Thread: Schedule Release Today

Originally Posted by King87

Imagine the shame if Chicago figured out quarterbacks at the expense of Denver.

Why is Denver any better? Real talk.

He has just as much bust factor as any 1st round QB and going to Chicago didn’t do him any favors but at least Chicago is trying to fix their QB fortunes.

They traded up for Trubisky and Fields ... the Broncos threw Siemian and Keesum on a loaded SB roster and have seemingly threw in the towel on the talent they actually do bring in. Chicago signed Red Rifle and were rightfully laughed at because of it, their time under scrutiny was short-lived after Denver passed on Fields and went with their tried-and-true philosophy of throwing scrub QB’s on a SB roster at the expense of the talent they already have or could have had.

The NFL has an epidemic of arrogant coaches and executives who think they can get to the mountaintop with scrubs, Denver is one of them ... Chicago isn’t ******* around.

Props to Chicago.

Originally Posted by Jaded

Props to Chicago.

Making noises isn't the same as actually solving something though. We won't know...until we know.

The 1st round QB mis-pick is a species of fail worth special analysis for how much havoc it wreaks.

Originally Posted by Hawgdriver

Making noises isn't the same as actually solving something though. We won't know...until we know.

The 1st round QB mis-pick is a species of fail worth special analysis for how much havoc it wreaks.

Right on time.

Again ... Props to Chicago! They get it.

Originally Posted by Hawgdriver

Making noises isn't the same as actually solving something though. We won't know...until we know.

The 1st round QB mis-pick is a species of fail worth special analysis for how much havoc it wreaks.

But you can grade based on logic, imo.

Fields fell. There's a strong argument he shouldn't have fallen. Many had him going to Denver if he fell to us So, trading up for a guy who at worst could be called a top fifteen talent at QB, with a modern NFL skillset, while not giving up a fortune, that's a wise move. That's the type of move that guys like Ozzie Newsome (GOAT GM, IMO) would do. So, in that sense, it was a good call to make noise. I compare it to going all-in in poker knowing that you have better odds to make it than not.

I also don't think going bust on a first round QB is that bad these days: you don't make the playoffs and you suck. So do all the other teams without a QB. You actually are incentivized to suck a bit because it gets easier to acquire the next targeted QB. This is just opinion, though.

Originally Posted by Jaded

Why is Denver any better? Real talk.

He has just as much bust factor as any 1st round QB and going to Chicago didn’t do him any favors but at least Chicago is trying to fix their QB fortunes.

They traded up for Trubisky and Fields ... the Broncos threw Siemian and Keesum on a loaded SB roster and have seemingly threw in the towel on the talent they actually do bring in. Chicago signed Red Rifle and were rightfully laughed at because of it, their time under scrutiny was short-lived after Denver passed on Fields and went with their tried-and-true philosophy of throwing scrub QB’s on a SB roster at the expense of the talent they already have or could have had.

The NFL has an epidemic of arrogant coaches and executives who think they can get to the mountaintop with scrubs, Denver is one of them ... Chicago isn’t ******* around.

Props to Chicago.

Because Denver at least can honestly say that they didn't trade the farm to get Scrubisky? And given how active they are in the QB trade market, they at least are going out after it.

Originally Posted by Jaded

Right on time.

Sarcasm is a protest of the weak!

Originally Posted by Hawgdriver

Sarcasm is a protest of the weak!

*Week

Originally Posted by King87

Because Denver at least can honestly say that they didn't trade the farm to get Scrubisky? And given how active they are in the QB trade market, they at least are going out after it.

They’ve traded for an ideal backup/competent situational starter, I wouldn’t consider that “active“.

Originally Posted by Jaded

They’ve traded for an ideal backup/competent situational starter, I wouldn’t consider that “active“.

They tried to get Stafford and Rogers. I think Watson, too.

Originally Posted by King87

They tried to get Stafford and Rogers. I think Watson, too.

Oh they tried....... poor broncos just tried and tried and couldn’t end up with nothing better than bridgewater whose on a 1 year deal. Too rational minds that would imply that the broncos was fine all along rolling out Lock. ��

Originally Posted by MOtorboat

I’m just not sure how you look at everything the Broncos have tried to do this off-season and go “yeah, man, they clearly love Lock.” Everything points to the opposite of that being true. And this isn’t me hating on Lock, or whatever people want to say, it’s just looking at the reality of what has happened and coming to a logical conclusion.

So I'm not in the Homer boat by any stretch, I am a drew fan but also see things that need worked on and and fixed like any young Qb with NFL skills. I think there are some valid inconsistencies that showed on tape last year with Lock and prior. However I also know for 16 games in 2 season lock couldn't play because of Injury, Both to his throwing arm and hand, which will absolutely make a variable for some of his issues. I actually have a bigger concern about whether the dude can stay healthy then at the moment personally then some of the typical young QB stuff. I also believe Paton saw some flashes and had some concerns no doubt about make-up, footwork, and turnovers, so at the chance to get a elite QB, As a GM you better be seriously inquiring, and he did with Rodgers, Watson and the Stafford. I'm pretty sure IMO Watson would have been a bronco already without the other stuff, especially since the Texans ended up with Tyrod/Mills/Driskel lol. We could have gotten Watson for a pretty decent deal I think.

I think going into the draft after a complete eval, Paton felt much better and secure with Teddy B and Lock and his progress while competing for the starting job, both also being big upgrades no matter what on the backup position. I don't think Paton loved our Qb situation at any point and even now I think he is content but not in love. If a top 5 guy like Rodgers comes up you make that trade if its good value every day of the week. I think Rodgers is the only variable to sell Paton today, I think he is just fine with letting Lock and Teddy B duke it out for the year and if doesn't work out he moves on cause the cost is minuscule.

I'm with you to a point. I don't think he is in love with the current QB situation, I would define his mentality as comfortable. That means if you have a bona fide elite upgrade(rodgers you go for it) or you wait and see what happens for the rest of the year(lock, Teddy B), and if it goes south you reset completely staff and QB's the following year. Lets be honest if were talking a new staff, the team failed and its going to get blown up in big ways no matter what.

Originally Posted by MOtorboat

I don’t think flirting fairly publicly with a bunch of high profile quarterbacks who are rarely traded in the first place is all that measured of an approach. I appreciate it, actually. But measured, it does not seem to be.

So doing his due diligence on Aaron Rodgers is reckless?

Originally Posted by dogfish

So doing his due diligence on Aaron Rodgers is reckless?

No. An aggressive approach like his is far from measured though.

Originally Posted by MOtorboat

No. An aggressive approach like his is far from measured though.

Paton certainly wasn't 'restrained'.