Jump to content

Denver forced to play with no QB


PirateHookerMD
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Any idea as to why the NFL was so firmly set against this?

 

Edit OK I see above. Unfair, teams could "store players as coaches".  Eh, if the only time the team is allowed to dress a coach is if the whole position group is knocked out of a game with a contagious disease, not much advantage there.  I'm not too impressed by "slippery slope" arguments when the slope in question is reached by a rare set of circumstances.  I think the NFL is kind of being ***** to the Ponies here. 

I think that is the official explanation.  My guess is the league is making an example of them to get other teams to comply with the rules.  See also the Saints fines and loss of draft pick.

You have to wonder if a bubble plan is being worked on for the playoffs.  Very difficult to do with the size of these teams compared to the NBA but the league can't risk a SB being played with third string QBs or one team having a significant competitive advantage over another because of COVID.  Truly difficult situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is an absolute joke. 

A couple years ago I took a deep dive here into how teams fare with "emergency QBs." I tried to define that strictly: guys who were signed off the street (think Derek Anderson here in 2018, or Thad Lewis a few years earlier) in order to avoid more common/less desperate situations like activating a guy from the practice squad -- those guys have practiced, taken reps at QB (even with the scout team) so it's a different situation.

The answer: they weren't as bad as you'd think. My point then was that teams seem to overvalue the ordinary backup QB like Matt Barkley. After all, he basically was the signed-off-the-street replacement level QB. And guys like him typically perform like a run of the mill backup. A decent team can start a guy like that for 6 games and plan to go 2-4. That's the baseline, and that's where the Broncs were last year with Brandon Allen as the emergency guy.

But this is different. It literally never has happened in my football fan lifetime, which goes back to the mid-70s. This is not even like the Jets being forced to use TE Tim Tebow at QB -- he was already on the team, he'd played QB in the NFL before (with mixed results, not as bad as most people think). This is unheard of, activating a WR off the practice squad literally one day before a game -- a guy who has never taken a snap at QB, even in practice or camp, since (I think) his sophomore year in college. A guy who has no real knowledge of the playbook as it relates to QB. And there isn't enough time to devise a what-the-hell-let's-run-an-old-college-option-offense-this-week gameplan to try to get through this week.

The closest thing is the replacement player games of the 1980s NFL strike, except one team is playing with their real roster. I know the Broncs were stupid, but the NFL should not want to put this product on TV as allegedly professional football.

  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, stevestojan said:

I have no feelings one way out the other about the Broncos, but this is the ultimate “stop testing us” from the NFL. 

 

By the way, the game is back on the sports books. N.O. -16.5. Opened at -6. 
 

really tempted to take NO. 

 

With 16.5 points?  I wouldn't touch that.  I looked at the moneyline and betting $2000 gets only $123.  Not worth it in case Hinton somehow looks like Kurt Warner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Doc said:

 

With 16.5 points?  I wouldn't touch that.  I looked at the moneyline and betting $2000 gets only $123.  Not worth it in case Hinton somehow looks like Kurt Warner.

 

Considering Hill is on the other side and how well their D operated against Tua I would take Denver plus the 17.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

This is an absolute joke. 

A couple years ago I took a deep dive here into how teams fare with "emergency QBs." I tried to define that strictly: guys who were signed off the street (think Derek Anderson here in 2018, or Thad Lewis a few years earlier) in order to avoid more common/less desperate situations like activating a guy from the practice squad -- those guys have practiced, taken reps at QB (even with the scout team) so it's a different situation.

The answer: they weren't as bad as you'd think. My point then was that teams seem to overvalue the ordinary backup QB like Matt Barkley. After all, he basically was the signed-off-the-street replacement level QB. And guys like him typically perform like a run of the mill backup. A decent team can start a guy like that for 6 games and plan to go 2-4. That's the baseline, and that's where the Broncs were last year with Brandon Allen as the emergency guy.

But this is different. It literally never has happened in my football fan lifetime, which goes back to the mid-70s. This is not even like the Jets being forced to use TE Tim Tebow at QB -- he was already on the team, he'd played QB in the NFL before (with mixed results, not as bad as most people think). This is unheard of, activating a WR off the practice squad literally one day before a game -- a guy who has never taken a snap at QB, even in practice or camp, since (I think) his sophomore year in college. A guy who has no real knowledge of the playbook as it relates to QB. And there isn't enough time to devise a what-the-hell-let's-run-an-old-college-option-offense-this-week gameplan to try to get through this week.

The closest thing is the replacement player games of the 1980s NFL strike, except one team is playing with their real roster. I know the Broncs were stupid, but the NFL should not want to put this product on TV as allegedly professional football.

 

This is basically where I am, especially since there were potential solutions including allowing the Broncs QC coach to suit up or delaying the game until Tues to allow 1 of the QB to come off the list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Doc said:

 

With 16.5 points?  I wouldn't touch that.  I looked at the moneyline and betting $2000 gets only $123.  Not worth it in case Hinton somehow looks like Kurt Warner.

Changed my mind. Put $20 on the money line for the Broncos just for ***** and giggles. 

  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, y2zipper said:

 

Considering Hill is on the other side and how well their D operated against Tua I would take Denver plus the 17.


you have to think it’ll be a low scoring game with both teams minimizing possessions. 
 

To win by 3 scoring possessions (if not more if the gap is fgs instead of tds) would be a lot. Should be a solid win but not sure it’ll be that good without a reliable offense if their own. Will be a lot of milking the clock 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dma0034 said:

Saints aren't playing with a QB either. I'm starting Hinton as a WR in fantasy and idc.

 

Who the hell is Hinton???

54 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

This is basically where I am, especially since there were potential solutions including allowing the Broncs QC coach to suit up or delaying the game until Tues to allow 1 of the QB to come off the list.

 

No there was no option to delay the game...that is done strictly for medical reasons not because thr team does dumb stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...