Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
AnAngryAmerican

Broncos QB Discussion Thread

Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, bMiller031 said:

I'm thinking Mayfield is more likely than Allen because of the gap of readiness between the two. Given Elway's comments about rookie QBs cutting their teeth early rather than sitting, I can't see them paying Keenum/Taylor AND spending the capital for a QB at 1.5.

Two unwise decisions that I'd hope Elways stays away from:

1. The bridge QB option- it ties up $, doesn't make us a contender this season, and doesn't allow those reps to go to the QBOTF.

2. The rookie who isn't ready to play (i.e. Anyone besides Rosen, Darnold (maybe), and Mayfield). 

For those reasons, I'd be shocked if Elway went with Josh Allen at 1.5. He doesn't solve our 2018 QB problem and doesn't allow us to squeeze what's left out of this defense. 

I disagree. There's no way Mayfield is more ready than Allen. Both are raw but raw for different reasons, Allen needs to work on his accuracy on short and intermediate passing and Mayfield needs to learn to operate under center, in a pocket, read defenses and play in a NFL offense rather than the gimmick, playground ball style he played at OU; in that regard he's as raw as Paxton was coming out of Memphis. 

I agree that going with a bridge QB would be a bad decision. Whether we draft a QB like Darnold or Rosen who are, for the most part, pro-ready or one of the more-raw guys like Mayfield, Jackson or Allen, I think whomever it is needs to start from day one and learn on the fly, take their lumps and hopefully be ready to go next year. Wasting a season with a bridge QB is a horrible decision as I've been saying for weeks now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, thebestever6 said:

Greg Cosell said Josh Allen reminds him of Elway coming out. And I respect him tremendously. He also said Rosens tape is way better  than Darnolds. And Lamar Jackson intrigues him.  He said why can't they do the same with Lamar that they did with Desean Watson?

Oh bejaysus - no - Elway was a blue-chip talent coming into the draft.

As for Jackson - love the athlete - don't like the QB (because he isn't really one).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want Cousins - signing him opens up all types of possibilities with this draft - a draft that is deep where the Broncos have a lot of holes.

If we don't get Collins - then I agree with AAA - draft the QB and make him the starter.

I do not want Keenum - people are objecting to giving Cousins $30million a year - but Keenum, at a minimum is likely to cost something like 3 years - $60million with $35-$40million guaranteed. I would pay Cousins before paying Keenum.

If it is Plan C - then I would go with Taylor - but not paying him the cap money

The annoying thing is that Elway's incompetence in sorting out the QB position has now cost us two years of this defence - and likely a third year if we don't get Cousins. Making the wrong decisions now could see the Broncos ending up like the Browns of the last ten years.

Edited by jolly red giant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, germ-x said:

Short term?  Sure.  Long term? No, it isn’t.  Offensive lines, skill position talent, and strong defenses will wax and wane.

Nothing trumps an elite franchise QB that makes up for all of those deficincies, which will happen over the course of an elite QBs 15+ year career.

Maybe in the instance of grooming a potential franchise QB it’s worth it to spend the financial and draft assets to protect him early on. Long term, though an NFL OL will never be dominant for 5+ years (hell probably 3 max) Which makes spending capital in it (outside of an elite OT) a waste of picks and money unless the team is elite enough to win a championship and has the money to sign a good player to help put them over the top.

You mention the Eagles as “it worked okay for them.”  I’ll mention the 2016 Broncos who spent money on every other place than the OL...worked well for them too.  Ryan Harris and Michael Schofield started at OT for goodness sakes.

So, we could go round and round on this forever. I could point out the Redskins, only consistent was there OL, the HOGs, best in the NFL for a long time. Three SB's, three different very average QB's. As far as sustainability, Shanahan never had a bad OL in his tenure here. It just takes a long term commitment, a draft pick every year and good coaching.

As far as Elite Franchise QB's, how do you find them, who are they and how much will it cost?

Bottom line, we have totally different philosophies. You believe an elite QB is necessary for success, I do not, haven't for decades. I believe an average journeyman QB can win championships with the right team around him.

Anyway, I respect yours and others opinions on this. I just disagree. I don't believe an elite QB is the end all/be all for franchise success and would definitely not draft one at #5 with all the other needs we have.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, AKRNA said:

So, we could go round and round on this forever. I could point out the Redskins, only consistent was there OL, the HOGs, best in the NFL for a long time. Three SB's, three different very average QB's. As far as sustainability, Shanahan never had a bad OL in his tenure here. It just takes a long term commitment, a draft pick every year and good coaching.

As far as Elite Franchise QB's, how do you find them, who are they and how much will it cost?

