Rodgers wants out

[Drj820]

They have
Good backs: Melvin and Javonte (i love Javonte)
Good WRs: Jeudy and Courtland Sutton
Solid TE: Noah Fant
Good Pass Rush; Chubb
Lock Down Corner: Surtain.

They may have some holes, but they certainly have the foundation of everything you want in a roster that you expect to succeed...except QB. And without a QB you stink. I dont know about SB contender with a QB, but instantly a playoff team with any above average QB imo...then with a QB like Rodgers, you never know.

I think the narrative has some merit.

I forgot about Javonte, who is definitely good. I was thinking only about Melvin, who is spent. My bad.

But it's the Jeudy and Fant stuff that, to me, is projecting a ton; neither of those guys have shown they're anything more than prospects yet. Having one good pass rusher doesn't give you a good pass rush. And Surtain has had a nice rookie year, but also too soon for me to say a lot. I mean, is he better than AJ Terrell or Eric Stokes or a bunch of other guys in their first 2 years in the league at CB?

Their defense is within a yard and a half per game of the Packers, their OL isn't as good, their weapons are just young athletes at this point.

I just think we're all giving the Broncos credit for picking guys we liked in the draft (that's media-wide like, not just packer fan like) without much consideration as to whether or not they have actually shown themselves to be good. Like Tim Patrick keeps out-performing Jeudy, who also can't stay on the field. But he was a top 10 pick, so he counts in their favor.

Stokes and Surtain can be similar and that doesn’t diminish Surtain. I wasn’t comparing their roster with ours, I was just speaking on their roster. I think most teams looks for a lock down corner, and I think the Broncos have found theirs.

As for saying Jeudy and Fant are just projections, I would say they have been hindered by trash QB play and the way they are perceived would change dramatically with an Aaron Rodgers type as their Qb.

Also Jeudy hasn’t had some Jamar Chase type career start, but considering his QB has a noodle for an arm..I think he’s off to a fine start. Almost 1000 yards as a rookie.

[Drj820]

As well as Jeudy and Sutton, they have Tim Patrick and Hamler.
As well as Fant they have Albert O.

This, to me, sounds like they have Sutton and some prospects.

This is exactly what I'm talking about here.

The Broncos drafted the way fans think you build an offense and have wanted us to draft--a bunch of flashy weapons--and now we assume they're all good.

But I haven't seen any reason to think this is a team with a lot of weapons on the field. It's a team with a lot of draft capital invested in their offensive skill positions. Not a team with a lot of good weapons.

Tim Patrick being surprisingly useful in fantasy leagues because Jeudy and Hamler can't stay on the field doesn't seem particularly impressive to me.


Anyway, my point is there are plenty of teams with draft capital, geographical change, coaching hire opportunities, ect... that can appeal to Rodgers. We know that the Broncos were interested and have no reason not to remain interested. But I don't see anything dfrom this team to think "gosh, if only they had a QB all of their recent draft picks would become veteran NFL players"

One might say people see similarities between them and the bucs before Brady arrived. Similar records too. Lots of skill position talent, no one to get them the ball downfield without turning it over.

Or even the Broncos before Manning arrived, who went from 8-8 in 2011 to 13-3 when they got elite QB play.

[YoHoChecko]

My point is that the Broncos roster is not particularly better than other teams that need QBs. Every team that needs a QB can say that their weapons are better than their production because of bad QB play. But what's more appealing (aside from geography) about the Broncos' roster than the Steelers' or the Panthers' or even the Giants, who have Golladay and Shepard and Toney at WR and Barkley at RB.

Every team that has bad QB play has guys that would look better if they had good QB play. My point here is that the Broncos' roster doesn't look to me to be much of a tie-breaker in strength of roster, and that I'm confused why people think that it is. I also think coaching will matter a LOT and Fangio is a old school and their OC has produced 2 top-10 offensive years in 14 years of coaching as an OC or HC on 4 different teams.

