PDA

View Full Version : The Future Is Elway



Cugel
01-18-2017, 03:22 PM
There has been endless speculation regarding the Broncos coaching and personnel issues coming out of the disappointing 2016 season. I thought it potentially useful to point out some of the issues from Elway's perspective, since he's large and in charge at Dove Valley.

From Elway's perspective, virtually nothing about 2016 went according to plan. Big Al and DMac discuss it in brief on 104.3 The Fan (http://1043thefan.com/category/podcast_results/?sid=1159&n=The%20Drive%20with%20Big%20Al%20and%20D-Mac):


DMac: "First [after Peyton retired] it [the new QB] was supposed to be Brock Osweiler. That didn't work out. Then it was supposed to be Mark Sanchez. That didn't work out. The backup, who was supposed to be the backup to Mark Sanchez, was Paxton Lynch. That didn't work out. And then you got Trevor Siemian. If you were talking about Plan A, Plan B, Plan C, this is like "Plan Zed." I just went Canadian on you. That's how they say Z in Canada.

"So Trevor Siemian was never anybody's first choice - except Gary Kubiak."

Big AL: "And his parents. His parents definitely wanted him to start."

DMac: "Yeah, and his high school coach."

Big Al: "Maybe some of those guys from Northwestern. Especially those at the Law Library."

Basically, Trevor Siemian has the support of the guys in the locker room, because he was the most developed and ready QB. For the same reason Kubiak liked him better. DMac thinks Kubiak saw himself in Trevor, a little regarded over-achiever whom nobody really wanted as a starter, but who kept working hard for his chance.

But, from Elway's perspective, viewing the scene from 10,000 feet in a strategic sense, THIS is what he sees:


Which QBs have represented the AFC in the Super Bowl the last 15 years?
2015: Peyton Manning
2014: Tom Brady
2013: Peyton Manning
2012: Joe Flacco
2011: Tom Brady
2010: Ben Roethlisberger
2009: Peyton Manning
2008: Ben Roethlisberger
2007: Tom Brady
2006: Peyton Manning
2005: Ben Roethlisberger
2004: Tom Brady
2003: Tom Brady
2002: Rich Gannon
2001: Tom Brady
2000: Trent Dilfer

In the last 15 years, only 3 QBs not named Brady, Peyton Manning or Roethlisberger managed to get to the SB, and only Dilfer and Flacco won it. Obviously, the Broncos, like the Ravens in 2000 or the '85 Bears, won the SB in 2016 with historically great defense.

But, the history of the NFL proves that while a great defensive team can win a SB about once every 10 years, it is never the same team twice, and those teams never repeat. The '85 Bears, the 2000 Ravens, the 2002 Bucs, and the 2015 Broncos all won SBs with great defense and not much offense, but none of them ever repeated. The Bears for instance had a great defense throughout the rest of the 80's but never went back until 2006, with none of the same players. They faced the Colts who had Peyton Manning. They had Rex Grossman. 'Nuff said.

Obviously, Elway knows all this. And he also knows that it's easier to pay 1 QB and keep him under contract than it is to keep 11 defenders. In the modern NFL it's a copy cat league and everybody wants to steal your players the minute you have success - just as they did Malik Jackson and Danny Trevathan. As this past season proved, lightning doesn't strike twice in the same spot.

If you are an AFC team, whatever you do in the regular season, come playoff time, you're going to be facing Ben Roethlisberger or Tom Brady in the AFC Championship game and you might have to get past both of them - as the Broncos did in 2015.

Are you really going to do that and win multiple SBs with a 7th round draft pick like Trevor Siemian. Elway looks at Siemian and clearly doesn't see an elite QB in the future. He equally obviously remains convinced that Lynch does have that potential.

Virtually everybody else in the NFL would agree. According to Cecil Lammey, the draft guru there is "zero interest" in Trevor Siemian around the league. No trade value whatever. Nobody believes that guy is a future SB winning QB.

Can Lynch succeed? Nobody knows, but Elway sees the writing on the wall. If you want to represent the AFC in the SB you need an elite top 10 QB and preferably a Hall of Fame QB. That is why the speculation continues about Philip Rivers or Tony Romo coming to Denver, despite the fact that neither is likely.

