimity, for good reason.

You pay any RB 4/50, you throw 40M away in value for a guy with incredible mileage.  40M you can use elsewhere.  

Mileage is what leads to RB wear and tear.    The risk of a sudden decline in production is well established - 1,800 career carries is the mark where decline is usually seen.

https://www.numberfire.com/nfl/news/4940/measuring-nfl-running-back-longevity-falling-off-the-1-800-carry-cliff

Bell is a 1300+ carries - and over 400 receptions.  Now, receptions aren't as hard as carries - but they factor it (how much, doubtful it's 1:1, but it's no doubt having some additive effect).  The really scary part?  He went 430+ touches where he's only gone 350+ in a season once.   The data on this is just scary.  And before you throw out the idea he'll sign short-term - the Steelers offered him 4/50 and 30M guaranteed, and he turned it down.   So there's no short-term deal.

And none of the above even factors in the time he's already missed with injury.   Add it up, it's not even close to a good argument for 4/50 for Bell in any situation.   "I'd rather pay 4/50 for Bell" doesn't end with any good argument.   

[thebestever6]

1 minute ago, Broncofan said:

You can get Sony Michel for 4/8.   You can get Rashaad Penny for 4/5M.   And unlike QB the RB production doesn't drive the rest of the team's success - when Big Ben gets hurt, PIT

You pay any RB 4/50, you throw 40M away in value for a guy with incredible mileage.   Mileage is what leads to RB wear and tear.    The risk of a sudden decline in production is well established - 1,800 career carries is the mark where decline is usually seen.

https://www.numberfire.com/nfl/news/4940/measuring-nfl-running-back-longevity-falling-off-the-1-800-carry-cliff

Bell is a 1300+ carries - and over 400 receptions.  Now, receptions aren't  .  The really scary part?  He went 430+ touches where he's only gone 350+ in a season once.   The data on this is just scary.  And before you throw out the idea he'll sign short-term - the Steelers offered him 4/50 and 30M guaranteed, and he turned it down.   So there's no short-term deal.

And none of the above even factors in the time he's already missed with injury.   Add it up, it's not even close to a good argument for 4/50 for Bell in any situation.   "I'd rather pay 4/50 for Bell" doesn't end with any good argument.   

How many carries does Lesean Mccoy have? And touches

[Broncofan]

4 minutes ago, thebestever6 said:

How many carries does Lesean Mccoy have?

2185

2017 - YPA - 4.0 (285 carries).  The season after the 1800+ carry threshold passed.

2016 - YPA - 5.4

2017 LOWEST YPA in career (prior 2 years 5.4, 4.4 - 4.1 was his rookie year).   

BTW, McCoy salary?  8.5M.  2nd highest.  Next highest?  6M. 

But, yes, someone should pay Bell 4/50 - instead of a 8M/4 or 5M/4 for a drafted rookie. 

Thanks for making the argument on all counts against Value - not just production, but value.  
 

[thebestever6]

8 minutes ago, Broncofan said:

2185

2017 - YPA - 4.0 (285 carries).

2016 - YPA - 5.4

2017 LOWEST YPA in career (prior 4.0).   

 

4.0 is still a good average I think the dip isn't as crazy when a rb is as electric as these two 5.4 was a career high btw. Plus a large majority of Shadys carries entering the 1800 club were last year. I go by age more than mileage I truly believe bell has 3 years minimum of high level production. 

He is also a guy now that you may even get a discount. 1) the market for rbs isn't good it never is 2) he was suspended 2 times due to weed. 3) he talked about his contract 72 hrs before kickoff. So if a change of scenery helps that may be a great get for 2 plus years.

[Broncofan]

2 minutes ago, thebestever6 said:

4.0 is still a good average I think the dip isn't as crazy when a rb is as electric as these two. Plus a large majority of Shadys carries entering the 1800 club were last year. I go by age more than mileage I truly believe bell has 3 years minimum of high level production. 

He is also a guy now that you may even get a discount. 1) the market for rbs isn't good it never is 2) he was suspended 2 times due to weed. 3) he talked about his contract 72 hrs before kickoff. So if a change of scenery helps that may be a great get for 2 plus years.

4.0 is the lowest McCoy ever had.  And it’s behind a top 10 Run blocking OL.  1.4 YPC behind 2016.  And he’s 3.5M cheaper per year.  

Bell is an elite RB but you don’t pay 12M AAV and multiple years.  The 3rd highest paid RB in the league is literally half the cost.  You literally can pay 1/10 the cost for a draft RB with no mileage and he can give what we need.   