Bottom line, we have totally different philosophies. You believe an elite QB is necessary for success, I do not, haven't for decades. I believe an average journeyman QB can win championships with the right team around him.

Anyway, I respect yours and others opinions on this. I just disagree. I don't believe an elite QB is the end all/be all for franchise success and would definitely not draft one at #5 with all the other needs we have.

 

The hogs were in an era pre free agency and cap no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jolly red giant said:

Oh bejaysus - no - Elway was a blue-chip talent coming into the draft.

As for Jackson - love the athlete - don't like the QB (because he isn't really one).

Greg Cosell is like the bible to me.

Share this post


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

I disagree. There's no way Mayfield is more ready than Allen. Both are raw but raw for different reasons, Allen needs to work on his accuracy on short and intermediate passing and Mayfield needs to learn to operate under center, in a pocket, read defenses and play in a NFL offense rather than the gimmick, playground ball style he played at OU; in that regard he's as raw as Paxton was coming out of Memphis. 

I agree that going with a bridge QB would be a bad decision. Whether we draft a QB like Darnold or Rosen who are, for the most part, pro-ready or one of the more-raw guys like Mayfield, Jackson or Allen, I think whomever it is needs to start from day one and learn on the fly, take their lumps and hopefully be ready to go next year. Wasting a season with a bridge QB is a horrible decision as I've been saying for weeks now. 

How!?!?!?! Mayfield goes through progressions, and reads defenses. I get the windows were majority large but he is not as raw as Paxton. 

He also gives a damn,and isn't a laxy guy playing ps4 all day. 

Edited by thebestever6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, germ-x said:

Short term?  Sure.  Long term? No, it isn’t.  Offensive lines, skill position talent, and strong defenses will wax and wane.

Nothing trumps an elite franchise QB that makes up for all of those deficincies, which will happen over the course of an elite QBs 15+ year career.

Maybe in the instance of grooming a potential franchise QB it’s worth it to spend the financial and draft assets to protect him early on. Long term, though an NFL OL will never be dominant for 5+ years (hell probably 3 max) Which makes spending capital in it (outside of an elite OT) a waste of picks and money unless the team is elite enough to win a championship and has the money to sign a good player to help put them over the top.

You mention the Eagles as “it worked okay for them.”  I’ll mention the 2016 Broncos who spent money on every other place than the OL...worked well for them too.  Ryan Harris and Michael Schofield started at OT for goodness sakes.

 

57 minutes ago, AKRNA said:

So, we could go round and round on this forever. I could point out the Redskins, only consistent was there OL, the HOGs, best in the NFL for a long time. Three SB's, three different very average QB's. As far as sustainability, Shanahan never had a bad OL in his tenure here. It just takes a long term commitment, a draft pick every year and good coaching.

As far as Elite Franchise QB's, how do you find them, who are they and how much will it cost?

Bottom line, we have totally different philosophies. You believe an elite QB is necessary for success, I do not, haven't for decades. I believe an average journeyman QB can win championships with the right team around him.

Anyway, I respect yours and others opinions on this. I just disagree. I don't believe an elite QB is the end all/be all for franchise success and would definitely not draft one at #5 with all the other needs we have.

 

@germ-x & @AKRNA an owner in our league came up with a compelling argument to the philosophies you are both making - there is no magic formula anymore to SB contention/winning.

If you look at the discussion on FFGen and here, 4 themes come out as to what is the key to a legit championship contender/team:

1.  The franchise QB.  Can hide a lot more weaknesses on a team, and in the case of a mobile/elusive QB, can help the OL play up (and even a guy like Brady can move around enough to maximize his OL performance.   Russell Wilson, A-Rod, TB12, the list goes on.

2.   Trench strength.   Be powerful in the OL/DL, and you control the run game, eat clock, and on D, you negate the franchise QB by burying them with pressure.  Certainly, PHI was the most dominant team if you look at both OL/DL.  I'd argue that pretty much every elite SB QB also had a top 10 OL with them (even Wilson's OL was top 10 back then in the SB48 years, not so much now).  Even last year, you look at NE's OL, and they were a top 6 unit, and their DL is what keyed the comeback D-wise on ATL, getting pressure at key moments on Ryan and co.   Trey Flowers was a SB animal.   We didn't quite follow this to a T, but it's fair to say our run D was stellar, and CJ's run game behind our OL played great, except for RT.   Still, this applies more for PHI.

3.   Elite D.   Our formula, and you can very clearly make the argument that JAX followed this formula to a T - they were literally a 2H of bad coaching (more on that) away from the SB, they had the AFCG in their hands and let it slip away.     

