PDA

View Full Version : What did you expect from the Broncos offense this year?



dogfish
11-03-2016, 05:43 AM
Come on now, don't hold back-- tell us how you really feel. . .

capt. Jack
11-03-2016, 06:24 AM
I expected to run the ball better! We are very boring, I don't mind too much as long as we win!
But I am constantly asking the Defense to score for us.

Tned
11-03-2016, 06:59 AM
I expected Kubiak to run an offense that put his defense in a bad position as few times as possible. There was and is not doubt that the defense is the strength of this team, so the three things that really put the defense in a pad position are:

1. turnovers, especially on your half of the field.
2. three and outs
3. time of possession

Last year, after Manning was on the bench of seven games, when he came back in week 17, he was still leading the league in interceptions. If I recall correctly, it took a rookie QB (who I believe played all 16 games vs Manning's 9 or so) throwing two picks in week 17 to wrestle the INT crown away from Manning.

Last year, the Broncos had 23 INTs and lost 8 fumbles and many of those 31 turnovers were on the Broncos side of the 50, putting the defense in a bad position.

So, going into this year, especially when they lost the starting QB that they expected to be Manning's replacement, I expected to see a very conservative offense that was focused on not putting the defense in a bad position.

As such, I expected to see a good running game, controlled play action passing game, with a focus on TOP and reducing turnovers.

Unfortunately, to a very large extent, Kubiak has a been a one trick pony throughout his career and if the running game isn't working, then rarely does the passing game work, because it's so play action focused. That was my biggest fear coming into this season, with the offense, which is that the run game wouldn't be effective and therefore neither would be play action.

Now, up until Siemian's injury, the offense was doing very well in terms of limiting three and outs (I think through four games, Siemian was only behind Ryan for instance in the % of his passes that went for first downs) and overall the offense has done well in terms of limiting turnovers, with only five INTs (Siemian 4 and Lynch 1), but the six fumbles are among the lead league. Still, at this point last year Manning had more INTs (13) then the total turnovers (11) for the '16 offense.

So, by and large, the offense is what I expected this year, good enough to win games, with a focus on limiting turnovers and not putting the defense in a bad position.

Northman
11-03-2016, 08:47 AM
A 100 gazillion pts per game.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
11-03-2016, 09:04 AM
10-20% improvement over last year

Slick
11-03-2016, 09:11 AM
Like Jack said, you hoped they would run the ball a little better and got a little more production from the TEs. Hopefully after the game Virgil had last week, Siemian looks to him a little more. Help out the young QB.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
11-03-2016, 09:32 AM
Like Jack said, you hoped they would run the ball a little better and got a little more production from the TEs. Hopefully after the game Virgil had last week, Siemian looks to him a little more. Help out the young QB.

I think Virgil was banged up for a few weeks.

Slick
11-03-2016, 09:47 AM
I think Virgil was banged up for a few weeks.

Right, but he didn't miss the first 7 games. I think he missed 3. It was nice to see him get involved.

underrated29
11-03-2016, 10:46 AM
This is the burning question you have at 4:30 in the morning?

Tned
11-03-2016, 10:48 AM
Like Jack said, you hoped they would run the ball a little better and got a little more production from the TEs. Hopefully after the game Virgil had last week, Siemian looks to him a little more. Help out the young QB.

I really expected more production out of the TE, between Jeff H. being healthy and Greene's emergence (I thought), I was expecting lots of passes to TE's.

Slick
11-03-2016, 11:47 AM
I really expected more production out of the TE, between Jeff H. being healthy and Greene's emergence (I thought), I was expecting lots of passes to TE's.

So did I. It doesn't seem like Denver is using the middle of the field much. Everything is to the outside. I got all excited last Sunday when Virgil started getting some looks.

NightTrainLayne
11-03-2016, 11:48 AM
I didn't expect much more in terms of points scored, but I did expect a much improved running game, and better O-Line play.

Stephenson getting hurt seems to have set us back. In games 1 & 2 the O-line was playing much better and the running game was also much better.

I'm hoping that the guys up front can stay healthy, and improve with a bye week to work with over the 2nd half of the season.

wayninja
11-03-2016, 12:42 PM
Well, when?

When it was Sanchez, I expected butt fumbles and interceptions

When Sanchez was cut, I expected Tebow time redux

When Siemian was named starter, I expected to look up who Siemian was

When we beat Carolina, I expected 28 points per game, and that we only didn't hit that because it was Carolina's defense

When Siemian got hurt, I expected Tebow time redux!

When Lynch played, I expected Tebow time redux!

Now, I am expecting that Dixon will get a lot of practice and our defense will bail us out.

MOtorboat
11-03-2016, 12:48 PM
I'm not sure. I expected a lot better running game. I didn't expect regression through the season.

Tned
11-03-2016, 01:16 PM
I'm not sure. I expected a lot better running game. I didn't expect regression through the season.

Agreed on both counts. I think every team has ups and downs, so I'm not sure how much regression we are seeing vs. some rough games, but I don't feel there has been as much improvement as I would have liked to see.

capt. Jack
11-03-2016, 01:18 PM
I think it's critical that we get the TE's involved.

It kinda seems like our offense is rudimentary until they get Trevor completely up to speed, and all the pieces clicking together?

BroncoWave
11-03-2016, 01:37 PM
Here is my theory on why the offense, and mainly Siemian, seems to have regressed. For the first few weeks teams had next to zero pro tape on Siemian, and really not even that much college tape if they wanted to study him there. So he was really a complete unknown. Now that teams have more tape on him and know his tendencies, it's not as easy for him as it was early on. So the question now is if he's good enough to adjust back. He very well might not be. If he isn't, this might be the best we ever see him play again. It will be interesting to see play out.

weazel
11-03-2016, 01:46 PM
I expected worse than we are seeing. It's a rookie QB running an offense that looked mediocre last season with a HOF'er running it for half the season.

NightTrainLayne
11-03-2016, 02:19 PM
Here is my theory on why the offense, and mainly Siemian, seems to have regressed. For the first few weeks teams had next to zero pro tape on Siemian, and really not even that much college tape if they wanted to study him there. So he was really a complete unknown. Now that teams have more tape on him and know his tendencies, it's not as easy for him as it was early on. So the question now is if he's good enough to adjust back. He very well might not be. If he isn't, this might be the best we ever see him play again. It will be interesting to see play out.

I made this point early on with Oz last season, and again this season with Siemian, not to get too excited until he's performing well past the first few weeks.

It seemed both times that I got more pushback than I expected on that, but that's the nature of message boards. .. .folks that agree with you nod their head silently, those that disagree are more vocal.

We're seeing the same thing with Wentz. First 3 games, he was amazing. More pedestrian the last few.

Once defensive coordinators have enough snaps on film, they can figure out what a QB does well, and what they don't. And then they can start creating game plans to force that QB into doing what they don't do well, or don't like. To compound on this, once DC's create such a gameplan, other DC's get to shrink it down even more, and improve on it.

A QB who is going to have long-term success in the NFL has to be able to overcome those initial weaknesses, and keep defenses off balance. Osweiler, for example, hasn't been able to take that next step so far. We'll see if Siemian can.

Northman
11-03-2016, 02:33 PM
I made this point early on with Oz last season, and again this season with Siemian, not to get too excited until he's performing well past the first few weeks.

It seemed both times that I got more pushback than I expected on that, but that's the nature of message boards. .. .folks that agree with you nod their head silently, those that disagree are more vocal.

We're seeing the same thing with Wentz. First 3 games, he was amazing. More pedestrian the last few.

Once defensive coordinators have enough snaps on film, they can figure out what a QB does well, and what they don't. And then they can start creating game plans to force that QB into doing what they don't do well, or don't like. To compound on this, once DC's create such a gameplan, other DC's get to shrink it down even more, and improve on it.

A QB who is going to have long-term success in the NFL has to be able to overcome those initial weaknesses, and keep defenses off balance. Osweiler, for example, hasn't been able to take that next step so far. We'll see if Siemian can.


Dak had a harder time last game too, maybe he is starting to run into trouble.

wayninja
11-03-2016, 02:37 PM
I expected worse than we are seeing. It's a rookie QB running an offense that looked mediocre last season with a HOF'er running it for half the season.

Mediocre? At what point did we rise to mediocrity last year?


It seemed both times that I got more pushback than I expected on that, but that's the nature of message boards. .. .folks that agree with you nod their head silently, those that disagree are more vocal.

I didn't see ANYONE nodding their head silently. So take that.

Canmore
11-03-2016, 02:44 PM
I expected a better offensive line and everything offensively would follow. The only thing the offensive line has been is offensive save a couple of games. The run game and the pass game have followed suit.

GEM
11-03-2016, 02:47 PM
Come on now, don't hold back-- tell us how you really feel. . .

I expected that the oline would show even a little bit of improvement over last year with the addition of Okung and Stephenson. It seems like it's actually worse. I expected DT would get his head out of his pooper and get the drops out of his system.

I didn't expect a qb to just come in first year and light it up. And I think a lot of his issues right now stem from running for his life because the oline is just so damn shitty.

Tned
11-03-2016, 02:48 PM
Here is my theory on why the offense, and mainly Siemian, seems to have regressed. For the first few weeks teams had next to zero pro tape on Siemian, and really not even that much college tape if they wanted to study him there. So he was really a complete unknown. Now that teams have more tape on him and know his tendencies, it's not as easy for him as it was early on. So the question now is if he's good enough to adjust back. He very well might not be. If he isn't, this might be the best we ever see him play again. It will be interesting to see play out.

I still tend to think the film is overrated in terms of regression. Yes, there may be some tendencies they pick up, but mostly they are doing film study to pick up what plays they run out of certain formations and the like. Granted, if they pick up tendencies that he rarely throws to his left, or generally goes to x receiver from y formation, there could be some advantage.

However, part of what you have to look at is what's causing the incomplete for instance. If he takes a blind side hit in under 2 seconds, film doesn't cause that, but if he goes to _____ 80% of the time on third and long, that could.

A few other tidbits. As previously mentioned, and it won't be until this weekend that I get to look at all the third downs, the handful I looked at, it appeared that throwing short of the sticks on 3rd and long was designed and not check downs.

Also, I don't know what this says about Simian, but it sounds like a good thing to me, and that is that in multiple games, including this last one, he's done well when being blitzed. So, when teams blitz and therefore leave someone uncovered, he's picking that up and capitalizing. In this past game, he was 9 of 12 for 151 yards when blitzed and I've read that about multiple games as well. However, when pressured, he was just 41%.

So, that tells me he's capable of diagnosing plays and taking advantage of mismatches, but isn't doing well under pressure, but as Kubiak pointed out, there was a lot of pressure and lot of hits, especially in the first half.

