Page 9 of 11 FirstFirst ... 7 8 9 10 11 LastLast
Results 121 to 135 of 158

Thread: Would You Trade #5 Overall Pick To Bills For #21 and #22?

  1. #121

    Default

    The Browns opted to get their QBOTF 'next year'. They passed on Goff, Wentz, and Watson. Making next year a developmental year with no one to develop is worthless. We can't win with TS. We can't win with PL. Unless we get Cousins. The QB situation has to be addressed right now.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaded View Post
    Y’all know I’m an OL Groupie but I think Jeudy is going to be worth missing out on a T, knock on wood.

  2. The Following User High Fived Poet For This Post:


  3. #122

    Default

    Freyaka cited Plunkett as a "backup who won a SB," but he wasn't: He was a BUST #1 overall Heisman winner, whose irresistible college career and blinding talent doomed him to be drafted by the Patriots in the middle of their 40 unbroken seasons of utter ineptitude. So after five years of shellshock they dumped him on equally awful SF and moved on to Steve Grogan, who made about as much difference as Tony "I was drafted right after Kelly and a dozen picks before Marino" Eason after him. The '9ers gave him two years, then dumped him on Oakland a year before replacing him with a 3rd round pick named Montana. But the combination of the '70s/80s Raiders elite offensive line and restricting Plunkett to just 15 passes in two years (NONE his first season) ultimately healed his body and mind enough he was no longer scared of his own shadow—because he no longer had to be. By no coincidence, he suddenly started looking like a Heisman winning #1 overall pick: At age 32.

    Was Heisman winning #1 overall pick Vinny Testaverde better than "bust" QB Steve Young? Tampa sure thought so when they booed that bum out of town for losing so many games they got the #1 overall pick in '87, but they traded Young to a HoF career and soon put up billboards mocking Testaverdes colorblindness before dumping him off to be a journeyman backup his whole career.

    This is what happens when bad teams fixate on QBs; most alarmingly, that's a great example of the kind of systematically bad decision-making that made them bad teams in the first place. Fire all the employees, gun down all the customers and burn the company to the ground, then when the top CEO you hire to fix all that CAN'T he's an overhyped bum, so it's on to the next scapegoat. Maybe the best fastest way to find a great QB cheap is to wait for the perennial losers to dump their latest 1st round bust for whatever pittance they can get; they do it almost annually, so you needn't wait long. But you'll still have to give him the supporting cast (both coaches and players) to succeed or nothing will change.

    Meanwhile, everyone convinced "no one can win a SB without a great QB" will remain equally convinced that Namath>Unitas>Morton. Oh, and Kenny Stabler and Terry Bradshaw were better than Fran Tarkenton; even though he had all the records, they both beat him AND the Purple People Eaters on SBs, and that's all that matters.

    Jim McMahon, Phil Simms and Doug Williams are great QBs, because mediocre QBs only win SBs on the strength of great Ds once a decade, maybe less, but those guys won THREE IN A ROW; just three years later, Simms broke his foot in Week 14, so the great Jeff Hostetler led the Giants to another SB win. Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson were great too: They won two SBs in just three seasons, and it certainly wasn't because great Ds carried them there despite utterly lacking a great QB, because that only happens once every ten or fifteen years. Anyhow, that was waaaay back in 2002, when SBs were broadcast in black and white through soup cans connected by string, and dinosaurs roamed the Earth; everything's different now.
    I blame the media and their "QB Driven League" propaganda that they spew every day (for teams fixating on QB's). That's how bums like Gabbert, Locker, and Ponder were drafted in the first round seven years ago.

    Also, not only are these teams fixated on QB's, they are fixated on a certain type of QB. As Bill Walsh once said, though, very few men are qualified to evaluate the QB position, and even fewer are qualified to coach it.

    A blogger, the late David Leon, did a four-part evaluation of QB hits and misses on his blog back in 2010:

    http://logicaloptimizer.blogspot.com...fl-talent.html

    http://logicaloptimizer.blogspot.com...outs-part.html

    http://logicaloptimizer.blogspot.com...s-part_17.html

    http://logicaloptimizer.blogspot.com...part_2395.html

    In this series, he basically bashes Mel Kiper, Jr, and he bashes NFL talent scouts for using false idols and bad criteria in evaluating QB's.

