If Lynch Starts.......

[WARHORSE]

Lynch gets the start and plays lights out.



Discuss.

[Northman]

Um ok.

[Nomad]

If Lynch starts......he better win.

[tripp]

Then I'm afraid it's game over for Siemian.

You're talking about two QB's who are about as raw as one another in terms of real game time experience, and IF Lynch plays lights out... 300+ yds, 4 TD's, and looks very, very comfortable in the pocket, and is making veteran throws.. then you've got a very GOOD problem to have. I'm really opposed to sitting a player because of an injury, but you drafted Lynch for a reason. This is about as delicate of a situation as the benching of Brock Oz in week 17 of last year. QB's are temperamental people, and confidence is everything for these guys. I constantly read on twitter how Lynch is coming along great in practice and is maturing week after week, and from last week's glimpse, he looked pretty good all things considered.

This is all assuming Lynch plays out of his mind and plays like Peyton Manning in 2013. I don't see it happening, personally. I think if Lynch does indeed start, he'll probably make a few mistakes, and perhaps throws 2 TD's, 1 INT for 200 yards, not enough for me to want to sit Siemian for the foreseeable future. Siemian knows the playbook better, has more chemistry with the 1st team, things that normally take weeks to learn, something Lynch doesn't have the luxury of having at the moment.

[Northman]

Even if Lynch has a good game he wont surplant Siemien as the starter. There would be no reason to bench Siemien as he has done nothing to warrant being benched. Now, if Siemien had to sit for any length of time throughout the season and Lynch plays well throughout the games he is in than that may be a different thing. But one game i highly doubt Siemien loses the starting job because of an injury. It would be incredibly unprofessional of Kubes to bench a starter after one game because of an injury.

[The Glue Factory]

QB's are temperamental people, and confidence is everything for these guys.

QBs that are temperamental are pussies IMO. Peyton seemed to take his benching in stride. I recall Mr. Elway getting benched his rookie year in favor of Deberg, and not being tempermental about it. So yeah; temperamental QBs don't belong on the Broncos coz we don't want guys with mangina's (they can play for the Cheatriots*.)

[BroncoWave]

Even if Lynch has a good game he wont surplant Siemien as the starter. There would be no reason to bench Siemien as he has done nothing to warrant being benched. Now, if Siemien had to sit for any length of time throughout the season and Lynch plays well throughout the games he is in than that may be a different thing. But one game i highly doubt Siemien loses the starting job because of an injury. It would be incredibly unprofessional of Kubes to bench a starter after one game because of an injury.

It happens alllll the time. It's not unprofessional at all. It literally happened last year with the Broncos when Peyton lost his job due to injury, and was brought back as the backup even when he was healthy enough to play. If Kubes can do it to Peyton Manning, he sure as shit can do it to Trevor Siemian.

Kubes has shown time and time again he will put out the guy who gives us the best chance to win. If Lynch comes out this week and looks like 2013 Peyton Manning, it would be really hard to say he's not that guy.

[Timmy!]

Well.....he's starting.

[tripp]

QBs that are temperamental are pussies IMO. Peyton seemed to take his benching in stride. I recall Mr. Elway getting benched his rookie year in favor of Deberg, and not being tempermental about it. So yeah; temperamental QBs don't belong on the Broncos coz we don't want guys with mangina's (they can play for the Cheatriots*.)

I should probably have been more specific, I meant young QB's. But yeah. Some QB's get it, some don't.

[TXBRONC]

Lynch gets the start and plays lights out.



Discuss.

Siemian is still the starter because one good outing by Lynch will not unseat him.

[Slick]

Well.....he's starting.

I just saw that. I'm excited to see him play.

[TXBRONC]

Even if Lynch has a good game he wont surplant Siemien as the starter. There would be no reason to bench Siemien as he has done nothing to warrant being benched. Now, if Siemien had to sit for any length of time throughout the season and Lynch plays well throughout the games he is in than that may be a different thing. But one game i highly doubt Siemien loses the starting job because of an injury. It would be incredibly unprofessional of Kubes to bench a starter after one game because of an injury.

I agree. I think it would take Lynch two or three good game to even entertain the idea of unseating Siemian as the starter. Right now it doesn't look like Siemian is going to out an extended period of time.

[NightTerror218]

If lynch throws for 300 yards and 4 TDs people might sing a diff tune.


Siemian had 1 good game. What if lynch does?

[Valar Morghulis]

Lynch will show himself for the bum he is

His trade value will drop

Fantasy owners will cut him

We will all hail the return of king Siemian

[DenBronx]

According to Mike Klis, Lynch to start Sunday against the Falcons.

PFFT:
Paxton Lynch to start for Broncos vs. Falcons
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/10/08/paxton-lynch-to-start-for-broncos-vs-falcons/

[tripp]

Cecil Lammey ‏@CecilLammey 36m36 minutes ago
#Broncos have 2 games in 5 days. Logic dictates that if Paxton Lynch starts Sunday, he would start Thursday in Wk6 @1043TheFan

[Tned]

Lynch gets the start and plays lights out.



Discuss.

According to Schlereth, Kubiak isn't a coach that believes that a player should lose his starting job due to injury.

But, when the QBOTF gets to start and if he lights it up.....

[Tned]

I just saw that. I'm excited to see him play.

Ditto. I'm not convinced he gives the Broncos the best chance to win (if both were healthy), but I am excited to see him play. I've had mixed emotions about this all week.


Cecil Lammey ‏@CecilLammey 36m36 minutes ago
#Broncos have 2 games in 5 days. Logic dictates that if Paxton Lynch starts Sunday, he would start Thursday in Wk6 @1043TheFan

I'm not sure that holds water. Considering Kubiak has said some of what he's struggled with is calling plays and such, having him prepare for two teams in a short period, but really be a challenge. Considering he was throwing better each week and is much farther along in terms of knowing the offense, control of the huddle, etc., I think he really comes down more to health, unless Lynch just lights it up.

[BroncoWave]

According to Schlereth, Kubiak isn't a coach that believes that a player should lose his starting job due to injury.

But, when the QBOTF gets to start and if he lights it up.....

Peyton Manning literally lost his job due to injury last year. Yes he got it back within a half, but he still lost it originally. Do people have amnesia about that?

[Northman]

I agree. I think it would take Lynch two or three good game to even entertain the idea of unseating Siemian as the starter. Right now it doesn't look like Siemian is going to out an extended period of time.

Yea, as i pointed out it would mean Siemien sitting for a few games and Lynch playing lights out during that time. One game? No chance in hell. And Siemien isnt Manning so the scenarios are not even close in comparison.

