With Peyton they have chance without him they don't. The Texans should have gone for it. They play in domed stadium. Peyton's arm won't tire out as easily.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Houston CBS confirms that Texans held 'very preliminary' talks with Broncos over Peyton Manning trade this offseason <a href="http://t.co/UuwEP2Y8sB">http://t.co/UuwEP2Y8sB</a></p>— Kevin O'Brien (@Kevobrien7) <a href="https://twitter.com/Kevobrien7/status/613731620495990784">June 24, 2015</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Every consistently good team, after any crazy rookie deal discounts, ties up tons of money into their QBs. And those teams stay good. There isn't a team in football that has stayed good for any extended period without tying up lots of money into their QB. It's really not as difficult as Texans fans make it out to be.
Only the "best of the best QB's" allow for that. All the middling QB's that just signed "big deals" (Dalton, Kap, Tannehill, Newton, Stafford, Matt Ryan) are all at risk of having more cap cuts and still not being able to build a good enough roster to win it all.
You can add Average Joe Flacco to that list. If you don't have an elite level QB, sinking huge money into the position is a great way to put a cap on your team's success. The same thing will probably happen in Seattle once they lose a bunch of guys to sign Wilson to a huge deal. The odds are pretty good that Lynch will be gone meaning they'll have to take the training wheels off of Wilson and make him throw the volume of passes that an average starting QB has to throw.....will he sink or swim?
Like I said, they've failed twice with Manning, they have a young emerging core and Manning's days in the league are numbered. The Colts walked away from him for similar reasons. You're making a general comment without taking into account the Bronco's unique perspective. A guy like Thomas has 10 more years in the league. Manning barely made it through last season. Elway understands the value of a QB as well as any GM. You tie up money into Manning, sure, you get use out of him but in the Bronco's specific case they had to assess what they were jeopardizing long term. Ultimately they chose to go for it all again with Manning, probably a scenario they were already leaning towards. You made a really bland, general comment for the sake of argument. Congratulations.
who is better at solving problems, hardy boys or sherlock? here is what I think happened and it has to do with the philosophy of those quarterback whisperers. entering 2012, Owner and Rick wanted Peyton but Kubiak believed in his system so he vetoed. Forward to now...remembering that owner and rick wanted peyton, kubiak and broncos call the texans, but another quarterback whisperer in b.o.b, who believes in his system says do no want bro, quads to bony. All fun speculation. we will never know til archie says something five years from now. What to take out of all this, B.O.B likes our situation. trust him.
I didn't want him then and don't want him now. Maybe I was wrong to not want him on the Texans then but now it seems the Broncos have too much money tied into him and are trying to get rid of him. Texans could have been in the same position. Unsure QB situation, new coach, new system. Yes, the Broncos have a superbowl appearance to show for it but who is to say that would have happened with the Texans. Especially under Kubiak. Maybe I just can't stand Peyton Manning and letting that cloud my opinion.
Very true. It's not surprising that most non-elite QB's do most of their damage before they get the huge contract that costs their team talent.
I would like to think Payton could come here and help teach the young guys but If Mallet couldn't learn from Brady . . . .. . . .well .. . . . Rocket River
Signed, Gary Kubiak With him now in Denver, perhaps the story is "The Broncos don't need Peyton, they got Osweiler"
It's not a matter of "need" the thought is they can either not make it anywhere with Manning this year and start rebuilding next year or they can get rid of Manning now and start rebuilding immediately.
I'd argue it's true across the board. The teams without the best-of-the-best QBs aren't going to be as consistently successful as the ones with those guys, but it has nothing to do with their pay. It's because they are worse players. And if they didn't pay the QB, they'd be even worse. None of those teams are worse because they signed their QBs and none would have been better off spending that money elsewhere. There's a reason that there are no examples of teams being consistently good over any extended period of time without a solid QB. The Colts walked away because they got a once-in-a-generation type replacement. They aren't jeopardizing anything long-term, though. Every team makes this decision every time. Outside of QBs, NFL player have an average lifespan of something like 4 years. An entire roster can be turned over in a few years. Committing to Manning for another year is not some deathknell to their long-term success and there's nothing unique about Denver's situation. There's a reason that every single team in the NFL pays their good QBs when it comes time for it unless they have a very solid replacement behind them.
