Thread: Stafford requests a trade

Originally Posted by SmilinAssasSin27

There is no mandate to get rid of Lock. He's inexpensive and can still learn/develop under a veteran we haven't really had. It could actually be good for him.

If we trade for Stafford, Lock is as good as gone. When a QB loses his job in that manner, there usually is no coming back with the same team.

Broncos are Now Odds-On Favorite to Land QB Matthew Stafford via Trade
https://www.si.com/nfl/broncos/news/...ford-via-trade

If Vegas' odds are improving for Stafford to wind up in Denver, people should pay attention. Vegas wasn’t built by losing money. Denver is likely interested in Stafford and they very well may trade for him before the offseason is over and now, according to SportsBetting.com, the Broncos are the odds-on favorite to land him.

Also while 33 is not 'young', it’s much younger than the quarterbacks that played this past Sunday in the NFC Championship — Aaron Rodgers at 37 and Tom Brady at 43 (43?! How is that even possible?) can easily serve as the argument for Stafford having 3-to-5 great seasons left, and could play beyond that. For context, Stafford is the same age as Russell Wilson. Is Wilson too old?

Stafford will not completely close the gap between the Broncos and the Chiefs alone. It will take an equal helping of great decisions and luck for Denver to contend with Mahomes for the next decade-plus, but the first step is rostering a quarterback capable of giving you a chance.

The Stafford-to-Denver connection also gains merit given the Broncos' current regime is littered with staffers that used to work in the NFC North. With Vic Fangio and Ed Donatell’s history with the Bears and Pat Shurmur and Paton’s past with the Vikings, Denver has many higher-ups that would have a pretty good idea of what the Broncos would be getting in trading for Stafford. It's said that the NFL is a 'who you know' league, and connections like this can influence decisions.

Originally Posted by BroncoWave

If we trade for Stafford, Lock is as good as gone. When a QB loses his job in that manner, there usually is no coming back with the same team.

He’s on a rookie contract. Cheap. He’s not going anywhere IMO

Originally Posted by turftoad

He’s on a rookie contract. Cheap. He’s not going anywhere IMO

Well he’s certainly not going anywhere for two years, but if the Broncos decide to move on Stafford, or any of these other starters, Stafford, Watson especially, Lock will not ever be the starter for the Broncos again, unless he’s the backup and there’s an injury.

Originally Posted by SmilinAssasSin27

Would you rather have Stafford or Parsons from Penn State?

Stafford or the Virginia Tech CB?

This is what it comes down to. If the answer isn't Stafford, you're probably just being defiant.

he's about to be 33, he broke his back last year, and he was plagued by minor injuries this year. . . i know he's proven and draft picks aren't-- but if we can't get a good guy at #9, we might have signed the wrong new GM. . . i'll take a shot at getting 8-12 years out of a minkah fitzpatrick, derwin james, tremaine edmunds type of player over maybe 3-4 late prime years if you're lucky out of a QB who hasn't won anything in twelve years in the league. . . especially when that guy probably wants a raise along with a trade. . . last year, i believe #9 would have gotten us jedrick wills as well as tristan wirfs. . .

besides, i still think they should spend another year trying to develop lock, just on principle. . .

it's a different game if stafford's a free agent, and you only have to invest the cash and cap, but the double cost is prohibitive, IMO. . . don't waste a blue chip asset for a short window when you aren't a "back end of the top QB list" guy away from short-term contention. . .

Originally Posted by MOtorboat

Well he’s certainly not going anywhere for two years, but if the Broncos decide to move on Stafford, or any of these other starters, Stafford, Watson especially, Lock will not ever be the starter for the Broncos again, unless he’s the backup and there’s an injury.

Lock would be a solid backup. It wasnt like he was a top 5 pick or anything.

I really like Stafford. I'm super ok with it if he lands here.

Having said that, I hope that doesn't happen.

I would like to see another year with Lock--just to say **** you to the offensive carousel turmoil at QB and OC. Goodness. It needs to end, even if it means we ride with a guy who isn't NFL level material. Maybe he is, I'm not sure myself. Maybe you know he isn't, and you might be right.

Ultimately, I think we need more than even a sharp Stafford.

Originally Posted by Northman

Lock would be a solid backup. It wasnt like he was a top 5 pick or anything.

Lock is going to be in the league a long time. He’s at that point, where you either take that next step as a long term starter or you fall into that A-level backup guys who has a 15 year career making a shit ton of money holding a clip board. Those guys typically have better command of reading a defense than he does, so he’s got to start figuring that out.

That said, if Denver makes a move for Stafford, Lock is certainly done. If they make a move for Wentz, that’s more of a competition situation. I really hate the latter there, I just don’t think that ever benefits anyone. Or, they could not do anything and this is Lock’s team. I think the last scenario is my preferred scenario. But if they kick the tires on Stafford, let’s YOLO the shit out of this season. Chuck that football.

Watson is a whole other story. If they make a power play for Watson, let’s ******* go win a championship.

Why Matthew Stafford will be a franchise-defining bargain for his new NFL team

Over the last two seasons, Stafford has become a bit of a forgotten man when it comes time to discuss the league’s better quarterbacks. He was rolling at a near-MVP clip in the 2009 season before he missed half the season with a back injury, completing 64.3% of his passes for 19 touchdowns, just five interceptions, and a passer rating of 106.0. In the 2020 season, Stafford completed 64.2% of his passes for 26 touchdowns and 10 interceptions and a passer rating of 96.3, which was completely obstructed by the Matt Patricia-led circus the franchise had become. When people are too busy making fun of your team’s defense, they tend to overlook your attributes as a quarterback.

https://touchdownwire.usatoday.com/l...p-quarterback/

If we can get Stafford and keep the #9 pick I'd be all in.

Originally Posted by BroncoWave

If we can get Stafford and keep the #9 pick I'd be all in.

Yep.

Originally Posted by BroncoWave

If we can get Stafford and keep the #9 pick I'd be all in.

Not sure I would be all in, But I would be looking hard at it if it was a 2nd or 3rd rd. pick. Dude is far more talented then Joe flacco ever was.....We do have a avg line and legit weapons so he could have a career year while Lock keeps developing. There is a solid case to be made if we don't have to give up our first rd pick. Also don't think lock goes anywhere. He has talent and is dirt cheap at the QB position. if anything it finally means case rypien gets the boot

Originally Posted by BroncoWave

If we can get Stafford and keep the #9 pick I'd be all in.

i got no qualms with that-- if they can get him at a reasonable price, sign me up. . . i don't anticipate the price being that low, but what do i know?

Originally Posted by dogfish

i got no qualms with that-- if they can get him at a reasonable price, sign me up. . . i don't anticipate the price being that low, but what do i know?

Yeah from what I've been reading seems like the Lions will want a first for him. Even if we traded a future 1 and kept 9
this year I could live with that more hoping that Stafford will make next year's first much later in the round. Trading 9 would just be a non starter for me, but if Paton just isn't in on Lock at all (which is kinda the feeling I've gotten reading between the lines on his quotes) maybe he finds it worth pulling the trigger on 9.

He'll end up in San Francisco.