Thread: Off-Season Notes, press conferences, etc.

Don't let any of this distract you from the fact that UR is wrong.

Mike Klis
‏Verified account @MikeKlis
3m3 minutes ago

Broncos have tendered exclusive rights free agent DL Shelby Harris for $705K. Other ERFAs have been told they will be tendered early next week. #9sports

Originally Posted by Buff

Does this mean Tyrod Taylor is now a Brown?

Originally Posted by MOtorboat

Does this mean Tyrod Taylor is now a Brown?

Yep - I posted in the free agency thread, which is sure to be busy next week

Originally Posted by Hawgdriver

How can you say that with Foles/Wentz, Keenum/Bradford, Brady, and that guy in Jacksonville as viable championship solutions? Spending $30mil on the QB position is just dumb.

You say this as if it's the norm. I know you are smarter than that and aware of seasons before this past one. How many conference title games in the last 10 years have involved Brady, Manning (x2), Big Ben, Brees, Wilson, or Rogers? Give you a hint: almost all of them. QBs like the ones that made the final 4 this year aren't going to consistently get you there year after year.

Originally Posted by Hawgdriver

So only the teams anchored with cap-busting megadeal QBs succeed year after year? By succeed I mean finish in a conference championship. You want to make this claim? Do you?

I'm stating that teams with top flight QB's seem to be the ones doing the most consistent succeeding, and that is made demonstrative by remembering which teams have consistently succeeded.

You want to get a winner. Build a great D or have a great QB. Want to tell me which one lasts longer and is overall easier to keep? Want to see which one falls apart faster because it has more moving parts? Yeah, paying a QB a ton of money sucks ass. And if you look at history, the QB's who have taken team friendly deals are the ones who got theirs and then stayed on. Rodgers and Brady have structured their deals in the past to help the team. Did they get paid before or after that? They were paid beforehand. You're going to end up paying a QB eventually. Screaming about it is stupid.

Also, the fact that the Vikings, one of the teams you cited to, is dying to sign Cousins doesn't exactly help your point. But what are the other teams? The Eagles, with their superstar QB that they've reportedly starting to look towards paying in a few years? Does that help your point? Brady, does he help your point? Bortles, who is one of the worse QB's in the playoffs being resigned by a team who lost because he's an average QB, does that help your point? Yeah, they kept him, and that's a counter to my point about the Vikings targeting Cousins, but can you think of anyone who actually thinks resigning Bortles was right?

Here's the point that people miss, and it drives me crazy - you sign a QB to a big deal, and that sucks, but eventually it balances out. Just like Talib went from having a top heavy contract he now, several years later, is being underpaid in that sense. Remember when 20 million a year was thought to be a ton for a QB? Where are we now. You still get to draft, you still get to make second and third tier FA signings, and if your coaches are good you pick up a few FA's that people thought were washed up. You sign a guy or two who was UDFA and you keep it moving. And lord knows how easy it was to get FA's when we had PFM.

I respectfully dissent.

Look at Seattle as another very recent example of not being able to keep a great defense together for very long.

Originally Posted by BroncoWave

Look at Seattle as another very recent example of not being able to keep a great defense together for very long.

It's hard to keep a defense together even if they don't sign elsewhere - paying five defenders big money is fine, but when more than two go out you're hosed. QB = long window. And you pay for that window. Just rip the bandaid off and get it over with.

Originally Posted by BroncoWave

Look at Seattle as another very recent example of not being able to keep a great defense together for very long.

They were an incredible defense for five or six years. That’s a pretty damn good run in this day and age

Originally Posted by VonDoom

They were an incredible defense for five or six years. That’s a pretty damn good run in this day and age

They were good and had one or two special years. And they only did anything when they got a real QB, whom they paid.

Originally Posted by Von Kinger

They were good and had one or two special years. And they only did anything when they got a real QB, whom they paid.

They had the QB the whole time - they just didn’t have to pay him for a few years. They were number one in points allowed four years in a row. They were better than “good”

Seattle kinda proves the point though. When it came time to either pay the QB or keep the defense together, they paid the QB. You can have a historically great defense like seattle, but if that special QB comes around, he'll get paid instead of the defense 100 times out of 100.

Originally Posted by VonDoom

They had the QB the whole time - they just didn’t have to pay him for a few years. They were number one in points allowed four years in a row. They were better than “good”

No, they didn't, though. Because he wasn't always a great QB. He took time to turn into one. Surely we can agree that they didn't have a great QB his rookie year?

The point is that when faced with the decision of trying to keep together a defensive team and the QB they kept the QB. Because they know that they'll have a solid offense at worst with that one guy. Earl Thomas gets hurt and that defense is suddenly not the same. Or even Sherman. Or even one of the DE's, etc. etc. etc.

The QB isn't just a quick term solution guys. That's what people seem to be missing.

Originally Posted by VonDoom

They were an incredible defense for five or six years. That’s a pretty damn good run in this day and age

Thanks Wade, thanks Ware.