4.  Great playoff coaching.   The anti-Andy Reid philosophy - play to win, and come up with innovate plans that make the difference.  This is what has set BB apart from the AFC competition - I'd point out JAX's refusal to do anything but run on 1st down with a dive in the 3rd/4th Q cost them the game - when they tried to sit on a 10 point lead.    I'd point out how great Pederson was in maximizing Foles' skills - becoming RPO driven, and those gutsy 4th down calls, when other coaches would have played to not lose.   When you have similarly talented teams, it makes a huge difference in the playoffs.

You look at the SB winning teams, it used to be people pointed only to the elite QB's.  But now, we look at the SB winner, and we also look at the top NFL teams this year - MIN, JAX, PHI post-Wentz, you can't say it's elite QB.   You also can't say it's elite D every time - but JAX now, and DEN in 2016, proved that you can do it.   But I'd also say that #4 is needed if you only have 1 of the first 3.   PHI won with #2 and #4 this year.   We won with #3 and #4 (remember that Phillips didn't go into a conservative game plan vs. NE / CAR, but attacked & attacked, no off-coverage zone, and it was a masterpiece).   I'd say MIN had #3 and #4 this year (Shurmur on O, and that elite D).   NE wins with #1 and #4, and sometimes, #2 - and because they have #1 and #4 all the time, they're perennial contenders.   

Point being, it's no longer a set formula.   It sure helps when you have 3 of the 4 - that's what makes PHI scary, with Wentz back, they should have #1, #2 and #4 covered.   But it also explains why we're seeing different teams contend.   The other common element - finding value in the draft (and in NE's case, Brady uber-cheap helps them in giving them more leeway).    We still haven't broken past the highest-paid QB's winning the SB - that speaks to the need to have more than just #1 - you have to excel in the trenches, or have the great D.    But it helps to have the franchise QB for sure - just like being incredible in the trenches can overcome not having the elite QB.   

Food for thought, I thought the argument was compelling, figured you'd find it interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, thebestever6 said:

The hogs were in an era pre free agency and cap no?

It was. My reference to the skins though has more to do with OL strength and it's value. As far as sustainability, look at the Bronco's with Shanahan. Lots of mid to late rd draft picks on the OL that played 8-13 years in the NFL.

Of course, Mike had Alex Gibbs, then his apprentice Dennison coaching those kids. Lets hope our new coaching staff on the OL can bring the same. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Broncofan said:

 

@germ-x & @AKRNA an owner in our league came up with a compelling argument to the philosophies you are both making - there is no magic formula anymore to SB contention/winning.

If you look at the discussion on FFGen and here, 4 themes come out as to what is the key to a legit championship contender/team:

1.  The franchise QB.  Can hide a lot more weaknesses on a team, and in the case of a mobile/elusive QB, can help the OL play up (and even a guy like Brady can move around enough to maximize his OL performance.   Russell Wilson, A-Rod, TB12, the list goes on.

2.   Trench strength.   Be powerful in the OL/DL, and you control the run game, eat clock, and on D, you negate the franchise QB by burying them with pressure.  Certainly, PHI was the most dominant team if you look at both OL/DL.  I'd argue that pretty much every elite SB QB also had a top 10 OL with them (even Wilson's OL was top 10 back then in the SB48 years, not so much now).  Even last year, you look at NE's OL, and they were a top 6 unit, and their DL is what keyed the comeback D-wise on ATL, getting pressure at key moments on Ryan and co.   Trey Flowers was a SB animal.   We didn't quite follow this to a T, but it's fair to say our run D was stellar, and CJ's run game behind our OL played great, except for RT.   Still, this applies more for PHI.

3.   Elite D.   Our formula, and you can very clearly make the argument that JAX followed this formula to a T - they were literally a 2H of bad coaching (more on that) away from the SB, they had the AFCG in their hands and let it slip away.     

4.  Great playoff coaching.   The anti-Andy Reid philosophy - play to win, and come up with innovate plans that make the difference.  This is what has set BB apart from the AFC competition - I'd point out JAX's refusal to do anything but run on 1st down with a dive in the 3rd/4th Q cost them the game - when they tried to sit on a 10 point lead.    I'd point out how great Pederson was in maximizing Foles' skills - becoming RPO driven, and those gutsy 4th down calls, when other coaches would have played to not lose.   When you have similarly talented teams, it makes a huge difference in the playoffs.