[Northman]

If lynch throws for 300 yards and 4 TDs people might sing a diff tune.


Siemian had 1 good game. What if lynch does?

Answer: People will be excited when Lynch finally takes over. But Siemien will still be 4-0 to Lynch's 1-0.

[BroncoWave]

The whole idea that a guy shouldn't lose his job due to injury is total nonsense. When you have to young and inexperienced players, it's hard to say which one is really better until you get them into live action. With QBs you can't always get them into live action. We have a scenario now in which that can happen. If Lynch proves to be a better player when he gets his chance, he should absolutely be the starter. The coach's job is to put the best players on the field. If an injury reveals that the backup was actually the better player, that's who the coach should put on the field.

[Northman]

The whole idea that a guy shouldn't lose his job due to injury is total nonsense. When you have to young and inexperienced players, it's hard to say which one is really better until you get them into live action. With QBs you can't always get them into live action. We have a scenario now in which that can happen. If Lynch proves to be a better player when he gets his chance, he should absolutely be the starter. The coach's job is to put the best players on the field. If an injury reveals that the backup was actually the better player, that's who the coach should put on the field.

There is still no reason to bench a guy who has lead the team to 4-0. Like NONE.

[BroncoWave]

There is still no reason to bench a guy who has lead the team to 4-0. Like NONE.

His backup being a better player would absolutely be a reason. Football is a team sport. One guy is not responsible for us being 4-0. Our defense is FAR AND AWAY the reason we are 4-0 moreso than Siemian. Our record should have nothing to do with Kubes putting the better player on the field.

[Northman]

His backup being a better player would absolutely be a reason. Football is a team sport. One guy is not responsible for us being 4-0. Our defense is FAR AND AWAY the reason we are 4-0 moreso than Siemian. Our record should have nothing to do with Kubes putting the better player on the field.

Lynch having ONE good game does not mean he is the better player after ONE game Wave. Lol

[Tned]

Peyton Manning literally lost his job due to injury last year. Yes he got it back within a half, but he still lost it originally. Do people have amnesia about that?

Manning was horrible last year, so he didn't lose his job to injury, he lost it to horrid play. When he came back after missing seven games he was still leading the league in INTs, and it was just due to a rookie throwing INTs in the last week of the season that Manning wasn't the NFL INT leader last year.

[ShaneFalco]

i dont like this, Lynch is not ready yet. He could have a great game, just not ready yet.

[OrangeHoof]

I'm not sure that holds water. Considering Kubiak has said some of what he's struggled with is calling plays and such, having him prepare for two teams in a short period, but really be a challenge.

What makes you think Kubiak is going to let Lynch call plays when he NEVER let Matt Schaub call the plays?

AFAIK, it will boil down to two things - no turnovers from your offense and the defense putting us in advantageous positions. That's the secret to Denver winning and doesn't really change just because the QB changed.

[TXBRONC]

Peyton Manning literally lost his job due to injury last year. Yes he got it back within a half, but he still lost it originally. Do people have amnesia about that?

No more you having amnesia about Kubiak saying that when Manning is ready he will return as the starter.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/broncos/2016/03/07/peyton-manning-return-gary-kubiak/81462872/

[I Eat Staples]

Lynch having ONE good game does not mean he is the better player after ONE game Wave. Lol

Siemian only had one good game too. I'm not sure why people think his first 2 games were good. They were actually pretty bad.

[TXBRONC]

Siemian only had one good game too. I'm not sure why people think his first 2 games were good. They were actually pretty bad.

All three of his startes have been good.

[I Eat Staples]

All three of his startes have been good.

18-26, 178 yards, 1 TD, 2 INTs.

That isn't a good stat line. It wasn't a good stat line last year when Peyton had games like that. The only reason people think that was good for Trevor is because he was a 7th round pick.

And then 22-33, 266 yards, 0 TDs, 1 INT against the worst defense in the NFL. Not impressive.

[BroncoWave]

Lynch having ONE good game does not mean he is the better player after ONE game Wave. Lol

That's not what I said North. As of now I agree Siemian is better. I said IF Lynch proves with his play on the field over the next game or two that he is a better player, which is entirely possible, then there should be no question who the starter is.

[BroncoWave]

Manning was horrible last year, so he didn't lose his job to injury, he lost it to horrid play. When he came back after missing seven games he was still leading the league in INTs, and it was just due to a rookie throwing INTs in the last week of the season that Manning wasn't the NFL INT leader last year.

He was horrible, but he didn't lose his job until his injury was so bad he couldn't play anymore. Then once he was fully healthy, he still lost his job. That's my point. Kubes has shown he will stick with the backup if they play better than the injured starter.

[BroncoWave]

No more you having amnesia about Kubiak saying that when Manning is ready he will return as the starter.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/broncos/2016/03/07/peyton-manning-return-gary-kubiak/81462872/

I don't care what he said, I care what he did. Peyton Manning was healthy and ready to play against SD in week 17, but his ass started the game on the bench. That is the very definition of losing your job due to injury. If Os doesn't shit the bed in the first half of that game, Manning probably would have never played another snap for Denver.

[Denver Native (Carol)]

Rookie quarterback and first-round draft pick Paxton Lynch will get his first start for the Broncos on Sunday as Trevor Siemian continues to recover from left shoulder sprain, an NFL source confirmed.

9News first reported Lynch would start.

Siemian sat out Wednesday’s practice and was limited Thursday and Friday as he “worked through soreness” in his non-throwing shoulder. Coach Gary Kubiak listed him as questionable for Sunday’s game against the Falcons, but wanted to see how he fared while throwing Saturday, during the team’s final walkthrough.

Kubiak said that he saw improvement in Siemian over the course of the week and that he would have felt comfortable playing him with limited practice time — if he was physically ready. But the Broncos’ schedule had to be considered. After the Falcons, they face the Chargers in San Diego on Thursday Night Football, leaving Siemian even less time to recover.

AND


The good news for Lynch: Atlanta’s defense is among the NFL’s worst, ranking 30th in total yards (419.3 per game), 31st against the pass (317 yards per game), 29th in scoring (31 points) and tying for 30th in red zone scoring (84.6 percent).

Kubiak has said repeatedly that Siemian remains the team’s true starter, but that he could end up relying on both throughout the season. The prospect would be nothing new after last season, when Peyton Manning missed seven starts to recover from a foot injury.

