Thread: The 2018 QB Conundrum

Originally Posted by chazoe60

And everything else from what I can tell

Everyone is good at something.

Except for MO.

Originally Posted by HORSEPOWER 56

Perhaps you should think about this differently. We have a $20 mil LB; 3 CBs costing 8, 10 and 12 mil; 2 WRs costing over 8 mil each, a RT who costs 7 mil and is the worst starting RT in the game, a RB making 5 mil who just had his first season over 1000 yds and scored 3 TDs. All that money spent for 5-11. Why? Because we don’t have a QB.

Perhaps we should spend the big money on the most important position on the roster instead of all the other BS. It’s easier to have a successful team with a good to great QB and a lesser supporting cast than it is to build an entire team to make a journeyman scrub QB a winner.

Really, how much difference are we talking about money wise for Cousins over a guy like say Tyrod Taylor or AJ McCarron who, like it or not, will likely get close to 20 mil per because that’s the market? 7 mil? 8 mil? That’s Watson’s and CJs contracts. That’s Sanders’ contract. Do you really think we couldn’t live without those guys for a QB that doesn’t turn the ball over 3 times a game and can actually score TDs in the red zone?

If there’s one position you just can’t “gamble” with it’s QB.

Actually, imo the DEFENSE as a whole is most important aspect of any team aspiring to actually win championships. That, usually involves at least 4 or 5 dynamic playmakers. Next most important aspect of a team aspiring to win a championship is a dynamic OL. Solid OLs make average QBs good and good QBs great. Yes, the Broncos OL in 2015 left a lot to be desired and has been basic shit since. That was probably the main reason for the historic offensive ineptitude that year, and yet they were able to pull it out based on a legendary defense.

Great defenses are winning less often than teams with superstar QB's.

This SB taught us that you can have the best defense in the league, and when you run into an elite QB, you need one to keep up. The last SB taught us that you don't have to have a top three QB to be able to win a SB, just be able to call plays correctly.

Recent history is more than enough to say that you can't just slap five all-pros on defense and win a SB. Because you can't.

The team to win purely on defense was us. Before that it was probably the Bucs or the Ravens. All of those defenses were historic.

So picking up a great QB isn't a guarantee. Neither is a great defense. But a great QB makes you win fast, and when you sign him to a long term deal you get that long term to add to the team.

In case you missed it, defensive studs aren't clamoring to come to Denver anymore. But they did when we had a contending team. How did we get that team? We became true contenders when we signed PFM.

But Cousins isn't as great as PFM? Duh. But the AFC is a weak conference. Players will look at that and go sign here, arguably. Much like in the NBA everyone wanted to sign with the Cavs because **** playing out West.

Originally Posted by Von Kinger

Great defenses are winning less often than teams with superstar QB's.

This SB taught us that you can have the best defense in the league, and when you run into an elite QB, you need one to keep up. The last SB taught us that you don't have to have a top three QB to be able to win a SB, just be able to call plays correctly.

Recent history is more than enough to say that you can't just slap five all-pros on defense and win a SB. Because you can't.

The team to win purely on defense was us. Before that it was probably the Bucs or the Ravens. All of those defenses were historic.

So picking up a great QB isn't a guarantee. Neither is a great defense. But a great QB makes you win fast, and when you sign him to a long term deal you get that long term to add to the team.

In case you missed it, defensive studs aren't clamoring to come to Denver anymore. But they did when we had a contending team. How did we get that team? We became true contenders when we signed PFM.

But Cousins isn't as great as PFM? Duh. But the AFC is a weak conference. Players will look at that and go sign here, arguably. Much like in the NBA everyone wanted to sign with the Cavs because **** playing out West.

I understand why you think that, but Eagles would not have been in the SB if not for their defense. Held Atlanta to 10 points which included a nice goal line stance. Held the Vikings to 7 points.

Brees has not been back to SB since 2009. This was the first time in years they have been back to the playoffs and yet he has been very productive each year. Very productive.

I would say his salary perhaps contributed to why they could not field adequate defenses.

Luck cannot get it done and many say he does not have the talent around him. I think his salary may contribute to why that is.

Cousins is not as good as them. Well, maybe Luck, but I dont see Cousins being able to overcome the deficiencies that I think his salary would cause.

He is the best talent at FA and if the Broncos (Elway) can do something while keeping the defense or....IMPROVING the defense while solidifying the OL, then fine.

However, I am reading several articles where Denver will need to get rid of key guys.

Defense, as much as we may think is not crucial, I say it has never been more crucial.

