If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Anthems and Protests ---
While we certainly understand the frustration by fans on all sides of the discussion, we have decided to keep the Broncos Country message boards separate from politics. Recent events have brought the NFL to the forefront of political debates, but due to the highly emotional and passionate discussion it tends to involve, we think it’s best to continue to keep politics and this forum separate. Yes, the forum is meant for discussion, but we’d like to keep that discussion to football as much as possible.
With everything going on in our country, it would be nice to keep our complaints and cheers purely related to football here. If you feel passionately, there are plenty of other outlets available to you to express your opinions. We know this isn’t the most popular decision, but we ask that you respect it.
Thank you for understanding.
--Broncos Country Message Board Staff
Because game-time reps are the only thing that will get Lock experience and knowledge. It's a complete waste of time starting Allen or Rypien. At that point you may as well leave Flacco out there.
Why are Allen and Rypien a waste of time but Flacco isn't? Why is seeing if young QBs might have it a bad idea? Why are theae guys on the roster if we won't ever play them?
Ultimately it's up to the coaching staff. If they're comfortable letting Lock get some experience this year, that's what they're gonna do. I just worry that we're gonna Lynch the poor kid and end up in the exact same situation 2 years from now with yet another rookie QB.
I don't see the logic in sending two quarterbacks out there in Allen or Rypien that are completely destined to fail or not really matter. Lock is the future because of the investment you put into him. He may fail too, but at least you'll have an idea after 8 games where we might be. You won't get anything with Allen or Rypien except wasted reps for Lock.
We can't know they're destined to fail. The front office certainly doesn't believe that, otherwise they would have never brought them onto the team. Same as Flacco. They didn't see Flacco having as rough a season as he is.
You can't know for certain they don't have what it takes unless you actually give them an opportunity. And the fact that we aren't as invested in them is a bonus. If they aren't suitable NFL QBs, you move on from them no problem.
If the coaches feel Lock is ready, they'll start him. If they don't, they should give Allen and Rypien a shot. Flacco should be done starting in Denver one way or another.
Why are Allen and Rypien a waste of time but Flacco isn't? Why is seeing if young QBs might have it a bad idea? Why are theae guys on the roster if we won't ever play them?
Ultimately it's up to the coaching staff. If they're comfortable letting Lock get some experience this year, that's what they're gonna do. I just worry that we're gonna Lynch the poor kid and end up in the exact same situation 2 years from now with yet another rookie QB.
I would think if you keep Lock on the bench you're more or less "Lynching" him more so than by playing him.
But to answer your question, if you have all three available - Lock, Rypien, and Allen - then Lock goes in and gets to play due to where we drafted him. It's just that simple. You need to figure out where you're going with next year's draft and you can't do that if you have no idea where Lock is. While you're worried that we may ruin Lock's confidence, I'm worried we'll move on from him without even seeing him in a game.
We can't know they're destined to fail. The front office certainly doesn't believe that, otherwise they would have never brought them onto the team. Same as Flacco. They didn't see Flacco having as rough a season as he is.
You can't know for certain they don't have what it takes unless you actually give them an opportunity. And the fact that we aren't as invested in them is a bonus. If they aren't suitable NFL QBs, you move on from them no problem.
If the coaches feel Lock is ready, they'll start him. If they don't, they should give Allen and Rypien a shot. Flacco should be done starting in Denver one way or another.
Well, the last 5 years would have told you that what we've seen from Flacco is more or less the normal. Elway just made a really bad decision.
He may have made a really bad decision with Lock too, but based on where we drafted him and where we are this season, if he's ready to go then he plays.
Why are Allen and Rypien a waste of time but Flacco isn't? Why is seeing if young QBs might have it a bad idea? Why are theae guys on the roster if we won't ever play them?
Ultimately it's up to the coaching staff. If they're comfortable letting Lock get some experience this year, that's what they're gonna do. I just worry that we're gonna Lynch the poor kid and end up in the exact same situation 2 years from now with yet another rookie QB.
