Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Jesse Palmer on what QBs the broncos may look at grabbing

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

  • #16
    I took a look at these QB rankings for a general guide for good and bad QBs. The exact order doesn't matter.
    https://www.nfl.com/news/qb-index-ra...020-nfl-season

    First round picks are a high percentage of the top QBs. This seems to be a fairly recent trend with young first round picks making up a good percentage of the top QBs,

    What's interesting is how many first round QBs are grouped at the bottom of the rankings too. Granted, the list is for starters and low round QBs won't start games to qualify so this could skew our view of the results.

    A valid point though is, the ratio of good first round picks to bad first round pics that are on the list. Drafting a QB in the first is a huge risk for a coach. Stats show coaches with first found QBs that don't work out get fired. The true cost to teams is the time invested in a rookie first round pick. You have to play them to see if they are any good. Our investment in Lock as far as draft choices are concerned isn't much. The true investment is the time we have to give him to see if he can play, not the second round pick we picked up with the Fant trade.

    When you really look at the best QBs now as well as Super Bowl winning QBs, you can make a case that drafting 2-3 QBs every year in rounds 2-6 and just playing a numbers game is a good strategy. Invest heavily in the scouts considered the best at finding QBs to increase the odds of a hit. I'm sure there are a number of real-life issues with this, but the point should still be considered. Drafting more QBs is also something to consider while hiring the best people to find these QBs.




    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by lvbronx View Post

      Here's how I see it...lots of other teams can say the same thing. The Jets and Miami both have higher picks than us, as well as two picks this year. They also have Darnold and Tua to offer.

      If the Jets or Miami offer 3 #1s and Darnold or Tua. Then consider the Raiders could offer 3 #1s and Carr giving the Texans a decent starting QB and 3 #1s.

      We have to beat that. I just don't see a viable deal for Watson. It's a combo of salary cap space and player/draft assets. Watson will take up cap space and we have no drat choices to build a team either. I love Watson but the Texans were 4-12 with him. If we have to give up the team to get him and can't sign FAs because of cap space, how do we build a team? I just don't see how we can beat the other possible offers AND still build a team around Watson.
      Team is already built in my opinion. 3 First rounders, Juedy, Chubb, a 2nd or two and Watson is ours, throw Lock in the mix just cuzz. Also Watson has veto power and can turn down any trade, so If Watson will only play for X or Y team then we do have a chance.
      Last edited by nickmeyer; 02-20-2021, 12:53 AM.
      sigpic WHEC-724

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by lvbronx View Post

        Here's how I see it...lots of other teams can say the same thing. The Jets and Miami both have higher picks than us, as well as two picks this year. They also have Darnold and Tua to offer.

        If the Jets or Miami offer 3 #1s and Darnold or Tua. Then consider the Raiders could offer 3 #1s and Carr giving the Texans a decent starting QB and 3 #1s.

        We have to beat that. I just don't see a viable deal for Watson. It's a combo of salary cap space and player/draft assets. Watson will take up cap space and we have no drat choices to build a team either. I love Watson but the Texans were 4-12 with him. If we have to give up the team to get him and can't sign FAs because of cap space, how do we build a team? I just don't see how we can beat the other possible offers AND still build a team around Watson.
        What people need to understand is its NOT just who the best offer is when Watson has a no trade clause lol. He has to APPROVE the trade.

        So if the jets offered 3 1st, and 3 2nd, and 3 rds, along with darnold.....all that means nothing if Watson say he is not going to the jets.....

        Building a team since Peyton left and we have had drafts, 1st round picks for the last 5 years and we have 5 losing seasons to show for it....the draft is a super crao shoot NONE of these so called can't miss players have taken one snap in the nfl no one knows what they will or can do

        4-12 I'm soooo tired of hearing this. We won the SB with Peyton was it just because of Peyton or the def too. Brady just won a SB isbit bc on him or the def too...its a team game smh....so people are just Peggy back poster and didn't watch any of his games nor followed his career...he had no line 47 sacks, no run game, got rid of his #1 wr, bad coaching, and terrible defense and people's wanna bring up his 4-12 record.

        Without a QB you have Nothing.
        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


        • #19
          Originally posted by lvbronx View Post
          I took a look at these QB rankings for a general guide for good and bad QBs. The exact order doesn't matter.
          https://www.nfl.com/news/qb-index-ra...020-nfl-season

          First round picks are a high percentage of the top QBs. This seems to be a fairly recent trend with young first round picks making up a good percentage of the top QBs,

          What's interesting is how many first round QBs are grouped at the bottom of the rankings too. Granted, the list is for starters and low round QBs won't start games to qualify so this could skew our view of the results.

