Thread: Broncos to host QBs Kyler Murray, Dwayne Haskins, Drew Lock and Daniel Jones for pre-draft visits: Real interest or smokescreen?

Originally Posted by Cugel

That makes no sense. Why would they re-negotiate Flacco's contract? He's under contract right now through 2021! And there's ZERO dead cap money, all his guaranteed money has already been paid! His contract is great for the Broncos as is!

So if they decide to get rid of him after this season, then no cap hit. But, they can simply keep him around at $20m next season, which is chump change for a good starting QB but is too much to pay an ageing veteran backup.

So, it depends on how Flacco does this year.

As for drafting a QB in the later rounds of the draft, you are making my point. Of course they need a developmental QB and don't have one. So, somewhere between the 2nd and 7th round they should draft one to develop the way they did Trevor Siemian and Chad Kelly.

It's just that Elway isn't interested in drafting a QB at #10.


That's basically the universal view. Of course he could still do it, but all his moves so far indicate that he thinks he can compete RIGHT NOW, with the team he's got (with a few upgrades at RT and CB to fill holes).

It makes no sense to draft a QB with the 10th pick of the first round unless you intend to start him as soon as possible. It's a waste of a draft pick.

Cug, you highlighted Elway said that Flacco is in prime. I took from that you mean that Elway sees Flacco as a longer term solution than just next three years. If that is case, he might as well just rework his contract now. I for one don't think Elway sees Flacco as long term solution, if he did he would have reworked his contract.

Renck stating he would be shocked if Denver took a quarterback with 10th overall pick doesn't mean he knows Elway's exact thinking. My personal feeling is that Elway won't take a quarterback early (i.e. 1st and 2nd rounds) based on the fact he traded for Flacco. However, I can't completely discount, taking a quarterback with the 10th overall pick because on it's face is not a wasted pick. The Chiefs just three years ago took Pat Mahomes with 10th overall pick with the intention that he would sit behind Alex Smith for his rookie season.

Originally Posted by TXBRONC

Cug, you highlighted Elway said that Flacco is in prime. I took from that you mean that Elway sees Flacco as a longer term solution than just next three years. If that is case, he might as well just rework his contract now. I for one don't think Elway sees Flacco as long term solution, if he did he would have reworked his contract.

Renck stating he would be shocked if Denver took a quarterback with 10th overall pick doesn't mean he knows Elway's exact thinking. My personal feeling is that Elway won't take a quarterback early (i.e. 1st and 2nd rounds) based on the fact he traded for Flacco. However, I can't completely discount, taking a quarterback with the 10th overall pick because on it's face is not a wasted pick. The Chiefs just three years ago took Pat Mahomes with 10th overall pick with the intention that he would sit behind Alex Smith for his rookie season.

But, the Chiefs always intended to get rid of Alex Smith as soon as possible because he kept losing in the playoffs and the Chiefs couldn't win the SB with him. So, taking Mahomes was a brilliant move. But, Elway isn't sure whether he can win in the playoffs with Flacco or not. He has an amazing playoff winning percentage, but that was a long time ago, so who knows what he can do now?

For Elway "long term" does not mean the next ten years. He's not going to be here the next ten years. His contract expires in 3 years and it's expected that he wants to move into team ownership (not necessarily the Broncos) after that.

Besides, Joe Flacco is 34 now, which means he MIGHT last 3 years, but he might not too. Not every QB lasts until they're 40, its merely a hope of Elways' at this point. So, it makes ZERO sense to re-sign Flacco, especially since they don't have to because he's under contract for what will probably be the rest of his career.

Originally Posted by CoachChaz

There are probably 15 players I would take before Lock. But...God only knows what goes through Elway's head sometimes.

I am a big Lock fan but even I know from a straight value perspective 10 is to high for him. I agree he is pick 25-32 from a straight value perspective. He would be the 4th or 5th QB in last years class like you mentioned but ahead of both Jackson and Allen for sure. I do like him better then Rosen as a prospect but not better then Darnold or Mayfield. I liked Allen more as a prospect then Rosen last year as well though and like lock better then Allen....But calling Lock the 4th or 5th Best QB depending on your view of Haskins for last years class is pretty accurate.

Haven't people compared Lock's ceiling to that of Patrick Mahomes? And his floor to Jay Cutler? I'd say that value puts him in top 15 consideration. I'd prefer Kyler Murray after watching his pro day, but no way he falls to 10. I think he's got the best arm in the class--I just question his leadership.