I bring that up in terms of signs of progression, amongst the potential macro regression, and that it's hard to separate out regression due to play calling and lack of protection, from Siemian regressing or making bad plays/decisions, which he clearly has done as well.

Tned
11-03-2016, 02:50 PM
I expected a better offensive line and everything offensively would follow. The only thing the offensive line has been is offensive save a couple of games. The run game and the pass game have followed suit.

And Kubiak, seemingly being a one trick pony (a pony I like, I should add), never calls a good gameplan when his line and running game fail.

Canmore
11-03-2016, 02:55 PM
And Kubiak, seemingly being a one trick pony (a pony I like, I should add), never calls a good gameplan when his line and running game fail.

This does seem to be a common theme. Unfortunately, if you can't block, you can't run and it makes it mighty hard to throw.

Tned
11-03-2016, 02:58 PM
This does seem to be a common theme. Unfortunately, if you can't block, you can't run and it makes it mighty hard to throw.

Yes, but that's when you start running shotgun, spread, quick hitting plays, etc.

I know it's ancient history now, but the game I will never forget is the AFCCG against Pitt. The Broncos were completely unable to run against the Steelers. Even in the second half, while down by multiple scores and only a handful of rushing yards, they were still calling play action passes (with no runs in between the play action passes), where the QB was turning his back to the rushers, and the tackles were faking runs, before transitioning into pass blocking, and the Steelers weren't buying it at all and just blowing past the tackles and hitting Plummer as he would turn out of his play action.

Canmore
11-03-2016, 03:03 PM
Yes, but that's when you start running shotgun, spread, quick hitting plays, etc.

I know it's ancient history now, but the game I will never forget is the AFCCG against Pitt. The Broncos were completely unable to run against the Steelers. Even in the second half, while down by multiple scores and only a handful of rushing yards, they were still calling play action passes (with no runs in between the play action passes), where the QB was turning his back to the rushers, and the tackles were faking runs, before transitioning into pass blocking, and the Steelers weren't buying it at all and just blowing past the tackles and hitting Plummer as he would turn out of his play action.

I remember that game pretty clear. Like you said... one trick pony.

Tned
11-03-2016, 03:07 PM
I remember that game pretty clear. Like you said... one trick pony.

Like Dumervil, but with shorter arms and less speed.

Northman
11-03-2016, 03:14 PM
My initial expectations were that Oz would be the QB going into this season. While i expected him to struggle a bit i also figured he would improve throughout the season because he was already familiar with the players/system/coaching. But, when he left for Houston my expectations dropped because i knew that there just wasnt much out there in the way of QB's on the market. When we signed Dirty Sanchez i thought there might be a possibility that he could become something with a better organization behind him. Nope, he sucks and was cut because of it. So that left us with Siemien and Lynch where one guy knows the system but sat as a 3rd stringer the year before and the other was a much greener rookie. I figured with the youth the QB's would be able to make plays that Manning simply could not and yet have issues because of lack of experience behind center. Well, this season has basically played out the way i expected in that at times the Qb's have looked calm and confident and other times have looked like scared puppies and very indecisive. I certainly did not expect to be 6-2 at this point. That is just a bonus and considering some of the defensive talent we lost its actually quite amazing that we are still competing like we are for the division and a chance at the playoffs again.

As far as the "regressing" issue that gets brought up i guess im just unclear of how those people view the QB position to begin with and how much time they as a fan allow a player to mature and learn through live game experience. Are people more impatient now than they were or is it something else? I was curious so i went and looked at a couple of QB's to see how they fared early on in their careers before becoming what they had become.

John Elway (1983) QB Record: 4-6, 7 TD's, 14 Int's, QB Rating: 54.9 (Elway's 2nd year he had a QB Rating of 76.8 with a QB Record for that year at 12-2)
Drew Brees (2002) QB Record: 8-8 17 TD's, 16 Int's, QB Rating: 76.9 (Brees 2nd year he had a QB Ratings of 67.5 with a QB Record for that year at 2-9)

Interestingly enough Elway improved the second year while Brees struggled his sophomore year. But both QB's eventually went to be great QB's regardless of any struggles they had after a few games. Ive watched football for a long time and i can still remember early in John's career where he looked like a deer in the headlights. Not too unlike Siemien this past game. Do i think Siemien will become great? Doubtful. But im just trying to wrap my head around how people can automatically write off someone or determine that they have regressed when said player has only played a handful of games. In my opinion no matter if its Siemien, Lynch, Wentz, or Prescott you will find that these QB's will have bad games because as NTL stated teams do get tape on them. Defenses change and adapt and sometimes those things happen before the QB themselves can adapt and change. Because Denver has Lynch i dont think we will see Siemien beyond this year, at least as a starter. He would pretty much have to light it up the rest of the year to prove that he could be guy going forward. But im not so sure that he "regressed" as much as he is seeing new things thrown at him on the field to which he must now study and learn from. And yes, he isnt getting much help from the Oline or playcalling at times which adds to the problems on the field. And as much as i want to see Oz flounder and fail his story is not yet over either. Ive never seen a HOF QB created in their first year of playing professional football. Like ever.

BroncoJoe
11-03-2016, 03:25 PM
I expected better offensive output than last year, which isn't really asking too much. Here's average drive statistics:

#Dr = # of Drives / Sc% = % of drives ending in an offensive score / TO% = Drives ending in a turnover

Last year:

9658

This year:

9659

They're virtually identical, which is a disappointment.

MOtorboat
11-03-2016, 04:27 PM
Great find, Joe.

BroncoJoe
11-03-2016, 04:34 PM
Great find, Joe.

Thanks. It's just pro-football-reference.com, so I didn't do a ton of research.

Also, the top line is offense, the bottom is opponents offense (or, our defense).

Now, go find a Trump post of mine and salute it! :)

MOtorboat
11-03-2016, 04:37 PM
Thanks. It's just pro-football-reference.com, so I didn't do a ton of research.

Also, the top line is offense, the bottom is opponents offense (or, our defense).

Now, go find a Trump post of mine and salute it! :)

I figured that was it. I just have never looked at the drive statistics.

Hawgdriver
11-03-2016, 04:39 PM
Another year under Kubes you figure it will look more like a Kubes offense with a consistent run game.

Tned
11-03-2016, 04:54 PM
I expected better offensive output than last year, which isn't really asking too much. Here's average drive statistics:

#Dr = # of Drives / Sc% = % of drives ending in an offensive score / TO% = Drives ending in a turnover

Last year:

http://www.broncosforums.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=9658&stc=1

This year:

http://www.broncosforums.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=9659&stc=1

They're virtually identical, which is a disappointment.

Interesting stat.

That puts us 17th in the league, last years scoring % this year would put the Broncos at 23rd. A six position jump, especially with a first year starter, isn't completely insignificant.

A few other comaritive stats from this year and last year.

First downs
'16 - 14th
'15 - 19th

Turn over %
'16 19th
'15 27th

Yards per play
'16 24th
'15 19th

INTs
'16 14th
'15 32nd

Other than yards per play, which is down quite a bit, most other offensive categories we have improved quite a bit. Obviously, we haven't become a top 10th offense, but have moved from bottom third to middle of the pack in most categories.

GEM
11-03-2016, 05:10 PM
I remember that game pretty clear. Like you said... one trick pony.

:laugh: One trick pony....oh the memories of jrwiz! :D

Hawgdriver
11-03-2016, 05:27 PM
:laugh: One trick pony....oh the memories of jrwiz! :D

Is there a 'requiem' (haha) type thread where we can turn over and ruminate upon the remains of the posters who have moved on?

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
11-03-2016, 07:27 PM
So did I. It doesn't seem like Denver is using the middle of the field much. Everything is to the outside. I got all excited last Sunday when Virgil started getting some looks.

I remember him getting some balls the first few weeks before he got hurt.

BroncoWave
11-03-2016, 07:31 PM
Is there a 'requiem' (haha) type thread where we can turn over and ruminate upon the remains of the posters who have moved on?

I think this is a great idea! I'm too lazy to look it up myself but if someone wants to get on that, that would be great! :lol:

Lynch12
11-04-2016, 12:28 AM
I expected the offense to be way better considering the offense was absolutely garbage last year and couldn't possibly go anywhere but up, All I know is they better get there act together if we hope to at least win a playoff game or two.

I am seriously hoping that the offensive line improves via chemistry as time goes on, and that seems like a long shot but since the bodies aren't going to change it's the only hope that I can have.

IF the broncos offense can score 25 ppg going forward we are going to contend, if it remains poor we are going nowhere.

MOtorboat
11-04-2016, 03:34 AM
Interesting stat.

That puts us 17th in the league, last years scoring % this year would put the Broncos at 23rd. A six position jump, especially with a first year starter, isn't completely insignificant.

A few other comaritive stats from this year and last year.

First downs
'16 - 14th
'15 - 19th

Turn over %
'16 19th
'15 27th

Yards per play
'16 24th
'15 19th

INTs
'16 14th
'15 32nd

Other than yards per play, which is down quite a bit, most other offensive categories we have improved quite a bit. Obviously, we haven't become a top 10th offense, but have moved from bottom third to middle of the pack in most categories.

This is an edit, as I'm trying to process these numbers (yours and Joe's).

The rankings seem exceedingly irrelevant, especially considering we're comparing half a season to a full season. It's interesting numbers, but it doesn't really show improvement.

As far as the INT rank, of course it's down. The quarterback won't throw the ball. He's last in passes beyond 15 yards (that's per the Sunday broadcast). What's the hard data on the numbers?

It's irrelevant if we rank 14th vs. 19th on first downs at this time of the year if the numbers of first downs is the same.

MOtorboat
11-04-2016, 04:05 AM
For example, after eight games, Denver has 139 first downs this year. Denver had 149 last year.

That's not improvement.

Turnovers, 14 last year, 11 this year.

Joel
11-04-2016, 05:41 AM
This does seem to be a common theme. Unfortunately, if you can't block, you can't run and it makes it mighty hard to throw.
How many YEARS have I been saying this? It's practically my sig. :tongue:


Yes, but that's when you start running shotgun, spread, quick hitting plays, etc.
Yup: And THAT'S when you have funs and media bitching about how you "always throw short of the sticks" and "never stretch the D," or that you "never call tosses." I concede we had success running outside last week (though consider whom we faced,) but, as a rule, when a lineman can't block the guy RIGHT IN FRONT OF HIM, expecting him to pull and THEN block the guy in front of him, or seal off the backside so defenders don't run the play down from behind, is hopeless.

If you don't have a line, you don't have an OFFENSE: It really is that simple. Elite "skill" players may have a good D against the average regular season opponent, but any and all playoff quality defenses will hand them their heads every day of the week and twice on Super Bowl Sunday.