          A valid point though is, the ratio of good first round picks to bad first round pics that are on the list. Drafting a QB in the first is a huge risk for a coach. Stats show coaches with first found QBs that don't work out get fired. The true cost to teams is the time invested in a rookie first round pick. You have to play them to see if they are any good. Our investment in Lock as far as draft choices are concerned isn't much. The true investment is the time we have to give him to see if he can play, not the second round pick we picked up with the Fant trade.

          When you really look at the best QBs now as well as Super Bowl winning QBs, you can make a case that drafting 2-3 QBs every year in rounds 2-6 and just playing a numbers game is a good strategy. Invest heavily in the scouts considered the best at finding QBs to increase the odds of a hit. I'm sure there are a number of real-life issues with this, but the point should still be considered. Drafting more QBs is also something to consider while hiring the best people to find these QBs.



          Can you win the superbowl without making the playoffs?

          All the playoffs qbs in the AFC were 1st round picks
          In the NFC more than half were 1st rd picks

          There has not been another Brady since Brady so that's totally different and you can say the same about Brees and he has not won a SB in over a decade.

          So again if you can't make it into the playoffs you can win a Superbowl. What that's in this years playoffs about 80 to 85% of them were 1st qbs. Sorry.
          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


          • #20
            Originally posted by Ear2dastreets View Post

            Can you win the superbowl without making the playoffs?

            All the playoffs qbs in the AFC were 1st round picks
            In the NFC more than half were 1st rd picks

            There has not been another Brady since Brady so that's totally different and you can say the same about Brees and he has not won a SB in over a decade.

            So again if you can't make it into the playoffs you can win a Superbowl. What that's in this years playoffs about 80 to 85% of them were 1st qbs. Sorry.
            Your "point" about making the playoffs makes ZERO sense. Of course you have to make the playoffs. What's your point?

            Just so you're aware, both Brady and Brees changed teams, which show another way of winning a Super Bowl, you know, like we did with Peyton. In case you missed it,Brady was a FA and available to every team this year. And Brees was a second round pick on top of that. As far as your comment about making the playoffs, did you forget Brees has made the playoffs a lot or that you have to get to the Super Bowl to win it? Sorry.

            Also, I consider one year to be too short a period to make an entire judgement of how to obtain a QB. But you're a classic picker of nits on this forum who is more interested in pretending to be right instead of having a decent conversation. And you cherry picked only the playoff QBs this year, not the first round QBs that didn't make the playoffs or the huge contracts of some of the first round QBs that made them tough to trade. While there's a lot of good about first round QBs, you also have to consider the bad...and drafting a QB in the first is a huge risk for any coach or GM and can set a team back years if they miss. You may want to include ALL the first round QBs in your assessment to get an accurate picture instead of only cherry-picking the successes. The Rams had to give up an extra first to get Stafford just to get Detroit to take former first round pick Geoff's contract.
            Last edited by lvbronx; 02-20-2021, 09:08 AM.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Ear2dastreets View Post

              Can you win the superbowl without making the playoffs?

              All the playoffs qbs in the AFC were 1st round picks
              In the NFC more than half were 1st rd picks

              There has not been another Brady since Brady so that's totally different and you can say the same about Brees and he has not won a SB in over a decade.

              So again if you can't make it into the playoffs you can win a Superbowl. What that's in this years playoffs about 80 to 85% of them were 1st qbs. Sorry.
              BTW I did your research for you. Your claim of the percent of first round QBs is technically correct. However, it is also inaccurate as to how the teams got them.

              Lamar Jackson - first round
              Josh Allen - first round
              Pat Mahomes - first round
              Baker Mayfield - first round
              Jared Goff - first round
              Mitchell Trubisky - first round
              Ryan Tannehil - free agent
              Russell Wilson - 3rd
              Alex Smith - trade

              Aaron Rodgers first round
              Ben Roethlisberger - first round
              Philip Rivers - free agent
              Drew Brees - free agent
              Tom Brady - free agent


              So using Ear's "logic" of playoff QBs we see that of the 14 QBs that made the playoffs last year, 8 were first round picks of the TEAM THAT ACTUALLY DRAFTED THEM. 4 were acquired as free agents and Russ was a third and Smith was traded for a third and a player.

