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

Originally Posted by Jaded

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

Your second sentence in that post made zero sense. Until the NFL phases it out, ut needs to be covered - as do punts.

Originally Posted by Jaded

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.

Dude you're preaching to the choir. as I said on this roster I would have preferred an extra defensive back, and extra outside linebacker, and extra tackle, or an extra tight end or wide receiver. Not an extra inside linebacker and this is two consecutive years that they've done this crap

Originally Posted by Jsteve01

Dude you're preaching to the choir. as I said on this roster I would have preferred an extra defensive back, and extra outside linebacker, and extra tackle, or an extra tight end or wide receiver. Not an extra inside linebacker and this is two consecutive years that they've done this crap

Talk to me, what’s the magic number for you?

I got;

3-QB’s
4-RB’s (including FB, I guess)
6-WR’s
3-TE’s
10-OL

6-DL
8-LB’s
10-DB’s

3-ST’s

Originally Posted by Jaded

Talk to me, what’s the magic number for you?

I got;

3-QB’s
4-RB’s (including FB, I guess)
6-WR’s
3-TE’s
10-OL

6-DL
8-LB’s
10-DB’s

3-ST’s

I could take one less qb given my injured qb and add a te or corner

Originally Posted by Jsteve01

I could take one less qb given my injured qb and add a te or corner

But CB is part of DB, you can’t keep 11 imo.

6 CB’s and 4 S’s.

Originally Posted by Tned

Your second sentence in that post made zero sense. Until the NFL phases it out, ut needs to be covered - as do punts.

Ok so I do need to explain ... or I’ve piqued your interest?

Originally Posted by Jaded

Talk to me, what’s the magic number for you?

I got;

3-QB’s
4-RB’s (including FB, I guess)
6-WR’s
3-TE’s
10-OL

6-DL
8-LB’s
10-DB’s

3-ST’s

I could take one less qb given my injured qb and add a te or corner

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?

Personally, he has so over-performed already that any more elite QB activity is pure gravy. I just hope the team lets the offense have some fun with it--tell them they have 2020 job security, and treat it as pure playground, run-up-the-score nonsense. Give us something exciting to watch and don't ever take the foot off the pedal. If the results aren't there, that gives them even more to learn from.

I always figured 2020 would be the body of work that began to illustrate Drew Lock...give him 48 or so games, we'll know what we got. He's earned the right to the 2020 reins.

Originally Posted by Hawgdriver

Personally, he has so over-performed already that any more elite QB activity is pure gravy. I just hope the team lets the offense have some fun with it--tell them they have 2020 job security, and treat it as pure playground, run-up-the-score nonsense. Give us something exciting to watch and don't ever take the foot off the pedal. If the results aren't there, that gives them even more to learn from.

I always figured 2020 would be the body of work that began to illustrate Drew Lock...give him 48 or so games, we'll know what we got. He's earned the right to the 2020 reins.

Of course. We aren't sure yet about whether Jared Goff and Carson Wentz, let alone Josh Allen or DeSean Watson are long term answers for their teams. Appears yes, but really the jury is out.

It takes 2 years of QB play to make sure you have a foundation and then several more will tell if your QB gives you a chance at a SB. Marcus Mariota and Jameis Winston appeared on track for a while, but now?. . . . .

This is why Elway has been so resistant to commit to a young QB. He wanted a proven veteran to "win now" without having to wait several years for him to develop.

It's just that the team wasn't and isn't remotely ready to "win now" anyway, so they lost nothing by committing to the young QB. He was just delusional enough to deny it until the whole "win now" plan blew up in failure.

So, now it's FORCED upon them that the future is now. Drew Lock is the only possible QB starter for 2020. HOpefully a lot more years than that.

I hope they are patient when they need to be and give the thing a chance to grow and develop. Who knows, maybe the kid clicks with Scangs and they are the next hot thing in the NFL. So far it has that vibe. Or maybe that's just my own wishful thinking.

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.

Maybe he would not have taken the risks with his body that he did and would have been influenced by PFM

Maybe PFM would also have taken them to the play offs in those years, but taken them further

Maybe now the colts would have a healthy luck and be in their eighth year of perennial Super Bowl contenders with a qb who could still take them there for another decade

Instead PFM won in Denver, Colts won nothing and Luck got repeatedly broken to the point he is now dead

Like I said, it just made me wonder

You giant asshat

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.

cause until johnson we only had a old ass davis with some so so talent, maybe he felt if he had 4 or 5 mediocre ones it would equal out to 1 avg one???

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.

the caveat here isn't we don't have good special teams and haven't for awhile....we carry them for special teams roles, but they aren't that good at football as it is so special teams suffers as well.....Teams that have great special teams have good depth all over the team.......

Originally Posted by Jaded

Talk to me, what’s the magic number for you?

I got;

3-QB’s
4-RB’s (including FB, I guess)
6-WR’s
3-TE’s
10-OL

6-DL
8-LB’s
10-DB’s

3-ST’s

Good teams shouldn't need 10 OL because they have a strong starting 5 for the most part and a guy that can play multiple spots plus a swing tackle.....For me you roster 2 QB's 3 if your scared to lose your guy of the P/S and maybe 8-9 OL