As to the thread itself: I expected less than we've GOTTEN from our offense, for the above reasons. Right down to CJ getting a season-ending injury because he's commonly forced to break multiple tackles just to escape the backfield. I expected whoever started at QB to get hurt, too, and start short-arming throws, failing to go through progressions because he doesn't have TIME, and making increasingly poor decisions as he gets ever more nervous in his nonexistent pocket.

It is what it is; full marks to Siemian for keeping his head better and longer than I expected any young QB to do behind Swiss cheese.

Joel
11-04-2016, 05:47 AM
This is an edit, as I'm trying to process these numbers (yours and Joe's).

The rankings seem exceedingly irrelevant, especially considering we're comparing half a season to a full season. It's interesting numbers, but it doesn't really show improvement.

As far as the INT rank, of course it's down. The quarterback won't throw the ball. He's last in passes beyond 15 yards (that's per the Sunday broadcast). What's the hard data on the numbers?

It's irrelevant if we rank 14th vs. 19th on first downs at this time of the year if the numbers of first downs is the same.
Except it's not, because if an EQUAL number of first downs ranks HIGHER this year, that suggests the overall quality of NFL defense has improved, without lowering our offensive production. That in turn suggests our offensive ability has improved: It's gotten harder to move the ball, but we're still doing it just as well.

Half/full seasons don't matter as long as we're comparing apples to apples, our 8/16 games verses everyone elses. There's more margin for error due to the smaller sample size, but it's not a huge difference, and the general trend's no less valid. And lowering the number of Ints because the QB won't throw can still be improvement also, especially since we're still getting as many first downs: That means either our running's improved enough he doesn't NEED to throw as much to get the same number for conversions, or our receivers are breaking those short passes for more yards after catch. Either way, we should be facing less 3rd and long automatic passing situations that do half the defenses job for them, and that's improvement.

Tned
11-04-2016, 07:13 AM
I know some like football outsides DVOA and some don't, but I was curious so went and had a look.

So, just before the season started, they did their updated DVOA projections, which included for instance adjustments for no Brady for NE's first four games, etc.

They had Broncos offense projected to be ranked 30th and defense 1st and the Broncos win 8 games and miss the playoffs.

Through 8 weeks where the Broncos have won 6 games, the offense is ranked 21st (was 17th last week, but fell 4 spots after the bad SD game) and defense 2nd.

They are now projecting the Broncos win 6 more games.

Except for possibly some local media that sometimes blur the lines between analysis and fandom (which I like when listening to them) I doubt you will find a single NFL analyst that expected the Broncos offense to be a power house. In most cases, the Broncos have likely at worst met expectations, but in most cases, exceeded non-fan expectations on the offensive side of the ball.

Fully agreed that it isn't enough to satisfy us fans, but rarely are fans satisfied. We get upset when a team can run a bit between the 20's, even if we stop them in the red zone. We get upset when we get exposed by passes to running backs and foretell the end of the Broncos defensive dominance now that the "blueprint" is out, even though there is only one, possibly two teams in the league that have the QB/RB talent to actually line RBs out wide and have them take advantage of mismatches.

Hawgdriver
11-04-2016, 09:58 AM
IF the broncos offense can score 25 ppg going forward we are going to contend, if it remains poor we are going nowhere.

You know they are scoring like 24 and change per game already, right? I'd hate for you to look uninformed.

dogfish
11-04-2016, 12:48 PM
lol. . . i think i may have been drunk when i started this, because the poll didn't get posted. . . gonna have to start a new thread, and get one of them moderatin' types to merge it. . .

underrated29
11-04-2016, 01:00 PM
lol. . . i think i may have been drunk when i started this, because the poll didn't get posted. . . gonna have to start a new thread, and get one of them moderatin' types to merge it. . .



Bes be waiting til 3:30 in the morning then

underrated29
11-04-2016, 01:01 PM
lol. . . i think i may have been drunk when i started this, because the poll didn't get posted. . . gonna have to start a new thread, and get one of them moderatin' types to merge it. . .



That was your clue? The poll not being posted. Nothing to do with a 4:30 am post time.....

King87
11-04-2016, 01:03 PM
I figured the offense would run the ball about as well as we have thus far. I expected nothing out of the TE"s because I don't think any of them are superbly talented or really all that good. That sounds meaner than I want it to, but I don't know how else to phrase it.

dogfish
11-04-2016, 01:04 PM
That was your clue? The poll not being posted. Nothing to do with a 4:30 am post time.....

i'm a night owl-- relax about the time. . . :laugh:

Valar Morghulis
11-04-2016, 03:05 PM
I figured the offense would run the ball about as well as we have thus far. I expected nothing out of the TE"s because I don't think any of them are superbly talented or really all that good. That sounds meaner than I want it to, but I don't know how else to phrase it.

I thought green was going to have a JT style break out year and expected huerman to be a playmaker

I also thought our line would be solid enough to carry a strong running game to help out our inexperienced quarterback

atwater27
11-04-2016, 06:48 PM
My initial expectations were that Oz would be the QB going into this season. While i expected him to struggle a bit i also figured he would improve throughout the season because he was already familiar with the players/system/coaching. But, when he left for Houston my expectations dropped because i knew that there just wasnt much out there in the way of QB's on the market. When we signed Dirty Sanchez i thought there might be a possibility that he could become something with a better organization behind him. Nope, he sucks and was cut because of it. So that left us with Siemien and Lynch where one guy knows the system but sat as a 3rd stringer the year before and the other was a much greener rookie. I figured with the youth the QB's would be able to make plays that Manning simply could not and yet have issues because of lack of experience behind center. Well, this season has basically played out the way i expected in that at times the Qb's have looked calm and confident and other times have looked like scared puppies and very indecisive. I certainly did not expect to be 6-2 at this point. That is just a bonus and considering some of the defensive talent we lost its actually quite amazing that we are still competing like we are for the division and a chance at the playoffs again.

As far as the "regressing" issue that gets brought up i guess im just unclear of how those people view the QB position to begin with and how much time they as a fan allow a player to mature and learn through live game experience. Are people more impatient now than they were or is it something else? I was curious so i went and looked at a couple of QB's to see how they fared early on in their careers before becoming what they had become.

John Elway (1983) QB Record: 4-6, 7 TD's, 14 Int's, QB Rating: 54.9 (Elway's 2nd year he had a QB Rating of 76.8 with a QB Record for that year at 12-2)
Drew Brees (2002) QB Record: 8-8 17 TD's, 16 Int's, QB Rating: 76.9 (Brees 2nd year he had a QB Ratings of 67.5 with a QB Record for that year at 2-9)

Interestingly enough Elway improved the second year while Brees struggled his sophomore year. But both QB's eventually went to be great QB's regardless of any struggles they had after a few games. Ive watched football for a long time and i can still remember early in John's career where he looked like a deer in the headlights. Not too unlike Siemien this past game. Do i think Siemien will become great? Doubtful. But im just trying to wrap my head around how people can automatically write off someone or determine that they have regressed when said player has only played a handful of games. In my opinion no matter if its Siemien, Lynch, Wentz, or Prescott you will find that these QB's will have bad games because as NTL stated teams do get tape on them. Defenses change and adapt and sometimes those things happen before the QB themselves can adapt and change. Because Denver has Lynch i dont think we will see Siemien beyond this year, at least as a starter. He would pretty much have to light it up the rest of the year to prove that he could be guy going forward. But im not so sure that he "regressed" as much as he is seeing new things thrown at him on the field to which he must now study and learn from. And yes, he isnt getting much help from the Oline or playcalling at times which adds to the problems on the field. And as much as i want to see Oz flounder and fail his story is not yet over either. Ive never seen a HOF QB created in their first year of playing professional football. Like ever.
Rothleisberger

Tned
11-04-2016, 08:01 PM
Mason tweeted today:

"The collective QB rating of all QBs in their first 8 games (min. 50 attempts) since 1970 is 66.5. Siemian's rating is 87.1, 28th of 344 QBs."

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
11-04-2016, 08:55 PM
Mason tweeted today:

"The collective QB rating of all QBs in their first 8 games (min. 50 attempts) since 1970 is 66.5. Siemian's rating is 87.1, 28th of 344 QBs."

"He sucks!"

Tned
11-04-2016, 09:00 PM
"He sucks!"

I don't think Mason sucks. I like his work.

Hawgdriver
11-04-2016, 09:01 PM
Mason tweeted today:

"The collective QB rating of all QBs in their first 8 games (min. 50 attempts) since 1970 is 66.5. Siemian's rating is 87.1, 28th of 344 QBs."

Rules of the game and offensive style as changed too dramatically to put stock in a measure from 1970-2016, but it's still encouraging. If it was corrected for league average QB rating it would be much more reliable.

dogfish
11-04-2016, 09:04 PM
Rules of the game and offensive style as changed too dramatically to put stock in a measure from 1970-2016, but it's still encouraging. If it was corrected for league average QB rating it would be much more reliable.

my thoughts as well. . . would be significantly more relevant if he only looked at stats from, say, 2000 on. . .

Lynch12
11-04-2016, 09:22 PM
You know they are scoring like 24 and change per game already, right? I'd hate for you to look uninformed.

Im sure thats including the defensive touchdowns..... id hate for you to get the actual ppg the offense alone scores.

Jaded
11-04-2016, 09:30 PM
Im sure thats including the defensive touchdowns..... id hate for you to get the actual ppg the offense alone scores.

So does every other team in the ranking, how bout you do the math and rank all 32? Considering you're the one bitching.

Tned
11-04-2016, 09:40 PM
my thoughts as well. . . would be significantly more relevant if he only looked at stats from, say, 2000 on. . .

On phone, watching done queen Elizabeth Netflix show with wife, so the best I can do.

This is the first season of QBs since 2000 with 8 or more starts :in their first year. Siemian is second year, even though first starting. Not exact, but good relative comparative. I'll try and get better dataset when I get to computer.

9665

Hawgdriver
11-04-2016, 10:49 PM
Im sure thats including the defensive touchdowns..... id hate for you to get the actual ppg the offense alone scores.

It's like 23 ppg. Your argument still sucks, and now you are trying to backdate your logic. Don't expect credibility anytime soon.

Lynch12
11-04-2016, 10:54 PM
It's like 23 ppg. Your argument still sucks, and now you are trying to backdate your logic. Don't expect credibility anytime soon.

You are full of shit. Pull up the real numbers or else your credibility(if tou even had any with me) is gone. I know for a fact that in almost every game our defense didnt score the broncos barely scraped up 15 points, we sure as hell dont score many touchdowns. Our offense is field goals and defensive scores, with a little more defensive turnovers that puts us in great field position only to end up with a field goal.

