Thread: Tanking--worth it?

Originally Posted by Tned

Very rarely is there a can't miss QB. Most agree that in the last 20 years, the only "can't miss" QB that came out was Luck.

It's not about "can't miss" QBs it's about getting a better prospect than the stiffs on the roster.

I know Elway and VJ are still in the "win now" nonsense, and think they have a "re-boot and not a re-build" but they are fooling themselves if they really believe that going into next season with some FA QB and another Paxton Lynch style project.

You can't beat Tom Brady or Ben Roethlisberger to win the AFC unless you have an elite QB. There was an exception of course, Joe Flacco in 2012. But, nobody would take Joe Flacco and pay him $22m today. So, that was a total fluke that only happened because Rahim "the Dream" Moore fell down. The Broncos SB 2015 was also a fluke.

Yes the defense was great, but lose to KC because Jamaal Charles doesn't fumble (his hip was 1" off the turf when the ball came out), or to the Browns when Peyton threw a pick and gave them the ball on the Denver 40 in overtime and they would have been playing NE in Foxborough. They would never have won there. So, no SB. All the bounces went their way. That happens every once in a while, for different teams.

It was a mistake in 2016 to believe they were better than they were and could compete for a SB with Trevor Siemian because their defense is so awesome.

So was the '87 Bears who still had Richard Dent, Dan Hampton, Mike Singletary and Walter Peyton (all HOF) plus a roster studded with all-pros. Yet they never won another SB or even went back to one. Same with the 2001 Ravens with Ray Lewis, and 2003 Bucs with John Lynch, Warren Sapp et. al, and 2016 Broncos of course.

This team needs to select a QB who will be top 10 in a couple of years and rebuild the core of their roster especially the OL. If they could find a franchise QB in the first round and a RT in the second that would go a long way towards fixing what is wrong with this team.

Originally Posted by dogfish

i still want them to take one. . . IMO, it's the only way we have a chance of getting back to super bowl contention. . . i don't see kirk cousins getting us there, and most would agree he's going to be the best option in free agency. . . maybe the chorfs let alex smith go, but does anyone really think of commander checkdown as a championship QB? if we pay cousins 25-30 million, that probably means losing guys like talib and CJ anderson-- which closes our window, IMO. . .

i don't care if we've gotten bucked in the past. . . i'd rather get back up on that horse and risk it again than settle for mediocrity. . . i had enough hopeless 9-7 seasons at the end of the shanny era to know i don't want to be back there. . . i'm not against going after a tyrod taylor, case keenum level guy as a transitional starter for a year, but i'll be disappointed if we don't draft one of the top QB prospects. . . i think kirk cousins is fools gold-- i want them to take the time and effort to get it right, no easy halfway fixes. . .

I'd rather see Denver spend 30 million and keep Talib, Harris and Roby than pay Cousins that kind of money. I'd be totally fine with getting a guy like Tyrod Taylor (to use your example) and letting Lynch and Kelly battle for second. Use that high pick on a stud pass rusher, WR, TE or O line.

If they take a QB and bomb it sets you back even further. Lynch and Shane Ray aren't exactly great starters. Bolles is looking okay but nothing special. You can't keep missing on first round picks. If they truly think they can get a guy who doesn't need 3 years to develop than I can see taking the gamble on a QB, otherwise give me a guy who can come in and start.

I'd be totally fine if they took the G from Notre Dame. That guy will be a starter for 12+ years from day one.

I think Cousins could actually put up some damn good numbers throwing to DT and Sanders, and if we can actually find a TE...

I wouldn't mind Taylor either. Doesn't take a lot of chances, efficient and can make plays with his legs.

Originally Posted by Slick

Exactly. More than likely if they go QB he's a bust.

Top ten QBs seem to be maybe a bit better than 50/50. Outside of top 10, drops off pretty hard. Add the Elway/Russell factor.... Did I say that?