“Just like we went through last year when we had to have a first-time starter (in Brock Osweiler) having to playing during the playoff hunt,” Knapp said. “We feel like if we bring a guy in the building, there’s a reason he’s here so it’s our job to make sure he’s prepared to execute whatever is asked of him. They’re both young guys. It’s not like Trevor has been playing so many years. They’re both going to have their growing pains, but we feel like both work well together and are really growing at a good rate.”

full article - http://www.denverpost.com/2016/10/08/paxton-lynch-start-denver-broncos-atlanta-falcons/

[Tned]

What makes you think Kubiak is going to let Lynch call plays when he NEVER let Matt Schaub call the plays?

AFAIK, it will boil down to two things - no turnovers from your offense and the defense putting us in advantageous positions. That's the secret to Denver winning and doesn't really change just because the QB changed.

Sorry, confusing choice of words on my part. He's having trouble getting the play from the sideline and then "repeating" the play and necessary verbiage to the offense.

[Tned]

18-26, 178 yards, 1 TD, 2 INTs.

That isn't a good stat line. It wasn't a good stat line last year when Peyton had games like that. The only reason people think that was good for Trevor is because he was a 7th round pick.

And then 22-33, 266 yards, 0 TDs, 1 INT against the worst defense in the NFL. Not impressive.

It's a shame you don't get to watch the Broncos games and clearly just look at the stat line.

[Tned]

He was horrible, but he didn't lose his job until his injury was so bad he couldn't play anymore. Then once he was fully healthy, he still lost his job. That's my point. Kubes has shown he will stick with the backup if they play better than the injured starter.

I never said he wouldn't. I've said in multiple threads that if Siemian missed several games and Lynch played well, he could wrench the starting job away.

[TXBRONC]

I don't care what he said, I care what he did. Peyton Manning was healthy and ready to play against SD in week 17, but his ass started the game on the bench. That is the very definition of losing your job due to injury. If Os doesn't shit the bed in the first half of that game, Manning probably would have never played another snap for Denver.

And what Kubiak did was make him the starter again did he not? When you go to work for the Broncos let me know ok?

[TXBRONC]

18-26, 178 yards, 1 TD, 2 INTs.

That isn't a good stat line. It wasn't a good stat line last year when Peyton had games like that. The only reason people think that was good for Trevor is because he was a 7th round pick.

And then 22-33, 266 yards, 0 TDs, 1 INT against the worst defense in the NFL. Not impressive.

Rattling off stats doesn't tell you everything.

[BroncoWave]

And what Kubiak did was make him the starter again did he not? When you go to work for the Broncos let me know ok?

Yes, he made him a starter after Brent started shitting the bed. Which just further proves my point that Kubes will go with the guy who gives them the best chance to win at any given moment, regardless of what they might have done in the past.

[TXBRONC]

Yes, he made him a starter after Brent started shitting the bed. Which just further proves my point that Kubes will go with the guy who gives them the best chance to win at any given moment, regardless of what they might have done in the past.

No, it doesn't prove your point. He said Manning would play when he was ready.

But thanks for playing. :wave:

[BroncoWave]

No, it doesn't prove your blow hard point but keep trying.

So you don't think that Kubes tries to put the players on the field who give Denver the best chance of winning?

[BroncoWave]

No, it doesn't prove your point. He said Manning would play when he was ready.

But thanks for playing. :wave:

So he wasn't ready when they kicked off, but he was magically ready an hour and a half later? Cool story.

[I Eat Staples]

It's a shame you don't get to watch the Broncos games and clearly just look at the stat line.


Rattling off stats doesn't tell you everything.

Except I've watched every moment of every game from the past several seasons except for the 2nd half of the Bengals game this year. Making baseless assumptions about someone because of your inability to argue your weak point is a bad look.

[BroncoWave]

Except I've watched every moment of every game from the past several seasons except for the 2nd half of the Bengals game this year. Making baseless assumptions about someone because of your inability to argue your weak point is a bad look.

But TX totally watches game tape, so he definitely knows what he's talking about!

[BroncoWave]

Literally the only thing I've suggested in this thread is that Kubiak has shown in the past that he will put whatever players on the field give us the best chance to win, and that he should continue to do so in the future. And I've gotten called out by multiple people for that being a hot take. What the hell is going on in this thread?

[Nomad]

Literally the only thing I've suggested in this thread is that Kubiak has shown in the past that he will put whatever players on the field give us the best chance to win, and that he should continue to do so in the future. And I've gotten called out by multiple people for that being a hot take. What the hell is going on in this thread?

I'll take the win stat over any other stat.

[I Eat Staples]

I'll take the win stat over any other stat.

Of course, but judging a player based on wins is silly. It's a team sport.

The QB obviously influences the result of the game more than any other position, but it's not that hard to evaluate his play individually regardless of the win or loss.

[Tned]

Of course, but judging a player based on wins is silly. It's a team sport.

The QB obviously influences the result of the game more than any other position, but it's not that hard to evaluate his play individually regardless of the win or loss.

Yes, like looking at the play and not just the stat line.

[I Eat Staples]

Yes, like looking at the play and not just the stat line.

Which I have. Disregarding the stats in favor of what you want to see is also silly. You'd have to be pretty arrogant to say "well, the stats say one thing, but I SWEAR I'm right anyway!"

[BroncoWave]

Yes, like looking at the play and not just the stat line.

Except that isn't what he's doing. He watched each of the first two games in their entirety, and is using the stats to support what he watched take place on the field.

[I Eat Staples]

It's pretty sad how some people on this forum use the "I bet you don't even watch the games" line every time they disagree with someone. I see this literally every week, directed at multiple people, especially in the gameday thread.

If nothing else, it's an extremely lazy way of debating.

[Tned]

Which I have. Disregarding the stats in favor of what you want to see is also silly. You'd have to be pretty arrogant to say "well, the stats say one thing, but I SWEAR I'm right anyway!"

OK, so, give us some insight into the game play and what made up that stat line.

[Nomad]

Just win the game, Paxton. :)

[BroncoWave]

It's pretty sad how some people on this forum use the "I bet you don't even watch the games" line every time they disagree with someone. I see this literally every week, directed at multiple people, especially in the gameday thread.

If nothing else, it's an extremely lazy way of debating.

There are just some people who refuse to ever acknowledge stats and they just get hyper defensive whenever stats are used to dispute their point. They just automatically assume that that person didn't watch the game and only looks at stats.

Obviously anyone who has thousands of posts on a team message board like most of us do likely watch most of not all of every game.

[Tned]

It's pretty sad how some people on this forum use the "I bet you don't even watch the games" line every time they disagree with someone. I see this literally every week, directed at multiple people, especially in the gameday thread.

If nothing else, it's an extremely lazy way of debating.

