Thread: After Not Rushing Drew Lock, the Broncos’ Patience Is Paying Off

Originally Posted by G_Money

The Broncos did not want to play Lock to start the year. That's fine - I didn't want Lock to start Week 1 either.

But then they restructured Flacco's deal right before the season, which means they will suffer if they cut him after this year. Now that doesn't make a lot of sense if the plan is to work Lock in during the season sometime.

Of course Lock was injured, so maybe they figured they'd redshirt him - but being as bad as they were meant that they would be drafting high in the first round again and needed to know if Lock was worth foregoing another top QB draft option in favor of help in other areas. So he HAD to play.

They still wouldn't "rush" him or even commit to pulling him off IR. If Brandon Allen had not completely faceplanted in bad weather and put up one of the worst Broncos performances in decades on offense, Lock might not have gotten on the field still. They were talking about holding him until the last 2 or 3 games of the year.

Drew took good advantage of his time healing and recovering. The VR system seems to have helped with his reads. He has had more time to get comfortable with what is being asked of him. But Denver can't really sell this as the plan all along, because it wasn't. It took a lot of carnage to get here. The 11-car pileup that was Denver's first 11 games resulted in what looks like the correct deployment schedule for Lock, and I'm glad. I wanted to see a bunch of him so that Denver could see what he offered over several games, and enough game tape for teams to adjust, before the draft decisions had to be made.

Lock is playing it like he really is the QBOTF. Sometimes you just get lucky in how that comes about. Denver's next goal should be to keep him alive. Fix the line, yo. It helps now that the first round pick won't be a QB, like it helped that Denver managed to snag Lock in the 2nd after passing on him in the first.

But thank luck, not planning. It wasn't great process to get here, so try to enact better process in giving your newly-minted QBOTF his best chance at long-term success please.

They wont suffer, its THE SAME MONEY, just pushed out until next year, so they would have payed him this year instead of next, its a push. As far as i can see from all the cap sites and here on the board.

Originally Posted by G_Money

The Broncos did not want to play Lock to start the year. That's fine - I didn't want Lock to start Week 1 either.

But then they restructured Flacco's deal right before the season, which means they will suffer if they cut him after this year. Now that doesn't make a lot of sense if the plan is to work Lock in during the season sometime.

Of course Lock was injured, so maybe they figured they'd redshirt him - but being as bad as they were meant that they would be drafting high in the first round again and needed to know if Lock was worth foregoing another top QB draft option in favor of help in other areas. So he HAD to play.

They still wouldn't "rush" him or even commit to pulling him off IR. If Brandon Allen had not completely faceplanted in bad weather and put up one of the worst Broncos performances in decades on offense, Lock might not have gotten on the field still. They were talking about holding him until the last 2 or 3 games of the year.

Drew took good advantage of his time healing and recovering. The VR system seems to have helped with his reads. He has had more time to get comfortable with what is being asked of him. But Denver can't really sell this as the plan all along, because it wasn't. It took a lot of carnage to get here. The 11-car pileup that was Denver's first 11 games resulted in what looks like the correct deployment schedule for Lock, and I'm glad. I wanted to see a bunch of him so that Denver could see what he offered over several games, and enough game tape for teams to adjust, before the draft decisions had to be made.

Lock is playing it like he really is the QBOTF. Sometimes you just get lucky in how that comes about. Denver's next goal should be to keep him alive. Fix the line, yo. It helps now that the first round pick won't be a QB, like it helped that Denver managed to snag Lock in the 2nd after passing on him in the first.

But thank luck, not planning. It wasn't great process to get here, so try to enact better process in giving your newly-minted QBOTF his best chance at long-term success please.

Great post as always and i agree 100%.

Originally Posted by G_Money

The Broncos did not want to play Lock to start the year. That's fine - I didn't want Lock to start Week 1 either.

But then they restructured Flacco's deal right before the season, which means they will suffer if they cut him after this year. Now that doesn't make a lot of sense if the plan is to work Lock in during the season sometime.

Of course Lock was injured, so maybe they figured they'd redshirt him - but being as bad as they were meant that they would be drafting high in the first round again and needed to know if Lock was worth foregoing another top QB draft option in favor of help in other areas. So he HAD to play.

They still wouldn't "rush" him or even commit to pulling him off IR. If Brandon Allen had not completely faceplanted in bad weather and put up one of the worst Broncos performances in decades on offense, Lock might not have gotten on the field still. They were talking about holding him until the last 2 or 3 games of the year.

