assume the broncos had re-upped brock... espn would be applauding that decision left and right, elway would be a genius, broncos would be picking up right where they left off, etc etc agree w the comment above me... have some balls and make a prediction.
Seriously. Have some stones to guess a wild deviation from what we've done the last two years. What, are you basing analysis on performance or something? Just be crazy! LOL We don't know that we have anything markedly better than a plunger at QB THIS year.
Im not positive, but i think the argument they are making is not so much that Bosweiler is better than a plunger, but that IF the Broncos had kept him, it would have been amazing and they would be ranked top 5 and Elway made the best decision. It just seems unfair how negative we are always portrayed no matter what. Furthermore, that ranking was "post draft" where we were 12th after free agency, we dropped to 17, and they didnt talk about anything with our draft. Just more crap about how much we overspent on BOS.. its nauseating.
Are you really "overspending" if it's just a 2-year deal? It's not like this is an Albert Pujols deal....
I'm not worried about the dollar amount at all. My only worry is that if Osweiler is a bust we've been set back two years finding out and then however long it takes to develop the next solution.
The only thing more pointless that we argue about than mock drafts are power rankings. USA Today said the Texans had the 2nd best offseason. ESPN said 18th. What does it all mean? And why do we care?
But that's the exact same risk you take with a draft pick... if anything, you waste more time with them and are almost assuredly guaranteed of a regime change if it doesn't work out (which often sets things back even further). So, any concern specifically over Brock really has to be about the money, and where they could have spent it otherwise if they had instead decided to go the draft route (which likely would have required trading multiple picks... and still possibly having the QB sit behind a veteran like Hoyer or Yates for a year).
Fine. Come up with your own power rankings. Talk about where you think the teams should be ranked. Don't get mad because somebody else didn't rank your team as high as you do. Especially in May. If they're wrong, they'll just make another ranking.
Of course, but if you go into the Brock deal with a negative view of his upside that is worse scenario than the hypothetical draft pick.
But isn't that exactly what happens when a draft pick busts? It ends up being an inaccurate/negative view of his upside? Obviously, the organization... and most impartial observers... aknowledge that Brock has potential. He was an early round draft pick, he understudied behind one of the best QB's of all time, and when he was finally given a chance last season... he was quite impressive. Lastly, the grand architect of their most recent SB team, and a former all-time great QB, wanted to keep him... not sure what more endorsement you could want. I just don't see what the difference is... other than the fact that you have to (over) pay him for 2 years because he's a free agent, instead of a draft pick. Same (if not less) time commitment... same rafmifactions if he doesn't work out (without the possible lost draft picks/players due to a trade for a higher draft pick to get a QB).
So sick of the media White Knighting on behalf of the Broncos, and painting us to be desperate losers who overpaid for an unknown commodity. $37M over 2 years puts Osweiler right in the middle of the pack as far as guaranteed money at the QB position. That's hardly a desperate reach, and it's a move that allowed us to go BPA in every round in the draft essentially. If this had been Denver making these moves, Elway would be lauded for out-smarting the rest of the league. In fact, he's STILL being lauded even though he let 3 MAJOR pieces of his defense walk away in FA, and had to trade up just to secure a *GASP* UNKNOWN COMMODITY at the QB position. **** the national media, and **** average NFL fans for not being smart enough to see through the bull****.
I did find it comical that SI put Paxton Lynch on the cover of SI as the "next great broncos QB".... just 4 months after they put Brock on the cover of SI as the "next great broncos QB". Its like they compounded one overreaction by going all-in on another one.
Why will it take us two years to find out if he's a bust? We'll have a pretty good idea relatively soon - he's not a rookie, after all; he's been through training camps, etc. And if he is a bust, there's nothing stopping the team from getting *another* QB next spring.
I could see his first season here ending in an "incomplete" grade, which then it would take another season to know for sure. Either way, you run that risk with a drafted QB just like you do with anyone else.
I hope you know that wasn't a jab at you, I literally was just saying I am bored at work... That being said: 1. Texans: Boz ends up exceeding expectations, defense stays top 5, and DHop ranks 2nd as WR with every team being unable to double team him without leavin new playmakers open. 2. Do . Not .Care .At .All 30. Whatsoever 31. Colts: Luck stays healthy but their age is showing 32. Cowboys: Romo goes down in preseason, they forgot they needed a backup better than Dak prescott.. O and they are the COWBOYS. This is all ridiculous, didn't know that about the SI cover that is pretty sad.
I think the 2 years is simply due to the amount of guaranteed money he'll still be owed in year 2... probably is too big of a cap hit to consider cutting him prior to that. But no, that wouldn't prevent them from drafting another... and basically starting all over again.