I was making a point. Sorry it escaped you.

[Nomad]

Of course, but judging a player based on wins is silly. It's a team sport.

The QB obviously influences the result of the game more than any other position, but it's not that hard to evaluate his play individually regardless of the win or loss.

Wow! You're so smart. Let me take notes.

[Tned]

There are just some people who refuse to ever acknowledge stats and they just get hyper defensive whenever stats are used to dispute their point. They just automatically assume that that person didn't watch the game and only looks at stats.

Obviously anyone who has thousands of posts on a team message board like most of us do likely watch most of not all of every game.

Okie Dokie, BTW, just gloss over the fact I've posted a shit pot full of stats including in the last couple weeks.

Should go back to the whining about being jumped on, it suits you better.

[I Eat Staples]

OK, so, give us some insight into the game play and what made up that stat line.

I've talked about it when it happened across many threads (you know, while watching the game). In summary, he had 2 pretty bad interceptions, and mostly dinked and dunked for a decent completion percentage. He did make some plays on 3rd down in the 4th quarter, which was nice to see. He wasn't the disaster that I was expecting from him, but he wasn't good. He had a below average performance but made some plays toward the end.

It was good enough to win the game, and enough to keep him as the starter. But it definitely wasn't enough to make him entitled to being the starter even if Lynch plays amazing with this opportunity.


I was making a point. Sorry it escaped you.

Your point was that I should watch the games instead of just looking at stats, which I already do. So, your point was wrong.

[I Eat Staples]

Wow! You're so smart. Let me take notes.

I'm not sure why you're being a smart ass, did I say something to make you so defensive?

[Tned]

I've talked about it when it happened across many threads (you know, while watching the game). In summary, he had 2 pretty bad interceptions, and mostly dinked and dunked for a decent completion percentage. He did make some plays on 3rd down in the 4th quarter, which was nice to see. He wasn't the disaster that I was expecting from him, but he wasn't good. He had a below average performance but made some plays toward the end.

It was good enough to win the game, and enough to keep him as the starter. But it definitely wasn't enough to make him entitled to being the starter even if Lynch plays amazing with this opportunity.



Your point was that I should watch the games instead of just looking at stats, which I already do. So, your point was wrong.

What made the interceptions pretty bad.

The point was to get you to discuss and not take the easy route of saying if Manning and Siemian had a similar stat line that it meant the play was the same.

[BroncoWave]

Okie Dokie, BTW, just gloss over the fact I've posted a shit pot full of stats including in the last couple weeks.

Should go back to the whining about being jumped on, it suits you better.

Wasn't even addressing you with that post. Who is the one getting their panties in a bunch now?

[I Eat Staples]

What made the interceptions pretty bad.

The point was to get you to discuss and not take the easy route of saying if Manning and Siemian had a similar stat line that it meant the play was the same.

The first one he threw a screen pass right into a free rusher. It was pretty unlucky that it actually got deflected up in the air long enough to be picked off, but it was a bad/dangerous throw regardless.

The second one he had a receiver open and just short-armed it off his back foot because of pressure. Not a bad decision, just a bad pass, and the kind of pass that Lynch's athleticism and arm strength would allow him to make much more consistently. To the Manning comparison, the wobbly short throw under pressure is exactly the kind of turnover we saw from him a lot last year.

[Tned]

The first one he threw a screen pass right into a free rusher. It was pretty unlucky that it actually got deflected up in the air long enough to be picked off, but it was a bad/dangerous throw regardless.

The second one he had a receiver open and just short-armed it off his back foot because of pressure. Not a bad decision, just a bad pass, and the kind of pass that Lynch's athleticism and arm strength would allow him to make much more consistently. To the Manning comparison, the wobbly short throw under pressure is exactly the kind of turnover we saw from him a lot last year.

That's the difference between you and the head coach.

On the second one, the head coach thinks it was a bad decision. He was under pressure and should have eaten it or thrown it away. Even with that, it took an incredible effort by the defender to make the finger tip INT, which was nearly a first down to Sanders.

On the first, you description isn't quite accurate. He didn't throw it right into a rusher. The defensive end got his hand up and tipped it, and as you said, it was a bad break that a LB was able to dive and make the INT.

Calling those "pretty bad" isn't a very accurate characterization. Now, a few of the picks that could have been, such as into a DBs chest and having it drop, were "pretty bad" but on the two in your stat line, one was a bad break and the other was a throw he shouldn't have made, but even with the bad decision to throw the ball, it took a hell of a play by a defender to make the INT.

[TXBRONC]

Except I've watched every moment of every game from the past several seasons except for the 2nd half of the Bengals game this year. Making baseless assumptions about someone because of your inability to argue your weak point is a bad look.

I said, rattling off stats doen't tell you everything.

[Nomad]

I'm not sure why you're being a smart ass, did I say something to make you so defensive?

My apologies. I was trying to be funny with sarcasm.

[Tned]

My apologies. I was trying to be funny with sarcasm.

Sarcasm or any attempt to make points or do anything be rude and high five each other is lost on these guys.

[Tned]

You've added literally nothing to this discussion except making unsubstantiated blanket statements like that in barely coherent English.

Go ahead, enlighten me with your in-depth analysis of why Siemian was good in all 3 of his starts. Point out exactly what I'm missing and where my comprehension is lacking. Do you have the ability to do that, or do you just think he played well because we won the games?

Isn't winning one of those "objective" stats? :confused:

[BroncoWave]

Isn't winning one of those "objective" stats? :confused:

It's one of the worst stats in the world to judge an individual player on, especially in a sport in which there are 22 players on the field at any given time.

[Tned]

It's one of the worst stats in the world to judge an individual player on, especially in a sport in which there are 22 players on the field at any given time.

I didn't say it was a good stat, BTB, but your buddy stated stats are objective and by definition, wins and losses is a statistic.

If A=B=C then a QB's win/loss record is an objective stat.

[I Eat Staples]

Isn't winning one of those "objective" stats? :confused:


I didn't say it was a good stat, BTB, but your buddy stated stats are objective and by definition, wins and losses is a statistic.

If A=B=C then a QB's win/loss record is an objective stat.

A stat can be both objective, and a poor way to judge a player's performance.

[BroncoWave]

I didn't say it was a good stat, BTB, but your buddy stated stats are objective and by definition, wins and losses is a statistic.

If A=B=C then a QB's win/loss record is an objective stat.

I know you are being intentionally obtuse right now, so I'm not going to waste anymore time going down this road.

[Tned]

A stat can be both objective, and a poor way to judge a player's performance.

