Thread: What the Giants Trade of JPP Means For the Broncos!

Originally Posted by Cugel

Were you dropped on your head as a child? The Bills need a QB and don't have one. They even let Tyrod Taylor go for some reason. Every analyst in the NFL has stated that they intend to draft a QB and they traded up to #12 so they could move more easily into the top 10 to do so.

They were in open negotiations with the Colts at #3 to move up ahead of the Jets and Broncos and grab a top 3 Qb. Only the Colts didn't want to move back to #12 because Chubb won't be available at #12. They preferred to move only as far back as #6 and said exactly that in their GM's presser.

If the Jets had been willing to be patient, and wait there at #6 for a Qb to fall to them, the Colts would have had to trade either with the Broncos at #5 or else trade down to #12 and take someone OTHER than Chubb. They need players more than they need Chubb, obviously.

They said publicly they wanted to trade back, but not so far that they dropped out of the top 10. Well, what team outside the top 10 was contacting them and trying to move up? The Bills, that's who.

They had to know it was possible the Giants would take Chubb, not a Qb. And now the Giants are doing exactly that (unless Barkley falls to them at #2, which they obviously do not believe will happen). So they were willing to move back and take their chances on Chubb. But, now they also made it easier for the Giants to take Chubb because the Giants could conceivably trade down with the Broncos and still get Chubb.

So, everything depends on whether Elway wants to move up or not. The Giants are already committed to Chubb by trading TPP.

I already set you straight on this, the Colts didn’t want to trade with the Bills. According to your sources the Colts publicly admitted as much.

And the JPP trade means Chubb is a bigger possibility, it doesn’t mean they’re committed.

Originally Posted by Jaded

Bridgewater > Keenum.

The Jets are playing chess while the Broncos play checkers.

Well, not one single GM in the NFL agrees with you, since nobody offered Bridgewater a chance to start. They are paying him cheap backup money ($6million). At most. He could get considerably less than this because his knee is spaghetti and nobody knows if he can play at all or not.

So, no, Bridgewater is NOT better than Keenum, and that statement is even more imbecilic than your previous ones!

Originally Posted by Von Kinger

So, is it still wild to hope that we don't start a QB if he proves he can't do it, Cugel?

Cugel is still busy connecting dots, please standby.

Originally Posted by Cugel

Well, not one single GM in the NFL agrees with you, since nobody offered Bridgewater a chance to start. They are paying him cheap backup money ($6million). At most. He could get considerably less than this because his knee is spaghetti and nobody knows if he can play at all or not.

So, no, Bridgewater is NOT better than Keenum, and that statement is even more imbecilic than your previous ones!

How the **** do you know what Gm’s Think?

And what does that even have to do with who is actually more talented?

Originally Posted by Cugel

Well, not one single GM in the NFL agrees with you, since nobody offered Bridgewater a chance to start. They are paying him cheap backup money ($6million). At most. He could get considerably less than this because his knee is spaghetti and nobody knows if he can play at all or not.

So, no, Bridgewater is NOT better than Keenum, and that statement is even more imbecilic than your previous ones!

So what a GM pays is indicative of a player's worth. By that logic, you surely must have wished for us to have signed Cousins.

Originally Posted by Von Kinger

So what a GM pays is indicative of a player's worth. By that logic, you surely must have wished for us to have signed Cousins.

Great point. Even more so Talent/skill, not just worth.

Cousins = GOAT.

Originally Posted by Jaded

I already set you straight on this, the Colts didn’t want to trade with the Bills. According to your sources the Colts publicly admitted as much.

And the JPP trade means Chubb is a bigger possibility, it doesn’t mean they’re committed.

Apparently you didn't bother to read the sources I linked. The Giants wanted Darnold only they became so convinced the Browns are taking him at #1 that they moved on to Plan B, which is to draft Chubb. So, unless the Giants are totally wrong and the Browns do NOT take Sam Darnold like everybody expects, the Giants will take Chubb.

