Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

3-2 Feels Like 0-5

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    The fall back is always, “That wouldn’t have been possible.”

    Broncos didn’t even need to trade picks to get guys like Fields, Jones or Prescott.

    There’s a thousand excuses available for a bad franchise and that’s what most of the fan base has turned to - excuses.

    Comment


    • #77
      Did Dak Prescott require trading up for a #1 pick? Did Justin Fields or Mac Jones require trading up? No.

      Also, you can’t even have the possibility of making those moves when your organization is content to play with the likes of Trevor Siemian, Case Keenum and Joe Flacco.

      Other teams make moves, like Carolina trading to get Darnold. You’re assuming that moves can’t be made, which is a fixed mindset.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Fantaztic7 View Post
        Did Dak Prescott require trading up for a #1 pick? Did Justin Fields or Mac Jones require trading up? No.

        Also, you can’t even have the possibility of making those moves when your organization is content to play with the likes of Trevor Siemian, Case Keenum and Joe Flacco.

        Other teams make moves, like Carolina trading to get Darnold. You’re assuming that moves can’t be made, which is a fixed mindset.
        Dallas would've picked Lynch, we were interested in Dak in the mid-rounds. Such is life.

        I was incensed that we didn't pick Fields and I was okay with Jones at 9. Look at my post history and search these names you bring up, I'm always looking for a way to improve at QB. I think we both want better QBs than the ones we've had, no?

        We made the move to trade for Teddy. That was our move this offseason.

        We could even stay right where we are next year and take whoever we want out of Howell, Strong, or Ridder. Restart the development cycle with a mid-1st round, physically-intriguing prospect with questionable flaws. Or move up for Corral or Willis, which would probably require a trade-up involving a bunch of future high picks. Same goes for any disgruntled, veteran star QB in the NFL if they were made available for trade.

        Perhaps, we would be "content" with the good ole' bargain bin of the free agent market for next year too?

        https://i.imgur.com/7Q7tpCd.png

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by HDbroncos02 View Post
          Dallas would've picked Lynch, we were interested in Dak in the mid-rounds. Such is life.

          I was incensed that we didn't pick Fields and I was okay with Jones at 9. Look at my post history and search these names you bring up, I'm always looking for a way to improve at QB. I think we both want better QBs than the ones we've had, no?

          We made the move to trade for Teddy. That was our move this offseason.

          We could even stay right where we are next year and take whoever we want out of Howell, Strong, or Ridder. Restart the development cycle with a mid-1st round, physically-intriguing prospect with questionable flaws. Or move up for Corral or Willis, which would probably require a trade-up involving a bunch of future high picks. Same goes for any disgruntled, veteran star QB in the NFL if they were made available for trade.

          Perhaps, we would be "content" with the good ole' bargain bin of the free agent market for next year too?

          See, I think this is the wrong way of looking at our off season. It was never about Teddy. He’s wasn’t our move this off season. He wasn’t the plan. He was an insurance policy you hoped not to have to cash. The fact that Teddy is starting means plan A failed.

          This was always about Elways belief in Drew. That’s why when Paton was asked to justify passing on a QB and selecting Surtain he gave some ridiculous answer about “Starting cornerbacks are hard to find in this league” (as if starting quarterbacks are somehow easier). It wouldn’t make sense, would it, because it wasn’t Patons decision and there really is no justifying it. He would have been laughed at if he would have said “John just didn’t feel like it was time to move on from Drew yet” which, while accurate, flies in the face of any reasonable NFL sense. No reasonable GM would pass on multiple first round QBs that fell into your lap when you are QB-needy, for a third year, previous second round pick, QB who was coming off one of the worst performances in the NFL at the position and was having difficulty establishing themselves, all for a starting cornerback. Laughable and unbelievable.

          And it wouldn’t be so bad except we’ve seen this before haven’t we? Paxton Lynch was a done deal that Elway couldn’t get over and we wasted time there. Siemien, Flacco, Sanchez, Keenum.

          It feels right out of an episode of The Office. Elway and Paton as Michael and Dwight. Elway as the bumbling boss who lacks the skill required but is always meddling, Paton as the diligent soldier trying to act as if the most ridiculous decisions have some merit. It would be funny if I weren’t a fan.

          To permit irresponsible authority is to sell disaster. (Heinlein)...like Broncos season tickets!

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by Humberg View Post

            See, I think this is the wrong way of looking at our off season. It was never about Teddy. He’s wasn’t our move this off season. He wasn’t the plan. He was an insurance policy you hoped not to have to cash. The fact that Teddy is starting means plan A failed.