Fully agreed, but then I think we need to be careful defending stat lines by making blanket statements about stats being objective.

I think you just "corrected" me and made it clear that we need to consider stats in light of what we actually see, and then make informed evaluations about what story those stats actually tell us.

Thank you. I will no longer blindly look at stats as the definitive statement on play, but will consider them along with what I see.

Wish I had known this sooner. Probably would have made me a much better poster all these years.

[I Eat Staples]

Fully agreed, but then I think we need to be careful defending stat lines by making blanket statements about stats being objective.

I think you just "corrected" me and made it clear that we need to consider stats in light of what we actually see, and then make informed evaluations about what story those stats actually tell us.

Thank you. I will no longer blindly look at stats as the definitive statement on play, but will consider them along with what I see.

Wish I had known this sooner. Probably would have made me a much better poster all these years.

I've never disagreed with that. You should use stats along with what you see. But trusting what you see in SPITE of stats is where you get into stubbornly arrogant territory, which is what my post about objectivity was referring to.

[Tned]

I've never disagreed with that. You should use stats along with what you see. But trusting what you see in SPITE of stats is where you get into stubbornly arrogant territory, which is what my post about objectivity was referring to.

Agreed, like not saying that Siemian's 2 INT/1 TD stat line was just as bad as Manning when he had a similar stat line, unless the person making the claim can reference the game with a similar stat line and break down why it was the same. Right?

[Bronco4ever]

At the end of the day, none of us has control over who steps out on the field. I tend to be in the start Siemian camp myself, but if Lynch tears it up and becomes the starter, so be it. I think Siemian is more of the steady hand at the moment and that Lynch still could use some time to learn the offense, work on footwork, going through reads, ect, but that doesn't really matter if Kubes feels otherwise. I trust Kubes to make the best decisions for our teams even if it goes against my own preferences.

[Simple Jaded]

Post more stats, TX, it's the currency of the realm.

[Tned]

At the end of the day, none of us has control over who steps out on the field. I tend to be in the start Siemian camp myself, but if Lynch tears it up and becomes the starter, so be it. I think Siemian is more of the steady hand at the moment and that Lynch still could use some time to learn the offense, work on footwork, going through reads, ect, but that doesn't really matter if Kubes feels otherwise. I trust Kubes to make the best decisions for our teams even if it goes against my own preferences.

++1

[BroncoWave]

This is no way to free HotCarl.

Hmm, you make a strong point there.

[OrangeHoof]

Other than last year, Manning's passing was the reason we expected to win the game. If his stats were ugly, we probably lost. The two rookies (yes, I know, technically Trevor is a second-year player) aren't being asked to win the game. That's the defense's job. The QB is just expected to execute the offense, keep down the turnovers and not waste scoring opportunities. By that standard, I'd give Trevor a B+. For his half-a-game of work, I'd give Paxton a B-. That doesn't mean Trevor is better than Paxton. Only means that Trevor was playing well enough to win and Paxton is still raw but developing. I expect Paxton to eventually be an A- to A+, probably not this year but that's the goal. Trevor can continue to be a B+ and good enough to be a valuable NFL quarterback.

[WARHORSE]

Game on!

[WARHORSE]

Well........looks like we're all going to find out a little more about Mr. Lynch tomorrow.

YES.


Just think.....if we lose, we can tell everyone that if Siemian had played we wouldve won.



Predictions?


BRONCOS 27

ATLANTA 17

[TXBRONC]

I was discussing football, and kept being told by by TX I didn't know what I was talking about in suggesting that Kubes should put his best players on the field and has a history of doing so. So I made that post out of exasperation as I was out of ways to make my point more clearly. I most definitely wasn't personally attacking anyone in that post, as you did in your response.

But please, keep pretending to have the moral high ground here. It's quite entertaining.

No, you decided to jump into the middle of the conversation to defend Staples and I responded to that.

[TXBRONC]

Post more stats, TX, it's the currency of the realm.

Will do my friend. :salute:

[Joel]

With Stephenson still out, I think there's a very real chance we lose today and Lynch goes back to the bench Thursday. The fan and analyst focus seems to be Jones and Ryan, but Mohammed Sanu's a good receiver in his own right, and we all recall Tamme can be effective, if not truly dynamic. More significantly, they've got a solid line consisting of

LT Jake Matthews, a 2nd year #6 overall pick and son of HoFer Bruce Matthews.
LG Andy Levitre, a career starter taken in the 2nd round as the first guard drafted seven years ago.
C Alex Mack, the three-time Pro Bowler many line junkies wanted to lure away from Cleveland as badly as Joe Thomas; the Browns c/wouldn't keep both.
RG Chris Chester, a 2nd round vet who became a casualty of the 'Skins' rebuild.
LT Ryan Schraeder, an UDFA in 2013 due to his three-year walk on college career (but for those who value Pro Football Focus, he made their All Pro team last year.)

Von vs. Jake Matthews could be fun to watch, but I hope Wolfe and Ray had their Wheaties and can work over the right side, which looks more vulnerable.

That said, with the way we've struggled with run D so far, this line could gash us on the ground, and if the Falcons D focuses on shutting down CJ and Booker the pressure will officially be on Lynch to show he's "already ready." This is not a great D, but it ranks higher in net passing yds/att than rushing yds/att, and in their place I'd certainly be tempted to try forcing a rookie QB with a ½-game career to beat us with his arm.

Fingers crossed, but this is a team that can realistically hang 30 pts on us, especially if a young QB gets careless/overconfident with the ball. The offense will need to earn its keep today, not just hope an elite D can beat up on an elite offense (that's not really how the modern NFL's built.)

[TXBRONC]

Yes Sanu a good receiver but not great has Denver has three of the best corners in footbal not to mention the two starting safties. It's funny Joel how you said Denver should shit can Talib because we have Roby, and Harris who are both top flight corners. Yet Denver's secondary might be able to handle Sanu who has always been a number 2/slot receiver.

Btw Miller is our ROLB so he plays along side of Wolfe most of the time. Ray for the most part plays LOLB.

It also fun how you complained about Talib's age yet you're worried how Tamme who is 31 could tear up Denver's secondary. Please don't say something as dumb as Tamme doens't play a speed position or that his position is less demanding physically.

I await your pie graphs and other charts intertwinde into otherwise bloated post.

[BroncoJoe]

I said it in another thread, that if Siemian isn't 100%, they should start Lynch. Too much of a risk getting Siemian hurt again if he's not fully healthy with another game coming up fast.

I think, unless Lynch totally lights it up, Siemian will start against the Chargers on Thursday.

