Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Broncos in an almost trade??

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by johnlimburg View Post

    Headline or thread title should maybe be, "Team with obvious quarterback needs thought by one guy to potentially be involved in trade talks that may or may not have happened". This isn't news.
    Yep!
    Utah Bronco Freak

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by nickmeyer View Post
      My guess is it was the Vikings, for Kirk Cousins, and I hope it was Paton who backed out if that is the case. That dude is garbage.
      Cousins isn’t garbage but he’s not the guy you want if your standard is championship contention.
      My Opinion isn’t determined by what the Popular Opinion is. Sometimes I agree with the Majority, Sometimes I Don’t. If My Opinion is Different than Yours, I have to Ask One Question:
      You Mad Bro?
      Don’t Be A Mean Girl

      Comment


      • #18
        I am glad Paton is backing out. There are a lot of qbs not worth the asking price...or even the cap space...that I see being talked about.

        Watson...yes.....Wilson...yes

        Anyone else I heard talked about from credible sources....no

        My guess is a lot of teams saw the haul Stafford got and are seeing if they can get a big haul for their Qbs
        Time to build on the win and grow the team from some solid play higher level of play

        Comment


        • #19
          More reports today that the Broncos are indeed interested in acquiring Watson (from NFL James Palmer) if he becomes available. Yeah yeah....Texans say he's staying in Houston. But, there's a price for everything....


          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by DiveInstructor View Post
            More reports today that the Broncos are indeed interested in acquiring Watson (from NFL James Palmer) if he becomes available. Yeah yeah....Texans say he's staying in Houston. But, there's a price for everything....


            Yink Yink go get em Paton.......let's door this.
            Until we get a TRUE not name "Lock" qb we will miss the playoffs and be average at best! I'm E2DS and I approve this message! "AND IF YOU DON'T KNOW, NOW YA KNOW."

            Comment


            • #21
              Blockbuster implies 1 of 3 QBs; Wilson, Watson, and Prescott. Maybe Cousins but I’m not buying that Paton saw something from him in Minnesota to convince him that’s he’s the guy.

              So maybe Houston got cold feet and backed out to buy time and hope that time will allow some fresh wounds to heal.

              I could see Wilson simply because it’d give the Seahawks some ammo to move up and attempt to get 1 of the top 3 QBs. But Wilson has a no trade clause and would probably nix that trade because I highly doubt the Denver market appeals to him or his wife.

              Then there’s Prescott. I think it got overlooked in the article, and maybe it was lazy writing/reporting, but it doesn’t specify if the other team backed out or if we backed out. Plus there’s naturally a lot of moving parts on this. Obviously it’d be a tag and trade in which Prescott could opt to not sign the tag if it isn’t to his preferred destination. But the deal would allow for them to move up in the draft for a QB. There’s also the trade compensation but I doubt that’s something we really care about if we’re getting a high caliber QB. So it could be possible that we backed out of the deal out of some trepidation about the recovery from his ankle along with the high value contract that only guarantees a year and the trade compensation we’d have to give up.

              If it’s being overblown as a “blockbuster trade” then I’d throw in Mariota and the Raiders backed out because they don’t want to make us better. But if it truly was a blockbuster deal, I’d probably put my money on us backing out of a potential Prescott deal.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by beastlyskronk View Post
                Blockbuster implies 1 of 3 QBs; Wilson, Watson, and Prescott. Maybe Cousins but I’m not buying that Paton saw something from him in Minnesota to convince him that’s he’s the guy.

                So maybe Houston got cold feet and backed out to buy time and hope that time will allow some fresh wounds to heal.

                I could see Wilson simply because it’d give the Seahawks some ammo to move up and attempt to get 1 of the top 3 QBs. But Wilson has a no trade clause and would probably nix that trade because I highly doubt the Denver market appeals to him or his wife.

                Then there’s Prescott. I think it got overlooked in the article, and maybe it was lazy writing/reporting, but it doesn’t specify if the other team backed out or if we backed out. Plus there’s naturally a lot of moving parts on this. Obviously it’d be a tag and trade in which Prescott could opt to not sign the tag if it isn’t to his preferred destination. But the deal would allow for them to move up in the draft for a QB. There’s also the trade compensation but I doubt that’s something we really care about if we’re getting a high caliber QB. So it could be possible that we backed out of the deal out of some trepidation about the recovery from his ankle along with the high value contract that only guarantees a year and the trade compensation we’d have to give up.

                If it’s being overblown as a “blockbuster trade” then I’d throw in Mariota and the Raiders backed out because they don’t want to make us better. But if it truly was a blockbuster deal, I’d probably put my money on us backing out of a potential Prescott deal.
                Thank you for adding a thought out and useful opinion in the conversation

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by beastlyskronk View Post
                  Blockbuster implies 1 of 3 QBs; Wilson, Watson, and Prescott. Maybe Cousins but I’m not buying that Paton saw something from him in Minnesota to convince him that’s he’s the guy.

                  So maybe Houston got cold feet and backed out to buy time and hope that time will allow some fresh wounds to heal.

                  I could see Wilson simply because it’d give the Seahawks some ammo to move up and attempt to get 1 of the top 3 QBs. But Wilson has a no trade clause and would probably nix that trade because I highly doubt the Denver market appeals to him or his wife.

