Operating with Rams-level disregard for first-round picks over the previous two offseasons, the Broncos traded three Round 1 selections in the Russell Wilson and Sean Payton swaps. The team does not have a second-round pick this year as a result of the latter move. As quarterback-needy teams’ draft arsenals are stacked up, the Broncos’ war chest is limited.
Denver holds the No. 12 overall pick, and while it retains its first- and second-rounders beyond this year, Minnesota and Las Vegas are in better position regarding draft capital. Both the Vikings and Raiders also identified clear bridge options for 2024, with Sam Darnold and Gardner Minshew coming off the free agency board early. This certainly leaves the Broncos with work to do, unless they truly are OK with Jarrett Stidham starting a sizable chunk of the 2024 season.
Teams are obviously monitoring the Broncos as a team interested in a QB, and the Washington Post’s Jason La Canfora indicates a heavy expectation exists the AFC West club will draft a passer at some point in Round 1.
Options to do so would range from trading up — and parting with a major asset package — to making sure either Bo Nix or Michael Penix Jr. comes to Colorado via a No. 12 investment. Option three would involve attempting to both grab one of those passers later in the round while picking up some assets by moving down. It could be a complicated night for the Broncos, who are set to eat more than $50MM of Wilson’s record-setting $85MM in dead money this year.
It cost the 49ers two future first-round picks and a third-rounder to move from No. 12 to No. 3 for Trey Lance in 2021. For the Broncos to consider a similar package to climb into the top three would shove them into Rams territory. While Los Angeles famously did not made a first-round pick from 2017-23, that team reaped rewards for the bevy of moves out of Round 1. The Wilson trade burned the Broncos, and making another big move because the 2022 swap failed would deprive the franchise of opportunities to add high-end talent at low costs. Given the dead money from the Wilson contract, the Broncos need cost-controlled assets — even though they also need a quarterback.
On this note, NFL.com’s Peter Schrager adds the team would love to move into the top four to draft a QB but, due to the cost of such a move, stops short of predicting they will do this. Denver also possesses needs at cornerback opposite Patrick Surtain and perhaps at edge rusher.
Unless the Broncos want to entertain a Surtain trade — something one GM informed La Canfora they could be willing to do, given the rumblings at the 2023 trade deadline — future draft capital would need to be used to climb up the draft board. The Broncos are eyeing a long-term Surtain extension, and they wanted at least two first-rounders for the All-Pro cornerback in the fall. A separate GM, however, said the Broncos were more likely to hang onto Surtain due to Payton not viewing this as a long-term rebuild project.
Both the Broncos and Vikings were mentioned as having done early work on QBs (with regards to moving up) back in February, but Minnesota acquiring No. 23 overall from Houston has led to far more buzz on the NFC North team moving up. Still, a recent offering from ESPN.com’s Jeremy Fowler reveals multiple teams believe the Broncos or Vikings could loom as destinations for J.J. McCarthy. The Michigan alum looks to have rocketed up the draft board during the pre-draft process, impressing at his pro day after winning a national championship.
A fit in Payton’s scheme points to the Denver tie, Fowler adds. McCarthy could be the target for teams outside the top four, with the Cardinals making it known they are willing to trade down. It would cost the Broncos at least one future first and perhaps two. That will be a big decision to make, as Payton’s choice to re-enter the coaching ranks would see a radically adjusted arc if the team he ended up with sacrifices more future firsts as his tenure takes shape. The Broncos did host McCarthy on a “30” visit this year.
While Payton famously said the Saints were eyeing Patrick Mahomes as a Drew Brees heir apparent in 2017, a move to secure the Broncos a potential long-term option — unless the Nix ties prove genuine — could be quite costly. This will be an interesting team to watch in the coming days and once the draft starts.
Being a jerk towards your players only works if you’re winning. Just ask Bill B about that.