I don't think they have any more roster appeal than most teams in the league, save the atrocious ones. And the fixation on them as The Team To Watch or the team that is most "a QB away" is a myth built on highly-drafted name recognition.

[YoHoChecko]

One might say people see similarities between them and the bucs before Brady arrived. Similar records too. Lots of skill position talent, no one to get them the ball downfield without turning it over.

Or even the Broncos before Manning arrived, who went from 8-8 in 2011 to 13-3 when they got elite QB play.

Godwin and Evans were Pro Bowlers before Brady arrived. Arians was a multiple-time coach of the year winner before Brady.

[British]

As well as Jeudy and Sutton, they have Tim Patrick and Hamler.
As well as Fant they have Albert O.

This, to me, sounds like they have Sutton and some prospects.

This is exactly what I'm talking about here.

The Broncos drafted the way fans think you build an offense and have wanted us to draft--a bunch of flashy weapons--and now we assume they're all good.

But I haven't seen any reason to think this is a team with a lot of weapons on the field. It's a team with a lot of draft capital invested in their offensive skill positions. Not a team with a lot of good weapons.

Tim Patrick being surprisingly useful in fantasy leagues because Jeudy and Hamler can't stay on the field doesn't seem particularly impressive to me.


Anyway, my point is there are plenty of teams with draft capital, geographical change, coaching hire opportunities, ect... that can appeal to Rodgers. We know that the Broncos were interested and have no reason not to remain interested. But I don't see anything dfrom this team to think "gosh, if only they had a QB all of their recent draft picks would become veteran NFL players"

The Broncos weapons have had Drew Lock and late career Bridgewater trying to throw them the ball.

Of course they aren't going to look great.

MVS, Lazard, Cobb and St Brown are probably pretty trash without the best QB in the league throwing to them.

MVS, Cobb and St Brown are all free agents next year anyway. Plus Devante may be gone too.

You say you don't like Fant or Albert O. But who does Rodgers have at TE next year? Tonyan will be get paid more by someone else which leaves Deguara and Gafney.

The Packers D will look quite different after we cut Z and Preston to get under the cap. If we want to tag Adams we'll probably need to cut Lowry too and Rasul and Campbell may well have played themselves into their first big free agency pay days so don't expect them to come back on a home town discount.

The Broncos don't need to cut any of their D to accommodate Rodgers. They have a ton of cap space to make *improvements* to their roster. The Packers need to cut guys just to be legal on Day 1 of the league year.

[TheSkeptic]

The Broncos O would look a lot better with Rodgers and Adams and they have the cap room to do it. A top 5 D would also look a lot better if they had an O that could score.

[YoHoChecko]

You guys aren't getting my point.

OF COURSE the Broncos' weapons would look better with Rodgers than their current QBs. My ppoint is that the Steelers' weapons (JuJu, Diaonte, Friermuth) are more proven and also would look better with Rodgers. The Giants weapons (Barkley, Golladay, Shepherd, Toney) would also look betterwith Rodgers. The Panthers' weapons (DJ Moore, Robby Anderson, CMC) would also look better with Rodgers. The Colts' weapons (Pittman, Taylor, Hilton, Mo-Allie and Doyle) would also look better with Rodgers. The Raiders' weapons (Renfrow, Zay Jones, Waller) would also look better with Rodgers.

I'm saying that the attention paid to the Broncos weapon prospects is outsized and over-estimates their players relative to the alternative players around the league playing for teams that also need QBs. And that I don't know why Sutton and Jeudy and Fant is more appealing to everyone than JuJu and Dionte and Freiermuth, just as an example. These Broncos guys haven't proven themselves more valuable in the NFL than most team's weapons. But we're treating them as if they have.

[British]

My point is that the Broncos roster is not particularly better than other teams that need QBs. Every team that needs a QB can say that their weapons are better than their production because of bad QB play. But what's more appealing (aside from geography) about the Broncos' roster than the Steelers' or the Panthers' or even the Giants, who have Golladay and Shepard and Toney at WR and Barkley at RB.