                  Then there’s Prescott. I think it got overlooked in the article, and maybe it was lazy writing/reporting, but it doesn’t specify if the other team backed out or if we backed out. Plus there’s naturally a lot of moving parts on this. Obviously it’d be a tag and trade in which Prescott could opt to not sign the tag if it isn’t to his preferred destination. But the deal would allow for them to move up in the draft for a QB. There’s also the trade compensation but I doubt that’s something we really care about if we’re getting a high caliber QB. So it could be possible that we backed out of the deal out of some trepidation about the recovery from his ankle along with the high value contract that only guarantees a year and the trade compensation we’d have to give up.

                  If it’s being overblown as a “blockbuster trade” then I’d throw in Mariota and the Raiders backed out because they don’t want to make us better. But if it truly was a blockbuster deal, I’d probably put my money on us backing out of a potential Prescott deal.
                  The thing with Prescott is that he’s not under contract. He can’t be a trade target.

                  The Cowboys would have to tag him and he would have to sign the tag.

                  Would the Broncos want to give up draft picks and overpay Prescott?
                  My Opinion isn’t determined by what the Popular Opinion is. Sometimes I agree with the Majority, Sometimes I Don’t. If My Opinion is Different than Yours, I have to Ask One Question:
                  You Mad Bro?
                  Don’t Be A Mean Girl

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by broncolee View Post

                    The thing with Prescott is that he’s not under contract. He can’t be a trade target.

                    The Cowboys would have to tag him and he would have to sign the tag.

                    Would the Broncos want to give up draft picks and overpay Prescott?
                    I would be fine giving Prescott a top 5 QB contract. he is a very good one.
                    sigpic
                    oakland raders gm
                    latavis murray trade bait

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Kyousukeneko View Post

                      I would be fine giving Prescott a top 5 QB contract. he is a very good one.
                      I wouldn’t be okay with it.

                      The Cowboys probably win the East if Prescott doesn’t get injured, but I don’t think he’s a perennial championship contender type quarterback.
                      My Opinion isn’t determined by what the Popular Opinion is. Sometimes I agree with the Majority, Sometimes I Don’t. If My Opinion is Different than Yours, I have to Ask One Question:
                      You Mad Bro?
                      Don’t Be A Mean Girl

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by broncolee View Post

                        I wouldn’t be okay with it.

                        The Cowboys probably win the East if Prescott doesn’t get injured, but I don’t think he’s a perennial championship contender type quarterback.
                        Well we can agree to disagree. There is no debate on how much better the boys offense is with him vs with out him. He is also very young and talented.
                        sigpic
                        oakland raders gm
                        latavis murray trade bait

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by broncolee View Post

                          The thing with Prescott is that he’s not under contract. He can’t be a trade target.

                          The Cowboys would have to tag him and he would have to sign the tag.

                          Would the Broncos want to give up draft picks and overpay Prescott?
                          Technically he is under contract until the start of the new league year, and it’s a foregone conclusion that he’s going to get tagged again while the Cowboys scramble to figure what they’re going to do with him. Even then, these conversations happen all the time behind closed doors. If the Cowboys don’t think they can get a long term deal done, then it’d be prudent of them to explore trade possibilities.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by beastlyskronk View Post

                            Technically he is under contract until the start of the new league year, and it’s a foregone conclusion that he’s going to get tagged again while the Cowboys scramble to figure what they’re going to do with him. Even then, these conversations happen all the time behind closed doors. If the Cowboys don’t think they can get a long term deal done, then it’d be prudent of them to explore trade possibilities.
                            But because of the tag he'd essentially have a no trade clause, because, as mentioned, he can't be traded until he signs the tag. If they don't see it working out, they're best telling him and his agent they can go out and try to find trade partners. The team could still refuse to trade him to any tema, or at all, but by doing that it allows teams to know that Prescott wants to be with them, which means that they'll be more than willing to come to terms with the Cowboys.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Butler By'Note View Post

                              But because of the tag he'd essentially have a no trade clause, because, as mentioned, he can't be traded until he signs the tag. If they don't see it working out, they're best telling him and his agent they can go out and try to find trade partners. The team could still refuse to trade him to any tema, or at all, but by doing that it allows teams to know that Prescott wants to be with them, which means that they'll be more than willing to come to terms with the Cowboys.
                              Which is why I mentioned that it’d be Prescott’s decision. But it doesn’t mean the Cowboys can’t already put together contingency plans and it doesn’t mean the Broncos can’t reach out first and gauge what the Cowboys might want.

                              I only say it though because it doesn’t specify who backed out of the deal. Prescott is the only blockbuster situation where I could see us backing out of a potential deal just because of the injury.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by beastlyskronk View Post

                                Which is why I mentioned that it’d be Prescott’s decision. But it doesn’t mean the Cowboys can’t already put together contingency plans and it doesn’t mean the Broncos can’t reach out first and gauge what the Cowboys might want.

                                I only say it though because it doesn’t specify who backed out of the deal. Prescott is the only blockbuster situation where I could see us backing out of a potential deal just because of the injury.
                                Perhaps. But there could have also been a scenario where they backed out because the QB they were to acquire wanted a new contract immediately, or the QB told Denver they wouldn't agree to a new contract if traded to Denver. If it was Denver that backed out.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X