So, really, his only choice is to bring in coaches who can coach up Lynch in the hopes he develops into an elite QB. Trevor Siemian is a place holder. If he's starting, that just means Paxton Lynch hasn't developed to the degree they hope. Because, unlike in other cities where they are just happy to get into the playoffs, Elway is determined to do whatever it takes to win multiple championships.

And that means having an elite QB, whether that is Lynch, or Philip Rivers or some guy he will draft in 2018.

Buff
01-18-2017, 03:29 PM
Wait, Canadians call the letter Z "Zed"? Is this true weazel/PAG?

BroncoJoe
01-18-2017, 04:40 PM
tldr.

Slick
01-18-2017, 04:46 PM
I agree.

Joel
01-18-2017, 05:34 PM
Wait, Canadians call the letter Z "Zed"? Is this true weazel/PAG?
Except in Quebec, presumably; saying, "zed," is probably a hanging offense there. :tongue:

chazoe60
01-18-2017, 05:42 PM
So now Cugel knows what Elway is thinking?

LawDog
01-18-2017, 06:00 PM
So now Cugel knows what Elway is thinking?

Exactly what I was thinking. I agree with your points generally Cugs, but delete the part about what Elway obviously sees/knows... it detracts from what you are saying rather than supporting it.

MOtorboat
01-18-2017, 06:05 PM
So now Cugel knows what Elway is thinking?

He's always known that.

Cugel
01-18-2017, 06:12 PM
Exactly what I was thinking. I agree with your points generally Cugs, but delete the part about what Elway obviously sees/knows... it detracts from what you are saying rather than supporting it.

It would be an insult to Elway's intelligence if he didn't know at least what some fans know. I had to look up who all the SB teams from the AFC were because I didn't remember them all in order off the top of my head, but I bet Elway knows that stuff automatically.

As for him knowing what all NFL GMs know about it being easier to keep 1 QB under contract than 11 starting defenders - all of whom are convinced they played a key role in the SB victory and want to get paid, he obviously knows this too.

It's like saying "all lawyers know the rules of civil procedure." Well, if they didn't they wouldn't pass the Bar Exam and get licensed, cause they ask about that stuff in the exam. So, all lawyers know those rules, even if they don't use them in their practice. Elway can be presumed to know what all GMs know.

He obviously knows a TON more than most GMs by virtue of being a Hall of Fame QB.

I remember him watching Tim Tebow throwing drill in the off-season. He was standing about 10 feet from Tebow with this grim expression on his face. He didn't say much, but I remember thinking at the time watching him watch Tebow work on his foot-work and over-throwing WRs, that Elway looked like he was thinking "this is not what I want in my QB." And sure enough, next season Tebow was gone, despite winning the Pittsburgh playoff game.

Elway knows exactly what he wants in his QB. For some reason for instance, he wants them tall. That's one reason he drafted Brock Osweiler instead of Russell Wilson, who got drafted in the 3rd round.

Joel
01-18-2017, 07:12 PM
He obviously knows a TON more than most GMs by virtue of being a Hall of Fame QB.
That does not follow, at all. Terry Bradshaw was a first ballot HoFer, but "couldn't spell 'cat' if you gave him the 'c' and the 't.'" I agree Elway knows more than most GMs, but not solely by virtue of being a HoF QB (e.g. Elway didn't go to Louisiana Tech, nor spend his retirement as a failed actor, or a talking head like some former players on TV—or radio.... ;))

slim
01-18-2017, 07:18 PM
Elway knows exactly what he wants in his QB. For some reason for instance, he wants them tall. That's one reason he drafted Brock Osweiler instead of Russell Wilson, who got drafted in the 3rd round.

So his scouting is flawed?

I don't know how else to interpret that.

Joel
01-18-2017, 07:49 PM
No one needs the height to see over linemen more than a QB who makes every throw while falling backward BENEATH a lineman. ;)

Hawgdriver
01-18-2017, 11:09 PM
So his scouting is flawed?

I don't know how else to interpret that.