Lynch12
11-04-2016, 10:56 PM
So does every other team in the ranking, how bout you do the math and rank all 32? Considering you're the one bitching.

I'm talking about the Broncos and there pathetic offensive production. Clearly said if the BRONCOS offense can score 25 ppg they would be fine.

Hawgdriver
11-04-2016, 11:04 PM
On phone, watching done queen Elizabeth Netflix show with wife, so the best I can do.

This is the first season of QBs since 2000 with 8 or more starts :in their first year. Siemian is second year, even though first starting. Not exact, but good relative comparative. I'll try and get better dataset when I get to computer.

9665

Based on QB rating alone, that puts him at 80th percentile, which is reasonable--good--production from a first year QB. Good names on that list.

Trevor's been lucky. If all his near-interceptions were actual interceptions, the number would be lower. I was curious and did a sensitivity analysis. If he had 2 more picks (he's 8 TD/4INT now), his rating would be 84, and 4 more picks, rating would be 80.

From that list, it seems 80-75 is roughly the line below which those names didn't stick around as NFL starters.

My conclusion is that Siemian, even with a bit of luck in avoiding picks (plus there's been some bad luck, too, e.g. TD passes and solid offense nullified by Okung et. al.), is tending the shop admirably. He may even become an NFL starter.

Interesting data, Tned.

Hawgdriver
11-04-2016, 11:11 PM
You are full of shit. Pull up the real numbers or else your credibility(if tou even had any with me) is gone. I know for a fact that in almost every game our defense didnt score the broncos barely scraped up 15 points, we sure as hell dont score many touchdowns. Our offense is field goals and defensive scores, with a little more defensive turnovers that puts us in great field position only to end up with a field goal.

You are right. It's closer to 22ppg. My bad.

I'll send you the invoice for doing your job for you, cool?

Did you have any more big important thoughts, 12?

Tned
11-04-2016, 11:52 PM
Ok, this is the best I can come up with.


This is all QBs starting in 2000 who started at least 7 games in their first or second year, and what I'm showing is the year they had 7 or more starts. So, there could be a few that started a few games their rookie year, and then 7 plus their second year, and I'm showing the second year for those (not many fall into that).


Have at it.



Rate
Player
Year
Age
Draft RD
GS
Cmp
Att
Cmp%
Yds
TD
Int
TD%
Int%
Y/A
Y/G


119.2
Nick Foles
2013
24
3
10
203
317
64.04
2891
27
2
8.5
0.63
9.12
222.4


102.4
Robert Griffin
2012
22
1
15
258
393
65.65
3200
20
5
5.1
1.27
8.14
213.3


101.5
Marc Bulger
2002
25
6
7
138
214
64.49
1826
14
6
6.5
2.8
8.53
260.9


100
Russell Wilson
2012
24
3
16
252
393
64.12
3118
26
10
6.6
2.54
7.93
194.9


99.6
Dak Prescott
2016
23
4
7
144
221
65.16
1773
9
2
4.1
0.9
8.02
253.3


98.3
Colin Kaepernick
2012
25
2
7
136
218
62.39
1814
10
3
4.6
1.38
8.32
139.5


98.1
Ben Roethlisberger
2004
22
1
13
196
295
66.44
2621
17
11
5.8
3.73
8.88
187.2


98
Daunte Culpepper
2000
23
1
16
297
474
62.66
3937
33
16
7
3.38
8.31
246.1


97.6
Jeff Garcia
2000
30

16
355
561
63.28
4278
31
10
5.5
1.78
7.63
267.4


95.9
Josh Freeman
2010
22
1
16
291
474
61.39
3451
25
6
5.3
1.27
7.28
215.7


92.5
Carson Wentz
2016
24
1
7
150
228
65.79
1526
9
3
3.9
1.32
6.69
218


91.5
Marcus Mariota
2015
22
1
12
230
370
62.16
2818
19
10
5.1
2.7
7.62
234.8


88.1
Jay Cutler
2007
24
1
16
297
467
63.6
3497
20
14
4.3
3
7.49
218.6


87.7
Matt Ryan
2008
23
1
16
265
434
61.06
3440
16
11
3.7
2.53
7.93
215


87.1
Trevor Siemian
2016
24
7
7
132
214
61.68
1487
8
4
3.7
1.87
6.95
212.4


86.5
Tom Brady
2001
24
6
14
264
413
63.92
2843
18
12
4.4
2.91
6.88
189.5


85.2
Teddy Bridgewater
2014
22
1
12
259
402
64.43
2919
14
12
3.5
2.99
7.26
224.5


85.1
Austin Davis
2014
25

8
180
284
63.38
2001
12
9
4.2
3.17
7.05
200.1


84.5
Cam Newton
2011
22
1
16
310
517
59.96
4051
21
17
4.1
3.29
7.84
253.2


84.2
Jameis Winston
2015
21
1
16
312
535
58.32
4042
22
15
4.1
2.8
7.56
252.6


83.9
Mike Glennon
2013
24
3
13
247
416
59.38
2608
19
9
4.6
2.16
6.27
200.6


82.5
Derek Anderson
2007
24
6
15
298
527
56.55
3787
29
19
5.5
3.61
7.19
236.7


81.6
Michael Vick
2002
22
1
15
231
421
54.87
2936
16
8
3.8
1.9
6.97
195.7


81.4
Chris Simms
2005
25
3
10
191
313
61.02
2035
10
7
3.2
2.24
6.5
185


80.4
Andy Dalton
2011
24
2
16
300
516
58.14
3398
20
13
3.9
2.52
6.59
212.4


80.3
Joe Flacco
2008
23
1
16
257
428
60.05
2971
14
12
3.3
2.8
6.94
185.7


78.2
Case Keenum
2013
25

8
137
253
54.15
1760
9
6
3.6
2.37
6.96
220


77.8
Donovan McNabb
2000
24
1
16
330
569
58
3365
21
13
3.7
2.28
5.91
210.3


77.7
EJ Manuel
2013
23
1
10
180
306
58.82
1972
11
9
3.6
2.94
6.44
197.2


77.3
Carson Palmer
2004
25
1
13
263
432
60.88
2897
18
18
4.2
4.17
6.71
222.8


77.3
Tim Couch
2000
23
1
7
137
215
63.72
1483
7
9
3.3
4.19
6.9
211.9


77.1
JaMarcus Russell
2008
23
2
15
198
368
53.8
2423
13
8
3.5
2.17
6.58
161.5


76.9
Drew Brees
2002
23
2
16
320
526
60.84
3284
17
16
3.2
3.04
6.24
205.3


76.6
Derek Carr
2014
23
2
16
348
599
58.1
3270
21
12
3.5
2
5.46
204.4


76.5
Andrew Luck
2012
23
1
16
339
627
54.07
4374
23
18
3.7
2.87
6.98
273.4


76.5
Jason Campbell
2006
25
1
7
110
207
53.14
1297
10
6
4.8
2.9
6.27
185.3


76.5
Sam Bradford
2010
23
1
16
354
590
60
3512
18
15
3.1
2.54
5.95
219.5


76.4
Aaron Brooks
2001
25
4
16
312
558
55.91
3832
26
22
4.7
3.94
6.87
239.5


76.1
Ryan Tannehill
2012
24
1
16
282
484
58.26
3294
12
13
2.5
2.69
6.81
205.9


76
Tyler Thigpen
2008
24
7
11
230
420
54.76
2608
18
12
4.3
2.86
6.21
186.3


75.9
Eli Manning
2005
24
1
16
294
557
52.78
3762
24
17
4.3
3.05
6.75
235.1


75.8
Patrick Ramsey
2003
24
1
11
179
337
53.12
2166
14
9
4.2
2.67
6.43
196.9


75.8
Shaun King
2000
23
2
16
233
428
54.44
2769
18
13
4.2
3.04
6.47
173.1


75.2
Chad Henne
2009
24
2
13
274
451
60.75
2878
12
14
2.7
3.1
6.38
205.6


74.8
Alex Smith
2006
22
1
16
257
442
58.14
2890
16
16
3.6
3.62
6.54
180.6


74.5
Colt McCoy
2010
24
3
8
135
222
60.81
1576
6
9
2.7
4.05
7.1
197


74
Jake Locker
2012
24
1
11
177
314
56.37
2176
10
11
3.2
3.5
6.93
197.8


74
Matt Leinart
2006
23
1
11
214
377
56.76
2547
11
12
2.9
3.18
6.76
212.3


73
Byron Leftwich
2003
23
1
13
239
418
57.18
2819
14
16
3.3
3.83
6.74
187.9


72.9
Brooks Bollinger
2005
26
6
9
150
266
56.39
1558
7
6
2.6
2.26
5.86
141.6


72.9
Tim Tebow
2011
24
1
11
126
271
46.49
1729
12
6
4.4
2.21
6.38
123.5

Tned
11-04-2016, 11:52 PM
Here are the rest, it wouldn't let me put the full list in one post (too many characters).



72.6
Brandon Weeden
2012
29
1
15
297
517
57.45
3385
14
17
2.7
3.29
6.55
225.7


72.6
Dan Orlovsky
2008
25
5
7
143
255
56.08
1616
8
8
3.1
3.14
6.34
161.6


72.3
Quincy Carter
2002
25
2
7
125
221
56.56
1465
7
8
3.2
3.62
6.63
209.3


72.2
Charlie Frye
2006
25
3
13
252
392
64.29
2454
10
17
2.6
4.34
6.26
188.8


70.8
Tarvaris Jackson
2007
24
2
12
171
294
58.16
1911
9
12
3.1
4.08
6.5
159.3


70.4
Trent Edwards
2007
24
3
9
151
269
56.13
1630
7
8
2.6
2.97
6.06
163


70.1
Christian Ponder
2011
23
1
10
158
291
54.3
1853
13
13
4.5
4.47
6.37
168.5


69.5
Blake Bortles
2014
22
1
13
280
475
58.95
2908
11
17
2.3
3.58
6.12
207.7


68.9
John Skelton
2011
23
5
7
151
275
54.91
1913
11
14
4
5.09
6.96
239.1


68.5
Cade McNown
2000
23
1
9
154
280
55
1646
8
9
2.9
3.21
5.88
164.6


66.7
Vince Young
2006
23
1
13
184
357
51.54
2199
12
13
3.4
3.64
6.16
146.6


66.6
Curtis Painter
2011
26
6
8
132
243
54.32
1541
6
9
2.5
3.7
6.34
171.2


66.5
Geno Smith
2013
23
2
16
247
443
55.76
3046
12
21
2.7
4.74
6.88
190.4


65.9
Bruce Gradkowski
2006
23
6
11
177
328
53.96
1661
9
9
2.7
2.74
5.06
127.8


65.4
Blaine Gabbert
2011
22
1
14
210
413
50.85
2214
12
11
2.9
2.66
5.36
147.6


64.9
J.P. Losman
2005
24
1
8
113
228
49.56
1340
8
8
3.5
3.51
5.88
148.9


63
Mark Sanchez
2009
23
1
15
196
364
53.85
2444
12
20
3.3
5.49
6.71
162.9


63
Quincy Carter
2001
24
2
8
90
176
51.14
1072
5
7
2.8
3.98
6.09
134


62.8
David Carr
2002
23
1
16
233
444
52.48
2592
9
15
2
3.38
5.84
162


62.4
Ken Dorsey
2004
23
7
7
123
226
54.42
1231
6
9
2.7
3.98
5.45
153.9


62.4
Kyle Boller
2003
22
1
9
116
224
51.79
1260
7
9
3.1
4.02
5.63
114.5


62
Chris Weinke
2001
29
4
15
293
540
54.26
2931
11
19
2
3.52
5.43
195.4


61
Matthew Stafford
2009
21
1
10
201
377
53.32
2267
13
20
3.4
5.31
6.01
226.7


60.9
Kellen Clemens
2007
24
2
8
130
250
52
1529
5
10
2
4
6.12
152.9


59.9
Joey Harrington
2002
24
1
12
215
429
50.12
2294
12
16
2.8
3.73
5.35
163.9

Tned
11-05-2016, 12:19 AM
Based on QB rating alone, that puts him at 80th percentile, which is reasonable--good--production from a first year QB. Good names on that list.