              Yes, there's a preponderance of first round picks. How many of those picks were actually made by other teams? Are you sure you want to exclude FA QBs as a way to make the playoffs? In case last year in the NFL isn't enough, take a look at the QBs that lead the Broncos to the playoffs over their entire history. I'll wait.
              Last edited by lvbronx; 02-20-2021, 09:07 AM.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by lvbronx View Post
                Your "point" about making the playoffs makes ZERO sense. Of course you have to make the playoffs. What's your point?

                Just so you're aware, both Brady and Brees changed teams, which show another way of winning a Super Bowl, you know, like we did with Peyton. In case you missed it,Brady was a FA and available to every team this year. And Brees was a second round pick on top of that. As far as your comment about making the playoffs, did you forget Brees has made the playoffs a lot or that you have to get to the Super Bowl to win it? Sorry.

                Also, I consider one year to be too short a period to make an entire judgement of how to obtain a QB. But you're a classic picker of nits on this forum who is more interested in pretending to be right instead of having a decent conversation. And you cherry picked only the playoff QBs this year, not the first round QBs that didn't make the playoffs or the huge contracts of some of the first round QBs that made them tough to trade. While there's a lot of good about first round QBs, you also have to consider the bad...and drafting a QB in the first is a huge risk for any coach or GM and can set a team back years if they miss. You may want to include ALL the first round QBs in your assessment to get an accurate picture instead of only cherry-picking the successes. The Rams had to give up an extra first to get Stafford just to get Detroit to take former first round pick Geoff's contract.
                Hahaha dude you saying I don't make sense. Your post is about trying to find qbs in laters rounds.
                I didn't cherry pick crap potna...I just used this year playoffs...you can go back and tell me when the last playoffs had more 2 and later rd picks than first...ill wait.

                Bruh I don't have to pretend if I'm right you not the judge to determine who is rigt and who is wrong. To me your entire post is wrong. Like got something to prove to you hahaha....

                In case you didn't know I don't care about Brady nor Brees switching team has nothing to do with anything. My point are you are probably more likely to make the playoffs with a first rd pick however there are some exceptions...

                Whatever I asked you a regular questions....I wasn't even coming at you like that but you switched it. And I always ready to come back whenever someone come at me.
                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


                • #23
                  Originally posted by lvbronx View Post

                  BTW I did your research for you. Your claim of the percent of first round QBs is technically correct. However, it is also inaccurate as to how the teams got them.

                  Lamar Jackson - first round
                  Josh Allen - first round
                  Pat Mahomes - first round
                  Baker Mayfield - first round
                  Jared Goff - first round
                  Mitchell Trubisky - first round
                  Ryan Tannehil - free agent
                  Russell Wilson - 3rd
                  Alex Smith - trade

                  Aaron Rodgers first round
                  Ben Roethlisberger - first round
                  Philip Rivers - free agent
                  Drew Brees - free agent
                  Tom Brady - free agent


                  So using Ear's "logic" of playoff QBs we see that of the 14 QBs that made the playoffs last year, 8 were first round picks of the TEAM THAT ACTUALLY DRAFTED THEM. 4 were acquired as free agents and Russ was a third and Smith was traded for a third and a player.

                  Yes, there's a preponderance of first round picks. How many of those picks were actually made by other teams? Are you sure you want to exclude FA QBs as a way to make the playoffs? In case last year in the NFL isn't enough, take a look at the QBs that lead the Broncos to the playoffs over their entire history. I'll wait.
                  Idc. If they are FA or not they were picked in the 1st rd....ok I'm over it. You have you opinion and I'll have mine....agree to disagree...not doing this with you.
                  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


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Ear2dastreets View Post

                    Hahaha dude you saying I don't make sense. Your post is about trying to find qbs in laters rounds.
                    I didn't cherry pick crap potna...I just used this year playoffs...you can go back and tell me when the last playoffs had more 2 and later rd picks than first...ill wait.

                    Bruh I don't have to pretend if I'm right you not the judge to determine who is rigt and who is wrong. To me your entire post is wrong. Like got something to prove to you hahaha....

                    In case you didn't know I don't care about Brady nor Brees switching team has nothing to do with anything. My point are you are probably more likely to make the playoffs with a first rd pick however there are some exceptions...

                    Whatever I asked you a regular questions....I wasn't even coming at you like that but you switched it. And I always ready to come back whenever someone come at me.
                    More cherry picking for you dood...and your threat "coming back" is downright funny.