Originally Posted by Slick

I'd be totally fine with getting a guy like Tyrod Taylor (to use your example) and letting Lynch and Kelly battle for second.

not me, babycakes. . . IMO, that's 7-9 city. . . tyrod taylor with no plan B? that's a train to nowhere. . . i'm not on board. . . what are you trying to accomplish in that scenario?

JMO, clearly, but for me you at least have to grab one of the second-tier QBs for that to be a scenario worth pursuing. . . maybe you take an OL (or fitzpatrick), and trade back into the end of the first if a prospect like mayfield or jackson is still available. . . but i'll be super disappointed if tyrod taylor and a couple of our current scrubs ends up being the plan at QB going forward. . .

Originally Posted by Slick

I'd rather see Denver spend 30 million and keep Talib, Harris and Roby than pay Cousins that kind of money. I'd be totally fine with getting a guy like Tyrod Taylor (to use your example) and letting Lynch and Kelly battle for second. Use that high pick on a stud pass rusher, WR, TE or O line.

If they take a QB and bomb it sets you back even further. Lynch and Shane Ray aren't exactly great starters. Bolles is looking okay but nothing special. You can't keep missing on first round picks. If they truly think they can get a guy who doesn't need 3 years to develop than I can see taking the gamble on a QB, otherwise give me a guy who can come in and start.

I'd be totally fine if they took the G from Notre Dame. That guy will be a starter for 12+ years from day one.

Originally Posted by dogfish

not me, babycakes. . . IMO, that's 7-9 city. . . tyrod taylor with no plan B? that's a train to nowhere. . . i'm not on board. . . what are you trying to accomplish in that scenario?

JMO, clearly, but for me you at least have to grab one of the second-tier QBs for that to be a scenario worth pursuing. . . maybe you take an OL (or fitzpatrick), and trade back into the end of the first if a prospect like mayfield or jackson is still available. . . but i'll be super disappointed if tyrod taylor and a couple of our current scrubs ends up being the plan at QB going forward. . .

I was going to say the same thing... And also bust slick's balls a little bit - how can you be so critical of the QB play and its influence on winning and then sort of shrug and be ok with getting some half ass solution?

I'd rather sign Cousins and cut the entire No Fly zone if necessary (which it would never come to that) - but my point is that you are truly dead in the water with no QB, whereas you can compensate for having some bad DBs. Which is another reason I'm so adamant that we should be tanking. We can't allow ourselves to keep hoping these half-measures are going to work out at QB. Gotta go all in for one in the draft or free agency.

The delta between Tyrod and Trevor seems insignificant.

Originally Posted by Tned

Top ten QBs seem to be maybe a bit better than 50/50. Outside of top 10, drops off pretty hard. Add the Elway/Russell factor.... Did I say that?

For long term success, it's more like 1/3. A lot of QB's get hurt after showing some initial promise and flame out. RG3, Vince Young, Jake Locker, maybe Luck, etc......

Let's say we end up picking 5th in the draft and they love Rosen or Darnold who are slated to go 1st and 2nd to the Browns and Giants. Would you be ok with losing a 3rd, 4th, and a 3rd in 2019 to move up a few spots in get one of them? It would actually cost more, that is what it cost the Bears to move up 1 spot to get Trubisky.

If we want a rookie QB, we either pay a king's ransom to get one of the top guys, or we are satisfied with an Josh Allen, Lamar Jackson, or Mayfield. That is reality.

On the veteran side we either overpay for Cousins (I still think he goes back to the Redskins), miracle happens and we get Brees for 2-3 years (he isn't getting away from the Saints) or maybe we trade for Eli or Smith (doubt those moves as well).

Most likely scenario is drafting a QB in the 1st or 2nd at our spot, and getting a decent vet like Sam Bradford or Tyrod Taylor. The Vikings will be interesting. Do they keep Bridgewater and Case Keenum? I would take either of those guys.

Originally Posted by Cugel

It's not about "can't miss" QBs it's about getting a better prospect than the stiffs on the roster.

I know Elway and VJ are still in the "win now" nonsense, and think they have a "re-boot and not a re-build" but they are fooling themselves if they really believe that going into next season with some FA QB and another Paxton Lynch style project.

