You are currently viewing the old forums. We have upgraded to a new NFL Forum.
This old forum is being left as a read-only archive.
Please update your bookmarks to our new forum at forums.footballsfuture.com.


 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

Paxton Lynch the Ultimate dilemma?

 
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Denver Broncos
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
thebestever6


Joined: 03 Jan 2008
Posts: 3182
PostPosted: Mon Feb 27, 2017 11:29 am    Post subject: Paxton Lynch the Ultimate dilemma? Reply with quote

this team has an 8 and 8 to 7 and 9 floor with even the most woeful qb starting for them in 2017. Why go Siemian? You go Siemian because he has a quick release, can read through progressions and has shown the ability to make believers out of fellow teammates like Talib and Miller that he has the poise to get this team over the hump.

Why go Lynch? You go lynch because he has shown the most natural talent to play the position. Because he has shown the ability specifically in the Tampa bay game to make throws which are spectacular into tight windows. And finally because you don't wanna see a high pick investment go two years sitting on the bench.


Why even consider Romo? because he can lead a team? Put up star wars numbers in the regular season to me Romo shouldn't even be an after thought into this great debate we have two capable qbs on the roster that,are cheap. Romo at a point in his career could of won with a great defense much like Philip Rivers but Rivers is healthy and Romo hasn't been that's an avenue I would hate to see the Broncos go down.

So Paxton lynch remains the ultimate debate do we let him play who has a first,
round skill set or a placeholder veteran? Or a qb that is a huge question mark staying healthy?

If Paxton doesn't play it's because we haven't revamped the o line enough and him in a position to succeed.
_________________
Props to Deadpulse for the Sig:

Big Palooka wrote:
"They don't have to worry about him making consistent passes. They will win another 2-3 max with him at QB."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
paul-mac


Joined: 12 Jul 2009
Posts: 12230
Location: Scotland
PostPosted: Mon Feb 27, 2017 12:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Romo thing is basically trying to repeat the Peyton Manning years. Pair a top QB with a top roster and hope to win a SB.

I get it if your only goal is to win it all in 2017 or maybe 2018, but by doing so you're essentially giving up on Paxton Lynch.

If Drew Brees or Philip Rivers were to become available then I'd be in favour of going "all-in" again, but the problem with Romo is that he's spent a massive chunk of the last two seasons on the treatment table.

With Romo you're relying on two key assumptions. The first of these is that he can stay healthy through sixteen regular season games and a month in the playoffs. Past experience shows this assumption is 50/50 at best and recent experience suggests it's very unlikely, so that's a major red flag to me.

The second assumption is that even if Tony Romo does manage to stay perfectly healthy, is he even the same player that he was in 2014? He could easily have undergone a Jake Delhomme/Donovan McNabb/Brett Favre/Peyton Manning esque overnight regression that no one has noticed because he's been on the treatment table. Is Romo even a better game manager than Trevor Siemian anymore? No one knows.

The other big disadvantage about bringing in Romo is that it would detract resources away from other areas. If we go trade for Romo it basically means we'll be entering 2017 with a porous OL yet again, which Romo will get killed behind. Whereas if we stick with what we've got at QB, we can restock our defense, add 2 or 3 starting OL and a couple of new weapons.

The best option for the Denver Broncos is to spend the 2017 offseason developing both QBs whilst improving the roster around them.
_________________
Victor Cruz Pun wrote:
DavidatMIZZOU wrote:
Isn't CJ Anderson one of those dudes that replaced Terrell Davis? If so top 5 RB of all time.


Fify.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
thebestever6


Joined: 03 Jan 2008
Posts: 3182
PostPosted: Mon Feb 27, 2017 3:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

paul-mac wrote:
The Romo thing is basically trying to repeat the Peyton Manning years. Pair a top QB with a top roster and hope to win a SB.

I get it if your only goal is to win it all in 2017 or maybe 2018, but by doing so you're essentially giving up on Paxton Lynch.

If Drew Brees or Philip Rivers were to become available then I'd be in favour of going "all-in" again, but the problem with Romo is that he's spent a massive chunk of the last two seasons on the treatment table.

With Romo you're relying on two key assumptions. The first of these is that he can stay healthy through sixteen regular season games and a month in the playoffs. Past experience shows this assumption is 50/50 at best and recent experience suggests it's very unlikely, so that's a major red flag to me.