Trevor's been lucky. If all his near-interceptions were actual interceptions, the number would be lower. I was curious and did a sensitivity analysis. If he had 2 more picks (he's 8 TD/4INT now), his rating would be 84, and 4 more picks, rating would be 80.

From that list, it seems 80-75 is roughly the line below which those names didn't stick around as NFL starters.

My conclusion is that Siemian, even with a bit of luck in avoiding picks (plus there's been some bad luck, too, e.g. TD passes and solid offense nullified by Okung et. al.), is tending the shop admirably. He may even become an NFL starter.

Interesting data, Tned.

The flip side of the dropped INTs is the dropped passes by DT and others, TD's called back by holding, Norwood not even attempting to tap his toe and just walking out of the endzone on a catch, Norwood having a ball hit him in the hands and deflect into a pick 6.

So, you could also argue that with a little more help around him, not even talking about pass protection, that he would have more receptions and TDs, and as a result a rating in the low to mid 90s, as it was just a few games ago.

Hawgdriver
11-05-2016, 12:53 AM
The flip side of the dropped INTs is the dropped passes by DT and others, TD's called back by holding, Norwood not even attempting to tap his toe and just walking out of the endzone on a catch, Norwood having a ball hit him in the hands and deflect into a pick 6.

So, you could also argue that with a little more help around him, not even talking about pass protection, that he would have more receptions and TDs, and as a result a rating in the low to mid 90s, as it was just a few games ago.

Bottom line, woulda coulda shoulda aside, he's an 80th percentile QB rating dude (among his experience cohort). Compared to BoY expectations (low), it's good. I'll take it.

Too early to put much confidence in it, but going off these numbers alone, he looks like he's on track for a career as an NFL starter.

Tned
11-05-2016, 01:53 AM
Bottom line, woulda coulda shoulda aside, he's an 80th percentile QB rating dude (among his experience cohort). Compared to BoY expectations (low), it's good. I'll take it.

Too early to put much confidence in it, but going off these numbers alone, he looks like he's on track for a career as an NFL starter.

Agreed on all points. I only brought up the mistakes by others, because the "he could have ten picks if he wasn't lucky and so many were dropped" mantra ignores the flip side of dropped passes, TDs called back, wide receiver and RB fumbles, Etc.

Since every QB has his share, unless people are willing to break down every play and credit him with the "bad luck", they shouldn't try and penalize him for the good luck.

The reason I took the time to do this is that a recurring theme seems to be most Broncos fans not grasping how well Siemian is playing when compared to other first year starters of the last ten, Twenty or thirty years.

MOtorboat
11-05-2016, 02:23 AM
Agreed on all points. I only brought up the mistakes by others, because the "he could have ten picks if he wasn't lucky and so many were dropped" mantra ignores the flip side of dropped passes, TDs called back, wide receiver and RB fumbles, Etc.

Since every QB has his share, unless people are willing to break down every play and credit him with the "bad luck", they shouldn't try and penalize him for the good luck.

The reason I took the time to do this is that a recurring theme seems to be most Broncos fans not grasping how well Siemian is playing when compared to other first year starters of the last ten, Twenty or thirty years.

I fully grasp what you're trying to say. I just don't care how he compares to Nick Foles and Marc Bulger.

MOtorboat
11-05-2016, 02:54 AM
Here's why some of us continue to be concerned.

3rd down and 11 in the first quarter against San Diego.

9666

Thomas comes in motion and is clearly the first read on an out route that San Diego double covers within their zone.

9667

The problem is Siemian's immediate reaction is to throw it to the closest guy he can find, in this case Norwood. He's got plenty of time. That's a good pocket. He's got time to step up and make a third read.

9668

The linebacker is on skates because he sees the wide open Norwood in front of him and the result is a double-covered throw short of the first down sticks when Sanders is open on the deep cross and Bibbs is one on one on the outside.

9669

So, while this play is great for his quarterback rating, it does nothing for Denver and had two open receivers, one who would have had the first down and the second who could have had a first down more likely than the receiver who got the ball.

Hawgdriver
11-05-2016, 03:45 AM
I fully grasp what you're trying to say. I just don't care how he compares to Nick Foles and Marc Bulger.

You know what? Me either. I only care about one comparison. Brady. How's he compare to that guy's first year? :lol:

Come to think of it, all statistical comparisons are trash. Let's just eyeball it b/c how else can you capture the nuanced measurement of QB play? Or we could pretend our roster is some other roster with a veteran QB so we don't have to factor in the reality of our personnel situation.

I missed your point but I'd like to get it. This is not Siemian-love. If you say Siemian doesn't pass your eyeball test, fine.

MOtorboat
11-05-2016, 04:11 AM
You know what? Me either. I only care about one comparison. Brady. How's he compare to that guy's first year? :lol:

Come to think of it, all statistical comparisons are trash. Let's just eyeball it b/c how else can you capture the nuanced measurement of QB play? Or we could pretend our roster is some other roster with a veteran QB so we don't have to factor in the reality of our personnel situation.

I missed your point but I'd like to get it. This is not Siemian-love. If you say Siemian doesn't pass your eyeball test, fine.

I'm not sure what your point here is, Hawg.

My point, as has been all along with Tned, is that it's cool that the seventh round pick was named starter, and maybe he compares well to rookie quarterbacks, but why does that matter? It didn't matter that Bulger's passer rating was over 100 when he wasn't good enough to win a job. Tim Tebow is relatively high on the passer rating list. He was awful.

Yeah, my post was snarky, but Tned deserves that tone fully. He's done nothing but be a complete ass to anyone who dares say anything remotely negative about Siemian. I've praised him when he deserves it and criticized him when he deserves it.

Hawgdriver
11-05-2016, 04:20 AM
Ah. The data he shared was valuable to me. Helps me frame the big picture. For what it is, I see no glaring flaws. My point was to gain your insight because you downplay the value of what seems useful data. I'm 100% ok with your ipse dixit.

Mike Hawk
11-05-2016, 09:11 AM
Here is my theory on why the offense, and mainly Siemian, seems to have regressed. For the first few weeks teams had next to zero pro tape on Siemian, and really not even that much college tape if they wanted to study him there. So he was really a complete unknown. Now that teams have more tape on him and know his tendencies, it's not as easy for him as it was early on. So the question now is if he's good enough to adjust back. He very well might not be. If he isn't, this might be the best we ever see him play again. It will be interesting to see play out.

Such is life with a young QB. They don't progress in an upward arrow, instead it's waves with some ups and downs. What we're seeing from Siemian is common with a young QB, we're seeing the same thing with Wentz and even Dak, as others mentioned.

The problem is I don't think most Bronco fans have the patience to let a young QB develop. Looking at the last young QBs the history with the fans isn't good, they criticize Siemian almost every pass, they crucified Lynch after just one start, most were happy when Oz walked, the Tebow jokes still continue to this day, and way too many supported trading Cutler.

capt. Jack
11-05-2016, 10:48 AM
But is nice to have a QB that throws nice spirals most of the time.
Trevor is a natural throwing the ball.
Now he has to learn all the rest of what it takes to be a successful NFL QB.

Tned
11-05-2016, 11:16 AM
I fully grasp what you're trying to say. I just don't care how he compares to Nick Foles and Marc Bulger.

That's fine, but then you are living in a fantasy world. I might add, then you should have also said: Tom Brady, Carson Palmer, Drew Brees, Matt Ryan, Cam Newton, Andy Dalton, Joe Flacco, Derek Carr (who everyone is worried about this week), Andrew Luck, Eli Manning and all the other QBs that had worst first years than he's having.

Tned
11-05-2016, 11:23 AM
So, while this play is great for his quarterback rating, it does nothing for Denver and had two open receivers, one who would have had the first down and the second who could have had a first down more likely than the receiver who got the ball.

Mo, the part that you and a few other fans are failing to grasp is that type of on field awareness comes with experience. You are expecting him to perform the way you want a veteran QB to perform, when he isn't a veteran.

Would I be happy with his current level of play if he was a 5 year vet, or even a third year starter? No, I wouldn't. However, I can't simply pretend he's a five year vet, because he isn't. He's a first year starter, who was a scout team guy in what amounted to a redshirt rookie year with no on field or first team (probably virtually no second team other than when Manning was benched time).

You guys are, intentionally or simply not thinking it through, grading him as you would a veteran rather than what is realisitic to expect from a rookie.

The very fact that you make the quip of "I just don't care how he compares to Nick Foles and Marc Bulger" makes it pretty clear that in your case it's intentionally ignoring it to support your pre-season opinion of Siemian vs. Sanchez. If not, you would realize the long list of first year starters, most of which were first round and in several cases, first overall picks, who did far, far worse than Siemian is doing in his first year starting.

You have to be able, or maybe more accurately, willing, to grade him on the first year starting curve rather than against other veterans playing in the league today or who have played for the Broncos.

Tned
11-05-2016, 11:33 AM
Such is life with a young QB. They don't progress in an upward arrow, instead it's waves with some ups and downs. What we're seeing from Siemian is common with a young QB, we're seeing the same thing with Wentz and even Dak, as others mentioned.

The problem is I don't think most Bronco fans have the patience to let a young QB develop. Looking at the last young QBs the history with the fans isn't good, they criticize Siemian almost every pass, they crucified Lynch after just one start, most were happy when Oz walked, the Tebow jokes still continue to this day, and way too many supported trading Cutler.