He wants a QB with a large shoe size.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
01-18-2017, 11:12 PM
Cugel-

You are far too intelligent to quote D-Mac and Alfred while pretending their drivel has any substance or meaning.

Don't ever do that again.

Hawgdriver
01-18-2017, 11:19 PM
Cugel has some decent points more often than not, I'll give him that.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
01-18-2017, 11:20 PM
Cugel has some decent points more often than not, I'll give him that.

Cugel does. D-Mac does not.

Hawgdriver
01-18-2017, 11:22 PM
Cugel does. D-Mac does not.

D-Mac is effective at his job. But I'd never quote him. I might quote Al, when he's being utterly genuine and not acting like a radio host.

Shazam!
01-19-2017, 07:33 AM
Teams need an elite QB to win Championships. OF COURSE Elway knows this. Didn't he bring in PFM?

I hate the off-season.

Cugel
01-19-2017, 01:31 PM
All right, here's another expert who explains things in a simple way: Mark "Stink" Schlereth:


Mike Evans: Should the Broncos go all in on a trade for Romo or Rivers? (http://1043thefan.com/category/podcast_player/?a=10010769&sid=1149&n=Schlereth%20and%20Evans)

Schlereth: "We keep talking about those potential trades, including Rivers and Romo. And I understand it. If it's truly about winning a Championship, well you look at the AFC playoff picture and the QBs who have won world championships or gone to the SB, and the only QB since 2003 to go to a SB from the AFC who is not named Brady, Manning or Roethlisberger is Joe Flacco. So, when you start looking at that, you ask "can you get to the playoffs with a Paxton Lynch or Trevor Siemian? Yeah, you probably can. You were 9-7 this year and you can probably improve on other parts. Your offense needs to improve, you need to run the ball a little bit better. Can you get to the playoffs? Sure.

But, do you feel confident when you get to the divisional round and you're playing against a Brady, or Roethlisberger, or you're facing an elite level QB, that a Trevor Siemian or a Paxton Lynch is going to take you to the promised land. And the truth of the matter is, the answer is: "No!"

You can sit there and spin it however you want and say "but we have a great defense", "we've got this that or the other." But the bottom line is this: you don't really believe that either of those guys can take you beyond the divisional round.

Nobody does. I mean, you can lie about it. And you can create false hope and there's always that "outlier", that one game where you just go "lights out" and have that out-of-body experience like Frank the Tank you know when he's debating. [? Frank the Tank? ] You just go completely out-of-body. And that can happen. But, you can't rely on that. You can't go "OK we're going to have 3 out-of-body experiences throughout the playoffs to get us to the Super Bowl." C'mon, stop it! That's just not gonna to happen.

So, I understand the trade talk. And it's viable. I would definitely kick all the tires I could if I were in the Broncos shoes right now. But, it leads me to this, "what are you willing to give up?"

It's not likely that the Chargers will trade Rivers at all. It's institutionally much easier for them to pretend to their fans (what few are left after they gave San Diego the big middle finger) that they are a couple of players away from competing for the AFC Championship. "It can happen." And as long as they have an elite QB like Rivers, they're right. It could happen.

But realistically, it's not going to happen. If they were in the AFC South, maybe. But, they are locked into a division with the Chiefs, Chargers and defending SB Champion Broncos. Maybe if the Broncos or Chiefs have a bad year next year, they might creep up 1 in the standings. But, are they really going to beat all those really good teams? No.

They have a couple of "nice pieces" here and there - good players. But, you can't launch a ship with a few "good pieces" of hull and a lot of rotten, weak spots. The ocean will pour in through the weak places and the ship will sink. And so will the Chargers, let's be honest about that.

So, they should trade Rivers, dump his salary and rebuild, the way the Seahawks and Broncos did in winning the SB recently.

The Seahawks succeeded in making themselves a long term threat to win the SB, mostly because they got rid of their veteran QBs and were paying Russell Wilson less than $1 M a year. That enabled them to re-sign the entire Legion of Boom. Elway saw that and decided he would copy their model for success.

So, they dumped Julius Thomas and his high salary, got rid of Wes Welker and refused to pay Brock Osweiler $18M a year, $37 M guaranteed, even though that meant trying to defend their SB Championship with rookie QBs.