            This was always about Elways belief in Drew. That’s why when Paton was asked to justify passing on a QB and selecting Surtain he gave some ridiculous answer about “Starting cornerbacks are hard to find in this league” (as if starting quarterbacks are somehow easier). It wouldn’t make sense, would it, because it wasn’t Patons decision and there really is no justifying it. He would have been laughed at if he would have said “John just didn’t feel like it was time to move on from Drew yet” which, while accurate, flies in the face of any reasonable NFL sense. No reasonable GM would pass on multiple first round QBs that fell into your lap when you are QB-needy, for a third year, previous second round pick, QB who was coming off one of the worst performances in the NFL at the position and was having difficulty establishing themselves, all for a starting cornerback. Laughable and unbelievable.

            And it wouldn’t be so bad except we’ve seen this before haven’t we? Paxton Lynch was a done deal that Elway couldn’t get over and we wasted time there. Siemien, Flacco, Sanchez, Keenum.

            It feels right out of an episode of The Office. Elway and Paton as Michael and Dwight. Elway as the bumbling boss who lacks the skill required but is always meddling, Paton as the diligent soldier trying to act as if the most ridiculous decisions have some merit. It would be funny if I weren’t a fan.
            I expected the Broncos would not pick Fields or Jones, knowing they would avoid any risk after Lynch poisoned the well. Therefore I wasn’t mad because I understand the tendencies of the organization. Also, not a surprise to see Fangio push for defenders after they wasted so much draft capital on Jeudy and Hamler. It was Fangio’s turn to get a player.

            This isn’t an organization aligned on a real plan - wasted capital on WRs without a quarterback and followed with a CB instead of getting a quarterback. Tried to compensate for lack of a quarterback with WRs without a good quarterback.

            It’s easier to pick a CB and not do the work to develop a quarterback. Get a journeyman and try to make it work like the preceding 5 seasons with a 35-50 record.

            Rinse. Repeat.



            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by Humberg View Post

              See, I think this is the wrong way of looking at our off season. It was never about Teddy. He’s wasn’t our move this off season. He wasn’t the plan. He was an insurance policy you hoped not to have to cash. The fact that Teddy is starting means plan A failed.

              This was always about Elways belief in Drew. That’s why when Paton was asked to justify passing on a QB and selecting Surtain he gave some ridiculous answer about “Starting cornerbacks are hard to find in this league” (as if starting quarterbacks are somehow easier). It wouldn’t make sense, would it, because it wasn’t Patons decision and there really is no justifying it. He would have been laughed at if he would have said “John just didn’t feel like it was time to move on from Drew yet” which, while accurate, flies in the face of any reasonable NFL sense. No reasonable GM would pass on multiple first round QBs that fell into your lap when you are QB-needy, for a third year, previous second round pick, QB who was coming off one of the worst performances in the NFL at the position and was having difficulty establishing themselves, all for a starting cornerback. Laughable and unbelievable.

              And it wouldn’t be so bad except we’ve seen this before haven’t we? Paxton Lynch was a done deal that Elway couldn’t get over and we wasted time there. Siemien, Flacco, Sanchez, Keenum.

              It feels right out of an episode of The Office. Elway and Paton as Michael and Dwight. Elway as the bumbling boss who lacks the skill required but is always meddling, Paton as the diligent soldier trying to act as if the most ridiculous decisions have some merit. It would be funny if I weren’t a fan.
              Great point about Elway not wanting to give up on Lock. The interesting question / why Bridgewater ended up being the starter? If Elway didn’t want to move on from Lock it seems like they would have named him starter and given him at least the first 4-5 games to prove himself.

              I didn’t watch every preseason snap but it seemed like Lock did enough except he didn’t play well in the last game if I recall. Maybe it was camp and the poor showing in the last preseason game that did him in?

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by Fantaztic7 View Post

                Great point about Elway not wanting to give up on Lock. The interesting question / why Bridgewater ended up being the starter? If Elway didn’t want to move on from Lock it seems like they would have named him starter and given him at least the first 4-5 games to prove himself.

                I didn’t watch every preseason snap but it seemed like Lock did enough except he didn’t play well in the last game if I recall. Maybe it was camp and the poor showing in the last preseason game that did him in?
                He looked better to me. :shrug:
                sigpic

                Hooray, beer!