Drew took good advantage of his time healing and recovering. The VR system seems to have helped with his reads. He has had more time to get comfortable with what is being asked of him. But Denver can't really sell this as the plan all along, because it wasn't. It took a lot of carnage to get here. The 11-car pileup that was Denver's first 11 games resulted in what looks like the correct deployment schedule for Lock, and I'm glad. I wanted to see a bunch of him so that Denver could see what he offered over several games, and enough game tape for teams to adjust, before the draft decisions had to be made.

Lock is playing it like he really is the QBOTF. Sometimes you just get lucky in how that comes about. Denver's next goal should be to keep him alive. Fix the line, yo. It helps now that the first round pick won't be a QB, like it helped that Denver managed to snag Lock in the 2nd after passing on him in the first.

But thank luck, not planning. It wasn't great process to get here, so try to enact better process in giving your newly-minted QBOTF his best chance at long-term success please.

Exactly. The Flacco restructure really looks like Lock wasn't in the cards the first year. The very conservative route we took with him with that 4-6 week injury and keeping him out of the lineup also speaks to that. It does look like we really thought Flacco was the man for us.

But, plans change in response to shit that happens. Flacco was really bad and got hurt. We had to trot out Allen when Lock maybe *should* have been available sooner. Those were dead weeks. BUT, we here now! Lock got out there and has played at a high level. We caught a break after we probably made some strategic mistakes.

I hope we trade up for that UG LT.

Makes me wonder if the colts had luck sit behind manning for two years how different their franchise would be now and how different lucks career would have been

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

I am old - I think rookie QB's belong on the sidelines with a clip-board tp start their careers, watching and learning. This approach seems to have paid off with young Mr. Lock

Absolutely. I think I read or heard an announcer say that I guess during practice, they had a helmet cam on Flacco and Lock was then using virtual reality goggles to see what Flacco saw. I know there are many that felt he should have been thrown out there sooner, but he had a LOT to learn, and how bad he was in the HOF game, and then how he progressed in each of his three appearances shows both that he can improve, but also that he has so much to learn. Same with his two starts -- he was much better in the second than the first.

Look at how often, even right before he's about to take the snap, he's looking at his wrist band. This is a kid who appears to be a very good thrower, and natural passer (making progressions, moving from pressure, throwing receiver open), but who is still learning how to be a pro QB.

Originally Posted by King87

Maybe I was wrong and overly harsh.

You?

Never!!!!

Originally Posted by G_Money

The Broncos did not want to play Lock to start the year. That's fine - I didn't want Lock to start Week 1 either.

But then they restructured Flacco's deal right before the season, which means they will suffer if they cut him after this year. Now that doesn't make a lot of sense if the plan is to work Lock in during the season sometime.

I don't think they are going to suffer at all. My understanding is there was no change in the guaranteed money, all they did was convert current salary to a signing bonus to free up cap space this year. As they are currently sitting with about $15 million in cap, which will be rolled into next year, where they will take about a $12 million hit for cutting Flacco, it's a net zero difference from what I can tell. If they had kept it all as salary this year, they would only be rolling $3 million in excess cap into next year. By restructuring, and cutting him, they will roll in $15 million and $12 of it will be lost to Flacco's dead money, and the end result will be the same $3 million.

So, there is no impact to cap or cash, because they didn't add additional guaranteed money.

On the other hand, if Lock had proven to be a multi-year project and they started Flacco or two or more years, then the restructure was going to benefit the Broncos. So, bottom line, it wouldn't hurt them if Lock was the 2020 starter, but would help them if Flacco was.

That's my understanding of the restructure -- could be wrong, but I think the above is accurate.

Originally Posted by Krugan

They wont suffer, its THE SAME MONEY, just pushed out until next year, so they would have payed him this year instead of next, its a push. As far as i can see from all the cap sites and here on the board.

The Broncos - before the restructuring - could have cut Flacco easily since none of his contract had guaranteed money on it. Instead they converted a bunch of his 2019 salary to a signing bonus so they could spread it out across future years and use more money this year to bolster this roster which.... yeah, that didn't go well.

Now they owe that remaining guaranteed signing bonus if they cut him which will all come due at the same time, which is the $13-whatever million bucks that comes out of next year's cap.

It does hurt. It's surmountable, but it's not something you do if you expect Flacco to hold the job just for this year.