Every team that has bad QB play has guys that would look better if they had good QB play. My point here is that the Broncos' roster doesn't look to me to be much of a tie-breaker in strength of roster, and that I'm confused why people think that it is. I also think coaching will matter a LOT and Fangio is a old school and their OC has produced 2 top-10 offensive years in 14 years of coaching as an OC or HC on 4 different teams.

I don't think they have any more roster appeal than most teams in the league, save the atrocious ones. And the fixation on them as The Team To Watch or the team that is most "a QB away" is a myth built on highly-drafted name recognition.

The reason people don't focus on the Giants and Panthers is they are in the NFC and you'd think the Packers would try not to trade Rodgers within the conference. Plus the Giants have much less cap space than the Broncos.

That leaves the Steelers, who have also been named as a possible landing spot. They have lots of cap space and a need at QB. But their D isn't as good as the Broncos and they won't fire their head coach to make room for Nathaniel Hackett.

Plus Pittsburgh isn't on the West Coast where Rodgers is believed to prefer to live and his fiancée doesn't live in the state.

The Raiders could work but their overall team is less impressive than the Broncos. Renfrow has had a good year but outside of Waller they don't have much now Ruggs has gone.

The Colts won't trade for Rodgers, they just gave up a first for Wentz who Reich loves.

So that's why people post about where the Denver draft pick is likely to be in the '22 draft.

[YoHoChecko]

I hate to break this to a lot of people, but Denver is also not on the west coast.

[Drj820]

You guys aren't getting my point.

OF COURSE the Broncos' weapons would look better with Rodgers than their current QBs. My ppoint is that the Steelers' weapons (JuJu, Diaonte, Friermuth) are more proven and also would look better with Rodgers. The Giants weapons (Barkley, Golladay, Shepherd, Toney) would also look betterwith Rodgers. The Panthers' weapons (DJ Moore, Robby Anderson, CMC) would also look better with Rodgers. The Colts' weapons (Pittman, Taylor, Hilton, Mo-Allie and Doyle) would also look better with Rodgers. The Raiders' weapons (Renfrow, Zay Jones, Waller) would also look better with Rodgers.

I'm saying that the attention paid to the Broncos weapon prospects is outsized and over-estimates their players relative to the alternative players around the league playing for teams that also need QBs. And that I don't know why Sutton and Jeudy and Fant is more appealing to everyone than JuJu and Dionte and Freiermuth, just as an example. These Broncos guys haven't proven themselves more valuable in the NFL than most team's weapons. But we're treating them as if they have.

it seemed like your point was that the Broncos are not actually "a QB away"

I believe most of us were just disagreeing with you and saying they are at least pretty close to "just a QB away" from being contenders.

Now, other teams very well may just be a QB away too. I was not saying the Broncos were the only team that are. Rodgers could make a lot of teams instant contenders. Hes the MVP.

[British]

I hate to break this to a lot of people, but Denver is also not on the west coast.

It's a lot closer than Green Bay and Pittsburgh. And it has his fiancée which you'd think might be a draw considering she's not visited him in Green Bay.

[Drj820]

I also don't buy that they have a great roster and just need a QB; seems to me like they have some name recognition young weapons that we liked in the draft, a bad RB situation, a mediocre OL, a mediocre defense, and a not-particularly-innovative coaching staff

[mention]YoHoChecko[/mention]

Just to let ya know, i believe this section of your post is what people were directly responding to.

[YoHoChecko]

it seemed like your point was that the Broncos are not actually "a QB away"

I believe most of us were just disagreeing with you and saying they are at least pretty close to "just a QB away" from being contenders.

Now, other teams very well may just be a QB away too. I was not saying the Broncos were the only team that are. Rodgers could make a lot of teams instant contenders. Hes the MVP.

