Octopus Overlords

EvilHomer3k wrote:Looks like Denver lost 2 QBs in the last few days. Osweiler going to texas.

It also seems like Forte is headed to the Jets.

I don't think that's a big loss for the Bears. Langford proved very capable and may be better at this point in his career than Forte. Not so for the backups in Denver who have proven nothing.

EvilHomer3k wrote:Looks like Denver lost 2 QBs in the last few days. Osweiler going to texas.

What the hell is Denver thinking?

Maybe the Lions don't need to sign Cook or resign Stafford.. They got all this cap money now.

EvilHomer3k wrote:Looks like Denver lost 2 QBs in the last few days. Osweiler going to texas.

It also seems like Forte is headed to the Jets.

I don't think that's a big loss for the Bears. Langford proved very capable and may be better at this point in his career than Forte. Not so for the backups in Denver who have proven nothing.

I'm not sure Langford is better than Forte (except maybe at the goal line), but the difference isn't worth the salary differential, that's for sure. Look for the Bears to run a 2-back offense this year with Kadeem Carey.

Osweiler was a known commodity in Denver -- and they deemed him not worth the asking price. They are more qualified than anyone to make that call. AFAIK, a QB that simply doesn't make mistakes (but is not an offensive force) isn't worth all that much, and really shouldn't be that hard to find. Getting a good RB (or investing in a better OL) will likely pay better dividends, as well as using some of the savings to pay that awesome defense from last year.

Jeff V wrote:AFAIK, a QB that simply doesn't make mistakes (but is not an offensive force) isn't worth all that much, and really shouldn't be that hard to find.

Apparently unless you are in the NFC North and your name doesn't rhyme with Dodgers.

LordMortis wrote:

Jeff V wrote:AFAIK, a QB that simply doesn't make mistakes (but is not an offensive force) isn't worth all that much, and really shouldn't be that hard to find.

Apparently unless you are in the NFC North and your name doesn't rhyme with Dodgers.

Which team in the NFC north was looking for that sort of QB? The Vikings seem happy with their choice of accessories for Adrian Peterson, while the Bears and Detroit are both designed to complement a downfield pass game and definitely shouldn't be looking for a "game manager" (I always think Kyle Orton when I hear the term) type of QB.

Wow - Osweiler bet on himself and boy did it pay off. Congrats to him.

Jeff V wrote:Which team in the NFC north was looking for that sort of QB? The Vikings seem happy with their choice of accessories for Adrian Peterson, while the Bears and Detroit are both designed to complement a downfield pass game and definitely shouldn't be looking for a "game manager" (I always think Kyle Orton when I hear the term) type of QB.

That's different. Detroit, Minnesota, and Chicago all have QBs that do not meet not hard to find minimum requirement of "a QB that simply doesn't make mistakes (but is not an offensive force)"

Good for Osweiler for getting his money, but what a ridiculous contract for a guy who had only played a handful of games. I liked him as Manning's replacement, but not at $18 million.

I trust Elway and since they've seen the guy for several years, he didn't and wouldn't over pay as Houston did.

Xmann wrote:Good for Osweiler for getting his money, but what a ridiculous contract for a guy who had only played a handful of games. I liked him as Manning's replacement, but not at $18 million.

I trust Elway and since they've seen the guy for several years, he didn't and wouldn't over pay as Houston did.

I mean, how could handing an enormous contract to a backup who looked good in a handful of games not pay off? I'm pretty sure that works 100% of the time.

El Guapo wrote:

Xmann wrote:Good for Osweiler for getting his money, but what a ridiculous contract for a guy who had only played a handful of games. I liked him as Manning's replacement, but not at $18 million.

I trust Elway and since they've seen the guy for several years, he didn't and wouldn't over pay as Houston did.

I mean, how could handing an enormous contract to a backup who looked good in a handful of games not pay off? I'm pretty sure that works 100% of the time.

It worked out pretty well for Scott Mitchell, IIRC.

I saw a tweet that Houston was upgrading their QB by getting someone with a lower QBR and completion percentage than Brian Hoyer had last year...

LordMortis wrote:

Jeff V wrote:Which team in the NFC north was looking for that sort of QB? The Vikings seem happy with their choice of accessories for Adrian Peterson, while the Bears and Detroit are both designed to complement a downfield pass game and definitely shouldn't be looking for a "game manager" (I always think Kyle Orton when I hear the term) type of QB.