After watching Brock's miserable performance against the Pats, (not to mention that he got benched this year) that turned out to be the right move! But, it does leave Denver with a world class defense and no offense, and particularly worrisome - no elite QB.

Cugel
01-19-2017, 01:40 PM
Teams need an elite QB to win Championships. OF COURSE Elway knows this. Didn't he bring in PFM?

I hate the off-season.

I love the off-season because it's full of possibilities!

Of course Elway knows it because he brought in Peyton. But, here's the $1M question nobody really knows the answer to: Can Paxton Lynch really develop into an elite, top 10 QB in the NFL, like perhaps a Dak Prescott or a Russell Wilson, or yes, a Joe Flacco, (whose playoff record is amazing, but who sometimes sucks during the regular season)?

And here's the real nut-cutter: "Assuming Lynch does develop into an elite QB, how long will that take? A year? Two years? Three?"

Because right now they are paying Lynch and Siemian less than $3 M a year combined. Peanuts in the NFL for starting QBs. But, the defense isn't going to last forever.

They lost Malik Jackson and Danny Trevathan last year. This year they are losing Wade Phillips, Sylvester Williams and probably DeMarcus Ware. And there isn't any Hall of Fame pass-rushing OLB just waiting to come to Denver to fill Demarcus' shoes.

So, if you want to win another Championship before the window slams shut on Denver's SB defense, they can't wait 2 or 3 years for Lynch to develop. They need an elite veteran QB right NOW!

It might not be realistic. It might not happen. But, you can bet Elway will try and do it.

Cugel
01-19-2017, 01:48 PM
D-Mac is effective at his job. But I'd never quote him. I might quote Al, when he's being utterly genuine and not acting like a radio host.

I don't like DMac at all. I think he's a jerk. And he says some really dumb things he probably doesn't even really believe just to stir up the fans and generate ratings. That's his job.

But, that quote wasn't one of the dumb things. He's actually quite smart, I hate to admit. And he gets a lot of inside information from talking to other experts and then re-stating their insights in simple terms.

PatriotsGuy
01-19-2017, 02:20 PM
Wait, Canadians call the letter Z "Zed"? Is this true weazel/PAG?

Yes, Zed, even in Quebec.

Rick
01-19-2017, 03:25 PM
I like how when comparing our guys, some are comparing them and saying"can you expect that they turn into a Brandy, a Wilson, a Prescott"...

Those 3 were 6th round and 4th round QBs.

I think the answer is "who the hell knows".

Rex
01-19-2017, 03:53 PM
Yes, Zed, even in Quebec.

Hey Pags.

PatriotsGuy
01-19-2017, 06:00 PM
Hi Rex, how have you been?

Joel
01-19-2017, 06:35 PM
Well, gee, if the ONLY AFC path to the SB necessarily includes Manning, Brady or Roethlisberger, we're screwed with or without Rivers/Romo. Never mind that 1) if those guys are THAT dominant they'd probably go to the SB with any team but 2) Manning's the only one to do it without elite defenses backing him. I mean, why limit it to AFC champs? Wilson played two straight SBs, winning the first 43-8, and he was a 3rd round 2nd rate QB dual threat who's "too short" to be an NFL starter.

If Joe freakin' Flacco and Ben Rapistburger can win SBs, so can Paxton Lynch and/or Trevor Siemian. First and foremost, reducing football to nothing but QBs is juvenile. Yet even if we accept that championship formula, bringing in some other teams aging former All Pro is very much NOT the championship formula: In 51 seasons of SB, it's happened exactly ONCE, and Wade Phillips' D was at least as critical to that sui generis event.

All Pro QBs aren't the end all, be all of football, but are important enough that teams who find one don't casually toss him aside until/unless he's running out of gas. There's a reason that even guys like Unitas and Montana never won another SB with their new teams: Because their original teams never would've let them go if they could still win SBs. The '9ers didn't just ride the hot hand with Young; Montanas growing number of injuries were what showcased Young in the first place.

Joel
01-19-2017, 06:36 PM
This whole argument is a 3rd grade Madden mentality: It presumes a great QB is the ONLY thing that matters and FURTHER presumes the ONLY way to get one is to wait for one to prove himself great with another team that then dumps him EVEN THOUGH HE'S THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS.