[Northman]

Siemian only had one good game too. I'm not sure why people think his first 2 games were good. They were actually pretty bad.


For a young QB they are pretty good, sorry you cant grasp that. At the end of the day Siemien has done nothing to warrant being benched. You are just wrong here and i dont know why you hate the kid so much and think that Lynch deserves to start based off an injury. Its really quite moronic at this point.

[Northman]

It's a shame you don't get to watch the Broncos games and clearly just look at the stat line.

It kind of goes beyond that. Somehow Staples seems to believe that Lynch would have better numbers yet both QB's are came into this year with no NFL starts. The numbers are good enough when you have the kind of defense you have. No QB is going to come into the league and be a HOF'r from the word go, thats just incredibly unrealistic for any fan to have.

[Northman]

Yes, he made him a starter after Brent started shitting the bed. Which just further proves my point that Kubes will go with the guy who gives them the best chance to win at any given moment, regardless of what they might have done in the past.

Manning was going to start the playoffs regardless of what happened in the SD game. You do realize this right?

[Canmore]

Who is Brent?

[Northman]

Of course, but judging a player based on wins is silly. It's a team sport.

The QB obviously influences the result of the game more than any other position, but it's not that hard to evaluate his play individually regardless of the win or loss.

But apparently it is difficult for you because your expectations of what a young QB should look like after 3-4 games is incredibly jaded.

[TXBRONC]

Who is Brent?

A.K.A. Brock Osweiler.

[Northman]

It was good enough to win the game, and enough to keep him as the starter. But it definitely wasn't enough to make him entitled to being the starter even if Lynch plays amazing with this opportunity.




So wait, you said that Siemien had one good game. If Lynch has one good game it puts them on an even field going by your logic no? I can tell you now that playing musical QB's does not work, it just doesnt. If Siemien begins to screw up and the team starts to lose they will bench him for Paxton because by then the season is toast. But until the team starts to fail with Siemien at the helm he will not be benched no matter how awesome Lynch looks in one game. If the Broncos were 0-4 it would be a whole different scenario but we are winning even with Siemien growing as a QB and Kubes will not just start playing another guy because he looks good for one game.

[Northman]

Other than last year, Manning's passing was the reason we expected to win the game. If his stats were ugly, we probably lost. The two rookies (yes, I know, technically Trevor is a second-year player) aren't being asked to win the game. That's the defense's job. The QB is just expected to execute the offense, keep down the turnovers and not waste scoring opportunities. By that standard, I'd give Trevor a B+. For his half-a-game of work, I'd give Paxton a B-. That doesn't mean Trevor is better than Paxton. Only means that Trevor was playing well enough to win and Paxton is still raw but developing. I expect Paxton to eventually be an A- to A+, probably not this year but that's the goal. Trevor can continue to be a B+ and good enough to be a valuable NFL quarterback.

Exactly.

[NightTrainLayne]

I thought I saw somewhere that STephenson would play? Is he not afterall?

If Stephenson is still out, I think we lose. We are going to have to run the ball well. Asking Lynch to be all of the offense in his first start is too much I think.

[Tned]

Siemian only had one good game too. I'm not sure why people think his first 2 games were good. They were actually pretty bad.

This simply isn't accurate when you grade on the curve of them being his first three NFL starts, which is absolutely how they must be viewed.

Take that list of 1st and 2nd round picks of the last 15 years and see how his first three starts compare to their first starts.

[Northman]

This simply isn't accurate when you grade on the curve of them being his first three NFL starts, which is absolutely how they must be viewed.

Take that list of 1st and 2nd round picks of the last 15 years and see how his first three starts compare to their first starts.


I hate to see how hard he is on Lynch if he bombs today vs Atlanta.

[Tned]

I thought I saw somewhere that STephenson would play? Is he not afterall?

If Stephenson is still out, I think we lose. We are going to have to run the ball well. Asking Lynch to be all of the offense in his first start is too much I think.

I think he practiced limited this week. With the short turnaround to Thursday, I wonder if they will play him.

[Tned]

I hate to see how hard he is on Lynch if he bombs today vs Atlanta.

If like many look at it, not as hard, because he is a high upside first round pick so isn't expected to play like an NFL veteran his first NFL start the way a low upside 7th round pick is expected to play.

[Joel]

I thought I saw somewhere that STephenson would play? Is he not afterall?

If Stephenson is still out, I think we lose. We are going to have to run the ball well. Asking Lynch to be all of the offense in his first start is too much I think.
I'm only going by scuttlebutt here. But speculation we're giving all our gimpy starters this weekend off so they'll be 100% when we open divisional play on a short week makes sense. NO loss is desirable, but, if forced to choose, dropping a non-conference game does the least damage; a divisional game does the most. Throw in just four days between now and SD on the road and I can see why Stephenson and Green would remain benched.

Suggestions Lynchs athleticism will spare him the consequences of our Swiss cheese "protection" unnerve me; ask Cam or Luck the limits of elusiveness.

[BroncoWave]

For a young QB they are pretty good, sorry you cant grasp that. At the end of the day Siemien has done nothing to warrant being benched. You are just wrong here and i dont know why you hate the kid so much and think that Lynch deserves to start based off an injury. Its really quite moronic at this point.

Jesus Christ North, you are completely mischaracterizing his argument.

[BroncoWave]

Manning was going to start the playoffs regardless of what happened in the SD game. You do realize this right?

Based on what? This is not anything I've ever seen stated.

[Valar Morghulis]

I could be wrong, and I have no idea what this brings to the debate but.....

Did Tebow not light San Diego up in his first outing for over three hundred yards??

He turned out to be terrible.

Last bit purely for effect, first point seems relevant

[BroncoWave]

I could be wrong, and I have no idea what this brings to the debate but.....

Did Tebow not light San Diego up in his first outing for over three hundred yards??

He turned out to be terrible.

Last bit purely for effect, first point seems relevant

Tebow's first start was against Oakland and he was 8/16 for 138 yards in a loss. Against houston in his second start he put up over 300 yards, but he still only completed 55% of his passes and had a touchdown and a pick. In his third start, against SD he only completed 44% of his passes with 2 TD and 2 picks. If Lynch puts up those kinds of numbers, it will be clear he isn't ready to start.

[Northman]

I could be wrong, and I have no idea what this brings to the debate but.....

Did Tebow not light San Diego up in his first outing for over three hundred yards??

He turned out to be terrible.

