Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5 6 7 8 LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 107
  1. #91
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati
    Posts
    2,943
    Quote Originally Posted by Beagle View Post
    Our Just released/option not Picked up LT who I think we can all agree lacks a lot of what is desired is now the highest paid LT in the league. Free agency is so stupid when something like that happens
    Still doesn't change the fact that we have to pay for quality talent. Regardless of the situation, a starting LT is better than no LT at all. If we're really holding onto all this cap over the hope of getting Romo (spoiler alert guys, he's not coming here with this line in this condition; he's going to stay close to home with a team with a much better front); then that was a serious miscalculation by our FO.

    We simply will not be a successful team, no matter our QB, with a line like we have currently. I still have hope that they'll pull a rabbit out of their hat; but the chances of that are starting to dwindle, and the costs are going to go up when the free agents are gone (like they are now) and you have to work on the trade market; which is much more costly.

    Edit: And just to add: there's no option in this year's draft either. Linemen are extraordinarily weak in the draft this year; so picking up a starter out of college would be an absolute moonshot considering linemen normally take years to develop into solid starters.
    Last edited by Brakshow; 03-20-2017 at 06:43 PM.


    Adopted by: Andrewmlb
    Sig by: MHS

  2. #92
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    hampshire,england
    Posts
    11,531
    Quote Originally Posted by Brakshow View Post
    Still doesn't change the fact that we have to pay for quality talent. Regardless of the situation, a starting LT is better than no LT at all. If we're really holding onto all this cap over the hope of getting Romo (spoiler alert guys, he's not coming here with this line in this condition; he's going to stay close to home with a team with a much better front); then that was a serious miscalculation by our FO.

    We simply will not be a successful team, no matter our QB, with a line like we have currently. I still have hope that they'll pull a rabbit out of their hat; but the chances of that are starting to dwindle, and the costs are going to go up when the free agents are gone (like they are now) and you have to work on the trade market; which is much more costly.

    Edit: And just to add: there's no option in this year's draft either. Linemen are extraordinarily weak in the draft this year; so picking up a starter out of college would be an absolute moonshot considering linemen normally take years to develop into solid starters.
    I think we have a good chance of getting Romo.

    Sometimes you have to work with what you got. The interior looks strong with Leary, Paradis, and Garcia is far better at RG where he will slide across to.

    Watson is a gamble health wise but is a good fit at RT in this new power scheme.

    We do lack a LT, but Sambrailo was a 2nd round pick so I doubt the FO are discarding him yet. If we select a OT in the first 2-3 rounds then he could be competition as well.

  3. #93
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    228
    Yeah as Watson would be good fit in R.T. if he does stay healthy.

    And that sometimes you have to be on the outside looking on in.
    Happy July 4th!

  4. #94
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    7,408
    Quote Originally Posted by Brakshow View Post
    Still doesn't change the fact that we have to pay for quality talent. Regardless of the situation, a starting LT is better than no LT at all. If we're really holding onto all this cap over the hope of getting Romo (spoiler alert guys, he's not coming here with this line in this condition; he's going to stay close to home with a team with a much better front); then that was a serious miscalculation by our FO.

    We simply will not be a successful team, no matter our QB, with a line like we have currently. I still have hope that they'll pull a rabbit out of their hat; but the chances of that are starting to dwindle, and the costs are going to go up when the free agents are gone (like they are now) and you have to work on the trade market; which is much more costly.

    Edit: And just to add: there's no option in this year's draft either. Linemen are extraordinarily weak in the draft this year; so picking up a starter out of college would be an absolute moonshot considering linemen normally take years to develop into solid starters.
    No you dont and the Patriots have proven this for years. I was looking at the top 10 paid players by position and do you know which 2 teams only had the fewest guys on the list at all The Bronco and the patriots. Many bad teams like the Chargers and Jags had multiple players on those lists.
    Trades are not more costly than free agency. Thats the dumbest thing I have seen on the forums in quite a while. Can they be? Sure, but only if youre a fool when you trade
    Last edited by Beagle; 03-20-2017 at 08:26 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by baphamet View Post
    are you talking career or right now? because i don't see how you can say manning is top 5 even healthy.dude will never be a top 5 QB again, he is done.

  5. #95
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati
    Posts
    2,943
    Quote Originally Posted by Beagle View Post
    No you dont and the Patriots have proven this for years. I was looking at the top 10 paid players by position and do you know which 2 teams only had the fewest guys on the list at all The Bronco and the patriots. Many bad teams like the Chargers and Jags had multiple players on those lists.
    Trades are not more costly than free agency. Thats the dumbest thing I have seen on the forums in quite a while. Can they be? Sure, but only if youre a fool when you trade
    The Patriots have the most winningest QB in the history of the NFL. So you're not comparing apples to apples here m8.