Sean Payton the most overrated coach in football showed last year you are a good coach if you have great players that would make anyone look good. So nice to see him fail and fail hard.
blurrr
Last year showed? He made rus look semi competent, and took a 3-4 win team to 8 wins.
Yeah, I can’t reply directly to that guy, but I’m confused as to how last year could be considered a complete failure. Denver improved in every conceivable offensive statistic, overall wins, and in Wilson’s personal stats. Payton may or may not be overrated (I personally disagree), but the Broncos categorically improved from before, and were within a game of a playoff spot. Certainly there is room for improvement, but it’s not bad for a first year.
If they force this QB pick or waste picks moving up for another one, that could make things worse, however.
Even Russell Wilson looked competent after being completely lost the year before.
Sean is a good coach. Sure, he has a bit of diva complex – but this is the NFL. All the great players do too. I think a piece of that mentality might be the price of admission to the league to different degrees.
Im still a Sean Mcdermott guy, despite his deficiencies, but if he were to be replaced by Payton (theoretically) Id be very satisfied.
A true LOL! moment. Just in my amateur opinion, they were a bad team. That they won 5 in a row, including KC, Buffalo, GB, and the Browns was one of the craziest things I have ever seen. He should’ve been awarded coach of the year halfway thru the season.
I’m not a Broncos fan by any stretch, and I know this will never happen, especially considering the Sean Payton contract, but if I were the Broncos, I’d bite the bullet and trade the #12 pick if I could for future draft assets. They will not be very good this season, and will be hampered next season as well by the remainder of dead money from Wilson’s contract, but maybe they can begin rebuilding next season anyway. Teams who don’t learn from the Broncos’ foolish overpayment (and Browns’, too) in draft capital and salary cap portion to secure a franchise quarterback are setting themselves up for a similar long-term franchise-crippling boondoggle. By the way, I LOVE the jabs at the Rams’ “disregard for first-round picks.” Hilarious.
Agreed. Although, despite Denver’s moves, anyone would be hard-pressed to match the Rams in that department.
Rams have the Lombardi though. And plenty of winning seasons w/ how they their value of trading draft picks.
Recently? Sure. But Kansas City has more of that the Rams do in the last decade. Several teams do-despite all of their chest pounding about being callous with picks or contracts, they’re only 9th in win percentage over the last ten years. It’s not too hard to sell everything you have, and if you do it for so many years, you SHOULD win one or more. Given how much and how often the Rams sellout, I’d have expected more than just the one, personally.
Denver’s win may be fading in the rear view, but it was less than ten years ago. I don’t think that I could fully endorse the Rams’ strategy after it produced the same number of Super Bowls and appearances as Denver’s has in the last decade, a time period in which two other teams (Kansas City and New England) each won multiple rings, and three other teams (Philadelphia, Seattle, and San Francisco) matched them in appearances. They spent a lot to rent that team, more than the competition, and it only got them about as far or behind the others (even with a generational player in Donald, which is more than three other non-Denver “appearance” teams).
I remember doing this song and dance last year. The Rams paid the price in 2022 due to massive injuries across the board. They made the playoffs in 2023 and just had a good offseason with a full board of picks. There were literally 3 players from their draft class last year who would be 1st rounders in a re-draft. They didn’t sell put anything. McVay will get any healthy roster to the playoffs
I disagree that injuries determined the Rams’ fate more than any other team. That is why picks are important-with picks, you get depth, which the Rams didn’t have because…well, they either traded them, or didn’t re-sign their nonstars. It’d be one thing if this were just a theoretical or hypothetical discussion regarding the Rams’ strategy, but Snead himself fully embraced the idea, the terminology, and even the merchandise. It’s an evaluation with his full endorsement.