Last bit purely for effect, first point seems relevant

Most QB's dont even hit their stride until year 3. Now granted, Lynch is currently projected to be the future for the Broncos but it doesnt mean the team NEEDS to put him in just because he was a first round choice. As long as the team is winning ballgames with Siemien there would be no rush to start Lynch, especially after just one good game. Both QB's in this case are young and both will make their fair share or mistakes. If Lynch happens to tank today and look like ass it will not mean he's a bust. Likewise, if he lights it up it does not mean he is a HOF'r either and should replace Siemien at this point in time. As for TT, he had a lot of different issues with not only his pocket presence but his understanding of the playbook on top of what was already inconsistent play for him. But, he got the start because the guy in front of him as a veteran was playing like ass and the team needed to see what Tim had in order to decide what to do going forward. Denver right now is in a good spot because both QB's are young and they will get a chance to see what both can do but for the time being Siemien has done well enough to keep the job until his play (or god forbid a lasting injury) says otherwise.

[Valar Morghulis]

Tebow's first start was against Oakland and he was 8/16 for 138 yards in a loss. Against houston in his second start he put up over 300 yards, but he still only completed 55% of his passes and had a touchdown and a pick. In his third start, against SD he only completed 44% of his passes with 2 TD and 2 picks. If Lynch puts up those kinds of numbers, it will be clear he isn't ready to start.

Lol boy was I wrong haha, I was sure he came in half way through a game for his first action and tore it up.

[Tned]

Most QB's dont even hit their stride until year 3. Now granted, Lynch is currently projected to be the future for the Broncos but it doesnt mean the team NEEDS to put him in just because he was a first round choice. As long as the team is winning ballgames with Siemien there would be no rush to start Lynch, especially after just one good game. Both QB's in this case are young and both will make their fair share or mistakes. If Lynch happens to tank today and look like ass it will not mean he's a bust. Likewise, if he lights it up it does not mean he is a HOF'r either and should replace Siemien at this point in time. As for TT, he had a lot of different issues with not only his pocket presence but his understanding of the playbook on top of what was already inconsistent play for him. But, he got the start because the guy in front of him as a veteran was playing like ass and the team needed to see what Tim had in order to decide what to do going forward. Denver right now is in a good spot because both QB's are young and they will get a chance to see what both can do but for the time being Siemien has done well enough to keep the job until his play (or god forbid a lasting injury) says otherwise.

Yes, far more than the stats will be whether he's "ready" to start. Meaning, are the Broncos having to burn time outs, because Lynch isn't getting the play to the guys and the guys set. Is he looking for his first read and then taking off and running or is he going through his progression, and using the mobility only when the play "truly" breaks down. Is he recognizing the blitz and either making protection adjustments or calling an audible. Is he making good decisions about when to throw the ball and when to throw it away. Is his timing and accuracy good.

Those are the things, far more than the stat line or even if the Broncos win/lose, that will go into Kubiak and company deciding if Lynch is ready to start. It's those things that on balance (compared to other NFL starters making their first four starts), Siemian didn't an excellent job of and got tons of praise from the coaches and others.

Everyone knows that Lynch has the physical tools, the question is whether or not he's ready to start in the NFL and put those tools to good use.

[I Eat Staples]

For a young QB they are pretty good, sorry you cant grasp that. At the end of the day Siemien has done nothing to warrant being benched. You are just wrong here and i dont know why you hate the kid so much and think that Lynch deserves to start based off an injury. Its really quite moronic at this point.


So wait, you said that Siemien had one good game. If Lynch has one good game it puts them on an even field going by your logic no? I can tell you now that playing musical QB's does not work, it just doesnt. If Siemien begins to screw up and the team starts to lose they will bench him for Paxton because by then the season is toast. But until the team starts to fail with Siemien at the helm he will not be benched no matter how awesome Lynch looks in one game. If the Broncos were 0-4 it would be a whole different scenario but we are winning even with Siemien growing as a QB and Kubes will not just start playing another guy because he looks good for one game.

There must be some miscommunication here. I've repeated several times that I'm okay with starting either Siemian or Lynch when they're both healthy. The only thing I'm arguing is that Siemian is not entitled to keeping his job because of injury even if Lynch plays well. I'm okay if he does, I'm okay if he doesn't.

I certainly don't "hate" Trevor, that's such a ridiculous overreaction. The way people defend Siemian so aggressively is reaching Tebow-esque levels lol.

[I Eat Staples]

If like many look at it, not as hard, because he is a high upside first round pick so isn't expected to play like an NFL veteran his first NFL start the way a low upside 7th round pick is expected to play.

I'm not sure why you think I was being so hard on Siemian. I never said he should be benched or anything.

A player's ceiling is very relevant when evaluating their long-term prospects, though, which you obviously know. If Lynch doesn't play great, he has plenty of potential to get better. Siemian already has the intelligence, comfort level, command of the offense, etc. If he doesn't play great, his limitations aren't going to improve. That's the difference.

[MOtorboat]

Lol boy was I wrong haha, I was sure he came in half way through a game for his first action and tore it up.

Because you're forgetting he started three games the year before.

[MOtorboat]

I hope Lynch is ready to go, because Denver's defense could be tested today and they are going to need to sustain drives and score points offensively to keep the defense fresh.

[Nomad]

Jesus Christ North, you are completely mischaracterizing his argument.

Nice to see he is in your thoughts today. :D

[MOtorboat]

If like many look at it, not as hard, because he is a high upside first round pick so isn't expected to play like an NFL veteran his first NFL start the way a low upside 7th round pick is expected to play.

Are you being facetious? Sarcastic? This is completely opposite of how people evaluate draft picks. Completely opposite. People roast first round draft picks, hell they roast second and third round picks, who don't perform immediately or aren't all-Pros.

[Northman]

Are you being facetious? Sarcastic? This is completely opposite of how people evaluate draft picks. Completely opposite. People roast first round draft picks, hell they roast second and third round picks, who don't perform immediately or aren't all-Pros.

It was clearly sarcasm.

[MOtorboat]

It was clearly sarcasm.

He said it completely seriously in another thread, so it's a genuine question.

[Simple Jaded]

Agreed, like not saying that Siemian's 2 INT/1 TD stat line was just as bad as Manning when he had a similar stat line, unless the person making the claim can reference the game with a similar stat line and break down why it was the same. Right?

Someone making the claim and willing to find stats from a game Against the same team gameplanning the same way with the same players playing at same capacity with your playing with same players with the same capacity playing on the same field in the same conditions...and so on.

Stats are the epitome of "in a vacuum", at least I think so (I'm not sure what that cliche means). I know there isn't nearly enough context.

There are stats that will tell you that David Garrard is a better QB than Ben Reothlisweiner, 'nuff said.