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by Fantaztic7 View Post

                  Great point about Elway not wanting to give up on Lock. The interesting question / why Bridgewater ended up being the starter? If Elway didn’t want to move on from Lock it seems like they would have named him starter and given him at least the first 4-5 games to prove himself.

                  I didn’t watch every preseason snap but it seemed like Lock did enough except he didn’t play well in the last game if I recall. Maybe it was camp and the poor showing in the last preseason game that did him in?
                  Lock looked lights out in the first game. But didnt manage to do much in the second game. I was actually at that game against the seahawks. He didnt look great, some bad throws and mistakes like tripping over his lineman. His 3rd game was alright but he was already named as the backup at that point.

                  Super stoked to have another bottom tier FA qb next year. Its like christmas, opening up your present under the tree and finding a dog turd inside. So much fun.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by Starbroncs View Post

                    Lock looked lights out in the first game. But didnt manage to do much in the second game. I was actually at that game against the seahawks. He didnt look great, some bad throws and mistakes like tripping over his lineman. His 3rd game was alright but he was already named as the backup at that point.

                    Super stoked to have another bottom tier FA qb next year. Its like christmas, opening up your present under the tree and finding a dog turd inside. So much fun.
                    Thanks for the recap.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by Starbroncs View Post

                      Lock looked lights out in the first game. But didnt manage to do much in the second game. I was actually at that game against the seahawks. He didnt look great, some bad throws and mistakes like tripping over his lineman. His 3rd game was alright but he was already named as the backup at that point.

                      Super stoked to have another bottom tier FA qb next year. Its like christmas, opening up your present under the tree and finding a dog turd inside. So much fun.
                      Totally. The interesting thing to me about Elway is that I don’t know why he can’t wrap his head around investing a high draft choice on a QB given his own path into the NFL. He was the first choice overall, who then was traded for huge capital and clearly was the premium talent that year. Surely he should know this is how it works.
                      To permit irresponsible authority is to sell disaster. (Heinlein)...like Broncos season tickets!

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by HDbroncos02 View Post
                        Dallas would've picked Lynch, we were interested in Dak in the mid-rounds. Such is life.

                        I was incensed that we didn't pick Fields and I was okay with Jones at 9. Look at my post history and search these names you bring up, I'm always looking for a way to improve at QB. I think we both want better QBs than the ones we've had, no?

                        We made the move to trade for Teddy. That was our move this offseason.

                        We could even stay right where we are next year and take whoever we want out of Howell, Strong, or Ridder. Restart the development cycle with a mid-1st round, physically-intriguing prospect with questionable flaws. Or move up for Corral or Willis, which would probably require a trade-up involving a bunch of future high picks. Same goes for any disgruntled, veteran star QB in the NFL if they were made available for trade.

                        Perhaps, we would be "content" with the good ole' bargain bin of the free agent market for next year too?

                        Are you suggesting the shelves are empty for quarterbacks?

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          If we beat the Raiders will some people feel 0-6?
                          Time to build on the win and grow the team from some solid play higher level of play

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by Hadez View Post
                            If we beat the Raiders will some people feel 0-6?
                            Nah. That would feel like 4-2.
                            "Stultum est timere quod vitare non potes." ~ Publilius Syrus

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by Hadez View Post
                              If we beat the Raiders will some people feel 0-6?
                              The narrative will either be:

                              (A) "Wow, we beat a team that just lost their HC and has a ST coach leading them ."

                              (B) "Wow, we lost to a team that just lost their HC and has a ST coach leading them ."

                              When we lose, no one is happy. When we win, people still find reasons to be unhappy.
                              https://i.imgur.com/7Q7tpCd.png

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by HDbroncos02 View Post

                                The narrative will either be:

                                (A) "Wow, we beat a team that just lost their HC and has a ST coach leading them ."

                                (B) "Wow, we lost to a team that just lost their HC and has a ST coach leading them ."

                                When we lose, no one is happy. When we win, people still find reasons to be unhappy.
                                No one is going to be unhappy with a win. That doesn’t mean they’re going to be excited though either. If this were back when I really hated the Raiders, I would be excited for any win over that team. I think I’ve lost some of the hate over time.
                                My Opinion isn’t determined by what the Popular Opinion is. Sometimes I agree with the Majority, Sometimes I Don’t. If My Opinion is Different than Yours, I have to Ask One Question:
                                You Mad Bro?
                                Don’t Be A Mean Girl
                                Hell No!!! To the Texans Quarterback!!!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X