                    Yes, recent post didn't back up my previous post about drafting a lot of QBs. But again you missed the point when I said, and I'll quote myself for your convenience:
                    I'm sure there are a number of real-life issues with this, but the point should still be considered.
                    I clearly said it should be considered, not done. A case can be made that if QBs are so important, drafting more of them until you find one is something that should be discussed. It's purely numbers. If you draft twice as many in later rounds you have twice the chance of finding one. It's the cost that needs to be determined. IMO draft picks are over-valued when considering how many players make an impact vs just filling roster spots. The real cost of this is the practical matter of having all these QBs on the roster and all the QB controversies. That's the real issue IMO, not whether the numbers justify it.

                    Also, you've shown how I'm open to new positions based on new evidence. That's called "intelligence". And you make fun of it. Seriously? LOL

                    You were also presented with the very same new evidence but didn't adjust your position and instead tried to "win"again. Come back at me.

                    Now back to your cherry-picking. You only posted playoff teams. Why not look at all the facts? Here's the last place teams in each division.

                    Philly - High first round pick
                    Detroit - High first round pick
                    Alt - High first round pick
                    SF - trade

                    Jets - High first round pick
                    Cinn - High first round pick
                    Jax - 6 rd
                    Den - 2nd rd

                    True risk management looks at both gain and risk. Yes a player like Burrow may work out, but even if he's good he may not be enough to lift the Bengals. We see 5 of the 8 teams that finished last had highly drafted QB last year.

                    Using "Ear logic" we can only base our decisions on one year and we can clearly see that drafting a QB high in the first round means a 62.5% chance of being last in your division. And in case Ear didn't notice, you can't be last in your division and win the Super Bowl.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by lvbronx View Post

                      More cherry picking for you dood...and your threat "coming back" is downright funny.

                      Yes, recent post didn't back up my previous post about drafting a lot of QBs. But again you missed the point when I said, and I'll quote myself for your convenience:


                      I clearly said it should be considered, not done. A case can be made that if QBs are so important, drafting more of them until you find one is something that should be discussed. It's purely numbers. If you draft twice as many in later rounds you have twice the chance of finding one. It's the cost that needs to be determined. IMO draft picks are over-valued when considering how many players make an impact vs just filling roster spots. The real cost of this is the practical matter of having all these QBs on the roster and all the QB controversies. That's the real issue IMO, not whether the numbers justify it.

                      Also, you've shown how I'm open to new positions based on new evidence. That's called "intelligence". And you make fun of it. Seriously? LOL

                      You were also presented with the very same new evidence but didn't adjust your position and instead tried to "win"again. Come back at me.

                      Now back to your cherry-picking. You only posted playoff teams. Why not look at all the facts? Here's the last place teams in each division.

                      Philly - High first round pick
                      Detroit - High first round pick
                      Alt - High first round pick
                      SF - trade

                      Jets - High first round pick
                      Cinn - High first round pick
                      Jax - 6 rd
                      Den - 2nd rd

                      True risk management looks at both gain and risk. Yes a player like Burrow may work out, but even if he's good he may not be enough to lift the Bengals. We see 5 of the 8 teams that finished last had highly drafted QB last year.

                      Using "Ear logic" we can only base our decisions on one year and we can clearly see that drafting a QB high in the first round means a 62.5% chance of being last in your division. And in case Ear didn't notice, you can't be last in your division and win the Super Bowl.
                      Yawn....I not even about to read I all that bc I dont care. It is what it is. You said what you want and I said what I want.
                      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


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Ear2dastreets View Post

                        Yawn....I not even about to read I all that bc I dont care. It is what it is. You said what you want and I said what I want.
                        That's all you got? You promised you were going to come back at me and all you can do is use a ad hominem logical fallacy about my post boring you. Actually, you can't respond logically to the facts I presented so you claim my post is "boring". To be honest, I didn't expect anything better from you.

                        BTW you may want to include some actual football in your posts instead of just talking about posters so much. That's not only boring, it chases people off and hijacks good conversations about the Broncos.

                        Ear logic: If you draft a QB high in the first round you have a 62.5% chance of finishing last in your division.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by lvbronx View Post

                          That's all you got? You promised you were going to come back at me and all you can do is use a ad hominem logical fallacy about my post boring you. Actually, you can't respond logically to the facts I presented so you claim my post is "boring". To be honest, I didn't expect anything better from you.

                          BTW you may want to include some actual football in your posts instead of just talking about posters so much. That's not only boring, it chases people off and hijacks good conversations about the Broncos.