Cugel, I'm confused why you can't sit a QB to learn if they are a top 10 pick? It takes most guys time to learn, and if they are thrown to the wolves too early, it can really hurt their development--even if they are a blue chipper

Originally Posted by kenoy28

Haven't people compared Lock's ceiling to that of Patrick Mahomes? And his floor to Jay Cutler? I'd say that value puts him in top 15 consideration. I'd prefer Kyler Murray after watching his pro day, but no way he falls to 10. I think he's got the best arm in the class--I just question his leadership.

Cugel, I'm confused why you can't sit a QB to learn if they are a top 10 pick? It takes most guys time to learn, and if they are thrown to the wolves too early, it can really hurt their development--even if they are a blue chipper

A top 10 guy can sit. Just look at Cleveland. It took an injury for their first overall to play. He likely would have eventually regardless, but likely much later in the season

Originally Posted by Cugel

But, the Chiefs always intended to get rid of Alex Smith as soon as possible because he kept losing in the playoffs and the Chiefs couldn't win the SB with him. So, taking Mahomes was a brilliant move. But, Elway isn't sure whether he can win in the playoffs with Flacco or not. He has an amazing playoff winning percentage, but that was a long time ago, so who knows what he can do now?

For Elway "long term" does not mean the next ten years. He's not going to be here the next ten years. His contract expires in 3 years and it's expected that he wants to move into team ownership (not necessarily the Broncos) after that.

Besides, Joe Flacco is 34 now, which means he MIGHT last 3 years, but he might not too. Not every QB lasts until they're 40, its merely a hope of Elways' at this point. So, it makes ZERO sense to re-sign Flacco, especially since they don't have to because he's under contract for what will probably be the rest of his career.

Wait a minute, you're saying it was ok for the Chiefs because they had intended to get rid of Smith as soon as possible but it would be a waste for Denver? If the Broncos take a quarterback with the 10th overall their goal would be the same, to get their drafted quarterback on the field asap.

Originally Posted by kenoy28

Haven't people compared Lock's ceiling to that of Patrick Mahomes? And his floor to Jay Cutler? I'd say that value puts him in top 15 consideration. I'd prefer Kyler Murray after watching his pro day, but no way he falls to 10. I think he's got the best arm in the class--I just question his leadership.

Cugel, I'm confused why you can't sit a QB to learn if they are a top 10 pick? It takes most guys time to learn, and if they are thrown to the wolves too early, it can really hurt their development--even if they are a blue chipper

Because you invested a top 10 pick in the guy and get zero return on that investment in his first year. It's like buying a Ferrari for $250,000 and keeping it in the garage and never driving it! Picking a Qb in the second is like buying a used Chevy Truck as a spare vehicle for hauling, and keeping it in the garage.

That "sit a guy for a year" almost never happens in the NFL anymore. That's old hat. It happened with the Chiefs because they had a playoff team with Alex Smith, but he had disappointed in the playoffs before. So, they were planning on getting rid of Alex Smith when they drafted Mahomes. Yet Alex Smith had a good season so they didn't want to just bench him. They actually gave him a chance in the playoffs. Then they traded him for a 2nd rounder.

But, Joe Flacco has NOT disappointed in the playoffs, and clearly Elway thinks Flacco could have a renaissance in Denver and lead them to a SB. Or at least get into the playoffs and have a decent chance to advance.

I don't agree, and you probably don't either.

But, if you accept Elway's premise it makes no sense to draft a QB at #10 or higher - because you might want to commit to Flacco for the next 3 years. In which case, you need a backup QB, not a starter. And you can get a backup in the second or later round.

It would be exactly like drafting Osweiler when they had Peyton. He didn't start and hardly played until his 4th season. Well, you can do that if its the 56th pick of the second round, but sure as Hell not at #10 of the first!

The debate goes back and forth. But I honestly think ideally for most of these guys a year watching a solid that is the best bet for them. Andrew Luck was ready to play when he came in, Peyton Manning, Aaron Rodgers. But beyond those guys how many young guys are really ready to get knocked in the mouth and to deal with the speed and the scheme flexibility that they'll see at the NFL level? I would contend that there are a lot of guys that could have been good NFL quarterbacks like say a David Carr or an Andrew Walter that got thrown into the fire too fast behind poor offensive lines and the rest of their careers suffered because of it

I’d let the 1st overall pick sit if I had competent-to-better play at that position already.

