Football Broncos have no QB vs Saints - Page 17

:-)

All the QBs on the Broncos' roster are ineligible to play Sunday against the Saints after being deemed high-risk, close contacts, sources tell ESPN.

None were wearing masks at the time of exposure, per source.
— Adam Schefter (@AdamSchefter) November 28, 2020

Broncos will not be forfeiting, per source.

Short of luring GM John Elway out of retirement, it sets up as the most unexpected NFL scene of 2020. Broncos have no QBs for a game against the Saints. https://t.co/ig4knEI9vQ
— Adam Schefter (@AdamSchefter) November 28, 2020

[Reply]

Originally Posted by htismaqe:
“In a weird way, I’m kind of happy to see some of this stuff happen because you see who the whiners are, who the bitchers are, and who can’t handle adversity."

- Vic Fangio

(Mentally distributing denver's roster into those three categories...)
[Reply]

Much respect to the dude who played QB today for Denver. Apparently he was working a sales job just like a month ago. Got called in and moved up from the practice squad 24 hours before the game to play a position he hasn't played in years with literally zero preparation.

He could have done worse.
[Reply]

Originally Posted by ThaVirus:
Much respect to the dude who played QB today for Denver. Apparently he was working a sales job just like a month ago. Got called in and moved up from the practice squad 24 hours before the game to play a position he hasn't played in years with literally zero preparation.

He could have done worse.

He had a 0.1 QBR and a 0 Rating.

I get what you’re saying, but I doubt he could have done much worse than that.
[Reply]

Originally Posted by smithandrew051:
He had a 0.1 QBR and a 0 Rating.

I get what you’re saying, but I doubt he could have done much worse than that.

Well, yeah. I guess I would give him credit for stepping up, though. That incompetent organization put him in the worst position possible, but he manned up and tried.
[Reply]

Originally Posted by smithandrew051:
He had a 0.1 QBR and a 0 Rating.

I get what you’re saying, but I doubt he could have done much worse than that.

Yea. He had one day to prepare and hadn’t played QB since his junior year of college.

I guess the Broncos asked the NFL if they could put one of their young coaches at QB who knew the offense, but it got denied.
[Reply]

I respect him for trying. No doubt about that. I get that it was a terrible situation.

Just saying that he was beyond awful, so it couldn’t have been much worse.
[Reply]

Now I'm really curious about those games in 1998 and 2005. I would've thought those things wouldn't have happened since the 1940s.
[Reply]

Bwahahaha! The 1998 game was the epic Chiefs beatdown of Ryan Leaf!

https://www.pro-football-reference.c...9809200kan.htm
[Reply]

Originally Posted by Rain Man:
Bwahahaha! The 1998 game was the epic Chiefs beatdown of Ryan Leaf!

https://www.pro-football-reference.c...9809200kan.htm

[Reply]

The 2005 game was a matchup of the 49ers and Bears. Our own Kyle Orton piloted the Bears to a win on the strength of 67 yards passing, aided by a 108 yard return of a missed field goal.

On the other side of the field, the 49ers started Cody Pickett (who?). On a very windy day, Picket went 1 of 13 for 28 yards and 1 interception.

https://www.pro-football-reference.c...0511130chi.htm
[Reply]

Rain Man beat me to it.

Well if you want another stat... that 12 yards was their lowest total since 1983. It was John Elway's first game. He went 1-8 for 14 yards. Steve Deberg also played and threw 8 passes, but they allowed a bunch of sacks, and the Broncos finished with 1 net yard passing.

Amazingly, they beat the Steelers 14-10.
[Reply]

Originally Posted by tk13:
Rain Man beat me to it.

Well if you want another stat... that 12 yards was their lowest total since 1983. It was John Elway's first game. He went 1-8 for 14 yards. Steve Deberg also played and threw 8 passes, but they allowed a bunch of sacks, and the Broncos finished with 1 net yard passing.

Amazingly, they beat the Steelers 14-10.

I figured Elway would have something to do with it.
[Reply]