The second assumption is that even if Tony Romo does manage to stay perfectly healthy, is he even the same player that he was in 2014? He could easily have undergone a Jake Delhomme/Donovan McNabb/Brett Favre/Peyton Manning esque overnight regression that no one has noticed because he's been on the treatment table. Is Romo even a better game manager than Trevor Siemian anymore? No one knows.

The other big disadvantage about bringing in Romo is that it would detract resources away from other areas. If we go trade for Romo it basically means we'll be entering 2017 with a porous OL yet again, which Romo will get killed behind. Whereas if we stick with what we've got at QB, we can restock our defense, add 2 or 3 starting OL and a couple of new weapons.

The best option for the Denver Broncos is to spend the 2017 offseason developing both QBs whilst improving the roster around them.



Completely agree Romo has a better shot in kc or Houston kc is ideal because he has an oline and even if he does get banged up Smith doesn't need a lot of reps he knows the offense also Smith plays better when a fire is lit under him.


Houston is another good option because Brock also plays his best when a fire is lit under him and even if Romo gets injured he's the best option if healthy. Brock just isnt in the long term cards.
_________________
Props to Deadpulse for the Sig:

Big Palooka wrote:
"They don't have to worry about him making consistent passes. They will win another 2-3 max with him at QB."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
paul-mac


Joined: 12 Jul 2009
Posts: 12230
Location: Scotland
PostPosted: Mon Feb 27, 2017 3:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Houston can't afford him, no way are they going to be paying both him and Brock.

Chiefs probably don't want him.

I think people will be a little surprised at where Romo ends up. I see it being the Jets or Bears tbh
_________________
Victor Cruz Pun wrote:
DavidatMIZZOU wrote:
Isn't CJ Anderson one of those dudes that replaced Terrell Davis? If so top 5 RB of all time.


Fify.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
jsthomp2007


Joined: 11 Jan 2008
Posts: 8722
Location: USA
PostPosted: Mon Feb 27, 2017 7:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The only thing I want Dallas to be apart of in this dilemma was the dilemma the Cowboys had in picking Aikman over Steve Walsh...pretty good comparison I hope when you look at the Lynch vs. Siemien dilemma.
_________________
Ninja stealth muggers in the Bellagio has left me in a state of congitive disonance...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BroncosFan2010


Joined: 04 Feb 2010
Posts: 3900
PostPosted: Tue Feb 28, 2017 11:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think Romo would be smartest to take a small deal and try for a ring in Houston but IMO they really cant pay him more than like 8M per.

That team is a QB away, and Romo is a great fit, maybe a back loaded deal, but that's risky with an old, injury prone guy like Tony.

I don't see KC rolling the dice on him over Alex. Very risky with injury and honestly, I don't see a healthy Romo being considerably better than Smith at this point in their careers.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mke1010


Joined: 08 Mar 2008
Posts: 2749
PostPosted: Tue Feb 28, 2017 12:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

paul-mac wrote:
The Romo thing is basically trying to repeat the Peyton Manning years. Pair a top QB with a top roster and hope to win a SB.

I get it if your only goal is to win it all in 2017 or maybe 2018, but by doing so you're essentially giving up on Paxton Lynch.

If Drew Brees or Philip Rivers were to become available then I'd be in favour of going "all-in" again, but the problem with Romo is that he's spent a massive chunk of the last two seasons on the treatment table.

With Romo you're relying on two key assumptions. The first of these is that he can stay healthy through sixteen regular season games and a month in the playoffs. Past experience shows this assumption is 50/50 at best and recent experience suggests it's very unlikely, so that's a major red flag to me.

The second assumption is that even if Tony Romo does manage to stay perfectly healthy, is he even the same player that he was in 2014? He could easily have undergone a Jake Delhomme/Donovan McNabb/Brett Favre/Peyton Manning esque overnight regression that no one has noticed because he's been on the treatment table. Is Romo even a better game manager than Trevor Siemian anymore? No one knows.

The other big disadvantage about bringing in Romo is that it would detract resources away from other areas. If we go trade for Romo it basically means we'll be entering 2017 with a porous OL yet again, which Romo will get killed behind. Whereas if we stick with what we've got at QB, we can restock our defense, add 2 or 3 starting OL and a couple of new weapons.

The best option for the Denver Broncos is to spend the 2017 off season developing both QBs whilst improving the roster around them.

Never understood this logic. Not advocating one way or the other but the Packers didn't "essentially give up on" Rodgers by sitting him multiple years neither did the Titans with Mcnair. Not saying both circumstances are the same or that Paxton is either of the afore-mentioned players but you get get my drift.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Denver Broncos All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group