    Adopted by: Andrewmlb
    Sig by: MHS

  6. #96
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    2,804
    Quote Originally Posted by Brakshow View Post
    The Patriots have the most winningest QB in the history of the NFL. So you're not comparing apples to apples here m8.
    He's not the winningest qb of all time because he's had a crap team around him.

  7. #97
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Las Manzanitas, NM
    Posts
    27,423
    Quote Originally Posted by Brakshow View Post
    The Patriots have the most winningest QB in the history of the NFL. So you're not comparing apples to apples here m8.
    debatable ...
    "Stultum est timere quod vitare non potes." ~ Publilius Syrus

  8. #98
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati
    Posts
    2,943
    Quote Originally Posted by samparnell View Post
    debatable ...
    Lol, yes I debate it as well. He's earned an asterisk to be sure.

    But the point stands that you do not have to pay players a lot of money when you have Tom Brady on your team. Just as we got away with building some seriously stacked teams when we had Manning; because people will take less money for a year or two if it means a legit chance to win a championship ring. Or at the very least you know you're going on a deep playoff run rich in contract incentives so you can afford to take less upfront.

    We do not have that luxury, and Romo is not a hall of fame QB and will not afford us that luxury either.

  9. #99
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    4,271
    Quote Originally Posted by Brakshow View Post
    The Patriots have the most winningest QB in the history of the NFL. So you're not comparing apples to apples here m8.
    This is 100 percent. The other thing is that the Patriots also have the salary of a top qb on their books as well. The Broncos don't. So we really have no excuse to not look towards one of the most important spots on the line and push towards acquiring top or above average talent there.

  10. #100
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    2,804
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich_C View Post
    This is 100 percent. The other thing is that the Patriots also have the salary of a top qb on their books as well. The Broncos don't. So we really have no excuse to not look towards one of the most important spots on the line and push towards acquiring top or above average talent there.
    I'd hardly call 14 million the salary of a top quarterback.

  11. #101
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Las Manzanitas, NM
    Posts
    27,423
    Quote Originally Posted by Brakshow View Post
    Lol, yes I debate it as well. He's earned an asterisk to be sure.

    But the point stands that you do not have to pay players a lot of money when you have Tom Brady on your team. Just as we got away with building some seriously stacked teams when we had Manning; because people will take less money for a year or two if it means a legit chance to win a championship ring. Or at the very least you know you're going on a deep playoff run rich in contract incentives so you can afford to take less upfront.

    We do not have that luxury, and Romo is not a hall of fame QB and will not afford us that luxury either.
    So, this is not an actual football conversation, but one about how much football players are paid?
    "Stultum est timere quod vitare non potes." ~ Publilius Syrus

  12. #102
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    1,178
    Quote Originally Posted by NVthosebroncos View Post
    we lost one of the best QBs ever to play the game.. his leadership was something we can never measure and we still didn't have a losing season.

    GO BRONCOS!!!
    Man, you sure liked Tebow

  13. #103
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    4,271
    Quote Originally Posted by ksubroncosfan View Post
    I'd hardly call 14 million the salary of a top quarterback.
    Agreed but it is up there. Certainly a whole lot more than Lynch or Trevor are making....

  14. #104
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    6,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Brakshow View Post
    The Patriots have the most winningest QB in the history of the NFL. So you're not comparing apples to apples here m8.
    The Patriots have had a stability that very few teams have ever had. Not only have they had Brady, but scheme and HC have also been a staple. When you have that, you can find guys that fit the way you do things. Take the Spurs success in the NBA. I would not say they had the most talented team ever, but they win.
    Ravens GM 2016 - Ravens are looking to trade down 4-8 spots

  15. #105
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati
    Posts
    2,943
    Quote Originally Posted by samparnell View Post
    So, this is not an actual football conversation, but one about how much football players are paid?
    Huh? I said you have to pay for good talent; and the guy I was responding to before you responded (Beagle) is convinced we can afford everything we need and have Romo. My point is that you can't in our situation. We don't have Tom Brady and the situation between our two teams are night and day, when he was trying to compare identically. The Patriots pay players less because the players take less thanks to Brady as QB and BB as coach. That affords them a much better opportunity of winning a ring, so they pass on the blockbuster contracts.

    Not sure how that's not a football conversation, so not sure what the snide remark is all about, but thanks.


    Adopted by: Andrewmlb
    Sig by: MHS

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •