Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Lets Poll It....Do You Want Aaron Rodgers To Lead The Denver Broncos?

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

  • Originally posted by FR Tim View Post
    We all should be “unhappy fans” after the way the franchise has declined and the team has had several losing seasons.

    We all want the same thing... for the Broncos to win games!

    Does not matter if we disagree on the “ how” they get it done. I don’t agree with every free agent decision, drafted player or game plan either but I still root for the team every game.

    My “ happiness” is based on the teams success not whether I am in tune with the GM or coach. Paton chooses to trade what I consider a ridiculous amount of assets for Rodgers, I’m still cheering on every play.
    I am going to ask a simple question. You seem to comment often about my posts without quoting. We've been here long enough, so I am confused.

    Regardless, my point is related to the apparent "love" (might be too strong a word) for Lock by certain fans on this board, and that it sometimes feels like I'm at odds with the base here if I say I want Rodgers in Denver, and present reasons why, other than gut feeling. Not saying you are playing it safe, but I sometimes feel you are. You want Lock to succeed, but you seem open to a decent trade. That's awesome I suppose. I on the other hand want us to be in serious pursuit if Rodgers becomes available. From my definition, it does not mean sell the farm, though many in our poll would approve of that. And yes, if a deal was close, I offer a little more than market value.

    I mentioned the GM, because another thing we are sometimes critiqued for here, is when we challenge Broncos management/coaching. I am saying that Paton has shown interest in other QBs, including Stafford, so it's more than some of us just liking Rodgers. I also wanted Watson, and my gut tells me there was interest from our management as well. And even though I am a Rodgers fan, which can be an unpopular statement in BCMB, I believe it's a wise move and one that our management would try to negotiate with some imagination.

    But I think you stressed the wrong point(s)....I am not tuned in as you say to Paton from a fan perspective....but as a business/organizational one. I believe he expects more from our QB(s), and to put it more bluntly, is not sure about Lock. My happiness has nothing to do with being tuned in with the GM. It's more about the fact that my (and others, and there are plenty of them) are tuned in to winning championships, and it appears the GM believes the solution is possibly the same.. upgrade the position. I believe Bridgewater was a plan B maneuver, one that improves our chances, but not significantly.

    I could easily be more popular and say the right things...."I am loyal no matter what we do", "I believe Lock will get better", "I trust our management/coaching completely", "we have the best hot dogs anywhere".....but I see this as a place for sometimes hard nosed discussion, even when it does not sound so sweet.

    Comment


    • And now there is this :

      https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/...y-packers-otas

      very interesting indeed.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by DENVERSB50CHAMP View Post
        And now there is this :

        https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/...y-packers-otas

        very interesting indeed.
        Rodgers not showing to voluntary OTA’s isn’t a big deal.

        When he misses mini camp and starts losing money is when this whole thing will get interesting.
        sigpic

        Comment


        • Originally posted by BroncoFanDK View Post

          Based on the pole conducted here you cannot tell a whole lot because it is so poorly constructed.

          99.99% of us would tale Rodgers in a straight swap for Drew Lock where Green Bay paid the difference in salary, but that is not the situation we are facing. What an elite QB do is a unicorn argument because it comes with major baggage. While there are huge correlations between QB play and W/L rates - on some rating metrics up to 88% over multiple seasons, there is a reason that teams with QBs making the percentage of the cap space that Rodgers/Wilson/Dak/Watson/Mahomes..... do have not won the SB in the salary cap era and none of those mentioned here have cost their teams the kind of draft capital we are talking here. Rodgers was 8% of cap when they won the SB, RW was 0.5% and 0.6% the two times they won the NFCC games.

          Late round playoffs are not about the superstar QBs but about teams. It is very easy to take a position when you do not want to look at the flipside. Would anyone have taken 2012 Joe Flacco over 2012 Aaron Rodgers? Against elite teams you need to be able to win at all or most of the positions. 40 million contracts and the trading away of major draft capital makes this a deal that has very likelihood of success unless our ambitions are not to win it all.

          Manning could carry Colts and us to the playoffs every year, but it took a much different team to win.
          You basically lost me on the first line. And thanks for the shot....it's a strength of yours I suppose.

          Interesting writing skills dude. And also interesting how you took a shot, then changed subjects to suit your narrative.

          Nothing surprising given the source....

          Comment


          • As folks know, June 2nd is the first date that a trade possibility makes sense from a financial perspective. If a deal is not made by June 1, and they are far apart, we may hear more, given the downside of dragging this out too close to the season. It could drag out however if there is some commitment on both ends of the negotiation.

            So next Wednesday could start to get interesting. Not too far away.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by CanDB View Post

              I am going to ask a simple question. You seem to comment often about my posts without quoting. We've been here long enough, so I am confused.

              Regardless, my point is related to the apparent "love" (might be too strong a word) for Lock by certain fans on this board, and that it sometimes feels like I'm at odds with the base here if I say I want Rodgers in Denver, and present reasons why, other than gut feeling. Not saying you are playing it safe, but I sometimes feel you are. You want Lock to succeed, but you seem open to a decent trade. That's awesome I suppose. I on the other hand want us to be in serious pursuit if Rodgers becomes available. From my definition, it does not mean sell the farm, though many in our poll would approve of that. And yes, if a deal was close, I offer a little more than market value.