You look at the SB winning teams, it used to be people pointed only to the elite QB's.  But now, we look at the SB winner, and we also look at the top NFL teams this year - MIN, JAX, PHI post-Wentz, you can't say it's elite QB.   You also can't say it's elite D every time - but JAX now, and DEN in 2016, proved that you can do it.   But I'd also say that #4 is needed if you only have 1 of the first 3.   PHI won with #2 and #4 this year.   We won with #3 and #4 (remember that Phillips didn't go into a conservative game plan vs. NE / CAR, but attacked & attacked, no off-coverage zone, and it was a masterpiece).   I'd say MIN had #3 and #4 this year (Shurmur on O, and that elite D).   NE wins with #1 and #4, and sometimes, #2 - and because they have #1 and #4 all the time, they're perennial contenders.   

Point being, it's no longer a set formula.   It sure helps when you have 3 of the 4 - that's what makes PHI scary, with Wentz back, they should have #1, #2 and #4 covered.   But it also explains why we're seeing different teams contend.   The other common element - finding value in the draft (and in NE's case, Brady uber-cheap helps them in giving them more leeway).    We still haven't broken past the highest-paid QB's winning the SB - that speaks to the need to have more than just #1 - you have to excel in the trenches, or have the great D.    But it helps to have the franchise QB for sure - just like being incredible in the trenches can overcome not having the elite QB.   

Food for thought, I thought the argument was compelling, figured you'd find it interesting.

Great point's, good discussion. Obviously my preferred formula will always be #2.

Also, you point to Seattles SB win as a #1 with Wilson being the QB. I'd argue that their SB win could belong in all of the other three criteria as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, AKRNA said:

It was. My reference to the skins though has more to do with OL strength and it's value. As far as sustainability, look at the Bronco's with Shanahan. Lots of mid to late rd draft picks on the OL that played 8-13 years in the NFL.

Of course, Mike had Alex Gibbs, then his apprentice Dennison coaching those kids. Lets hope our new coaching staff on the OL can bring the same. 

One caveat - the rules then allowed the smaller OL to succeed with Shanahan’s scheme and allowed him to draft his guys late.   The change that took this advantage away was one where he never really adjusted.   Why we failed at OL development so badly early in Elways’s tenure early.   But the value of trench strength should not be underestimated.   People kept putting PHI as the dog ignoring how strong their trench strength favored them in that regard.  

Edited by Broncofan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, AKRNA said:

Great point's, good discussion. Obviously my preferred formula will always be #2.

Also, you point to Seattles SB win as a #1 with Wilson being the QB. I'd argue that their SB win could belong in all of the other three criteria as well.

Yeah it’s no surprise they were a Pete Carroll dumb*ss call from back to back SB’s.  They were a complete team.  Now their OL is a mess and the secondary is aging.   Partly because they couldn’t find bargain OL that they thought could help with Wilson’s athleticism masking their weaknesses.  That’s the decisions teams are forced to make once the rookie bargains stop.  Our fall from contention once the 2011 draft class stopped being bargains is a similar tale.  

Edited by Broncofan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By no means, don’t get me wrong here, especially @AKRNA, am I saying the OL useless.  Or that Denver should never address the OL.  What I’m saying, is it isn’t feasible in today’s NFL to constantly have a top 10 OL.  Financially and draft capital wise it just can’t be done over the long haul.  Same with a defense.  Denver’s won’t always be top 5 in the league, again, just isn’t realistic over the long haul.

The one position a franchise is capable of locking in for 15 years is QB.  It should be #1 priority and over the course of those 15 years trying to assemble an OL or a defense that can put a team over the top and potentially SB champions. Doing it the other way around (using money/picks to make a good OL/defense) and crossing your fingers that a journeyman QB can come in and do enough to make one a SB winner works 10% of the time.

Its happened the Ravens, Buccaneers, and to an extent the Eagles (even though before injury they had the potential MVP at QB), in this millennium.  

I guess one could try it.  Maybe Denver signs Solder (which would be as extreme an overpay as Cousins) and drafts Nelson at #5 (which I wouldn’t have an issue with) and then bring in a Keenum at QB and win it all, but I wouldn’t cross my fingers and Denver would still be sitting with a revolving door at QB.  Revolving doors at QB typically don’t equal long term success.  A revolving door along a few positions at OL doesn’t typically make a huge difference in wins/losses.

Edited by germ-x

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, The Helicopter said:

Isn’t it all just drafting and coaching......I think we have neither

I guess that’s true.  But Elway is one of the best in the business at his job.  Top 5 GM since he’s taken over.  He’s had his misses, but so has/does everyone.  The worst move this franchise could make is to move on from Elway.  

A good friend of mine thinks Elway is awful.  It’s funny how quickly people forget this team is only 2 years removed from a Super Bowl, which never had a chance of happening without Elway at the helm.

No doubt he has made mistakes, but Denver wouldn’t upgrade if they decided to move on.  It’d go down as the biggest mistake in franchise history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  



×