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

Originally Posted by Timmy!

That's fair. We also may be lucky our best QB was on IR because he wasn't ready. Lock, himself, has said things that would agree with this.

On the flip side perhaps, as a franchise, the timeline worked out exactly as it did, as it seems pretty damn optimal so far.

So I have a nit to pick here. What happens if he isn't ready? His head explodes? He's mentally shattered? It just seems like this ephemeral concept. I've read the comments he made; it seems like he was saying the right thing and making the most of things.

I think the most optimal place timeline is him starting as many games as possible. JMO.

Originally Posted by King87

So I have a nit to pick here. What happens if he isn't ready? His head explodes? He's mentally shattered? It just seems like this ephemeral concept. I've read the comments he made; it seems like he was saying the right thing and making the most of things.

I think the most optimal place timeline is him starting as many games as possible. JMO.

Worst case? Our horrible Oline gets him hurt badly. Or, he gets "ruined" ala the slew of highly drafted QBs before him. However, the football gods have blessed this choosen one, delivering him exactly when he should be to save us all. #angelswehaveheardsonhigh

Originally Posted by King87

So I have a nit to pick here. What happens if he isn't ready? His head explodes? He's mentally shattered? It just seems like this ephemeral concept. I've read the comments he made; it seems like he was saying the right thing and making the most of things.

I think the most optimal place timeline is him starting as many games as possible. JMO.

Seems like he used the time off to his advantage. Perhaps even more than if he had been thrust into the position. Perhaps not. It would be hard to prove either way.

The mistake was bringing in Flacco, there should be no disagreement here, there were other cheaper options and ways we could go that would have been more cost effective and given us the same damn record. Lock is now the guy and that's good, but its not wrong to realize that's only because Flacco got hurt, not because Denver wanted him out there yet. Elway is excited for him as is Fangio you can tell. If not your blinded. They didn't expect the time off he had to pay off this quickly from the mental side. Lock was horrible and I mean horrible in the pre-season he was not the best performing QB on the roster before the season that's a fallacy being thrown around, and I hate me some Joe Flacco....In the end its going to work out for us next year, This was a lost season anyways, and most of us expected as much with Flacco. Many of us said our run game and Defense would have to be on point to make the playoffs, and neither facet was from a execution standpoint the majority of the year, throw that in with a new coaching staff on both sides and a crappy QB, and its no surprise.....

Originally Posted by MOtorboat

I've been quiet on this, but I've finally had enough with the self-flagellation repeated ad nauseam about sitting the kid made him better.

That's bullshit. Kid was ready. The mistake was trading for Joe Flacco and not going all in on the rookie, whoever that may have been. In particular, this one would have been just fine day one. The injury would have put a kink in things, but not $18 million worth of them. Absolutely no need to start Flacco and go through the nonsense of making him "the guy" for six games. The Broncos will have ended up paying him $3 million per start. That's utterly absurd and bad teambuilding.

They could have paid a dude $3 million for the whole season and had a veteran backup.

They traded for Flacco in February and didn't know which, if any, rookie QB they were going to get in the draft. Also, there is no indication out of camp that Lock was ready. Quite the contrary, all the reporting was that he was working hard but struggling to do things like call plays from the huddle.

Originally Posted by King87

It's simple. Most people knew that Flacco would suck. Ergo, getting Flacco was a bad move. So in our position we should have done what? Ran out a rookie QB. We were 0-4 with Flacco, what else could have happened with Lock, maybe we actually...win a game in the first quarter of the...season?

It's time to stop having sacred cows and call a spade a spade. We got lucky that Flacco got hurt. we were literally willing to redshirt the best QB we had on the roster, because our GM wanted it that way. It was idiotic.

When Flacco was 0-4, Lock was in a cast. How exactly did you expect him to throw a ball?

Revisionist history is fun, but..

Originally Posted by Northman

He was injured so naturally he was going to be on the sideline regardless. Lol

Yeah, injuries are pretty hilarious.

Originally Posted by Northman

He was injured so naturally he was going to be on the sideline regardless. Lol

No, no, no.

Don't you understand?

If we had never signed Flacco, then Lock wouldn't have been injured and would have started game 1.

Originally Posted by Cugel

Before the restructure, if they cut Flacco it would cost $0 against their cap in 2020. Now they will have a $13m cap hit. That money is only spread over two years of the cap IF he's on the roster or designated for release after June 1, 2020 cuts. So, they would have to keep him at least that long if they wanted to avoid part of the $13m cap hit.

Shazam! is right in saying it's not the end of the world in terms of crushing the Broncos cap. They will be able to absorb it and still function. It just doesn't help when they need all the FA help as well as great draft picks they can get to build around Lock.

Cugel you don't know what you're talking about, so as as suggestion put down the shovel.

Originally Posted by Gimpygod

5th biggest, I have been looking into King87’s “Canadian girlfriend.”

Is she somewhere in the Canadian Rockies?

I'm an idiot

Originally Posted by Tned

No, no, no.

Don't you understand?

If we had never signed Flacco, then Lock wouldn't have been injured and would have started game 1.

Except that was never presented by anyone.

Originally Posted by Tned

They traded for Flacco in February and didn't know which, if any, rookie QB they were going to get in the draft. Also, there is no indication out of camp that Lock was ready. Quite the contrary, all the reporting was that he was working hard but struggling to do things like call plays from the huddle.

Right, he was traded for before the draft. But that doesn’t make it a good move. No one is suggesting Lock couldn’t have gotten hurt or wasn’t hurt in August. What we’re saying is that you could have easily had a cheaper backup to play while he got ready for it, injury or on field reasons.

Originally Posted by Tned

When Flacco was 0-4, Lock was in a cast. How exactly did you expect him to throw a ball?

Revisionist history is fun, but..

This isn’t revisionist history. Plenty of us were saying this was a bad move when the trade happened. There’s plenty of veteran quarterbacks who can go 0-4 and the team doesn’t owe $18 million to. I’ve been very clear about how I think a team should build at quarterback since long before Joe Flacco came to Denver. Draft a quarterback, play him right away because quarterbacks are ready for it, regardless of if the situations is perfect, because nothing is ever going to be a perfect situation for a rookie quarterback to get on the field in the NFL, even if it’s their third year after sitting for two. Young quarterbacks need to be on the field and getting first team reps in practice right away. This is independent of both Lock and his injury, this is how I believe teams should build with the modern quarterbacks coming out of college. Doing that, preparing him to be the guy eliminates paying a Joe Flacco starter money. You don’t have to do that anymore to get your rookie ready, and it was absolutely a mistake they made.

Originally Posted by Tned

When Flacco was 0-4, Lock was in a cast. How exactly did you expect him to throw a ball?

Revisionist history is fun, but..

Again, let's not misrepresent the argument. I'm not saying that could have happened because Lock was in a cast. I'm saying that the move we made, bringing in a BAD Qb, resulted in four straight losses. So, when we decided to bring in a bad QB, even though we knew that we would be bringing in a young QB, what was the point?

I'm not doing fake universe shit. I'm simply saying that Lock or any other young QB starting there could not have done any worse from a W/L record.

Originally Posted by Timmy!

Worst case? Our horrible Oline gets him hurt badly. Or, he gets "ruined" ala the slew of highly drafted QBs before him. However, the football gods have blessed this choosen one, delivering him exactly when he should be to save us all. #angelswehaveheardsonhigh

QB's play with bad lines all the time. Brock didn't get hurt here, and the line sucked here. What is this 'he gets ruined' thing? He losses confidence because things are hard? The kid has plenty of moxie.