  4. The Following User High Fived 7DnBrnc53 For This Post:


  5. #123
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Russellville, AR
    Adopted Bronco:
    PS2
    Posts
    12,717

    Default

    I think that it matters just as much if not more where, especially a QB, lands than on that QB’s talent and ability. Honestly, would Tom Brady, Ben Roethlisberger, Aaron Rodgers, Drew Brees, etc be the guys we know them as if they were in Cleveland? I honestly don’t think so. I don’t think they could’ve made that dysfunctional team a competitor.

    I think where you play and the team you play for makes almost as much difference as your talent level.


    “Tact is the ability to tell someone to go to hell in such a way that they look forward to the trip.” -Winston Churchill

  6. The Following User High Fived HORSEPOWER 56 For This Post:


  7. #124
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Adopted Bronco:
    Javonte Williams
    Posts
    31,715

    Default

    During this 28 year epoch there have been 10 years where Quarterbacks were drafted and none of them turned out as players.
    --- 1980
    --- 1981
    --- 1990
    --- 1991
    --- 1992
    --- 1994
    --- 1997
    --- 2001
    --- 2002
    --- 2007
    Kinda crazy.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sting
    "You know cos I just lost my parents--both my parents died in the same year...to this day, people come up to me and say 'my dad died and that album really meant a lot to me,' which is very nourishing {pats heart} for a songwriter to hear that your songs have a utility beyond just their own solace, that it actually helps other people."

  8. The Following User High Fived Hawgdriver For This Post:


  9. #125
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Panama
    Adopted Bronco:
    The Albino Rhino
    Posts
    9,816

    Default

    "Teams without stud QB's are barely making it to SB's, let alone winning them."

    (cough) Nick Foles (cough)

    That's a very poor argument.....
    Only if you conveniently move the goalposts to somehow consider Foles a "stud" QB.

    If two good games makes you a stud QB, then Tim Tebow (another backup) was a stud QB. Foles had two good games, take nothing away, but to declare him a stud is downright ludicrous and I think you know it. He didn't even play half the season.
    I miss the old Mile High Stadium.

  10. The Following User High Fived OrangeHoof For This Post:


  11. #126

    Default

    Somehow Foles has a 2 game stretch after part of a season and 2 full seasons of nothing, but just because those 2 games happen to be in the playoffs he has suddenly "got it" and is a top QB choice.

  12. #127

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OrangeHoof View Post
    Only if you conveniently move the goalposts to somehow consider Foles a "stud" QB.

    If two good games makes you a stud QB, then Tim Tebow (another backup) was a stud QB. Foles had two good games, take nothing away, but to declare him a stud is downright ludicrous and I think you know it. He didn't even play half the season.
    Even if I don't "move the goalposts" as you say, it's still an anomaly. It's a one off... A one off doesn't disprove a trend. The trend is, QB's are king for Superbowls. The old mantra is "defense wins championships" but that simply isn't true. Once a decade or so, a defense will carry their team to a Superbowl. That already happened in 2015, so we're set for about a decade. We need a QB.

  13. #128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OrangeHoof View Post
    Only if you conveniently move the goalposts to somehow consider Foles a "stud" QB.

    If two good games makes you a stud QB, then Tim Tebow (another backup) was a stud QB. Foles had two good games, take nothing away, but to declare him a stud is downright ludicrous and I think you know it. He didn't even play half the season.
    It's a very accurate argument. Look at who is winning SB's; now tell me who the starter for the Eagles is. Then tell me who will start next year for them. Then tell me which SB starter played like a stud (both of them).

    If the 'wrinkle' in the argument is that a backup QB had to churn out a performance that almost exclusively comes from studs, it's the exception proving the general rule.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaded View Post
    Y’all know I’m an OL Groupie but I think Jeudy is going to be worth missing out on a T, knock on wood.

  14. The Following User High Fived Poet For This Post:


  15. #129
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Panama
    Adopted Bronco:
    The Albino Rhino
    Posts
    9,816

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Freyaka View Post
    Even if I don't "move the goalposts" as you say, it's still an anomaly. It's a one off... A one off doesn't disprove a trend. The trend is, QB's are king for Superbowls. The old mantra is "defense wins championships" but that simply isn't true. Once a decade or so, a defense will carry their team to a Superbowl. That already happened in 2015, so we're set for about a decade. We need a QB.
    You made a declarative statement and then I cited an example where your statement was untrue. *THAT'S* my only point. I agree, it's an anomaly. You're original statement did not allow for anomalies.