              I mentioned the GM, because another thing we are sometimes critiqued for here, is when we challenge Broncos management/coaching. I am saying that Paton has shown interest in other QBs, including Stafford, so it's more than some of us just liking Rodgers. I also wanted Watson, and my gut tells me there was interest from our management as well. And even though I am a Rodgers fan, which can be an unpopular statement in BCMB, I believe it's a wise move and one that our management would try to negotiate with some imagination.

              But I think you stressed the wrong point(s)....I am not tuned in as you say to Paton from a fan perspective....but as a business/organizational one. I believe he expects more from our QB(s), and to put it more bluntly, is not sure about Lock. My happiness has nothing to do with being tuned in with the GM. It's more about the fact that my (and others, and there are plenty of them) are tuned in to winning championships, and it appears the GM believes the solution is possibly the same.. upgrade the position. I believe Bridgewater was a plan B maneuver, one that improves our chances, but not significantly.

              I could easily be more popular and say the right things...."I am loyal no matter what we do", "I believe Lock will get better", "I trust our management/coaching completely", "we have the best hot dogs anywhere".....but I see this as a place for sometimes hard nosed discussion, even when it does not sound so sweet.
              Didn't realize it was so important to quote every specific comment. I typically will pull a line or two that strikes a chord to my response or point but in general there are multiple posters all taking a particular stance that I am responding to. Seems like wasted space to me to quote someone's entire comment when a reference to it will suffice. Didn't realize I was breaking some type of unwritten rule. Perhaps i need to separate individual comments instead of trying to use too big a brush stroke. I'll work on it.

              I do tend to take "safe" moderate positions. Even though having a "lets slow down and discuss the overall trade implications " opinion on Rodgers is pretty much a minority opinion. LOL

              I tend to see both sides Because both sides can have reasonable points. In this case, Lock has certainly not proven himself and looking at options is only good business. Completely expected. But as I have stated, I tend to give Lock a bit more of a pass and a higher expectation of his potential. As of today, the Broncos are agreeing to some extent with QB decisions in free agency and the draft to this point. . Tomorrow, next week, or next season, Who knows?

              I have no issues with exploring a trade for Rodgers, it would be insane not to under the current circumstances. My objection is in the concept of "market value". Many don't agree, I'm fine with that. But all too often I see comments (not just you but others with a similar but perhaps more extreme pov as yours) that are starting from a "Lock is a bust" opinion ( IMO too early to tell yet) or a "give GB anything and everything for Rodgers" opinion. (which I have shared my reasons why I'm not in favor)

              I can support either decision the FO chooses to make. Lock or Rodgers. Both have pros and cons. Both have positives and negatives. . In the end, I want a winning Bronco team. We will see how they get there again. Still TBD.

              Comment


              • June 1st is when things should pick up for A A RON. When the roster bonus drops the Pack may be willing to move him.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by FR Tim View Post

                  Didn't realize it was so important to quote every specific comment. I typically will pull a line or two that strikes a chord to my response or point but in general there are multiple posters all taking a particular stance that I am responding to. Seems like wasted space to me to quote someone's entire comment when a reference to it will suffice. Didn't realize I was breaking some type of unwritten rule. Perhaps i need to separate individual comments instead of trying to use too big a brush stroke. I'll work on it.

                  I do tend to take "safe" moderate positions. Even though having a "lets slow down and discuss the overall trade implications " opinion on Rodgers is pretty much a minority opinion. LOL

                  I tend to see both sides Because both sides can have reasonable points. In this case, Lock has certainly not proven himself and looking at options is only good business. Completely expected. But as I have stated, I tend to give Lock a bit more of a pass and a higher expectation of his potential. As of today, the Broncos are agreeing to some extent with QB decisions in free agency and the draft to this point. . Tomorrow, next week, or next season, Who knows?

                  I have no issues with exploring a trade for Rodgers, it would be insane not to under the current circumstances. My objection is in the concept of "market value". Many don't agree, I'm fine with that. But all too often I see comments (not just you but others with a similar but perhaps more extreme pov as yours) that are starting from a "Lock is a bust" opinion ( IMO too early to tell yet) or a "give GB anything and everything for Rodgers" opinion. (which I have shared my reasons why I'm not in favor)

                  I can support either decision the FO chooses to make. Lock or Rodgers. Both have pros and cons. Both have positives and negatives. . In the end, I want a winning Bronco team. We will see how they get there again. Still TBD.
                  As for the quote thing....you often post right after me with a conflicting view (even using exact words from my posts), so I sense you are initially triggered by my comment. If so, why not quote? Otherwise it looks like a general post but mostly about the post just before it. No rules, just common sense. Easier to discuss, given it's obvious who you are responding directly to. You know what I mean.

                  Not to worry, if you oppose my stand, you will likely always have some likes coming your way.