My point has always been that the Broncos are not any more "a QB away" than a broad swath of similar middling teams. I don't believe almost any of them are a QB away because I think the things we are valuing when making those assessments are relatively unrelated to winning in the NFL, but that's a whole different topic.

My point was simply that there is nothing about Denver's roster that screams to me that we should pay more attention to them as apotential landing spot than a lot of other places; and that the non-roster elements are mixed. If Rodgers just wants to live in Colorado or as close to it as possible, they're the team to watch. If Rodgers has a couple different geographic pockets that he prefers to play in, then it just opens up that door.

And I think there are teams whose rosters and geographies could present a similar level of appeal.

My point has been that honing in on just the Broncos seems overly narrow and incredibly speculative, since none of us were really privvy to any knowledge of what Rodgers was/is actually looking for.

I think the nearly single-minded focus on Denver is simply too small a window and that nothing about their roster, absolutely nothing about their coach, make them far-and-away the best or only good landing spot for an elite QB. And that other teams may enter the ring and make a play, and so we should keep our minds open to all the potential opportunities.

If I recall correctly, the Bucs were not one of the "rumored Brady landing spots" leading up to free agency until right at the end. Things don't always go as expected, and the focus on Denver, to me, has been weirdly strong and overly specific.

[Drj820]

it seemed like your point was that the Broncos are not actually "a QB away"

I believe most of us were just disagreeing with you and saying they are at least pretty close to "just a QB away" from being contenders.

Now, other teams very well may just be a QB away too. I was not saying the Broncos were the only team that are. Rodgers could make a lot of teams instant contenders. Hes the MVP.

My point has always been that the Broncos are not any more "a QB away" than a broad swath of similar middling teams. I don't believe almost any of them are a QB away because I think the things we are valuing when making those assessments are relatively unrelated to winning in the NFL, but that's a whole different topic.

My point was simply that there is nothing about Denver's roster that screams to me that we should pay more attention to them as apotential landing spot than a lot of other places; and that the non-roster elements are mixed. If Rodgers just wants to live in Colorado or as close to it as possible, they're the team to watch. If Rodgers has a couple different geographic pockets that he prefers to play in, then it just opens up that door.

And I think there are teams whose rosters and geographies could present a similar level of appeal.

My point has been that honing in on just the Broncos seems overly narrow and incredibly speculative, since none of us were really privvy to any knowledge of what Rodgers was/is actually looking for.

I think the nearly single-minded focus on Denver is simply too small a window and that nothing about their roster, absolutely nothing about their coach, make them far-and-away the best or only good landing spot for an elite QB. And that other teams may enter the ring and make a play, and so we should keep our minds open to all the potential opportunities.

If I recall correctly, the Bucs were not one of the "rumored Brady landing spots" leading up to free agency until right at the end. Things don't always go as expected, and the focus on Denver, to me, has been weirdly strong and overly specific.

I mean somebody just posted where the Broncos will be picking in the draft and someone said they hope their pick improves. Not that big of a deal considering they are a team that was HOT in the rumor mill last season. I welcome anyone to post the draft slots of any potential trade partners in the upcoming potential rodgers sweepstakes. Good info to know.

[YoHoChecko]

I mean somebody just posted where the Broncos will be picking in the draft and someone said they hope their pick improves. Not that big of a deal considering they are a team that was HOT in the rumor mill last season. I welcome anyone to post the draft slots of any potential trade partners in the upcoming potential rodgers sweepstakes. Good info to know.

Yes. Two people posted about the Broncos' draft pick, and neither posted about anyone else's draft pick.

And I simply replied that I don't think they're the only team to keep an eye on, and I'm not sure why people are focusing on them so specifically. Y'all are the ones that challenged my characterization.

This is my first post in response. Did I overreact?