That's different. Detroit, Minnesota, and Chicago all have QBs that do not meet not hard to find minimum requirement of "a QB that simply doesn't make mistakes (but is not an offensive force)"

No, I'm not saying that's a minimum requirement, I'm saying that's the sum total of the capabilities of that QB. None of the NFC teams are designed for that kind of QB (although Minnesota comes close).

Xmann wrote:Good for Osweiler for getting his money, but what a ridiculous contract for a guy who had only played a handful of games. I liked him as Manning's replacement, but not at $18 million.

I trust Elway and since they've seen the guy for several years, he didn't and wouldn't over pay as Houston did.

$18 million isn't that much for a starting QB. That puts him at 15th highest around middle of the pack with four others on rookie deals.

edit: also, only $37M guaranteed.
edit2: I was looking at 2017 first.

ImLawBoy wrote:

El Guapo wrote:

Xmann wrote:Good for Osweiler for getting his money, but what a ridiculous contract for a guy who had only played a handful of games. I liked him as Manning's replacement, but not at $18 million.

I trust Elway and since they've seen the guy for several years, he didn't and wouldn't over pay as Houston did.

I mean, how could handing an enormous contract to a backup who looked good in a handful of games not pay off? I'm pretty sure that works 100% of the time.

It worked out pretty well for Scott Mitchell, IIRC.

And former Packer Matt Flynn as well, though he basically made his payday off one game.

And if it doesn't work out they can always give a big contract to Jimmy Garrapalo in a couple years.

Osweiler just raped the Texans. I agree that $18M seems to be the going rate for starting NFL QBs. The problem for Houston is that you don't know if you are getting one.

RunningMn9 wrote:Osweiler just raped the Texans. I agree that $18M seems to be the going rate for starting NFL QBs. The problem for Houston is that you don't know if you are getting one.

Yeah, that's what I believe as well. 7 games is a really small sample to judge. I thought the $45 for 3 years Denver offered was about as much as he could get. But that contract from Houston for 7 games seems crazy.

rshetts2 wrote:

ImLawBoy wrote:

El Guapo wrote:

Xmann wrote:Good for Osweiler for getting his money, but what a ridiculous contract for a guy who had only played a handful of games. I liked him as Manning's replacement, but not at $18 million.

I trust Elway and since they've seen the guy for several years, he didn't and wouldn't over pay as Houston did.

I mean, how could handing an enormous contract to a backup who looked good in a handful of games not pay off? I'm pretty sure that works 100% of the time.

It worked out pretty well for Scott Mitchell, IIRC.

And former Packer Matt Flynn as well, though he basically made his payday off one game.

Let's not forget Rob Johnson.

Xmann wrote:

RunningMn9 wrote:Osweiler just raped the Texans. I agree that $18M seems to be the going rate for starting NFL QBs. The problem for Houston is that you don't know if you are getting one.

Yeah, that's what I believe as well. 7 games is a really small sample to judge. I thought the $45 for 3 years Denver offered was about as much as he could get. But that contract from Houston for 7 games seems crazy.

The Texans are pretty desperate to rebuild their offensive line. The question is whether Osweiler can perform at that level when he doesn't have good enough defense and offensive lines to back him up.

gilraen wrote:

Xmann wrote:

RunningMn9 wrote:Osweiler just raped the Texans. I agree that $18M seems to be the going rate for starting NFL QBs. The problem for Houston is that you don't know if you are getting one.

Yeah, that's what I believe as well. 7 games is a really small sample to judge. I thought the $45 for 3 years Denver offered was about as much as he could get. But that contract from Houston for 7 games seems crazy.

The Texans are pretty desperate to rebuild their offensive line. The question is whether Osweiler can perform at that level when he doesn't have good enough defense and offensive lines to back him up.

Back to the David Carr days?

Now there are reports 4 teams are battling for Broncos starting running back CJ Anderson.

RunningMn9 wrote:Osweiler just raped the Texans. I agree that $18M seems to be the going rate for starting NFL QBs. The problem for Houston is that you don't know if you are getting one.

True, but you never know. Even high first round picks are 75/25 at best.

Xmann wrote:Now there are reports 4 teams are battling for Broncos starting running back CJ Anderson.

And this is why the Bills going to 4 Super Bowls in a row is so impressive even if they lost them all.

I'm not overly concerned yet about the Broncos. They have\had tons of depth at most positions. The defense will still be damn good next year.

