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

Originally Posted by Tned

Even then, we wouldn't really be in a different situation, meaning, it was still all a wash, but let's say moving Flacco's cap space to 2020 let's them sign Simmons, they are just "swapping" when the exact same cap dollars hit. Simmons would move from 2020 to 2019, by signing him in this league year and Flacco's would move to 2020, but net/net, it's all the same cap hit.

Bottom line, it was a very smart move without any possibility of a negative scenario for the Broncos, it was all completely positive.

It's also worth noting that as a vested veteran, if Flacco was on the week 1 roster this year, his salary was fully guaranteed, and since that was a given, changing it to a signing bonus also made no difference in the 2019 guarantee, and the only difference as Davii said was that he got it all in August or whenever they did it, rather than spreading it over 17 weeks.

We'll see if they pony up for Simmons now. I feel like Elway would be far more reluctant to get away from Flacco if there were a monetary downside to doing so and Flacco hadn't bombed so atrociously this year. The Lock Era can start freely because John didn't use the money AND because Flacco was a waste of space, accelerating the timeline.

But giving themselves the shot to sign Simmons or take advantage of another opportunity makes sense. It's the over-estimation of Flacco as a player that makes the bet to potentially push his money into next year and let him take away more practice and play time from Lock a more dubious thing.

"If I use the money I just can't cut Flacco, which is fine cuz he'll still be 'fighting' for that starting job next year anyway!"

Originally Posted by G_Money

It gave Denver options. Thankfully they didn't drop that cash this year so they can get away from Flacco without further penalty, but I get the idea of making sure you have options.

I just don't think John ever thought Flacco was as bad an option as we all did, especially past this season. For him there was very little downside. "If I use the money I just can't cut Flacco, which is fine cuz he'll still be 'fighting' for that starting job next year anyway!"

For me it's still dodging a bullet, but I understand the plan.

That's the thing, this "If I use the money I just can't cut Flacco, which is fine cuz he'll still be 'fighting' for that starting job next year anyway!" isn't the case. The restructure in no way limited Elway's ability to cut him after this year. There is zero, no, nada difference in cutting him before or after the restructure.

Now, whether or not people agree Flacco was the right choice for this year, vs. Allen or Rypien, since Lock was hurt, which is one reason you don't go into the season with three QBs who never took an NFL snap, is another story. Very few people, including Lock, thought he was ready for week 1 (even if he hadn't been hurt).

Originally Posted by Tned

"If I use the money I just can't cut Flacco, which is fine cuz he'll still be 'fighting' for that starting job next year anyway!"

That's the thing, this "If I use the money I just can't cut Flacco, which is fine cuz he'll still be 'fighting' for that starting job next year anyway!" isn't the case. The restructure in no way limited Elway's ability to cut him after this year. There is zero, no, nada difference in cutting him before or after the restructure.

Now, whether or not people agree Flacco was the right choice for this year, vs. Allen or Rypien, since Lock was hurt, which is one reason you don't go into the season with three QBs who never took an NFL snap, is another story. Very few people, including Lock, thought he was ready for week 1 (even if he hadn't been hurt).

If Elway would have correctly viewed Flacco's contract as a sunk cost in this scenario, there would be no problem either way, agreed.

Originally Posted by Buff

Even if it wasn't for Simmons and Jano specifically (which it may have been) -- it makes sense to give yourself maximum flexibility in the event that you want to trade for a player or sign a free agent -- knowing that you can roll the cap space over to next year if you don't use it.

It was a liquidity play with little downside.

No! ELWAY IS TH3 D3V1L!!!!

Originally Posted by G_Money

But giving themselves the shot to sign Simmons or take advantage of another opportunity makes sense. It's the over-estimation of Flacco as a player that makes the bet to potentially push his money into next year and let him take away more practice and play time from Lock a more dubious thing.

There was no money pushed into next year. All it did, was give them the flexibility to defer the cap hit into future years. Again, if they sign Simmons this year, using the cap savings from Flacco restructure, then what would have been used in 2020 to sign Simmons is available to offset the deferred cap hit on Flacco.

It's a net zero impact, period.

Originally Posted by G_Money

If Elway would have correctly viewed Flacco's contract as a sunk cost in this scenario, there would be no problem either way, agreed.

No, because there is ZERO difference/impact to the team with the new contract vs. the old. It's is a net zero impact.