There’s all kinds of good reasons to let a player sit.

Jay Cutler (also a Top 10-ish pick) should’ve sat for at least a season, even though he was the better player, his teammates weren’t ready for the move. That could conceivably be the situation again (not comparing Flacco to Plummer).

Originally Posted by Cugel

Because you invested a top 10 pick in the guy and get zero return on that investment in his first year. It's like buying a Ferrari for $250,000 and keeping it in the garage and never driving it! Picking a Qb in the second is like buying a used Chevy Truck as a spare vehicle for hauling, and keeping it in the garage.

That "sit a guy for a year" almost never happens in the NFL anymore. That's old hat. It happened with the Chiefs because they had a playoff team with Alex Smith, but he had disappointed in the playoffs before. So, they were planning on getting rid of Alex Smith when they drafted Mahomes. Yet Alex Smith had a good season so they didn't want to just bench him. They actually gave him a chance in the playoffs. Then they traded him for a 2nd rounder.

But, Joe Flacco has NOT disappointed in the playoffs, and clearly Elway thinks Flacco could have a renaissance in Denver and lead them to a SB. Or at least get into the playoffs and have a decent chance to advance.

I don't agree, and you probably don't either.

But, if you accept Elway's premise it makes no sense to draft a QB at #10 or higher - because you might want to commit to Flacco for the next 3 years. In which case, you need a backup QB, not a starter. And you can get a backup in the second or later round.

It would be exactly like drafting Osweiler when they had Peyton. He didn't start and hardly played until his 4th season. Well, you can do that if its the 56th pick of the second round, but sure as Hell not at #10 of the first!

Does the Ferrari have a chance at learning how to be a better car by sitting in the garage for a little while?

Originally Posted by Jaded

I’d let the 1st overall pick sit if I had competent-to-better play at that position already.

There’s all kinds of good reasons to let a player sit.

Jay Cutler (also a Top 10-ish pick) should’ve sat for at least a season, even though he was the better player, his teammates weren’t ready for the move. That could conceivably be the situation again (not comparing Flacco to Plummer).

He was more gifted but didnt give them abetter chance to win. Also Heimerdinger and Shanny hamstrung Plummer by shelving roll outsand boot action. Very few rookie qb are being prepared at the collegiate level to jump in immediately

I personally am convinced Lock will not be a Bronco or at least not at the number 10 spot. I saw the same Senior Bowl practices that Elway and company saw, that kid is absolutely not a top 10 player. I'd even argue not a first round talent. If Elway truly does stick with a BPA approach to the draft Lock will not be a Bronco.

Originally Posted by Jsteve01

The debate goes back and forth. But I honestly think ideally for most of these guys a year watching a solid that is the best bet for them. Andrew Luck was ready to play when he came in, Peyton Manning, Aaron Rodgers. But beyond those guys how many young guys are really ready to get knocked in the mouth and to deal with the speed and the scheme flexibility that they'll see at the NFL level? I would contend that there are a lot of guys that could have been good NFL quarterbacks like say a David Carr or an Andrew Walter that got thrown into the fire too fast behind poor offensive lines and the rest of their careers suffered because of it

I agree that sitting is helpful but I don't think helps with dealing with speed of the game. Experience is what helps a quarterback more with that aspect.

Originally Posted by TXBRONC

I agree that sitting is helpful but I don't think helps with dealing with speed of the game. Experience is what helps a quarterback more with that aspect.

Yeah...the sitting happens because they have some mechanics that need to be fine tuned and they can work them out in practices. But inevitably, the hope is that by going through that, they are more prepared for the next level of competition once they get their chance. But no...nothing prepares them for games like actual games do.

Originally Posted by SmilinAssasSin27

A top 10 guy can sit. Just look at Cleveland. It took an injury for their first overall to play. He likely would have eventually regardless, but likely much later in the season

Sitting Baker Mayfield to start the season was so stupid they had to fire Hue Jackson. Then they did the sensible thing and started Mayfield and the rest is history. Now they have OBJ and are favored to win their division over a stumbling Steelers, Ravens with a QB who can't throw and the Bengals, who are the Bengals.

Team won how many games the previous two seasons, and they can't start the rookie? Why? Because they are in "win-now" mode? It made no sense then or now.

If you draft a top 10 QB you have to play him, because a pick that high is your future franchise QB - for the next 10 years (hopefully). The sooner he gets experience the better. You're not sacrificing anything by starting him because you're not ready to compete for anything now anyway.