You can't beat Tom Brady or Ben Roethlisberger to win the AFC unless you have an elite QB.

First, look at what I responded to, which was a question about whether or not there was a can't miss QB in this QB class.

Second, look at your contradiction, on the one hand you're talking about it just being about getting a better prospect than what's on the roster, but on the other hand, we must have an elite QB to compete. The odds are you aren't going to get an Elite QB unless you are drafting in the top few positions in the draft, and that's not even a given every draft.

I'm in the camp that thinks they should draft a QB with their first pick (unless the best guy available is a major project).

But, and it's a big but, the most glaring weakness on this team is pass protection. Period.

So, if I was drafting I would probably draft a QB, because I'm emotional and reactionary like most fans, but the Broncos might opt to fix the bigger problem, which is pass protection, if there is a big time blue chip tackle, allowing them to move Bolles to RT.

Originally Posted by Slick

I'd rather see Denver spend 30 million and keep Talib, Harris and Roby than pay Cousins that kind of money. I'd be totally fine with getting a guy like Tyrod Taylor (to use your example) and letting Lynch and Kelly battle for second. Use that high pick on a stud pass rusher, WR, TE or O line.

If they take a QB and bomb it sets you back even further. Lynch and Shane Ray aren't exactly great starters. Bolles is looking okay but nothing special. You can't keep missing on first round picks. If they truly think they can get a guy who doesn't need 3 years to develop than I can see taking the gamble on a QB, otherwise give me a guy who can come in and start.

I'd be totally fine if they took the G from Notre Dame. That guy will be a starter for 12+ years from day one.

Taylor just lost his job to a rookie (now that the rookie is concussed, the coach said Taylor lost it "mostly" due to health reasons). This is a QB that rarely tops 200 yards passing. While he can scramble, he's a pretty low ceiling QB. At least with the china doll Bradford there is some potential upside in terms of passing skills.

The team would be far better off trying to talk Cutler into playing another year or so vs. Taylor.

Originally Posted by Hawgdriver

The delta between Tyrod and Trevor seems insignificant.

Taylor is probably only marginally better than Lynch. He does do a reasonable job of protecting the football, but he's never been a very accomplished passer.

Originally Posted by dogfish

not me, babycakes. . . IMO, that's 7-9 city. . . tyrod taylor with no plan B? that's a train to nowhere. . . i'm not on board. . . what are you trying to accomplish in that scenario?

JMO, clearly, but for me you at least have to grab one of the second-tier QBs for that to be a scenario worth pursuing. . . maybe you take an OL (or fitzpatrick), and trade back into the end of the first if a prospect like mayfield or jackson is still available. . . but i'll be super disappointed if tyrod taylor and a couple of our current scrubs ends up being the plan at QB going forward. . .

Short of making a run at Brees/Cousins, which would be real tough, cap hit aside, their best best would probably be drafting a top 10, hopefully top 5, QB, cutting Lynch, and then going into camp with a known in Trevor as your hopeful backup, a longshot talent in Kelly, and hopefully a long term QB option in the rookie.

Other than Brees and Cousins (and I'm not 100% sold on Cousins), there are nothing other than low ceiling, journeyman QBs that will be UFAs that aren't much better than Osweiler/Siemian.

Originally Posted by Buff

I was going to say the same thing... And also bust slick's balls a little bit - how can you be so critical of the QB play and its influence on winning and then sort of shrug and be ok with getting some half ass solution?

I'd rather sign Cousins and cut the entire No Fly zone if necessary (which it would never come to that) - but my point is that you are truly dead in the water with no QB, whereas you can compensate for having some bad DBs. Which is another reason I'm so adamant that we should be tanking. We can't allow ourselves to keep hoping these half-measures are going to work out at QB. Gotta go all in for one in the draft or free agency.

This draft class is like choosing between Bortles, Ponder or Jake Locker. I'm not wasting a pick that high on a guy who probably won't pan out.

If they trade back into the first and get Jackson, Allen, Mayfield, Rudolph or Mo's guy after getting a stud I'm okay with that.