Even if a championship requires an elite QB (Joe Flacco and Trent Dilfer certainly agree) the best way to get one is to draft and develop one who keeps you in contention for a decade or more, not trade for a broken down HoFer and try to assemble all the afterthought players before he limps off into retirement.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
01-19-2017, 06:37 PM
This whole argument is a 3rd grade Madden mentality: It presumes a great QB is the ONLY thing that matters and FURTHER presumes the ONLY way to get one is to wait for one to prove himself great with another team that then dumps him EVEN THOUGH HE'S THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS.

Wow, Joel with the double wammy:

3rd grade and madden in one description.

slim
01-19-2017, 06:39 PM
Hi Rex, how have you been?

You never ask me how I've been

PatriotsGuy
01-19-2017, 07:19 PM
You never ask me how I've been

I "see" you more often, so I have a vague idea as to how you are.

slim
01-19-2017, 07:44 PM
I "see" you more often, so I have a vague idea as to how you are.

Whatever

PatriotsGuy
01-19-2017, 07:48 PM
Whatever

Slim, how have you been? Tax season, am I right?

Hawgdriver
01-19-2017, 09:27 PM
Whatever

Slim's spirit animal.

10057

Cugel
01-21-2017, 12:27 PM
I like how when comparing our guys, some are comparing them and saying"can you expect that they turn into a Brandy, a Wilson, a Prescott"...

Those 3 were 6th round and 4th round QBs.

I think the answer is "who the hell knows".

This is a fallacy of people who don't understand statistics. Just because the confidence interval is less than 1 doesn't mean "it's all random."

There's a REASON WHY some QBs are drafted in the first round and others are drafted in the 7th. It comes down to demonstrated athletic ability, pretty much. And the scouts are generally right.

People always say: "Brady was a 6th rounder so anything can happen." No it can't! Brady was the exception that proves the rule: "If you want a franchise QB who can take you to the SB, you better draft one in the first round."

Brady was drafted 16 years ago. Since 2000 about 150 QBs have been taken at #56 in the 2nd round or later (where the Broncos drafted Osweiler). Out of all those QBs only Russell Wilson (3rd round) has played in a SB. Few of them ever became reliable starters for any length of time (more than 1 year) and even fewer became stars. Matt Schaub for instance was a 3rd rounder who did well in TX for a time. But now?

Dak Prescott looks great now. So did RGIII in his rookie year. Wait a bit before we anoint him.

Of course lots of first round QBs are busts (Vince Young come on down!) But that does NOT prove the corollary: that it doesn't matter what round you were drafted in. It matters a very great deal indeed.

If you are a 1st round pick you will be given more coaching, more money and more chances in the NFL. That's not irrational either. Some guys simply have more athletic ability and skill than others. Scouts are paid to notice that. Cecil Lammey keeps insisting that among all the NFL teams personnel departments, the Broncos scouting department is one of the very best. I don't know if that's true, but Elway believes it.

He trusts in the player evaluation he's gotten of Paxton Lynch after thousands of hours of film and pre-draft study. They liked Paxton Lynch and one of the biggest frustrations Elway had with the coaches was the lack of development in Lynch during this season.

Kubiak did not particularly like Lynch. The word from Troy Renk,Broncos insider (as stated on 104.3 The Fan) was that Kubiak and his coaches were not thrilled with Lynch's study habits and concentration. Some guys take a while to realize what amount of work is needed to be a successful QB in the NFL. Some guys (Johnny Manziel come on down!) never figure it out. As JFK said: "10% never get the word."

Job #1 for this new coaching staff in 2017 is to get Paxton to get to become the QB he's capable of. Maybe that works. If not, then Elway will go back to the draft in 2018 and get a new franchise QB. Meanwhile Trevor Siemian becomes Denver's Alex Smith. Good enough to win some games, but you can't rely on him to win in the playoffs against a guy like Ben Roethlisberger.