There is no scenario where Bell is worth 4/50M for us.  None.  RB isn’t a premium position.  It’s the easiest to replace.   Arguing against Cousins for the cost  (which is entirely justifiable given the amount) only amplifies the case against Bell given RB isn’t the cornerstone position.  

[BroncoBruin]

The Broncos of the past decade aren't a great testament to RBs being easily replaceable. Sure would be nice to have a game changer again. 

[Broncofan]

9 minutes ago, BroncoBruin said:

The Broncos of the past decade aren't a great testament to RBs being easily replaceable. Sure would be nice to have a game changer again. 

Absolutely.   A Day 2 pick gets guys at 1/10 the cost zero mileage.   Even at 80 percent ceiling that’s a no brainer better option with our team construction.   

[iLikeDefense]

7 minutes ago, Broncofan said:

Absolutely.   A Day 2 pick gets guys at 1/10 the cost zero mileage.   Even at 80 percent ceiling that’s a no brainer better option with our team construction.   

Penny..Penny..Penny! He’s the Aztec back that’ll redeem Hillman!

[Broncofan]

29 minutes ago, iLikeDefense said:

Penny..Penny..Penny! He’s the Aztec back that’ll redeem Hillman!

I loved the take.... until you mentioned Hillman.  I try to repress that memory (not just the wasted pick, but that we actually traded UP to get him, and then went back to the RB well and took Montee Ball one year later.  Talk about a RB killer and wasted draft capital impact for 3-4 years).

It underlines how our biggest organizational problem (aside from lack of QB) is our inability to draft Day 2.   With our cap situation, we have to be better.

[thebestever6]

After watching the little I have of Baker Mayfield and all the highlights as well I've concluded I don't want him in the first round. 

In the last 20 years I've been watching football I've only seen 4 or 5 qbs to play football unconventional and succeed. Russel Wilson, Steve Mcnair, Cam Newton, Donavan McNabb, Mike Vick, and Big Ben on occasion.

Of those 6 qbs 4 are built like tanks, and two have surpreme athletic ability. Mayfield exist in the Manziel doesn't fit either category. Now in the second I'd take him just in case Manziel failed for off the field issues idea. I can't put him in the Brees category because Brees is the most accurate qb I've ever seen. Again another elite qb trait.

I haven't seen mayfield have the ability to play effectively conventional unless the passing windows are huge. Haven't seen him throw guys open. Everything about him screams unconventional. 

[AnAngryAmerican]

6 hours ago, broncos67 said:

A couple things in response to some posts in here:

Trading 1.5 for Luck would be one of the worst moves we could make, IMO. The risk is too high. Why would anyone trust his shoulder at this point? We have no idea what Andrew Luck will be post injury. An injury, by the way, that has taken 2 years (and still going) to heal. McDaniels going to IND isn't an accident. I would be willing to bet he wants to work with Luck and if not, will get the chance to draft his own QB.

Second, I love Quenton Nelson, but if we draft him I hope it's after a small trade down. I think we'd be better served to pick up an extra pick and try and snag him vs. passing up Fitzpatrick or Chubb or an OT, who would represent better positional value. Personally, I'm of the opinion the Broncos will try and go with Connor McGovern. Elway eluded to better coaching and development. McGovern had some moments- I could see them giving him an audition. 

One thing that has been very intriguing to me is a trade with the Bills. It would be more drastic, but they have 1.21 and 1.22 this year and they covet a QB. I could see a trade for 1.21, 1.22, and either next years 1 or 2. It could very well happen if the Bills fall in love with a QB enough. 

I could see a trade like that with Buffalo only if we land Kirk Cousins. One, Cousins will tie up a lot of money and we will need cheap guys on their rookie contracts to fill out other key sports on the roster. A rookie 1st round contract is four years with a club option for a fifth, all others are four years. A Cousins contract will be five years. Von has five years left on his deal and CHJ has about five years left as an elite CB. That's our window. We hit on a few draft picks, get some second-tier free agents and a hope a few guys we've picked up in the last draft or two develop (Jake Butt being the most obvious) then we have a five year window of contending. 

As far as Luck being traded, it wouldn't surprise me at all. This is Mac we're talking about and there's a former New England QB on the roster. Trading Luck brings back some draft picks and frees up a lot of money for Mac to sign whatever guys get released / not resigned by the Pats and Texans in the offseason.