I mean I don't see much reason to read into where the Broncos will pick more than any other QB-needy team. They were last season's front-runners for Rodgers--at a time when he was not available for sale; doesn't necessarily mean they'll be this year's, when he is, and thus more teams might explore what is a more realistic option. (I also don't buy that they have a great roster and just need a QB; seems to me like they have some name recognition young weapons that we liked in the draft, a bad RB situation, a mediocre OL, a mediocre defense, and a not-particularly-innovative coaching staff)

But people keep telling me they're a great roster that's a QB away from contending, so I guess the narrative is well-established and set in.

The part about the quality of the Broncos' roster was literally a parenthetical. It was so tangential to my post that I punctuated it as such.

[British]

This year's off-season is going to be so fun

[bud fox]

Under the new 'agreement' between Rodgers and the pack, can they even trade him if he doesn't want to go to a certain place? I remember reading that they voided the last year and agreed to work with teams of his choice if a trade were to happen.

[YoHoChecko]

This year's off-season is going to be so fun

Literally three days after telling some posters that I don't like digging into the offseason details at a deep level until the excitement of the season begins to wane, I started a multi-tab spreadsheet of various contract extensions and scenarios I may be willing to enact in order to keep Rodgers, keep Adams and trade Rodgers, keep both, etc.

QB contracts are ugly these days, man. Looking at annual cap numbers for Mahomes is silly because his deal is structured in a such a way that they won't ever actually be what's in print until the roster bonuses are converted annually. But Dak and Allen and Wilson? Those guys are carrying ~$40 millio cap charges into years they might actually stay that way. It's gross working out those deals.

[Drj820]

I mean somebody just posted where the Broncos will be picking in the draft and someone said they hope their pick improves. Not that big of a deal considering they are a team that was HOT in the rumor mill last season. I welcome anyone to post the draft slots of any potential trade partners in the upcoming potential rodgers sweepstakes. Good info to know.

Yes. Two people posted about the Broncos' draft pick, and neither posted about anyone else's draft pick.

And I simply replied that I don't think they're the only team to keep an eye on, and I'm not sure why people are focusing on them so specifically. Y'all are the ones that challenged my characterization.

This is my first post in response. Did I overreact?

I mean I don't see much reason to read into where the Broncos will pick more than any other QB-needy team. They were last season's front-runners for Rodgers--at a time when he was not available for sale; doesn't necessarily mean they'll be this year's, when he is, and thus more teams might explore what is a more realistic option. (I also don't buy that they have a great roster and just need a QB; seems to me like they have some name recognition young weapons that we liked in the draft, a bad RB situation, a mediocre OL, a mediocre defense, and a not-particularly-innovative coaching staff)

But people keep telling me they're a great roster that's a QB away from contending, so I guess the narrative is well-established and set in.

The part about the quality of the Broncos' roster was literally a parenthetical. It was so tangential to my post that I punctuated it as such.

This is kind of silly man. You said you were mischaracterized...I was just telling you the part of your post that people really disagreed with and it sprung forth a debate. You dont think the Broncos are a QB away, many of us do. Whether it was a small part of your post or not, the opinion that you typed out stirred a nice debate on the Broncos roster. I think thats awesome because I love debate.

As for whether other teams are also only a QB away...I totally agree.

As for people posting the Broncos draft selections...I enjoyed seeing it and hope to be made aware of other potential trade partners draft position. But it is no mystery why people would talk about the broncos considering the full court press they apparently put on last year. I understand it.

[bud fox]

This year's off-season is going to be so fun

Literally three days after telling some posters that I don't like digging into the offseason details at a deep level until the excitement of the season begins to wane, I started a multi-tab spreadsheet of various contract extensions and scenarios I may be willing to enact in order to keep Rodgers, keep Adams and trade Rodgers, keep both, etc.

QB contracts are ugly these days, man. Looking at annual cap numbers for Mahomes is silly because his deal is structured in a such a way that they won't ever actually be what's in print until the roster bonuses are converted annually. But Dak and Allen and Wilson? Those guys are carrying ~$40 millio cap charges into years they might actually stay that way. It's gross working out those deals.

What is your best scenario for keeping Rodgers? Because i kinda think he stays but i defnitely hope he does.