The only reason they would cut JPP and not draft his replacement is if their future franchise QB was available. Only they don't like any of the other QBs, just Darnold. And he's not available. The move to cut JPP is pretty safe though because nobody thinks the Browns will take Chubb #1. So, the Giants get their DE.

The Colts had a CHOICE. They said they "preferred" not to trade out of the top 10, not that they wouldn't do it if no other choice appeared. Ideally they trade back, get additional picks, and draft several players, including Chubb.

But, that was never going to happen no matter what they did if the Giants are committed to taking him. The Giants would only trade back if they could be sure to stay ahead of the Colts. So, they'd take Chubb at #2 if the Colts stuck at #3. Since the Colts moved back to #6 the Giants could move back as far as #5.

That was the ENTIRE POINT of my posting this thread. To point out that rather obvious point and permit intelligent discussion about whether the Broncos will trade up now to #2 or not.

I don't think so, but maybe Elway WILL do it. It's certainly possible, but a ginormous waste of money, just as I said.

They could have just signed Tyrod Taylor or AJ McCarron for a LOT less money if they intended to take a QB at #5 and play him immediately.

Originally Posted by Cugel

, and that statement is even more imbecilic than your previous ones!

Btw, this feels like a challenge.

Actually I didn’t read anything you posted.

I skimmed it a bit, though.

Btw, we’ve been saying all along that it’s a waste of money, apparently you’re not reading our pots either.

Quote Originally Posted by Von Kinger View Post
So what a GM pays is indicative of a player's worth. By that logic, you surely must have wished for us to have signed Cousins.

Is everybody on these boards drunk off their asses tonight? What a GM pays a player determines whether he will play or not, not whether he's worth what they are paying him! Well, duh!

If they are paying him a boat-load of cash it will take quite a lot of sucking for that player not to play, because they naturally want to get their money's worth. Just as if you bought a really, really expensive shirt at the Cherry Creek Mall and then never wore it. Would you do that?

Well, maybe if somebody threw up on it repeatedly, but realistically, you would probably still just try and send it to the dry-cleaners and get the stain out. And that is exactly what the Broncos are committed to doing with Case Keenum.

If he sucks they will try and coach him up so that he plays better. They will keep doing that until he proves conclusively that he can't play.

And they are betting that he can, based on quite a lot of evidence from last season.

BTW: I would have been perfectly happy seeing the Broncos sign Kirk Cousins, but not if paying him $28m a year would make the Broncos cut a bunch of other veteran players to pay him. That is called "robbing Peter to pay Paul." They might lose too much talent for it to be worth it, and they would not have been able to sign a FA veteran RT and pay him $10m a year.

And they clearly needed a RT BAD.

Also, I don’t think I’ve ever said they’d take a QB at 5 and start him immediately. Not since the CK signing. It’s possible though, I say a lot of shit.

In my defense, I’m the one that’s been driving the notion that you have to be patient with QB’s.

Originally Posted by Jaded

Btw, this feels like a challenge.

I admit that is a pretty tough challenge. You might not be able to top your previous best. But, your posts in this thread do indicate you're on your best form tonight!

Originally Posted by Jaded

Also, I don’t think I’ve ever said they’d take a QB at 5 and start him immediately. Not since the CK signing. It’s possible though, I say a lot of shit.

In my defense, I’m the one that’s been driving the notion that you have to be patient with QB’s.

They are being patient. They are going to draft a QB later in the first round or maybe 2nd round, and develop him for a couple of seasons behind Case Keenum. And if Keenum works out, they will keep that QB on the roster like they did Osweiler behind Manning.

Too bad if Keenum isn't like Manning. He's still good enough to start for the next 2 years in Elway's view. And the Broncos hope that Keenum will work out enough for them to sign him long term. And he just said he wants to stay long term too.

If it doesn't work out, then in 2020, just like they gave Trevor Siemian 2 years and then cut him, they will cut Keenum.

But, until then, he'll start.

5th overall, late 1st or early 2nd ... What the ******* difference?

I mean besides the talent level of the QB available. What’s the ******* difference?