There are 9 games left. Are you suggesting giving Allen a game or two, then give Rypien a game or two, then give Lock a couple of games? That isn't enough time to assess any of them. In that case, you'll have 3 guys who started a couple of games and no answers. The reason why everyone wants to see Lock for as long as possible is because he was drafted to be the QBOTF. He needs to be assessed as much as possible so they can make intelligent decisions (hopefully) in the upcoming offseason.
It's time to stop sandbagging the QB position. If they are going to just start throwing out a different QB every week, then it's all a waste of time.
If you're trying to say there's a chance that Allen or Rypien could come in a light it up completely and prove they are franchise QBs, then fine. If that's the case, then they need to commit to one of them - which isn't going to happen because they have way more capital tied up in Lock.
This team needs to stop being wishy-washy with the QB position. Freaking commit to a young franchise QB.
I would think if you keep Lock on the bench you're more or less "Lynching" him more so than by playing him.
But to answer your question, if you have all three available - Lock, Rypien, and Allen - then Lock goes in and gets to play due to where we drafted him. It's just that simple. You need to figure out where you're going with next year's draft and you can't do that if you have no idea where Lock is. While you're worried that we may ruin Lock's confidence, I'm worried we'll move on from him without even seeing him in a game.
I'm not that worried about that last part. The Cards just gave up on Rosen after 1 season and Murray looks legit for the time being. If there's a QB available in the 2020 draft that we love, we should just take him, regardless of where Lock's development is.
I honestly just want to see us start whichever young arms we have. The vets we've been starting the past few seasons have been nothing less than frustrating and boring. Give the kids a chance.
Well, the last 5 years would have told you that what we've seen from Flacco is more or less the normal. Elway just made a really bad decision.
He may have made a really bad decision with Lock too, but based on where we drafted him and where we are this season, if he's ready to go then he plays.
I totally agree about Flacco. I never would have brought him in. It was clear to most that he was past his prime except to Elway.
As for "if he's ready," he's still on IR. Why aren't we starting Allen this Sunday? Why not give another guy a shot while Lock is still out? Why not see if Allen can hack it?
There are 9 games left. Are you suggesting giving Allen a game or two, then give Rypien a game or two, then give Lock a couple of games? That isn't enough time to assess any of them. In that case, you'll have 3 guys who started a couple of games and no answers. The reason why everyone wants to see Lock for as long as possible is because he was drafted to be the QBOTF. He needs to be assessed as much as possible so they can make intelligent decisions (hopefully) in the upcoming offseason.
It's time to stop sandbagging the QB position. If they are going to just start throwing out a different QB every week, then it's all a waste of time.
If you're trying to say there's a chance that Allen or Rypien could come in a light it up completely and prove they are franchise QBs, then fine. If that's the case, then they need to commit to one of them - which isn't going to happen because they have way more capital tied up in Lock.
This team needs to stop being wishy-washy with the QB position. Freaking commit to a young franchise QB.
We've been wasting our time at QB ever since Manning retired. I agree we need to commit to playing our young QB. If the staff is ready to roll with Lock, they should. But if they aren't, we have Allen and Rypien. They don't have to keep throwing Flacco out there when everyone is tired of seeing him out there. If they feel Lock needs to sit and learn, let him. But we still need to make a change at QB.
I totally agree about Flacco. I never would have brought him in. It was clear to most that he was past his prime except to Elway.
As for "if he's ready," he's still on IR. Why aren't we starting Allen this Sunday? Why not give another guy a shot while Lock is still out? Why not see if Allen can hack it?
I’m all in on giving Allen a shot against the Colts. It would be more interesting for me. I highly doubt it happens, though.
Still, I really hope they put in Lock for the Browns game and stick with him.
The scary scenario is giving Allen a shot and he actually looks really good. Now we have to decide if we stick with him.
IMO,this season should be about assessing the QB situation and either committing to one of our current guys or drafting one high this offseason and committing to him.
I’m all in on giving Allen a shot against the Colts. It would be more interesting for me. I highly doubt it happens, though.
Still, I really hope they put in Lock for the Browns game and stick with him.
The scary scenario is giving Allen a shot and he actually looks really good. Now we have to decide if we stick with him.
IMO,this season should be about assessing the QB situation and either committing to one of our current guys or drafting one high this offseason and committing to him.