                  Again, I think you do know the following about my stance:

                  - Do not want to sell the farm
                  - Like Rodgers, but if he stays a Packer, I follow them anyway
                  - Have a very positive feeling about what his "effect" would be on our team's chances
                  - Realize that this is not likely to happen, but while there is a smallish window, I keep optimistic
                  - (I repeat) I do not think Lock is a bust. I am a little concerned. And if he is not the answer, we are back into a very uncertain period, coming off 5 straight non playoff seasons. Potentially more draft capital lost to QBs, and therefore more draft cap that cannot be used to secure "non QB" talent. Or maybe another attempt to make good with it, with a mediocre veteran acquisition.
                  - Acquiring Rodgers, in year one for sure (unless we give them too much player capital), would likely instantly make us a playoff team with real potential.
                  - And yes, I had this feeling when Manning was available, because I knew Elway was anxious about Tebow and whoever else we had. This is different, as many feel a need to remind me, but it's very much the same in terms of my feelings about 2021/22, if we acquired Rodgers. It's exciting to me.
                  - If The Pack keep Rodgers, which they should, I will hope for the best with who we have. It could even be Teddy this year.



                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by 58Miller View Post

                    Rodgers not showing to voluntary OTA’s isn’t a big deal.

                    When he misses mini camp and starts losing money is when this whole thing will get interesting.
                    True and not true.

                    Technically it’s not a big deal because it is voluntary. It is somewhat significant because Rodgers usually shows up.

                    This could just be him doing his part for the union or it could be a signal to the team that he wants certain issues addressed if they want him to show up.
                    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


                    • Originally posted by broncolee View Post

                      True and not true.

                      Technically it’s not a big deal because it is voluntary. It is somewhat significant because Rodgers usually shows up.

                      This could just be him doing his part for the union or it could be a signal to the team that he wants certain issues addressed if they want him to show up.
                      Him not showing up is no different than him saying I want to be traded.
                      When he is missing mini camp and losing money the Packers will have to make a choice.
                      sigpic

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by 58Miller View Post
                        Him not showing up is no different than him saying I want to be traded.
                        When he is missing mini camp and losing money the Packers will have to make a choice.
                        My intuition is that he does want to come to Denver, and that Green Bay will allow him to leave....but, only for truly astronomical compensation. So it most likely will come down to whether Denver will pay the heavily inflated asking price.

                        From what I have read over the past few days, most of the media commentariat believes that Denver is all-in and that a trade will happen fairly soon after 1st June.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by GMTD View Post

                          My intuition is that he does want to come to Denver, and that Green Bay will allow him to leave....but, only for truly astronomical compensation. So it most likely will come down to whether Denver will pay the heavily inflated asking price.

                          From what I have read over the past few days, most of the media commentariat believes that Denver is all-in and that a trade will happen fairly soon after 1st June.
                          What leads you to believe he doesn't want to come to Denver? Everything I've read is that Denver is on his short list of teams he is intrigued by

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by GMTD View Post

                            My intuition is that he does want to come to Denver, and that Green Bay will allow him to leave....but, only for truly astronomical compensation. So it most likely will come down to whether Denver will pay the heavily inflated asking price.

                            From what I have read over the past few days, most of the media commentariat believes that Denver is all-in and that a trade will happen fairly soon after 1st June.
                            Originally posted by JvDub95 View Post

                            What leads you to believe he doesn't want to come to Denver? Everything I've read is that Denver is on his short list of teams he is intrigued by
                            But GMTD is saying he wants to come here.

                            Comment


                            • Bizarre stat says Aaron Rodgers isn’t clutch
                              Aaron Rodgers is evidently 0-42 in his career when trailing by more than a point in the 4th quarter against a team with a winning record.

                              https://www.sportscasting.com/aaron-...rre-0-42-stat/


                              If the price is too high, Green Bay can keep him.
                              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


                              • Originally posted by BroncoFanDK View Post

                                Based on the pole conducted here you cannot tell a whole lot because it is so poorly constructed.

                                99.99% of us would tale Rodgers in a straight swap for Drew Lock where Green Bay paid the difference in salary, but that is not the situation we are facing. What an elite QB do is a unicorn argument because it comes with major baggage. While there are huge correlations between QB play and W/L rates - on some rating metrics up to 88% over multiple seasons, there is a reason that teams with QBs making the percentage of the cap space that Rodgers/Wilson/Dak/Watson/Mahomes..... do have not won the SB in the salary cap era and none of those mentioned here have cost their teams the kind of draft capital we are talking here. Rodgers was 8% of cap when they won the SB, RW was 0.5% and 0.6% the two times they won the NFCC games.

                                Late round playoffs are not about the superstar QBs but about teams. It is very easy to take a position when you do not want to look at the flipside. Would anyone have taken 2012 Joe Flacco over 2012 Aaron Rodgers? Against elite teams you need to be able to win at all or most of the positions. 40 million contracts and the trading away of major draft capital makes this a deal that has very likelihood of success unless our ambitions are not to win it all.

                                Manning could carry Colts and us to the playoffs every year, but it took a much different team to win.
                                Whatever....meanwhile, back on earth.....
                                Utah Bronco Freak

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X