    It's the same with the poster who said Buffalo hadn't been to the playoffs in 20 years and I said they went to the playoffs in 2017, thus making the previous statement untrue even though I agreed with the point behind the statement - that Buffalo has been a shitty franchise for a long time.

    So when somebody says only "stud" quarterbacks win Super Bowls, I was quick to point out that the statement was untrue.
    Last edited by wayninja; 02-23-2018 at 02:23 PM. Reason: Removed P&R stuff
    I miss the old Mile High Stadium.

  16. #130

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Von Kinger View Post
    Tyrod isn't trash. He's a game manager with athletic ability.

    But a QB competition is not the way to go. Had we just gone with Lynch, we would have either had a real QB or a better draft pick. Playing to mediocrity isn't the way to do it. Maybe we could have eeked in a wild card spot with better play, but the team wouldn't be going anywhere - just floundering and dying a slower death.

    Cousins or first round QB.
    Cousins or first rounder? But, what about this scenario, which is the most likely one:

    Cousins signs with the Jets say: they have a ton of cap room and reports are they are willing to fully guarantee Cousins' entire contract to the tune of $125m plus. This would be the first fully guaranteed contract in the NFL, but the NBA and MLB all have fully guaranteed contracts already, and that could be the way this goes. Hypothetically speaking Cousins could be gone to the Jets.

    #1 - Cleveland takes Darnold at #1. Everybody expects this. He's said to have the highest upside potential and Rosen has publicly said he doesn't want to play in Cleveland.

    #2 - Giants also desperately need a QB. They Eli is about like 2015 Peyton right now. They tried to bench him in 2017, but the blowback was so severe they fired their Coach and GM. New GM comes in and says: "We're keeping Eli." So, he learned. But, the team still sucks and Eli is obviously near if not at the end of his career. Everybody expects them to draft Rosen, if Darnold is off the board at #1.

    So, the top 2 potential picks are gone.

    Now it's down to Mayfield and Allen. Neither is going to immediately have success. Allen is very raw, and Mayfield, youd' have to commit to playing in that kind of run-pass option system to get the best out of him. Don't see the Broncos wanting to do that, although they might I suppose.

    But, even if no other team (Buffalo, the Cardinals) moves up to #3 (Colts) or #4 (Cleveland) to get ahead of the Broncos and draft either of those 2 QBs, do the Broncos really love either one?

    It's easy to say "well, trade up with the Giants to get Rosen." They aren't going to trade that pick if they love Rosen. No way. Just like in 2011 when the Panthers refused to entertain any offers for their pick because they loved Cam Newton.

    No matter what teams are offering, if you identify a QB as your future 10 years starter, you are NOT interested in trading down.

    Cleveland for instance did that, passing on Carson Wentz, and now Wentz is an MVP candidate, the Eagles are SB champions, and the Browns are losing 16 games a year. They fired their GM who made that move. NO way they are trading out of that pick. Normally, you learn from the fate of your predecessor. "Why did he get fired? Oh, yeah. I'm not doing that."

    At worst, Cousins signs with the Vikings or Cardinals, and the Broncos and Jets are competing to move up to draft Josh Allen or Mayfield.

    I don't like those scenarios and there are about 10 more likely that are pretty bad for the Broncos. So, I'm all in on Cousins as the only way the Broncos are going to avoid all this stress of drafting a QB, sucking for 2 seasons, and MAYBE he's the guy?

  17. #131

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OrangeHoof View Post
    You made a declarative statement and then I cited an example where your statement was untrue. *THAT'S* my only point. I agree, it's an anomaly. You're original statement did not allow for anomalies.

    It's the same with the poster who said Buffalo hadn't been to the playoffs in 20 years and I said they went to the playoffs in 2017, thus making the previous statement untrue even though I agreed with the point behind the statement - that Buffalo has been a shitty franchise for a long time.

    So when somebody says only "stud" quarterbacks win Super Bowls, I was quick to point out that the statement was untrue.

    <removed P&R stuff> - wayninja
    It's still nit picking. Pointing to some exception only proves the rule. It's a pointless exercise in trolling. If you did this in person in conversation with someone they would get angry with you because they would assume you were just being pedantic in order to annoy them.

