Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Denver Broncos playing tomorrow without any of their main qbs


whole-show

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Twenty-Four Eighty-Four said:

The only league I have him and am not starting him (as of right now) is where I have DeVante Parker as my second flex. Can't seem to make that switch yet.

Assuming PPR I’d keep Parker for sure. Little closer in standard. I’m leaning towards starting him over Tee Higgins in ppr and I’m starting him in a bunch of places over Steelers wrs unless there’s some really positive news on that game today. Hoping the kid doesn’t throw too many picks and gobbles up some yards on the ground.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Razors Edge said:

This is a cowards way out in my opinion.

Dual eligibility, no, not for anyone. But allowing a guy who is only suppose to be a QB today based off media reports is the weakest thing MFL has done.

Taysom hill played multiple position, this guy is a WR and is an emergency QB clearly. Calling him a QB is a way for them to keep paying customers happy. 

This is the loophole it was intended for. Picking up a guy late who may get snaps at QB. Picking up a guy who is a QB who will be allowed to play TE, weaksauce.

:2cents:

Taysom had played more snaps at other positions. 

I could be wrong but I don't think Hinton has taken a snap in an NFL game at any position. So when he gets added, it's at the position he was signed to play. 

Although, he's still a wr in my sleeper league, he was in the database before. So at least that's somewhat consistent. Taysom was always a qb there so... :shrug:

Edited by FUBAR
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Biabreakable said:

Yeah if only some one had talked to the coach about the possibility of this happening and how he could prevent it.

Oh never mind. Freeman or bust then!

Denver is probably kicking themselves for not keeping one QB separated from the other QBs.   All other teams better be paying attention.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, DocHolliday said:

Denver is probably kicking themselves for not keeping one QB separated from the other QBs.   All other teams better be paying attention.  

As the quote upthread makes clear, Fangio considered it too far fetched in September to worry about. He was also fined $100K after Week 2 for not wearing a mask on the sideline. Maybe he’s a #justtheflubro kind of guy?

:shrug:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Cobbler1 said:

Ravens and Titans are/were having several players pop up with positive tests across multiple days. Their games were moved to prevent actively infected players from taking the field. That doesn’t appear to be a concern for the Broncos and wasn’t for the Niners or several teams earlier. The NFL is clear they won’t move games to prevent teams from taking the field at a competitive disadvantage but they will move them to prevent teams from blatantly spreading the virus on the field.

Yep. I am a longtime Broncos fan and they have no but themselves to blame for this fiasco.  The QB's should have been safer, and the coaching staff should have done a better job in making sure the players were following protocol. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Ghost Rider said:

Yep. I am a longtime Broncos fan and they have no but themselves to blame for this fiasco.  The QB's should have been safer, and the coaching staff should have done a better job in making sure the players were following protocol. 

Yup. And the Ravens have no one to blame but themselves as well and the league would happily make them play Pitt with a shell squad but can’t risk infected players taking the field and causing very publicly visible on field spread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, starks said:

They should come out first play with 5 wide lol run fly pattern and throw it as hard as he can 

I’m gonna be impressed if he completes ONE pass over 10 yards. There’s nothing in his life - OK, maybe a few Clemson games - that has adequately prepared Kendall Hinton for the speed at which they will becoming at him today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Twenty-Four Eighty-Four said:

I'm tryna to figure out if having this guy @ QB today will benefit Cam Jordan, DE for the Saints, or Malcolm Jenkins, Safety for the Saints. IDP league, obviously.

Who’s their stud edge guy? Trey Hendrickson?

That guy couldn’t sleep last night. Like being 7, dozens of presents under the tree, Christmas Eve cannot sleep

Edited by BoerumHill
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Razors Edge said:

This is a cowards way out in my opinion.

Dual eligibility, no, not for anyone. But allowing a guy who is only suppose to be a QB today based off media reports is the weakest thing MFL has done.

Taysom hill played multiple position, this guy is a WR and is an emergency QB clearly. Calling him a QB is a way for them to keep paying customers happy. 

This is the loophole it was intended for. Picking up a guy late who may get snaps at QB. Picking up a guy who is a QB who will be allowed to play TE, weaksauce.

Hill has been an mfl qb for years now.  He's been on my roster in my deepest dynasty as a long shot on the off chance that just this thing happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, SoBeDad said:

Are Lindsay and Gordon startable? My alternates include Murray, who might get a boost in a blowout.

Same concern here with Gordon on my roster. Denver stands to run the ball a lot but hire effective will they be with 8-9+ defenders in the box every play?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The NFL denied repeated requests from the Denver Broncos to postpone their game against the New Orleans Saints from Sunday to Tuesday so they could field a quarterback, sources told Adam Schefter of ESPN.

 

What criteria did Balt, Pitt, KC, NE all meet to get their games postponed?  Winning records?  Better ratings?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, beef said:

The NFL denied repeated requests from the Denver Broncos to postpone their game against the New Orleans Saints from Sunday to Tuesday so they could field a quarterback, sources told Adam Schefter of ESPN.

 

What criteria did Balt, Pitt, KC, NE all meet to get their games postponed?  Winning records?  Better ratings?  

Username checks out.

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Razors Edge said:

This is a cowards way out in my opinion.