I was thinking about something similar the last day or so, such as when getting comparative stats. It goes back to another area where us Broncos fans are spoiled. Since 1983, we've had 20 years of the 32 or so before this year manned by only TWO hall of fame QBs. In between, we had some rocky years, with Griese showing some early signs of being capable, but then fizzling. Plummer, who played at a much higher level in the "system" and then Cutler, who far all of his pouting and gunslinger approach, actually performed at a pretty high level from almost day one. Orton then game as a veteran and was a good game manager at that point in his career, and then of course Tebow was Tebow.

In over three decades, the Broncos have had way above average QB play, including great play from two hall of famers, and only experienced a few rookie/first year starters. So, we are quick to discount someone, because we don't have the Broncos fan experience with young QBs and the fact they almost never perform great from day one -- that's a fact.

As a result, sitting on our superior Broncos soap box (Broncos have been one of the best franchises in football the last three plus decades), we assume that it's just a bad job of drafting or coaching that cause all those other QBs, like Bulger or Foles, or of course Brady, Carson Palmer, Drew Brees, Matt Ryan, Cam Newton, Andy Dalton, Joe Flacco, Derek Carr (who everyone is worried about this week), Andrew Luck, Eli Manning and all the other first year starters that have struggled as much or more than Siemian has this year.

So, if MO's panties get bunched and he feels that he must smote me with his "tone" so be it, because I'll continue to point out the flaw in him and a few others pretending first year QBs don't struggle as a RULE.

atwater27
11-05-2016, 12:16 PM
Ok, this is the best I can come up with.


This is all QBs starting in 2000 who started at least 7 games in their first or second year, and what I'm showing is the year they had 7 or more starts. So, there could be a few that started a few games their rookie year, and then 7 plus their second year, and I'm showing the second year for those (not many fall into that).


Have at it.



Rate
Player
Year
Age
Draft RD
GS
Cmp
Att
Cmp%
Yds
TD
Int
TD%
Int%
Y/A
Y/G


119.2
Nick Foles
2013
24
3
10
203
317
64.04
2891
27
2
8.5
0.63
9.12
222.4


102.4
Robert Griffin
2012
22
1
15
258
393
65.65
3200
20
5
5.1
1.27
8.14
213.3


101.5
Marc Bulger
2002
25
6
7
138
214
64.49
1826
14
6
6.5
2.8
8.53
260.9


100
Russell Wilson
2012
24
3
16
252
393
64.12
3118
26
10
6.6
2.54
7.93
194.9


99.6
Dak Prescott
2016
23
4
7
144
221
65.16
1773
9
2
4.1
0.9
8.02
253.3


98.3
Colin Kaepernick
2012
25
2
7
136
218
62.39
1814
10
3
4.6
1.38
8.32
139.5


98.1
Ben Roethlisberger
2004
22
1
13
196
295
66.44
2621
17
11
5.8
3.73
8.88
187.2


98
Daunte Culpepper
2000
23
1
16
297
474
62.66
3937
33
16
7
3.38
8.31
246.1


97.6
Jeff Garcia
2000
30

16
355
561
63.28
4278
31
10
5.5
1.78
7.63
267.4


95.9
Josh Freeman
2010
22
1
16
291
474
61.39
3451
25
6
5.3
1.27
7.28
215.7


92.5
Carson Wentz
2016
24
1
7
150
228
65.79
1526
9
3
3.9
1.32
6.69
218


91.5
Marcus Mariota
2015
22
1
12
230
370
62.16
2818
19
10
5.1
2.7
7.62
234.8


88.1
Jay Cutler
2007
24
1
16
297
467
63.6
3497
20
14
4.3
3
7.49
218.6


87.7
Matt Ryan
2008
23
1
16
265
434
61.06
3440
16
11
3.7
2.53
7.93
215


87.1
Trevor Siemian
2016
24
7
7
132
214
61.68
1487
8
4
3.7
1.87
6.95
212.4


86.5
Tom Brady
2001
24
6
14
264
413
63.92
2843
18
12
4.4
2.91
6.88
189.5


85.2
Teddy Bridgewater
2014
22
1
12
259
402
64.43
2919
14
12
3.5
2.99
7.26
224.5


85.1
Austin Davis
2014
25

8
180
284
63.38
2001
12
9
4.2
3.17
7.05
200.1


84.5
Cam Newton
2011
22
1
16
310
517
59.96
4051
21
17
4.1
3.29
7.84
253.2


84.2
Jameis Winston
2015
21
1
16
312
535
58.32
4042
22
15
4.1
2.8
7.56
252.6


83.9
Mike Glennon
2013
24
3
13
247
416
59.38
2608
19
9
4.6
2.16
6.27
200.6


82.5
Derek Anderson
2007
24
6
15
298
527
56.55
3787
29
19
5.5
3.61
7.19
236.7


81.6
Michael Vick
2002
22
1
15
231
421
54.87
2936
16
8
3.8
1.9
6.97
195.7


81.4
Chris Simms
2005
25
3
10
191
313
61.02
2035
10
7
3.2
2.24
6.5
185


80.4
Andy Dalton
2011
24
2
16
300
516
58.14
3398
20
13
3.9
2.52
6.59
212.4


80.3
Joe Flacco
2008
23
1
16
257
428
60.05
2971
14
12
3.3
2.8
6.94
185.7


78.2
Case Keenum
2013
25

8
137
253
54.15
1760
9
6
3.6
2.37
6.96
220


77.8
Donovan McNabb
2000
24
1
16
330
569
58
3365
21
13
3.7
2.28
5.91
210.3


77.7
EJ Manuel
2013
23
1
10
180
306
58.82
1972
11
9
3.6
2.94
6.44
197.2


77.3
Carson Palmer
2004
25
1
13
263
432
60.88
2897
18
18
4.2
4.17
6.71
222.8


77.3
Tim Couch
2000
23
1
7
137
215
63.72
1483
7
9
3.3
4.19
6.9
211.9


77.1
JaMarcus Russell
2008
23
2
15
198
368
53.8
2423
13
8
3.5
2.17
6.58
161.5


76.9
Drew Brees
2002
23
2
16
320
526
60.84
3284
17
16
3.2
3.04
6.24
205.3


76.6
Derek Carr
2014
23
2
16
348
599
58.1
3270
21
12
3.5
2
5.46
204.4


76.5
Andrew Luck
2012
23
1
16
339
627
54.07
4374
23
18
3.7
2.87
6.98
273.4


76.5
Jason Campbell
2006
25
1
7
110
207
53.14
1297
10
6
4.8
2.9
6.27
185.3


76.5
Sam Bradford
2010
23
1
16
354
590
60
3512
18
15
3.1
2.54
5.95
219.5


76.4
Aaron Brooks
2001
25
4
16
312
558
55.91
3832
26
22
4.7
3.94
6.87
239.5


76.1
Ryan Tannehill
2012
24
1
16
282
484
58.26
3294
12
13
2.5
2.69
6.81
205.9


76
Tyler Thigpen
2008
24
7
11
230
420
54.76
2608
18
12
4.3
2.86
6.21
186.3


75.9
Eli Manning
2005
24
1
16
294
557
52.78
3762
24
17
4.3
3.05
6.75
235.1


75.8
Patrick Ramsey
2003
24
1
11
179
337
53.12
2166
14
9
4.2
2.67
6.43
196.9


75.8
Shaun King
2000
23
2
16
233
428
54.44
2769
18
13
4.2
3.04
6.47
173.1


75.2
Chad Henne
2009
24
2
13
274
451
60.75
2878
12
14
2.7
3.1
6.38
205.6


74.8
Alex Smith
2006
22
1
16
257
442
58.14
2890
16
16
3.6
3.62
6.54
180.6


74.5
Colt McCoy
2010
24
3
8
135
222
60.81
1576
6
9
2.7
4.05
7.1
197


74
Jake Locker
2012
24
1
11
177
314
56.37
2176
10
11
3.2
3.5
6.93
197.8


74
Matt Leinart
2006
23
1
11
214
377
56.76
2547
11
12
2.9
3.18
6.76
212.3


73
Byron Leftwich
2003
23
1
13
239
418
57.18
2819
14
16
3.3
3.83
6.74
187.9


72.9
Brooks Bollinger
2005
26
6
9
150
266
56.39
1558
7
6
2.6
2.26
5.86
141.6


72.9
Tim Tebow
2011
24
1
11
126
271
46.49
1729
12
6
4.4
2.21
6.38
123.5



Heh one ahead of Tom Brady

atwater27
11-05-2016, 12:21 PM
Yeah, my post was snarky, but Tned deserves that tone fully. He's done nothing but be a complete ass to anyone who dares say anything remotely negative about Siemian. . That is obscenely rich coming from you. Josh McDaniels anyone?

BroncoWave
11-05-2016, 12:25 PM
That is obscenely rich coming from you. Josh McDaniels anyone?

I know you were gone for a while, but Tned has gotten 100x worse than Mo since then, and this is coming from someone who used to get into it with Mo bigtime.

Tned
11-05-2016, 12:29 PM
I know you were gone for a while, but Tned has gotten 100x worse than Mo since then, and this is coming from someone who used to get into it with Mo bigtime.

Yea, and coming from someone that trolled me for a couple years, so coming from you, that's rich. Pot/kettle anyone?

Rather than taking a shot like that, why don't you give constructive criticism, you know where my PM box is, rather than acting like your normal punk ass self?

Tned
11-05-2016, 12:31 PM
Ok, Siemian sucks, Sanchez would have been much better, and we would be just as well off or better if we started Lynch.

So, are your panties now smooth, Mo and BTB?

Geez, I love these people that take it so personally when you disagree with their opinion and attempt to post data and/or detailed thoughts to back up said opinions. I'm beginning to understand why this nation has had to move to this silly trigger warning and safe zone concept.

BroncoWave
11-05-2016, 12:34 PM
Heh one ahead of Tom Brady

That list is a pretty perfect example of why QB rating is an overrated stat. Tebow is ahead of Super Bowl winning and Pro Bowl QBs on this list.

Mike Hawk
11-05-2016, 01:12 PM
That list is a pretty perfect example of why QB rating is an overrated stat. Tebow is ahead of Super Bowl winning and Pro Bowl QBs on this list.

Isn't Tebow dead last on that list? I don't think I'm that blind

Mike Hawk
11-05-2016, 01:28 PM
I was thinking about something similar the last day or so, such as when getting comparative stats. It goes back to another area where us Broncos fans are spoiled. Since 1983, we've had 20 years of the 32 or so before this year manned by only TWO hall of fame QBs. In between, we had some rocky years, with Griese showing some early signs of being capable, but then fizzling. Plummer, who played at a much higher level in the "system" and then Cutler, who far all of his pouting and gunslinger approach, actually performed at a pretty high level from almost day one. Orton then game as a veteran and was a good game manager at that point in his career, and then of course Tebow was Tebow.