A QB looking good for the Broncos should never be considered the "scary" scenario. Any of our young QBs looking good should be best case scenario. We should start whichever QB is playing well, whether that's Lock or Allen or anyone else.
Allen starting and doing well can only be a positive for us. Would give us confidence in him as a potential franchise QB or at least give us the knowledge that he is a good backup. And of course of he fails, we'd still have Lock to fall back on.
A QB looking good for the Broncos should never be considered the "scary" scenario. Any of our young QBs looking good should be best case scenario. We should start whichever QB is playing well, whether that's Lock or Allen or anyone else.
Allen starting and doing well can only be a positive for us. Would give us confidence in him as a potential franchise QB or at least give us the knowledge that he is a good backup. And of course of he fails, we'd still have Lock to fall back on.
I think the more complicated a quarterback decision or situation is, the more likely you're going to make a bad decision and your franchise is probably not very good.
For me, the solution is simple. We ride Flacco out for one more week and then Lock gets the start versus Cleveland and remains the starter barring injury for the remainder of the year. I think by benching Flacco for a week or whatever...just seems like making a rather easy decision unnecessarily complicated.
I think the more complicated a quarterback decision or situation is, the more likely you're going to make a bad decision and your franchise is probably not very good.
For me, the solution is simple. We ride Flacco out for one more week and then Lock gets the start versus Cleveland and remains the starter barring injury for the remainder of the year. I think by benching Flacco for a week or whatever...just seems like making a rather easy decision unnecessarily complicated.
I'd take complicated and good over simple and awful. Our QB situation was simple amd awful with Siemien and Lynch. It was simple and awful with Keenum and Lynch. It's looking awful with Flacco. The QB position could use a little complicated. Everything we're doing currently is not working.
I'd take complicated and good over simple and awful. Our QB situation was simple amd awful with Siemien and Lynch. It was simple and awful with Keenum and Lynch. It's looking awful with Flacco. The QB position could use a little complicated. Everything we're doing currently is not working.
It's like the old football saying goes...
"If you have two guys, then you have no guys".
I think you and I are generally in agreement. I just don't really see what your hesitation is with starting Lock. I think Lock should be given all 8 games regardless of play, but I mean if he really sucks and there is a call to replace him, you still have Allen and Rypien on roster to utilize if needed.
A QB looking good for the Broncos should never be considered the "scary" scenario. Any of our young QBs looking good should be best case scenario. We should start whichever QB is playing well, whether that's Lock or Allen or anyone else.
Allen starting and doing well can only be a positive for us. Would give us confidence in him as a potential franchise QB or at least give us the knowledge that he is a good backup. And of course of he fails, we'd still have Lock to fall back on.
It's scary because all it would do is create more sandbagging. I really don't have a preference on any one QB. I care more about the philosophy and approach. They have 9 games to attempt a proper assessment. There is not unlimited time where we just keep trying guys for a couple of games. IMO, it's about committing. Either commit to one of the current guys on the roster or commit to a high draft pick this offseason. If Allen comes in and lights it up, great. Stick with him. I definitely don't want to see a turnstile at QB anymore. Furthermore, I certainly don't want to see another aged vet FA QB who is a 2 year rental.
I'm not even really arguing against your point. I just want to see a commitment to a young franchise QB. Lock has the largest investment, so it is likely he will get the biggest chance. I do not want to see this team trip over their own feet and start a turnstile at QB. Personally, I think Lock has the biggest upside and the biggest investment, so he needs as much PT as possible so we can decide if he's our guy or not.
I think you and I are generally in agreement. I just don't really see what your hesitation is with starting Lock. I think Lock should be given all 8 games regardless of play, but I mean if he really sucks and there is a call to replace him, you still have Allen and Rypien on roster to utilize if needed.
I'm not hesitant to see Lock. If he's gonna start, he's gonna start. If he has what it takes, he'll succeed. I'm just wondering what the coaching staff wants to do. If they're ready to start Lock, they should. But if they don't, they should still bench Flacco.
Its why I'm bringing this up in the Bench Flacco thread. We have options to roll with if the staff doesn't believe Lock is ready yet. The one thing we all agree on is that Flacco shouldn't be starting anymore. I just hope the coaching staff feels the same way.
Tweet
Comment