[Simply Red]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Nah, that's not entirely fair. The 'Lynch' stuff is way off; Lynch didn't have the drive to improve.

Lock has shown exceptional aptitude and coachability despite several coaching/coordinator changes while in college. And he's shown improvement in key areas every year.

Physically, he has slightly above average NFL arm strength and slightly above average NFL mobility. He doesn't have a true downfield cannon but is definitely capable of throwing solid deep shots. He's not Mahomes off platform by any stretch but he's able to throw amidst a maelstrom.

Physically he's not dissimilar to Carson Wentz; very comparable in terms of raw arm strength and mobility; probably a half-step under in both.

Where he's really lacking is just his general feel as a passer. He isn't a great touch passer and sometimes isn't willing to take what's available to him (again, very much like Wentz).

His downshot reminds me very much of Ryan Tannehill. If his development is poor but not non-existent, Tannehill is who he becomes. If his development is good, there's Carson Wentz potential there. And if his development IS non-existent, you have Paxton Lynch. I simply don't see that happening. Lynch was a flake that didn't have the head on his shoulders to be an NFL quarterback. I don't see that happening with Lock. I think your range is somewhere between a below average NFL starter (Tannehill) and a fringe top 10 guy. Out of last year's class I'd take him ahead of Rosen but behind Darnold (though not as far behind Darnold as many others see him).

In a bad QB draft, if you're a team needing a signal caller, you could do worse. If I'm Denver, I wouldn't be building shrines to him or anything, but I wouldn't be crestfallen either.

Yeah I maybe shouldn't have voiced my opinion - I only had a small sample size. I'm pulling for the guy - unless he lands w/ Denver. ha