[BroncoWave]

The way people defend Siemian so aggressively is reaching Tebow-esque levels lol.

Siemian is looking like another in a long list of players that fans overrate because he is outplaying his low draft position.

[Simple Jaded]

Siemian is a better prospect than Tebow and gets a 10th of the respect and hype. This is a poor example.

I can't even imagine what would happen if the Broncos tried to replace Tebow if he played as well as Siemian has so far. We're talking scorched earth.

[BroncoWave]

Siemian is a better prospect than Tebow and gets a 10th of the respect and hype. This is a poor example.

I can't even imagine what would happen if the Broncos tried to replace Tebow if he played as well as Siemian has so far. We're talking scorched earth.

Simeian was not a better prospect that Tebow coming out of college. That's just flat out false. Tebow was thought at worst to be a mid-round pick. Sieimian wasn't even expected to be drafted.

[Simple Jaded]

Simeian was not a better prospect that Tebow coming out of college. That's just flat out false. Tebow was thought at worst to be a mid-round pick. Sieimian wasn't even expected to be drafted.

I mean prospect, as in demonstrable ability not fairy tale delusions of grandeurs. Nobody was insisting the Siemian switch positions.

[Simple Jaded]

I mean clearly he's smarter, got a far better arm and mechanics, he can run and lead...could hit the broad side of a barn. The bare minimum for an NFL QB.

Tebow could run and lead.

Put it this way, Madison Square Garden didn't break out in laughter when the Broncos took Siemian.

[BroncoWave]

I'm not going to get into a Tebow argument, but it's just laughably wrong that Siemian was seen as a better prospect than him coming out of college. You can believe that if you want though, I'm obviously not going to change your mind.

[DenBronx]

Good grief...how did Tebow enter the conversation? Let it go. Lol

[Nomad]

Good grief...how did Tebow enter the conversation? Let it go. Lol

I want to hear you sing it. :D

[tripp]

Good grief...how did Tebow enter the conversation? Let it go. Lol

Tebow is like herpes to the Broncos, he'll never go away.

[Simple Jaded]

I'm not going to get into a Tebow argument, but it's just laughably wrong that Siemian was seen as a better prospect than him coming out of college. You can believe that if you want though, I'm obviously not going to change your mind.

Maybe I should've said IS a better prospect, right now, I don't think anybody took Siemian seriously when he came out of college. I thought he was a scrub.

[Poet]

What in the bluest of blue hells is this shit?!?!!?

[BroncoWave]

Maybe I should've said IS a better prospect, right now, I don't think anybody took Siemian seriously when he came out of college. I thought he was a scrub.

Well obviously he's a better prospect now. He's starting for the best team in football while Tebow has been out of the league for years and is now playing baseball. So duh Siemian is a better prospect today. :lol:

[BroncoWave]

What in the bluest of blue hells is this shit?!?!!?

I'm sorry king. I got too hype when Jaded made the Tebow comp. I will turn the hype knob down.

[Nomad]

What in the bluest of blue hells is this shit?!?!!?

Welcome to the BRONCO fanhood, King. Where QB controversies thrive. :lol: #curseofelway :D

[Simple Jaded]

Was it something I said? :D

[HORSEPOWER 56]

We've got to get the running game going this week. Keep ATLs offense on the sidelines and prevent Lynch from having to feel like he has to do too much. If ATL plays to stop the run, which I expect, Lynch just can't turn it over. We can't afford to give a talented offense like Atlanta a short field.

Honestly, my biggest concern isn't Ryan and Jones, it's Freeman and Coleman. Freeman could pose a real challenge for our LBs in coverage and can do real damage in the open field.

[Tned]

I'm not sure why you think I was being so hard on Siemian. I never said he should be benched or anything.

A player's ceiling is very relevant when evaluating their long-term prospects, though, which you obviously know. If Lynch doesn't play great, he has plenty of potential to get better. Siemian already has the intelligence, comfort level, command of the offense, etc. If he doesn't play great, his limitations aren't going to improve. That's the difference.

When it comes to who is a better option for the team to win now, then perceived ceiling has zero role to play. If it was a rebuilding team, it would be a different story.

[Simple Jaded]

They can't risk Davis covering those RB's too often, I hope familiarity with the ZBS helps keep Atl off schedule.

[Tned]

He said it completely seriously in another thread, so it's a genuine question.

And it was a serious statement.

[HORSEPOWER 56]

That's the bad thing with the loss of Trevathan. Our ability to cover RBs in space isn't as good this year.

[Al Wilson 4 Mayor]

Our defense is gonna be gassed in the second half if our offense doesn't stop wetting the bed.

[Nomad]

Our defense is gonna be gassed in the second half if our offense doesn't stop wetting the bed.

I do agree.

[Tned]

I do agree.

Maybe they will give Lynch a beer or two at half time to calm the nerves.

[Nomad]

Touchdown here for the BRONCOS, and ball back first in second half with a touchdown.....BRONCOS will be looking good.

[Northman]

Welp, i think we got the answer. Lynch is not as good as Siemien right now.

[aberdien]

Paxton:

Ug88HO2mg44

[Valar Morghulis]

Lynch will show himself for the bum he is His trade value will drop Fantasy owners will cut him We will all hail the return of king Siemian

Sorry, not sorry.

[Tned]

Welp, i think we got the answer. Lynch is not as good as Siemien right now.

Was pretty much a given, but at least it goes a long way to quell the QB controversy.

[Northman]

Was pretty much a given, but at least it goes a long way to quell the QB controversy.

Uh yea, by like miles. lol

[Tned]

Uh yea, by like miles. lol

Or not, because I bet we will now hear it was just the line's fault, even though he just threw it in the middle of four Falcons without a Bronco in sight.

[Northman]

Or not, because I bet we will now hear it was just the line's fault, even though he just threw it in the middle of four Falcons without a Bronco in sight.

Lol of course.

[OrangeHoof]

We've got to get the running game going this week. Keep ATLs offense on the sidelines and prevent Lynch from having to feel like he has to do too much. If ATL plays to stop the run, which I expect, Lynch just can't turn it over. We can't afford to give a talented offense like Atlanta a short field.

Honestly, my biggest concern isn't Ryan and Jones, it's Freeman and Coleman. Freeman could pose a real challenge for our LBs in coverage and can do real damage in the open field.

Nice call. That looks like exactly what happened.

Lynch started in a hole and it just went downhill from there.

[NightTerror218]

Or not, because I bet we will now hear it was just the line's fault, even though he just threw it in the middle of four Falcons without a Bronco in sight.

Lynch trolling?