Dual eligibility, no, not for anyone. But allowing a guy who is only suppose to be a QB today based off media reports is the weakest thing MFL has done.

Taysom hill played multiple position, this guy is a WR and is an emergency QB clearly. Calling him a QB is a way for them to keep paying customers happy. 

This is the loophole it was intended for. Picking up a guy late who may get snaps at QB. Picking up a guy who is a QB who will be allowed to play TE, weaksauce.

How so?  he guy is being brought up to play QUARTERBACK and as such should be listed that way.  If not for the lack of quarerbacks he wouldnt be brought up.  There are never intended loopholes... just people who try to take advantagh of an unusual situation.  We dealt with this in my league years ago when cordell slash stewart played.  When he was a gadget player he could be played at wr BUT the day he became pitts staring QB  he had to be played as such.  Its for differen reasons but hinton is being brought up to play QB  not wr.  

 

Edited by da_budman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Schefter put out there that Denver's lack of having an owner to advocate moving the game could have really hurt them here.

Denver also tried to sign one of their coaches to QB this week and the league wouldn't allow it either.

This is going to be a crazy game.I just feel bad for the defense, who have been exceeding expectations in the face of all the injuries. They are going to be on the field a lot today.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Courtjester said:

Schefter put out there that Denver's lack of having an owner to advocate moving the game could have really hurt them here.

Denver also tried to sign one of their coaches to QB this week and the league wouldn't allow it either.

This is going to be a crazy game.I just feel bad for the defense, who have been exceeding expectations in the face of all the injuries. They are going to be on the field a lot today.  

I want to watch this game more than any other so far this year.  

  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Courtjester said:

Schefter put out there that Denver's lack of having an owner to advocate moving the game could have really hurt them here.

Denver also tried to sign one of their coaches to QB this week and the league wouldn't allow it either.

This is going to be a crazy game.I just feel bad for the defense, who have been exceeding expectations in the face of all the injuries. They are going to be on the field a lot today.  

Well yeah, the league wouldn’t allow them to sign one of their coaches to play QB because they’ve long had a rule specifically against doing so to avoid teams illegally expanding rosters by signing a player as a “coach”.

And I don’t think that having an owner would have changed anything for them. The team made the decision to not isolate a QB for just three situations. The team made the decision to put all of their QBs in situations where they were in close contact without masks. The team tried to game the system by having their players not wear their tracking devices at times. The team initially lied to the NFL about contact tracing. 

This was an organizational decision to fail. Vic Fangio’s comments in September made it clear that he considered a game without his top 2 QBs as being essentially a loss anyway, so now Broncos fans and players know who to actually blame. The organization made the decision to essentially punt any game without their top QBs and now we’re seeing it play out. Frankly, I think their decision looks even worse because Lock has been awful anyway, so the idea that the backups would be a lost cause compared to Lock seems like bad calculus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Razors Edge said:
5 hours ago, trader jake said:

MFL has him in the database now...as a QB.

This is a cowards way out in my opinion.

Dual eligibility, no, not for anyone. But allowing a guy who is only suppose to be a QB today based off media reports is the weakest thing MFL has done.

Taysom hill played multiple position, this guy is a WR and is an emergency QB clearly. Calling him a QB is a way for them to keep paying customers happy. 

This is the loophole it was intended for. Picking up a guy late who may get snaps at QB. Picking up a guy who is a QB who will be allowed to play TE, weaksauce.

I think it's fine for MFL to go with whatever designation is used by the team. If a team announces that a player has switched from WR to QB, then the fantasy services should follow suit.

Although the Broncos have not updated the roster on their website, they have officially announced that Hinton will be the team's quarterback today. At least that is a more consistent rationale than what ESPN did with Taysom Hill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Razors Edge said:

This is my problem, these reporters who said Hinton would start, are they ever held accountable when they are wrong? 

you can call them out on twitter and ask for your league fees back i'm sure.

but seriously, did you start a practice squad WR who has never even practiced at QB this week?

Edited by Buffaloes
  • Like 1
  • Laughing 1
  • Thinking 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, whole-show said:

Broncos covid tests came back negative this morning per Schefter. Makes you wonder why they couldn’t postpone the game to today or tomorrow. 

The NFL has a 5-day quarantine requirement for anyone who comes into close contact with an infected player. Since all 3 quarterbacks came into contact with Jeff Driskel (who did reportedly test positive), it meant that none of them would have been eligible to play by Tuesday.

Of course, the reasonable common sense solution here would have been to just waive the 5-day requirement for anyone who tests negative and doesn't have any symptoms. But it's pretty obvious that the NFL had no interest in being reasonable. They wanted to make an example of someone.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Sea Duck said:

The NFL has a 5-day quarantine requirement for anyone who comes into close contact with an infected player. Since all 3 quarterbacks came into contact with Jeff Driskel (who did reportedly test positive), it meant that none of them would have been eligible to play by Tuesday.

Of course, the reasonable common sense solution here would have been to just waive the 5-day requirement for anyone who tests negative and doesn't have any symptoms. But it's pretty obvious that the NFL had no interest in being reasonable. They wanted to make an example of someone.

So long as they aren't a playoff contender.

  • Thinking 1
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.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...