Originally Posted by Broncoknight30

I understand why you think that, but Eagles would not have been in the SB if not for their defense. Held Atlanta to 10 points which included a nice goal line stance. Held the Vikings to 7 points.

Brees has not been back to SB since 2009. This was the first time in years they have been back to the playoffs and yet he has been very productive each year. Very productive.

I would say his salary perhaps contributed to why they could not field adequate defenses.

Luck cannot get it done and many say he does not have the talent around him. I think his salary may contribute to why that is.

Cousins is not as good as them. Well, maybe Luck, but I dont see Cousins being able to overcome the deficiencies that I think his salary would cause.

He is the best talent at FA and if the Broncos (Elway) can do something while keeping the defense or....IMPROVING the defense while solidifying the OL, then fine.

However, I am reading several articles where Denver will need to get rid of key guys.

Defense, as much as we may think is not crucial, I say it has never been more crucial.

Would they have needed that defense had their starting QB been on the field? Are we to weigh those early games higher than the SB against the Patriots Dynasty?

Brees has also been on teams with historically BAD defenses, teams with no running games, and a team that three years ago had about 25 million in dead cap money. You can't point to Brees because his circumstances were so horrid after that SB victory. His cap hit was on par with his production and the other top flight QB's. Signing Byrd to a huge deal, cutting their stud DE because of off field issues, etcd was what contributed there.

Luck has one of the worst lines in football and an awful defense - his team can't draft well. Essentially you're assuming that every stud QB who isn't winning SB's at a Brady rate is failing because of their deal and ignoring other prominent factors.

You're also not being as critical to defensive teams - Who was the last great defensive team to win multiple SB? The Seahawks came close.

Originally Posted by Von Kinger

Would they have needed that defense had their starting QB been on the field? Are we to weigh those early games higher than the SB against the Patriots Dynasty?

Brees has also been on teams with historically BAD defenses, teams with no running games, and a team that three years ago had about 25 million in dead cap money. You can't point to Brees because his circumstances were so horrid after that SB victory. His cap hit was on par with his production and the other top flight QB's. Signing Byrd to a huge deal, cutting their stud DE because of off field issues, etcd was what contributed there.

Luck has one of the worst lines in football and an awful defense - his team can't draft well. Essentially you're assuming that every stud QB who isn't winning SB's at a Brady rate is failing because of their deal and ignoring other prominent factors.

You're also not being as critical to defensive teams - Who was the last great defensive team to win multiple SB? The Seahawks came close.

We have had this discussion before and again, I think many teams won because of their defenses. All of the 49ers teams for instance. Great QBs but I don't think they would have won them if not for their great defenses. The Giants won it 86 and 90 behind great defenses. The first three Super Bowls won by the Patriots were all with great defense especially the one in 2001 which shut down the greatest show on turf. The Patriots themselves did not even win a Superbowl for 10 years and then in 2014 they had their best defense they had in years. Last year 2016 the Patriots had the number one defense in the NFL in points per game given up.

Okay, so you have to go back to the 80's to find teams winning multiple SB's because of the defense.

Come on man, in a QB driven league when great QB play is winning SB's, defense matters, it's half the game. But FFS, we just fielded a team with a bunch of defensive all-pros and got roflstomped.

Originally Posted by Von Kinger

Okay, so you have to go back to the 80's to find teams winning multiple SB's because of the defense.

Come on man, in a QB driven league when great QB play is winning SB's, defense matters, it's half the game. But FFS, we just fielded a team with a bunch of defensive all-pros and got roflstomped.

I mentioned the Patriots also. I mentioned last year's Patriots team being number one in points per game. I also mentioned their first three Super Bowls. And again the deal with Tom Brady is he's the 17th highest paid quarterback in the NFL so he sort of out of the discussion for that reason so we can get a quarterback that has that type of production for that price then fine that's completely unrealistic.

You can't mention the Patriots of the early Aughts when they've been all offense for the past several SB's. They were also cheating (more) back then, too. I'm just kidding, at best their cheating ways now are commensurate with the past.

You know how you get guys like Brady and Rodgers to take team friendly deals? You pay them big bucks early on, and then you win, and that's what makes them cut those deals.

If you ever have a stud QB, he's getting paid at some point.

I'd rather sign a stud, build around him best you can, wait for his deal to fall back to earth, and have an actual shot than try to be replicate what the Ravens did with Flacco where the defense is great but it takes a miracle run from an average QB to actually WIN the SB.

Please behave yourselves. I had to edit a couple of posts in here that got personal.