In over three decades, the Broncos have had way above average QB play, including great play from two hall of famers, and only experienced a few rookie/first year starters. So, we are quick to discount someone, because we don't have the Broncos fan experience with young QBs and the fact they almost never perform great from day one -- that's a fact.

As a result, sitting on our superior Broncos soap box (Broncos have been one of the best franchises in football the last three plus decades), we assume that it's just a bad job of drafting or coaching that cause all those other QBs, like Bulger or Foles, or of course Brady, Carson Palmer, Drew Brees, Matt Ryan, Cam Newton, Andy Dalton, Joe Flacco, Derek Carr (who everyone is worried about this week), Andrew Luck, Eli Manning and all the other first year starters that have struggled as much or more than Siemian has this year.

So, if MO's panties get bunched and he feels that he must smote me with his "tone" so be it, because I'll continue to point out the flaw in him and a few others pretending first year QBs don't struggle as a RULE.

All things considered, Cutler played the best out of our other inexperienced QBs, yet still maybe half the fan base wasn't even upset when he was traded. I think spoiled is a pretty good term, there just hasn't been much bad QB play here that last 30 years.

Adding to my point of the ups and downs of a first year starter, as an example look at Andrew Luck's rating during his first 16 games:
Game 1: 52.9
Game 2: 107.5
Game 3: 75.7
Game 4: 81.0
Game 5: 51.3
Game 6: 74.8
Game 7: 89.5
Game 8: 105.6
Game 9: 80.1
Game 10: 63.2
Game 11: 71.9
Game 12: 70.8
Game 13: 50.6
Game 14: 95.6
Game 15: 76.5
Game 16: 96.0

I know the QB rating stat has its flaws, but it still shows he was pretty up and down, it wasn't like he gradually got better as the year went on. He had 3 game with 3 INT (weeks 1, 10, and 12), and was under 50% completions the final 5 games of the season.

Ultimately I don't think we'll see a huge jump in Siemian's play until next year (could be interesting if they give him the job or if its another competition with Lynch).

Tned
11-05-2016, 01:51 PM
All things considered, Cutler played the best out of our other inexperienced QBs, yet still maybe half the fan base wasn't even upset when he was traded. I think spoiled is a pretty good term, there just hasn't been much bad QB play here that last 30 years.

Adding to my point of the ups and downs of a first year starter, as an example look at Andrew Luck's rating during his first 16 games:
Game 1: 52.9
Game 2: 107.5
Game 3: 75.7
Game 4: 81.0
Game 5: 51.3
Game 6: 74.8
Game 7: 89.5
Game 8: 105.6
Game 9: 80.1
Game 10: 63.2
Game 11: 71.9
Game 12: 70.8
Game 13: 50.6
Game 14: 95.6
Game 15: 76.5
Game 16: 96.0

I know the QB rating stat has its flaws, but it still shows he was pretty up and down, it wasn't like he gradually got better as the year went on. He had 3 game with 3 INT (weeks 1, 10, and 12), and was under 50% completions the final 5 games of the season.

Ultimately I don't think we'll see a huge jump in Siemian's play until next year (could be interesting if they give him the job or if its another competition with Lynch).

Yep, the ups and downs are hallmark of young QBs. If you are lucky, in their second year they become much more consistent, but it's usually a slow move toward consistency, unless they become one of the QBs that never becomes consistent.

Even though Wentz especially has hit a big valley, and Dak a bit his last game, it's why I've pointed out that what they did the first four or five games was so unusual. So much so that even with all of the star struck Brady coverage, those two QBs were probably the biggest story in the NFL.

Take Carson Palmer. Was he the first overall pick or close to it? The Bengals chose to have him sit year one, and the team was 8-8 with Kitna. Palmer came in year two and threw 18 picks and had a very up and down season and was under .500 as a starter. There is no doubt that the team around Palmer wasn't as good as the Broncos (possibly O line, because you can't get too much worse), but he still threw 18 picks and I can say with pretty high confidence that he probably had another handful of potential picks dropped as every QB does.

Young QBs have ups and downs. It's just what they do, period.

What I love is the moving target.

After week three. "Yea, he completed deep passes, but those were to single coverage, he needs to be able to throw deep even when it's not single coverage and let our receivers make plays." After week eight. "Geez, he got lucky. He threw to double covered receivers and it was just great plays by DT and Sanders that prevented turnovers..."

:laugh:

BroncoWave
11-05-2016, 01:53 PM
Isn't Tebow dead last on that list? I don't think I'm that blind

No, that list went multiple posts. Go back a few pages and look.

Mike Hawk
11-05-2016, 02:07 PM
No, that list went multiple posts. Go back a few pages and look.

Ah yes, I am blind. Still not like Tebow is ahead of anybody that great besides maybe Matt Stafford (who took over an 0-16 team)

Mike Hawk
11-05-2016, 02:15 PM
Rate
Player
Year
Age
Draft RD
GS
Cmp
Att
Cmp%
Yds
TD
Int
TD%
Int%
Y/A
Y/G


119.2
Nick Foles
2013
24
3
10
203
317
64.04
2891
27
2
8.5
0.63
9.12
222.4


102.4
Robert Griffin
2012
22
1
15
258
393
65.65
3200
20
5
5.1
1.27
8.14
213.3


101.5
Marc Bulger
2002
25
6
7
138
214
64.49
1826
14
6
6.5
2.8
8.53
260.9


100
Russell Wilson
2012
24
3
16
252
393
64.12
3118
26
10
6.6
2.54
7.93
194.9


99.6
Dak Prescott
2016
23
4
7
144
221
65.16
1773
9
2
4.1
0.9
8.02
253.3


98.3
Colin Kaepernick
2012
25
2
7
136
218
62.39
1814
10
3
4.6
1.38
8.32
139.5


98.1
Ben Roethlisberger
2004
22
1
13
196
295
66.44
2621
17
11
5.8
3.73
8.88
187.2


98
Daunte Culpepper
2000
23
1
16
297
474
62.66
3937
33
16
7
3.38
8.31
246.1


97.6
Jeff Garcia
2000
30

16
355
561
63.28
4278
31
10
5.5
1.78
7.63
267.4


95.9
Josh Freeman
2010
22
1
16
291
474
61.39
3451
25
6
5.3
1.27
7.28
215.7


92.5
Carson Wentz
2016
24
1
7
150
228
65.79
1526
9
3
3.9
1.32
6.69
218


91.5
Marcus Mariota
2015
22
1
12
230
370
62.16
2818
19
10
5.1
2.7
7.62
234.8


88.1
Jay Cutler
2007
24
1
16
297
467
63.6
3497
20
14
4.3
3
7.49
218.6


87.7
Matt Ryan
2008
23
1
16
265
434
61.06
3440
16
11
3.7
2.53
7.93
215


87.1
Trevor Siemian
2016
24
7
7
132
214
61.68
1487
8
4
3.7
1.87
6.95
212.4


86.5
Tom Brady
2001
24
6
14
264
413
63.92
2843
18
12
4.4
2.91
6.88
189.5


85.2
Teddy Bridgewater
2014
22
1
12
259
402
64.43
2919
14
12
3.5
2.99
7.26
224.5


85.1
Austin Davis
2014
25

8
180
284
63.38
2001
12
9
4.2
3.17
7.05
200.1


84.5
Cam Newton
2011
22
1
16
310
517
59.96
4051
21
17
4.1
3.29
7.84
253.2


84.2
Jameis Winston
2015
21
1
16
312
535
58.32
4042
22
15
4.1
2.8
7.56
252.6


83.9
Mike Glennon
2013
24
3
13
247
416
59.38
2608
19
9
4.6
2.16
6.27
200.6


82.5
Derek Anderson
2007
24
6
15
298
527
56.55
3787
29
19
5.5
3.61
7.19
236.7


81.6
Michael Vick
2002
22
1
15
231
421
54.87
2936
16
8
3.8
1.9
6.97
195.7


81.4
Chris Simms
2005
25
3
10
191
313
61.02
2035
10
7
3.2
2.24
6.5
185


80.4
Andy Dalton
2011
24
2
16
300
516
58.14
3398
20
13
3.9
2.52
6.59
212.4


80.3
Joe Flacco
2008
23
1
16
257
428
60.05
2971
14
12
3.3
2.8
6.94
185.7


78.2
Case Keenum
2013
25

8
137
253
54.15
1760
9
6
3.6
2.37
6.96
220


77.8
Donovan McNabb
2000
24
1
16
330
569
58
3365
21
13
3.7
2.28
5.91
210.3


77.7
EJ Manuel
2013
23
1
10
180
306
58.82
1972
11
9
3.6
2.94
6.44
197.2


77.3
Carson Palmer
2004
25
1
13
263
432
60.88
2897
18
18
4.2
4.17
6.71
222.8


77.3
Tim Couch
2000
23
1
7
137
215
63.72
1483
7
9
3.3
4.19
6.9
211.9


77.1
JaMarcus Russell
2008
23
2
15
198
368
53.8
2423
13
8
3.5
2.17
6.58
161.5


76.9
Drew Brees
2002
23
2
16
320
526
60.84
3284
17
16
3.2
3.04
6.24
205.3


76.6
Derek Carr
2014
23
2
16
348
599
58.1
3270
21
12
3.5
2
5.46
204.4


76.5
Andrew Luck
2012
23
1
16
339
627
54.07
4374
23
18
3.7
2.87
6.98
273.4


76.5
Jason Campbell
2006
25
1
7
110
207
53.14
1297
10
6
4.8
2.9
6.27
185.3


76.5
Sam Bradford
2010
23
1
16
354
590
60
3512
18
15
3.1
2.54
5.95
219.5


76.4
Aaron Brooks
2001
25
4
16
312
558
55.91
3832
26
22
4.7
3.94
6.87
239.5


76.1
Ryan Tannehill
2012
24
1
16
282
484
58.26
3294
12
13
2.5
2.69
6.81
205.9


76
Tyler Thigpen
2008
24
7
11
230
420
54.76
2608
18
12
4.3
2.86
6.21
186.3


75.9
Eli Manning
2005
24
1
16
294
557
52.78
3762
24
17
4.3
3.05
6.75
235.1


75.8
Patrick Ramsey
2003
24
1
11
179
337
53.12
2166
14
9
4.2
2.67
6.43
196.9


75.8
Shaun King
2000
23
2
16
233
428
54.44
2769
18
13
4.2
3.04
6.47
173.1


75.2
Chad Henne
2009
24
2
13
274
451
60.75
2878
12
14
2.7
3.1
6.38
205.6


74.8
Alex Smith
2006
22
1
16
257
442
58.14
2890
16
16
3.6
3.62
6.54
180.6


74.5
Colt McCoy
2010
24
3
8
135
222
60.81
1576
6
9
2.7
4.05
7.1
197


74
Jake Locker
2012
24
1
11
177
314
56.37
2176
10
11
3.2
3.5
6.93
197.8


74
Matt Leinart
2006
23
1
11
214
377
56.76
2547
11
12
2.9
3.18
6.76
212.3


73
Byron Leftwich
2003
23
1
13
239
418
57.18
2819
14
16
3.3
3.83
6.74
187.9


72.9
Brooks Bollinger
2005
26
6
9
150
266
56.39
1558
7
6
2.6
2.26
5.86
141.6


72.9
Tim Tebow
2011
24
1
11
126
271
46.49
1729
12
6
4.4
2.21
6.38
123.5



Whats interesting about this list, is the majority of the best QBs since 2000 started out in the middle of it, that 75-90 range. While most of the QBs on the top started out hot then cooled off quickly.