I agree about McVay, though. He’s an excellent coach. He was a bit too inexperienced and inflexible when he lost to Belichick’s Patriots years ago, but he’s learned from that in terms of adaptability, which is laudable. It’s one if the reasons that he outcoached what was arguably a more skilled Bengals team to clinch his ring. He’s one of the best coaches in the league. Having McVay and also the ability to not worry about the defensive line due to a generational player gave Snead a lot more freedom to play around with his other picks in a way that probably wouldn’t have worked on other teams. For all of that, Snead still only has one ring to show for it. Just to note, Snead’s record before McVay was 31-50. After? 70-45. Some of that was due to Fisher’s incompetence, and some due to Kroenke’s refusal to adequately improve until the team moved, but I don’t think that that lets Snead off the hook.
I think that, with a better philosophy and a better GM who was more skilled in spending his resources and building depth, the Rams could have had even more success than they did. Remember, there were trades that Snead tried to make and was rebuffed, like the incredulously inane Burns proposal (that Carolina inexplicably rejected). For all that they did spend, they should have won more, I think. It’d be interesting to see what McVay could do with a more skilled GM. As for Denver…no, I wouldn’t advocate taking the Rams’ approach. For all they’ve spent, Denver and L.A. have the same number of Super Bowls and appearances in the last decade. The teams that won more balanced acquisition and depth, which the Rams have not.
Deep down everyone knows they were tanking to get out of St Louis so I only judge Les based on LA. And even then they drafted well in St Louis just had no franchise QB. Les has executed a retool perfectly after the Super Bowl. He went all in when they had a chance and were greatly rewarded. Who was the last team not named Chiefs to win a championship? Ask the 49ers how easy it is to win a title in the Mahomes era. Buccaneers are still paying for theirs which came one year before the Rams. Les didn’t have a 2023 first and still managed the 2nd best draft class behind Houston. Now they have 4 picks in the first three rounds and filled holes at free agency. Oh and all those free agent signings were 3 years in length so they can pay the 2023 draft class when they are free agents. Even with Donald retiring the Rams super bowl window is open again because our front office was smart to gut it for one offseason. Cowboys have the “balanced approach”. They never trade picks or even sign big free agents. How is it working out for them?
Of course KC does. They have the best QB & HC in the league. I don’t ‘rank’ GM’s but Brett V clearly is among the best.
Both Philly and San Fran have traded high end draft picks for vets during the H Roseman & Lynch era’s. Two examples, Brown was traded for a 1st & change. McCaffery went for 3(?) picks in 1 draft. Howie flipped 2 picks and a young player for Byard last year as well. The dynamite Seattle teams were drafted, but they traded for M Lynch, who was the catalyst for their offense.
As for NE, they proved to be well below average w/o Tom. But Bill also valued vets over rookies.
Rookies are an unknown commodity. 50% of the top 10 picks drafted next week most likely won’t pan out w/ the team that draft’s them. Some will flop and be out of the league. Maybe 1 or 2 will re-up w/ the team that picks them. That’s a fact. Everyone claimed that Trevor L was a ‘generational QB’. Not so far, solid B to B+ ranking. But clearly not top 5 in the league. No one knows how players will pan out. Or the Raiders 1st round pick WR that killed the lady and her dog in Vegas car accident and now Rice’s accident? Sometimes it’s smart to get mature players that respect their wealth, but prioritize football over being a knucklehead.
The Rams don’t live in cap purgatory, they always field competitive teams, and have an awesome HC w/ a GM willing to risk future capital to win every year. Plus their philosophy has landed them in 2 SB’s & 3 division titles. Hard to argue with that; 90% of the league would take that all day long.
A perfect example of why using picks for players would be GB. They have 11 picks this year. Not all are making the team or even practice squad. If Brian G would have traded some of those picks to shore up the roster last year, they could have beat SF & maybe even KC. I’m perfectly fine when a GM trades higher end draft picks to win now which is what Brian should have done last year. Should have flipped a 2nd for Sweat and had more sacks. Worked wonders for the Bears, right?