Originally Posted by Tned

I don't think they are going to suffer at all. My understanding is there was no change in the guaranteed money, all they did was convert current salary to a signing bonus to free up cap space this year. As they are currently sitting with about $15 million in cap, which will be rolled into next year, where they will take about a $12 million hit for cutting Flacco, it's a net zero difference from what I can tell. If they had kept it all as salary this year, they would only be rolling $3 million in excess cap into next year. By restructuring, and cutting him, they will roll in $15 million and $12 of it will be lost to Flacco's dead money, and the end result will be the same $3 million.

So, there is no impact to cap or cash, because they didn't add additional guaranteed money.

On the other hand, if Lock had proven to be a multi-year project and they started Flacco or two or more years, then the restructure was going to benefit the Broncos. So, bottom line, it wouldn't hurt them if Lock was the 2020 starter, but would help them if Flacco was.

That's my understanding of the restructure -- could be wrong, but I think the above is accurate.

You could be right - cap stuff isn't my bread and butter. I just know Flacco had no guaranteed money before the restructure and now has the signing bonus hit in 2020 if we cut him. It all depends on the cap roll.

Originally Posted by King87

Exactly. The Flacco restructure really looks like Lock wasn't in the cards the first year. The very conservative route we took with him with that 4-6 week injury and keeping him out of the lineup also speaks to that. It does look like we really thought Flacco was the man for us.

But, plans change in response to shit that happens. Flacco was really bad and got hurt. We had to trot out Allen when Lock maybe *should* have been available sooner. Those were dead weeks. BUT, we here now! Lock got out there and has played at a high level. We caught a break after we probably made some strategic mistakes.

I hope we trade up for that UG LT.

I think Elway was pretty up front with how Flacco was the 2019 plan, and Lock would compete to be the backup, and then have an opportunity to compete for the starting job in 2020.

Tned is right.


It was done to Restructure Jano and Simmons THIS year. We got Jano done. Simmons camp does not want to. They want him to ball out and then get a deal for more money. Either way the Flacco thing is a wash. We pay him this year or next year- either way he is only getting paid the same 18 million, one time.

Originally Posted by G_Money

You could be right - cap stuff isn't my bread and butter. I just know Flacco had no guaranteed money before the restructure and now has the signing bonus hit in 2020 if we cut him. It all depends on the cap roll.

No salary guaranteed next year, from what I understand, and as I said, the cap is a wash due to the fact they let teams rollover unused cap.

Flacco is going to retire, IMO.

Or, maybe he'll allow the Broncos to release him, so he gets what he would have got this year. Either way, it's a wash as far as my understanding of the restructure.

Originally Posted by G_Money

The Broncos - before the restructuring - could have cut Flacco easily since none of his contract had guaranteed money on it. Instead they converted a bunch of his 2019 salary to a signing bonus so they could spread it out across future years and use more money this year to bolster this roster which.... yeah, that didn't go well.

Now they owe that remaining guaranteed signing bonus if they cut him which will all come due at the same time, which is the $13-whatever million bucks that comes out of next year's cap.

It does hurt. It's surmountable, but it's not something you do if you expect Flacco to hold the job just for this year.

G, that's not quite right.

All they did was convert this year's salary to signing bonus. The cash is exactly the same, it's just that the $18 million or so of 2019 was converted to a signing bonus, with a league minimum salary. That allowed them to spread the cap over four years, if he stayed with the team, but did not move any guaranteed money into 2020 and beyond.

Again, there is zero cap consequence, because the team has $15 million in carryover, which will roll into next year, so that $13 million you mention isn't signing bonus to be paid, because it was paid in '19, it's only deferred cap money, which will simply count in 2020, using up the carryover that only exists because they converted his salary to signing bonus.

Unless there is something I'm missing, it is truly a net zero on both money owed and cap hit versus if they had not restructured.

I asked a cap expert on twitter - Joel Corrt @corryjoel - a couple months ago about Flacco's contract - here's what he said:

"Any unused salary cap room can be carried over to the next league year, which includes Joe Flacco's $13.6M created in the restructure. Just looking at his situation in isolation, the 2019 freed up space and the 2020 dead money would cancel each other out with a release before 6/2.

If released or traded before June 2, the 2020 through 2023 signing bonus proration accellerates to 2020."

-- which essentially means that all of the dead money is concentrated in 2020, so there wouldn't be a multi-year hit. And the savings from this year cancels out the dead money when you roll it over. If Elway would have gone and spent that $13.6 on some scrub, it'd be a different story - but he showed some good restraint.