Originally Posted by Von Kinger

You can't mention the Patriots of the early Aughts when they've been all offense for the past several SB's. They were also cheating (more) back then, too. I'm just kidding, at best their cheating ways now are commensurate with the past.

You know how you get guys like Brady and Rodgers to take team friendly deals? You pay them big bucks early on, and then you win, and that's what makes them cut those deals.

If you ever have a stud QB, he's getting paid at some point.

I'd rather sign a stud, build around him best you can, wait for his deal to fall back to earth, and have an actual shot than try to be replicate what the Ravens did with Flacco where the defense is great but it takes a miracle run from an average QB to actually WIN the SB.

Got to have the quarterback. If you don't, you have to get really lucky, i.e. a ton of turnovers for scores.

Originally Posted by Buff

Find me said team. Open challenge/question to everyone.

I plan on doing this. Stay on the edge of your seat, Buff.

Originally Posted by slim

Everyone is good at something.

Except for MO.

This is false. I'm a pretty good *******.

Originally Posted by Von Kinger

Great defenses are winning less often than teams with superstar QB's.

This SB taught us that you can have the best defense in the league, and when you run into an elite QB, you need one to keep up. The last SB taught us that you don't have to have a top three QB to be able to win a SB, just be able to call plays correctly.

Recent history is more than enough to say that you can't just slap five all-pros on defense and win a SB. Because you can't.

The team to win purely on defense was us. Before that it was probably the Bucs or the Ravens. All of those defenses were historic.

So picking up a great QB isn't a guarantee. Neither is a great defense. But a great QB makes you win fast, and when you sign him to a long term deal you get that long term to add to the team.

In case you missed it, defensive studs aren't clamoring to come to Denver anymore. But they did when we had a contending team. How did we get that team? We became true contenders when we signed PFM.

But Cousins isn't as great as PFM? Duh. But the AFC is a weak conference. Players will look at that and go sign here, arguably. Much like in the NBA everyone wanted to sign with the Cavs because **** playing out West.

Basically, all this is true.

On average, once every ten years a team wins the SB with a great defense and crappy offense: the '85 Bears, 2000 Ravens, 2002 Bucs, 2015 Broncos. None ever repeated.

It's just easier to get that elite QB and then have multiple chances to win championships. An Aaron Rogers gives the Packers a chance every year to put a team around him capable of winning the SB. Having an average or merely adequate QB does not.

Then it's still possible to win a SB but the other 52 players on your team have to be significantly better than the other 52 on the other team to make up for the fact that your QB is so inferior to Tom Brady or Drew Brees or Carson Wentz or Aaron Rogers, or Ben Roethlisberger that unless the rest of your team is MUCH better than their team you won't have a chance.

And that pretty much is how Brady won all those SBs and how the Eagles were able to beat him. That Eagles team is just MUCH superior in talent at multiple positions, but it was offset by the Patriots having Brady so that the game was very close. Same thing with the 2015 AFC Championship Game.

The Broncos need to get a Kirk Cousins and then try and develop the system around him so that he can get to the next level as a SB level QB. That or find that next great QB in the draft and develop him, but that will take 2 or 3 years.

And I don't see Elway being that patient.

Originally Posted by Broncoknight30

Actually, imo the DEFENSE as a whole is most important aspect of any team aspiring to actually win championships. That, usually involves at least 4 or 5 dynamic playmakers. Next most important aspect of a team aspiring to win a championship is a dynamic OL. Solid OLs make average QBs good and good QBs great. Yes, the Broncos OL in 2015 left a lot to be desired and has been basic shit since. That was probably the main reason for the historic offensive ineptitude that year, and yet they were able to pull it out based on a legendary defense.

The funny part about this post is that by getting Cousins, it gives us all these great draft picks to actually fix the team long term. Want defense? If we don’t have to spend the #5 overall pick on a QB, we will be in position to draft the BPA on offense or defense. How about Chubb or Davenport across from Miller? That we be sweet! Maybe we trade down and acquire picks while getting a real ILB like Smith and a guard like Nelson or Hernandez or a tackle like McGlinchey or Brown because we have the firepower to move around and fleece some other team (like Buffalo) out of their 2 firsts for our one because they’re desperate for a QB and we have Cousins.

Sounds like a winner to me! You look at breaking the bank for Cousins and I look at maintaining our draft status and staying in position to draft impact players that can help him be that top 10 guy. If all it costs is guys like Watson, CJ, and yes even Sanders or Talib (all of whom are replaceable Talib being the toughest) then I’m all for it.