I didn’t say that picks shouldn’t be traded for players. Far from it, arty. I think that Green Bay’s strategy is far too conservative (as well as poorly executed, at least in the twilight of Rodgers’ career). But those teams that you mentioned struck a balance between drafting talent and acquiring it with picks. The 9ers’ one exception, the Lance trade, is universally regarded as a blunder and historically terrible decision that the team managed to recover from and indeed totally eliminate…with the help of a rookie seventh round pick. The selection of Lance would have just been a wasted pick had it just been a single slot. The trade up was an awful idea.
Being careless with picks has consequences, and the 9ers’ depth selections ended up saving them. The Rams have been bitten by injury bugs before, exposing a top heavy roster with little depth. Do you think that that strategy will bear fruit for most teams? How many of the players from that championship run played more than two seasons for the team? Should you get less than four years’ worth of playing time from a first round pick and consider that a solid investment on a regular basis?
Trades are hood, as supplemental pieces to an already established roster. There’s a point where a team starts emptying the well without water left for the summer. If Gutekunst trades, say, four of the picks in your example, he still has seven-including, possibly, his first. That’s a normal number of picks. If he doesn’t, he gets to pick the best from eleven players as opposed to seven who can be added as depth to his roster, or as starters. I named you several who have had similar results-some better-without the same short term focus. The Rams have a great coach who insures that they remain relevant year in and year out, but they could have more success with better roster building, depth, and long term vision. Now that Donald is retired, they’ll have to start spending higher picks on the D-line to fill that gap, as well. The philosophy can’t continue to rely on a generational player to not need picks anymore.
Bills GM said this at the combine “If [trading up for Allen] didn’t work out, I wouldn’t be here anyway,” Beane said. “If it does work out, then who gives a (bleep)?”. 100% spot on. Teams have to take risks. Some pan out, some don’t.
If you’re going to knit pick every decision made by every team, you’ll not find one w/o flaws. The Rams philosophy has won for 1 major specific reason, Sean McVay. When you have a potential HoF HC, give him what he needs to win. Simple as that. If he were to coach for 15 years, which I’m not sure he will, he’d be in Canton.
The entire AFC & NFC South (less the Tom years), Cards, Jets, Giants, Browns, Raiders, Chargers, Boys, DC, Lions, & Vikes would take the Rams success in a heartbeat.
Saying the Rams could’ve had more success is the major disconnect I am having with your view. Rams have been to two NFC Championships and won them both. If they held back a little bit could they have been the Bills making the 2nd round every season? Sure. The Bills GM basically came out and said they didn’t want to end up like the Rams. That’s fine. We don’t want to end up ringless like the Bills. Fact of the matter is the Rams capitalized on what they could and now SoFi has a banner. Donald retiring is a massive hole in leadership but he was starting to slow down on the field. They were taking a dline round 1 regardless its just a matter of DT or edge. We literally got the best WR in the draft class at the end of round 5. And the best RB in the 2022 draft class in round 5. I am pretty sure that is not relying on generational players for success
A perfect example of why using picks for players would be GB
========================
I agree here. I usually have no problem trading back. But if you have a lot of picks, I’d combine a few to trade up for a premier player, and still have enough picks left over for depth.
Taking a quarterback just for the sake of taking a quarterback is how you end up in this position.
I mean, why not? You need one to succeed. If he’s bad then you tank in a few years.
Draft a QB?!? But they have Gucci Dinucci set to take over…
They can trade back in the 1st, get extra picks, and still get the guy they want–Bo Nix.
Honestly Broncos should trade Surtain. Ideally out of the AFC but whoever is the highest bidder is the highest bidder.
49ers
Eagles
Packers
Cowboys
Definitely think if push came to shove in a bidding war you could possibly get 3 1st rounders out of someone or at the very least 2 1st rounds, maybe a 2nd and maybe a 3rd or 4th.
But Denver definitely needs draft picks
Broncos will not make the playoffs no matter who they draft. One player will not change the whole team. Stidham will be as good as any rookie QB this year so why bother?