    Pointing out some minor flaw in their argument that does NOT at ALL invalidate the major premise.

    Defense does win championships - once in a decade. But, the Jaguars defense was pretty damn good this year and they didn't win anything. The Vikings were great defensively too, but the Eagles crushed them in the NFC Championship.

    And the Eagles won the SB despite giving up 33 points to the Pats because their OFFENSE scored 41. You can say Nick Foles isn't an elite QB if you like, but he played like it in that game.

    That's another fallacy! Pointing to a guy having a career game and say "see! You don't need an elite QB to win championships!"

    Sure. You can get lucky, like the Ravens did in 2012 when Joe Flacco had a career year. Or you can have every break bounce your way and have a tremendous once-in-a-decade defense like the 2015 Broncos.

    But, both of those things is like winning the lotto. It's great if it happens, but only a fool plans on winning the lotto because while someone might win it, it's just not gonna be you.
    Last edited by wayninja; 02-23-2018 at 02:24 PM. Reason: fallout

  18. The Following 2 Users High Fived Cugel For This Post:


  19. #132

    Default

    Guys, here's a big torpedo to the "you don't need a great QB to win championships" "defense wins championships" argument.

    It's just easier to pay 1 QB than to keep 11 elite players on a defense. We saw what happened to the Broncos defense in 2016. Other teams grabbed Danny Trevathan and Malik Jackson, so they weren't as good defensively. Then DeMarcus Ware's back gave out. Then the Broncos let Wade Phillips go.

    A couple years later the Broncos are entering 2018 without Talib or TJ Ward either.

    This deterioration is NORMALLY what happens to great defenses. It happened to the 2000 Ravens too. After that season, they still had Ray Lewis, but Tony Siragusa and Sam Adams were gone and their defense wasn't nearly as good and their attempt to replace Trent Dilfer with Kyle Boller didn't work.

    Once in a decade!

  20. The Following User High Fived Cugel For This Post:


  21. #133

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OrangeHoof View Post
    You made a declarative statement and then I cited an example where your statement was untrue. *THAT'S* my only point. I agree, it's an anomaly. You're original statement did not allow for anomalies.

    It's the same with the poster who said Buffalo hadn't been to the playoffs in 20 years and I said they went to the playoffs in 2017, thus making the previous statement untrue even though I agreed with the point behind the statement - that Buffalo has been a shitty franchise for a long time.

    So when somebody says only "stud" quarterbacks win Super Bowls, I was quick to point out that the statement was untrue.

    <removed P&R stuff> -wayninja
    Kinger summarized what I was getting at nicely above. See his resposne.
    Last edited by wayninja; 02-23-2018 at 02:25 PM. Reason: fallout

  22. #134

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OrangeHoof View Post
    You made a declarative statement and then I cited an example where your statement was untrue. *THAT'S* my only point. I agree, it's an anomaly. You're original statement did not allow for anomalies.

    It's the same with the poster who said Buffalo hadn't been to the playoffs in 20 years and I said they went to the playoffs in 2017, thus making the previous statement untrue even though I agreed with the point behind the statement - that Buffalo has been a shitty franchise for a long time.

    So when somebody says only "stud" quarterbacks win Super Bowls, I was quick to point out that the statement was untrue.

    <removed P&R stuff> - wayninja

    The exception proves the rule - the merit of the statement is still valid. If you would like people to hold every post you make to this standard, go ahead. It's not a debate, Hoof. Laugh a little.
    Last edited by wayninja; 02-23-2018 at 02:25 PM. Reason: fallout
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaded View Post
    Y’all know I’m an OL Groupie but I think Jeudy is going to be worth missing out on a T, knock on wood.

  23. #135
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Albany, OR
    Adopted Bronco:
    Miller Time
    Posts
    12,233

    Default

    If we get a QB in FA. I do not want to trade down more than a couple picks. We need to draft Nelson. He is the best at G prospect in a long time and the safest pick n the draft. We all know our OL blows. He will solidify the middle.

Go
Shop AFC Champions and Super Bowl gear at the official online Pro Shop of the Denver Broncos!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
status.broncosforums.com - BroncosForums status updates
Partner with the USA Today Sports Media Group