They just need a serviceable QB that won't lose games. They won the SB with a QB with one foot in the grave. Manning managed those payoff games and did a good job of letting the defense win it. My concern with the QB position is years to come. I'd honestly like to see them just pick up someone in the draft to develop.

As far as CJ Anderson... he's a decent back, but decent backs are a dime a dozen. They have a couple decent backs on their practice squad now that can play. Question would be how much they value CJ and would they match any teams offer on him.

Moliere wrote:

Xmann wrote:Now there are reports 4 teams are battling for Broncos starting running back CJ Anderson.

And this is why the Bills going to 4 Super Bowls in a row is so impressive even if they lost them all.

Not really. Very different era between now and then. There are a horde of reasons why it is impressive but they have nothing to do with modern free agency.

Moliere wrote:

Xmann wrote:Now there are reports 4 teams are battling for Broncos starting running back CJ Anderson.

And this is why the Bills going to 4 Super Bowls in a row is so impressive even if they lost them all.

With the 2001-04 Eagles being a close second.

For the record, I figure the chances that Osweiler is a quality QB is low. There are all the negatives people have mentioned.

Positives are
Denver upped their offer to $16M per, so it's not like Denver didn't want him, though it was only $30M guaranteed. That guarantee number is a big difference, but I don't think it's crippling.
Once you get past Goff and Wentz, the QB draft looks poor. I know some are high on Paxton Lynch, but even then it seems like it will take him a couple years to develop.
This means Hackenberg isn't plan A.
You get to use your 1st round pick somewhere else.
If Osweiler isn't any good, you'll know sooner than you would drafting a guy.

If I was a betting man, and I'm not, I'd almost guarantee the Broncos trade for Kaepernick today.

Which I might add my wife is excited about. She's a pedestrian fan, but she somehow loves Kaepernick.

Xmann wrote:I'm not overly concerned yet about the Broncos. They have\had tons of depth at most positions. The defense will still be damn good next year.

They just need a serviceable QB that won't lose games. They won the SB with a QB with one foot in the grave. Manning managed those payoff games and did a good job of letting the defense win it. My concern with the QB position is years to come. I'd honestly like to see them just pick up someone in the draft to develop.

As far as CJ Anderson... he's a decent back, but decent backs are a dime a dozen. They have a couple decent backs on their practice squad now that can play. Question would be how much they value CJ and would they match any teams offer on him.

I don't know why the 49ers are interested, as you said he's a decent rb, but we already have a decent rb. we need a QB, WR, and a oline please.

I'll bet CJ gets an offer from Miami today. He is visiting today and the new coach was Anderson's offensive coordinator in Denver a couple years ago.

He's a nice back, but Denver won't break the bank on him to match any offer.

Manziel released

Assuming he clears waivers, Manziel can choose where he wants to play next but has hurdles to clear regarding his behavior. His off-field issues make his immediate future a question mark. Manziel spent 10 weeks in rehab following his rookie season and is the subject of a grand jury investigation in Dallas into whether he assaulted his former girlfriend. The NFL is investigating whether Manziel violated the personal conduct policy in that incident.

Since he spent the weekend of the Browns' season finale in Las Vegas, Manziel has made regular appearances on social media from locales that include Miami, Las Vegas and Los Angeles.

Mark Sanchez to the Broncos

WTF!!!

Xmann wrote:Mark Sanchez to the Broncos

WTF!!!

The Chargers rejoice!

Elway just tweeted this is just the first step in the process of finding a QB.

Got to think Sanchez is just for competition and no real idea he can be the starter.

Right?

Whatever helps you keep your lunch down.

Xmann wrote:Elway just tweeted this is just the first step in the process of finding a QB.

Naturally, a dirty Sanchez is the first step in a lot of processes, why not QB?

Jeff V wrote:

Xmann wrote:Elway just tweeted this is just the first step in the process of finding a QB.

Naturally, a dirty Sanchez is the first step in a lot of processes, why not QB?

Boy is that true... or so I've heard

Honestly Sanchez isn't worse than Manning was much of last season. I'd be more concerned about keeping the defense in tack were I a Broncos fan. Whomever they end up with at QB is not going to be asked to win a lot of games for them. Mostly they will need to not lose them. Sanchez did a great job of that when the Jets had an actual defense. Not that I'd be excited but I wouldn't be all too upset either.

Remus West wrote:defense in tack were I a Broncos fan