                          Ear logic: If you draft a QB high in the first round you have a 62.5% chance of finishing last in your division.
                          Dude i told I was ready for a come back. When you started throwing insults and you stopped. I brought my facts with me about the 80 to 85 percent and you changed that then said I was cherry picking "which I never do"....then I asked you to go and find me a playoff where there were more 2 to late picks in the playoffs more than first and you didn't.

                          So I'm not gonna go back and forward with you. If you feel I don't have fact don't response to me and block me ... either way sounds like a personal problem to me and one I really don't care about.

                          So yet again it is what it is.
                          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


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by lvbronx View Post
                            I took a look at these QB rankings for a general guide for good and bad QBs. The exact order doesn't matter.
                            https://www.nfl.com/news/qb-index-ra...020-nfl-season

                            First round picks are a high percentage of the top QBs. This seems to be a fairly recent trend with young first round picks making up a good percentage of the top QBs,

                            What's interesting is how many first round QBs are grouped at the bottom of the rankings too. Granted, the list is for starters and low round QBs won't start games to qualify so this could skew our view of the results.

                            A valid point though is, the ratio of good first round picks to bad first round pics that are on the list. Drafting a QB in the first is a huge risk for a coach. Stats show coaches with first found QBs that don't work out get fired. The true cost to teams is the time invested in a rookie first round pick. You have to play them to see if they are any good. Our investment in Lock as far as draft choices are concerned isn't much. The true investment is the time we have to give him to see if he can play, not the second round pick we picked up with the Fant trade.

                            When you really look at the best QBs now as well as Super Bowl winning QBs, you can make a case that drafting 2-3 QBs every year in rounds 2-6 and just playing a numbers game is a good strategy. Invest heavily in the scouts considered the best at finding QBs to increase the odds of a hit. I'm sure there are a number of real-life issues with this, but the point should still be considered. Drafting more QBs is also something to consider while hiring the best people to find these QBs.



                            In theory it would make sense to draft multiple players at a position to try and improve the odds of finding a success, but in practicality it's not workable. The reason being that you have 7 draft picks each year (could be higher or lower depending on trades and compensation etc. but everyone starts at 7) and you have 22 starting spots, plus depth needed, you can't afford to throw that much draft stock at one position that only has one player on the field at a time. I know QB is the most important position in football, but if you draft 3 hoping for one to succeed, you've now neglected other positions of need that you either needed to fill or will need to fill. And if you strike out on all 3 QBs then you've dug a massive hole for your successor, because you will have been fired.

                            I don't disagree with the premise of trying to improve your odds but I just don't see it as a workable solution in this scenario.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by rst08tierney View Post
                              Im telling you, the guys Watson.

                              A deals in place but Houstons must be dragging their feet trying to see if they can salvage a relationship.
                              How I see it and something I've mentioned when the Watson saga began, was that Houston wants to drag this out until the draft. They wanna drag it out long enough to where teams lose interest bc of time and needing to build their team for the season. Unless Watson decides to just sit out, threatens to sit out, Houston doesn't have to move him.
                              Denver and Houston have already talked. Even if that talk was just to inquire, they've likely already talked. Some Bronco players likely have had conversations with Watson to tempt him and see if he'd be interested.
                              sigpic
                              Adopted Broncos:
                              EmmanuelSanders

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Ear2dastreets View Post

                                Dude i told I was ready for a come back. When you started throwing insults and you stopped. I brought my facts with me about the 80 to 85 percent and you changed that then said I was cherry picking "which I never do"....then I asked you to go and find me a playoff where there were more 2 to late picks in the playoffs more than first and you didn't.

                                So I'm not gonna go back and forward with you. If you feel I don't have fact don't response to me and block me ... either way sounds like a personal problem to me and one I really don't care about.

                                So yet again it is what it is.
                                I explained this in an earlier post. I then explained to you that is a hypothetical point for DISCUSSION. I don't have to show evidence for this because it's a mathematical fact that drafting more QBs increases the odds of finding one. And your demand is irrelevant to my point.

                                You say you aren't going to go back and forth with me while you go back and forth with me. Self-awarness much?

                                I also explained to you that you were only using the gain from first round picks and not the loss is inaccurate. You failed to address this point multiple times. Why don't you use the new data presented to you to recalibrate your opinions like I did? Instead of talking about these points, you talk about me. I have talked about you too, but I also talked about football. I gave you a choice. You made it.
                                Last edited by lvbronx; 02-20-2021, 10:46 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X