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

Originally Posted by tripp

I'm not ready for anymore QB controversy tho

He is our QB of the future and the present. Fear not, Elway found the right guy!!!!!

Originally Posted by Jsteve01

you know I've been talkin about carrying five or six inside linebackers for the past 2 rosters. It's ridiculous. I have no idea why elway feels like we need to do that.

Typically because they are good special teams players.

Originally Posted by tripp

I'm not ready for anymore QB controversy tho

You need to develop calluses ... post more often and argue for no reason ... works for me.

Originally Posted by King87

He is our QB of the future and the present. Fear not, Elway found the right guy!!!!!

Are we still gonna be ok if he throws for 150 yds and 1 TD and 1 INT, in a 28-10 loss to KC?

Originally Posted by King87

At one point we had eight.

Glad you agree now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I don't agree on lock. But I can definitely agree on positional disbursement on this roster. We don't need that many backup inside linebackers just because they're decent special teamers.

Originally Posted by tripp

Are we still gonna be ok if he throws for 150 yds and 1 TD and 1 INT, in a 28-10 loss to KC?

Yes

Originally Posted by Jsteve01

I don't agree on lock. But I can definitely agree on positional disbursement on this roster. We don't need that many backup inside linebackers just because they're decent special teamers.

Especially since I heard from a good source that if Lock hadn't been put on IR he could have played special teams while in his cast...

Originally Posted by Tned

Typically because they are good special teams players.

well that seems to be the Broncos line of thinking, but on a team that basically only had Chris Harris jr. As a lock cornerback talent that was healthy I think we might have been able to find a spot there. Or a Jamal Carter. Who made a lot more plays than some of these backups that I've never even heard of.

Originally Posted by Tned

Typically because they are good special teams players.

But do the math, they roster LB’s that do either/or, let’s not pretend that their LB’s are so important that they can’t double-duty.

If all you can do is cover a play that the NFL is trying to phase out (kick offs) then you’re not essential personnel.

Btw, the Broncos have a K that can kick it into the stand on any given KO, So the kick off is irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Jaded

But do the math, they roster LB’s that do either/or, let’s not pretend that their LB’s are so important that they can’t double-duty.

If all you can do is cover a play that the NFL is trying to phase out (kick offs) then you’re not essential personnel.

Originally Posted by Jaded

You need to develop calluses ... post more often and argue for no reason ... works for me.

Sounds dangerous

https://www.hogshaven.com/2018/12/26...ad-this-season


I looked through the depth charts of the 31 other NFL teams, which are archived monthly on the 1st day of the month by Our Lads. I wanted to see how many teams entered the season with only two quarterbacks on the roster (53-man + practice squad). Since the Sept 1 rosters still had 90 men each, I used Oct 1 as a proxy for the start of the season, and then took note of the current depth charts.

It turns out that only the Buffalo Bills and Oakland Raiders joined the Redskins in having only two quarterbacks on the roster early. The Bills later signed a third quarterback to the 53-man roster, while the Raiders added a QB to the practice squad.

The Titans and 49ers are the only two teams to join the Redskins in having just 2 signal-callers on the roster in December.

The Redskins, are, in fact, the only team to have gone through the whole season with only two healthy quarterbacks on the active roster at a time, and none on the practice squad. I didn’t confirm, but I believe they are also the only team in the NFL to start 4 different players at QB in 2018.

I'm not buying the argument that the spot on Lock was going to actually hurt the team.

Originally Posted by tripp

Sounds dangerous

Do it! It’s a great way to influence people and earn friends.

Originally Posted by Tned

Either I need to explain it to you (again) or I’ve peaked (<sp) your interest.

According to my math any given NFL team needs 9 to 10 essential ST’s players, because 2 of the 11 positions are taken by the LS and P ... the rest of those roster spots can (and probably should) be taken by developmental players/backups.