MOtorboat
11-05-2016, 03:22 PM
Ok, Siemian sucks, Sanchez would have been much better, and we would be just as well off or better if we started Lynch.

So, are your panties now smooth, Mo and BTB?

Geez, I love these people that take it so personally when you disagree with their opinion and attempt to post data and/or detailed thoughts to back up said opinions. I'm beginning to understand why this nation has had to move to this silly trigger warning and safe zone concept.

My feelings aren't hurt and I don't need a trigger warning. I just disagree that we should only be praising Siemian.

Tned
11-05-2016, 03:54 PM
My feelings aren't hurt and I don't need a trigger warning. I just disagree that we should only be praising Siemian.

That's fine. Newsflash, this is a discussion board, where we "discuss" things. So, why not discuss it, rather than feel the need to proudly declare how you needed to put me in my place with you "snarky" tone for voicing MY opinion.

I think your evaluation of Siemian is off. Not that you are wrong on any given play (some you are due to the nature of still shots and difference between making a decision during the game vs. later on Gamepass, but many you are correct). Where you and I differ is that in my "opinion" those poor decisions are why 99% of first year starters struggle, so therefore you have to grade performances in that context.

Based on the context of him being a first year starter and when comparing him to other first year starters of the last 10 or 15 years, he's doing very well. Great? No. But, very well. Better than most first year starters, especially those that wind up behind lines like the Broncos have. The flip side is that he's afforded the luxury of not having to score 30 points to support a bad defense, which many first year starters have to do.

MOtorboat
11-05-2016, 04:11 PM
That's fine. Newsflash, this is a discussion board, where we "discuss" things. So, why not discuss it, rather than feel the need to proudly declare how you needed to put me in my place with you "snarky" tone for voicing MY opinion.

I think your evaluation of Siemian is off. Not that you are wrong on any given play (some you are due to the nature of still shots and difference between making a decision during the game vs. later on Gamepass, but many you are correct). Where you and I differ is that in my "opinion" those poor decisions are why 99% of first year starters struggle, so therefore you have to grade performances in that context.

Based on the context of him being a first year starter and when comparing him to other first year starters of the last 10 or 15 years, he's doing very well. Great? No. But, very well. Better than most first year starters, especially those that wind up behind lines like the Broncos have. The flip side is that he's afforded the luxury of not having to score 30 points to support a bad defense, which many first year starters have to do.

Look in the mirror.

Hawgdriver
11-05-2016, 04:25 PM
:lol:
9670

Tned
11-05-2016, 04:33 PM
Look in the mirror.

:tsk:

BroncoWave
11-05-2016, 04:38 PM
Look in the mirror.

:sad:

MOtorboat
11-05-2016, 04:38 PM
:tsk:

You swipe and snark and condescend anyone who says anything that isn't glowingly positive. You attacked a poster yesterday about Siemian in Lynch unprompted in a thread about Monte Ball.

I responded in kind, because after two months of this shit, you pretty much deserve it. Go look in the mirror and quit being an ass.

I've responded with my concerns only for you to not even respond, several times with great detail.

Tned
11-05-2016, 04:54 PM
You swipe and snark and condescend anyone who says anything that isn't glowingly positive. You attacked a poster yesterday about Siemian in Lynch unprompted in a thread about Monte Ball.

I responded in kind, because after two months of this shit, you pretty much deserve it. Go look in the mirror and quit being an ass.

I've responded with my concerns only for you to not even respond, several times with great detail.

I'll try and remember to post this at the top of every post that I think might upset you. Deal?

http://www.broncosforums.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=9671&stc=1

Ok, back to the regularly scheduled discussion about the BRONCOS OFFENSE...

Tned
11-05-2016, 05:04 PM
Speaking of offense, looks like we are going to get to see the new TE they traded for, as they just released John Phillips.

spikerman
11-05-2016, 08:39 PM
From an earlier suggestion....

9673

Jaded
11-06-2016, 02:45 AM
Tim Tebow may not be ranked last but he sure as **** was the worst.

Jaded
11-06-2016, 02:53 AM
Mike Hawk hits like a hammer!

weazel
11-06-2016, 12:47 PM
Giving this thread an 8/10. Good stuff

Lynch12
11-06-2016, 01:06 PM
You swipe and snark and condescend anyone who says anything that isn't glowingly positive. You attacked a poster yesterday about Siemian in Lynch unprompted in a thread about Monte Ball.

I responded in kind, because after two months of this shit, you pretty much deserve it. Go look in the mirror and quit being an ass.

I've responded with my concerns only for you to not even respond, several times with great detail.

The guy definitely attacks ANYBODY in any thread even when Trevor is not mentioned.

Tned
11-06-2016, 01:16 PM
The guy definitely attacks ANYBODY in any thread even when Trevor is not mentioned.

Please don't take offense, or do, the ONLY reason he's defending you is that MO has a long lasting hard on for me (ok, that sounded wrong) and you are but a pawn for him to use at the moment.

Might as well go back to making light about women being abused...

spikerman
11-06-2016, 01:34 PM
You guys do realize that you're all taking offense with each other for expressing different opinions on a website designed to discuss different opinions, right?

Nomad
11-06-2016, 02:09 PM
You guys do realize that you're all taking offense with each other for expressing different opinions on a website designed to discuss different opinions, right?

Shhhhhh....I was enjoying :popcorn: :D

atwater27
11-06-2016, 07:33 PM
You swipe and snark and condescend anyone who says anything that isn't glowingly positive. You attacked a poster yesterday about Siemian in Lynch unprompted in a thread about Monte Ball.

I responded in kind, because after two months of this shit, you pretty much deserve it. Go look in the mirror and quit being an ass.

I've responded with my concerns only for you to not even respond, several times with great detail.Oh blow it out your hypocritical, annoying hobbithole. You are 10 times as guilty of anything you just said, and for years I might add.

FanInAZ
11-06-2016, 08:09 PM
No, that list went multiple posts. Go back a few pages and look.

I just looked for the post that your referring to, but I couldn't find it.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
11-06-2016, 08:16 PM
I don't think Mason sucks. I like his work.

I wasn't referring to Mason. It was sarcasm about... oh never mind. 😂

Tned
11-06-2016, 08:24 PM
I wasn't referring to Mason. It was sarcasm about... oh never mind. 

So was mine... ;)

Tned
11-06-2016, 08:25 PM
I just looked for the post that your referring to, but I couldn't find it.

The list hit the character limit. I think about 3/4ths of the list was in that first post (going by memory) and my very next post contained the rest of the names.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
11-06-2016, 09:53 PM
Joel-

It's time to retire the "Roby is as good as Talib" argument.

King87
11-06-2016, 09:55 PM
Harris has to go to the slot and it all goes to shit. Talib come back, you can blame it all on me.

The run defense is awful.

The offensive gameplan thus far has been truly awful.

Jaded
11-06-2016, 10:17 PM
On Roby's PI I honestly think Talib takes that duck the other way for Six. I like Roby, he's just not Talib.

Joel
11-07-2016, 01:37 AM
Joel-

It's time to retire the "Roby is as good as Talib" argument.
So it seems; my bad. That said, injuries to a guy who just turned 30 and plays a track star position like a boxer were one of the many reasons I argued for Denver to move on: However good Talib is/n't, he's no help if NOT ON THE FIELD, whether because of injury or suspension, and he's eating a LOT of cap space so we can't put someone else on the field. Best I can say is a $10M cap hit's better than $12M (i.e. next years number.)

Tned
11-07-2016, 08:12 AM
So it seems; my bad. That said, injuries to a guy who just turned 30 and plays a track star position like a boxer were one of the many reasons I argued for Denver to move on: However good Talib is/n't, he's no help if NOT ON THE FIELD, whether because of injury or suspension, and he's eating a LOT of cap space so we can't put someone else on the field. Best I can say is a $10M cap hit's better than $12M (i.e. next years number.)

Talib is playing at a very high level. Before this, how many games has he missed due to injury? You don't just walk away from a player like that unless there is a very good reason to do so.

I absolutely hate the classless way he plays, but man can he play.

Davii
11-07-2016, 09:35 AM
So it seems; my bad. That said, injuries to a guy who just turned 30 and plays a track star position like a boxer were one of the many reasons I argued for Denver to move on: However good Talib is/n't, he's no help if NOT ON THE FIELD, whether because of injury or suspension, and he's eating a LOT of cap space so we can't put someone else on the field. Best I can say is a $10M cap hit's better than $12M (i.e. next years number.)

Joel, you should've stopped after "my bad". ;)

I will give you credit for the attempt.

GEM
11-07-2016, 12:36 PM
Oh for ****s sake...if the last couple games with no Talib hasn't taught you that he's absolutely ESSENTIAL to this team, you're just ignoring facts to preserve the bullshit you've been spewing about him for months or you're blind.

NightTerror218
11-07-2016, 12:44 PM
I expected a better running game and TE used a lot in passing game. Then allow more one on one with DT/sanders deep.

TE has always been a huge part of kubiaks passing games in his systems. We just dont have passes going to green and no other TEs behind him.

BroncoJoe
11-07-2016, 12:47 PM
Oh for ****s sake...if the last couple games with no Talib hasn't taught you that he's absolutely ESSENTIAL to this team, you're just ignoring facts to preserve the bullshit you've been spewing about him for months or you're blind.

He's not blind - he just doesn't watch the games.

silkamilkamonico
11-07-2016, 02:47 PM
They don't call him blind Joel for nothing.

slim
11-07-2016, 02:52 PM
5 ypc

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
11-07-2016, 04:53 PM
5 ypc

...and there's the groin shot.

King87
11-07-2016, 11:42 PM
5 ypc

Hold me.