Originally Posted by Buff

Even if it wasn't for Simmons and Jano specifically (which it may have been) -- it makes sense to give yourself maximum flexibility in the event that you want to trade for a player or sign a free agent -- knowing that you can roll the cap space over to next year if you don't use it.

It was a liquidity play with little downside.

The other factor is that next year is the last year of the CBA I believe, and if so and they don't extend it early, which they typically don't, and 2021 is potentially an uncapped year, then there are rules in place that limit the size of contracts signed in 2020. I believe they are limited to a player's new contract having annual increases no more than 25 or 30% of their previous contract. So, if a player's 2019 salary is 10 million, then when signed in 2020, the 2020 salary can only be $13 million, and 2021 can only be $16.9, etc.

So, with the Broncos currently having the 10th most cap space in 2020 and the likelihood that new contracts are going to be smaller than normal due to being the final year of the CBA, it again was a move that provided extra flexibility with zero downside risk.

Originally Posted by Valar Morghulis

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

Considering how he was a Pro Bowl talent from day one, and took them to the playoffs for several straight years, why? The issue wasn't starting Luck, the issue was failing to fix a bad line for about four or five straight seasons.

Originally Posted by Tned

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.

The problem is that if Flacco didn't work out, you would want to put Lock out ASAP. If you couldn't do that because of your own actions, you screwed up.

I'm happy it worked out.

Originally Posted by King87

Considering how he was a Pro Bowl talent from day one, and took them to the playoffs for several straight years, why? The issue wasn't starting Luck, the issue was failing to fix a bad line for about four or five straight seasons.

What if he could've been even better by sitting behind Manning?

All speculation, obviously, but the possibility exists for that and also that such a move may have extended his career.

Originally Posted by Davii

What if he could've been even better by sitting behind Manning?

All speculation, obviously, but the possibility exists for that and also that such a move may have extended his career.

It's hard to imagine him being much better, considering he was a MVP candidate for several years.

I don't know, it's just weird to me. I once argued that TS should have been able to be better because he had spent a year in the league and sat for a year. Everyone told me I was crazy. Now I'm seeing that it was of course the correct move to leave Lock on the bench.

Everything worked out. I'm just happy that Elway finally listened to the King and we're saved.

Originally Posted by King87

The problem is that if Flacco didn't work out, you would want to put Lock out ASAP. If you couldn't do that because of your own actions, you screwed up.

I'm happy it worked out.

I'm with you. I do think Elway went too far in holding Lock down and tearing his thumb tendon a MM from complete separation, just so he wouldn't have fans calling for Lock to start....

See the sillyness in this line of argument?

Elway said Lock would compete for the backup job. If he hadn't gotten hurt and had gotten in the final two preseason games and all the practices, then Fangio might have gone to Lock when Flacco struggled, if Lock was proving capable in practice.

Originally Posted by Tned

I'm with you. I do think Elway went too far in holding Lock down and tearing his thumb tendon a MM from complete separation, just so he wouldn't have fans calling for Lock to start....

See the sillyness in this line of argument?

Elway said Lock would compete for the backup job. If he hadn't gotten hurt and had gotten in the final two preseason games and all the practices, then Fangio might have gone to Lock when Flacco struggled, if Lock was proving capable in practice.

He was able to throw for several weeks, like two or three, before he was brought back. IR'ing him was wrong.

Originally Posted by King87

He was able to throw for several weeks, like two or three, before he was brought back. IR'ing him was wrong.

You know that's not correct. He was a rookie that had never called a play from the huddle and he had a 70% tear of the thumb ligament in his throwing hand. If the Broncos kept him on the active roster at the cost of a player that could help the team, Elway should have been fired on the spot.

You are posting with your heart, not your head.

Originally Posted by Tned

You know that's not correct. He was a rookie that had never called a play from the huddle and he had a 70% tear of the thumb ligament in his throwing hand. If the Broncos kept him on the active roster at the cost of a player that could help the team, Elway should have been fired on the spot.

You are posting with your heart, not your head.

I know that it's correct. Lock needed to be on the roster. Because you could have a situation like what unfolded - the season essentially ends, your QB Flacco is either hurt/ineffective, and then you're trotting a nothing-burger at QB. We disagree, we can heavily disagree, but it's the same sentiment that Mo and Dogfish have espoused in the past.