Cugel
01-21-2017, 12:34 PM
According to Cecil Lammey, just back from watching prospects at the East-West Shrine Game, was that scouts and player personnel people from different NFL teams were all coming up to him and asking him "what are the Broncos doing wasting time with Trevor Siemian?" None of them can understand why the Broncos would consider starting him, instead of developing Paxton Lynch and starting him. That's the view of Denver's QB situation around the rest of the NFL.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
01-21-2017, 12:38 PM
According to Cecil Lammey, just back from watching prospects at the East-West Shrine Game, was that scouts and player personnel people from different NFL teams were all coming up to him and asking him "what are the Broncos doing wasting time with Trevor Siemian?" None of them can understand why the Broncos would consider starting him, instead of developing Paxton Lynch and starting him. That's the view of Denver's QB situation around the rest of the NFL.

And of course none of that is Cecil's own spin, right?

It's obvious why Lynch didn't play last year after watching him against Atlanta; if Trevor was bad last year then Paxton was horrific.

You don't lost games just to develop a quarterback, not when you're a contender.

Nomad
01-21-2017, 12:55 PM
Why is the game against Atlanta Lynch's litmus test? It seems short sighted given Atlanta has turned out to be one of the best teams in the NFL.

Hawgdriver
01-21-2017, 01:01 PM
According to Cecil Lammey, just back from watching prospects at the East-West Shrine Game, was that scouts and player personnel people from different NFL teams were all coming up to him and asking him "what are the Broncos doing wasting time with Trevor Siemian?" None of them can understand why the Broncos would consider starting him, instead of developing Paxton Lynch and starting him. That's the view of Denver's QB situation around the rest of the NFL.

This may be 100% fact, but when you have a source that is biased, you have to weigh the evidence in light of that bias.

Nomad
01-21-2017, 01:03 PM
This may be 100% fact, but when you have a source that is biased, you have to weigh the evidence in light of that bias.

Hawg.....I noticed you mentioned a concern over sources in Slick's thread. Are you an "only will believe if Schefter reports" kinda guy like some here?

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
01-21-2017, 01:51 PM
This may be 100% fact, but when you have a source that is biased, you have to weigh the evidence in light of that bias.

I need some of your diplomacy to rub off on me.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
01-21-2017, 01:52 PM
Why is the game against Atlanta Lynch's litmus test? It seems short sighted given Atlanta has turned out to be one of the best teams in the NFL.

They have the best offense in the NFL. Their defense is average.

Nomad
01-21-2017, 02:02 PM
I've seen HoF QBs play like shit against average defenses, it didn't happen often, but it happens. Again, I haven't seen one explanation to discount Lynch based off the Atlanta game, in which, everyone seems to use as Lynch's litmus test. Sure, he did have a bad game.

I believe many here discounting Lynch are the same ones that said QBs take 3 yrs to develop, and failure leads to success, in regards to when Cutler was a rookie. Main point is not Culter, but it's inconsistent with fans on how long a rookie QB gets a pass on developing before be regarded as a failure. I'm not saying you personally are saying this, but reading around BRONCOS nation, I seem to get that notion.

Cugel
01-21-2017, 02:06 PM
And of course none of that is Cecil's own spin, right?

It's obvious why Lynch didn't play last year after watching him against Atlanta; if Trevor was bad last year then Paxton was horrific.

You don't lost games just to develop a quarterback, not when you're a contender.

Two points:

One: it's obvious Paxton Lynch was NOT the best QB last year, so he shouldn't have started. Nobody disputes that. But, Lammey isn't "spinning" -- that's just an ad hominem attack because you don't like the conclusion that the rest of the NFL does not believe in Trevor Siemian and does not value him at all. Zero trade value.

Well, he's a pedestrian QB with decidedly mediocre skills, who didn't play terribly well, and wasn't expected to play at all by most observers. True, he could get better. And the fact he's starting at all is "exceeding expectations" - since there was little reason he would be anything better than another Bradley Van Pelt or Matt Mauch - guys who sit around for a couple of seasons as a back up and never get a chance to start.

Two: it's equally obvious that Elway wants Lynch developed as a high team priority and felt that Kubiak and the offensive coaching staff failed to do that effectively.

They fired most of Gary's offensive assistant coaches and brought in all new personnel. They didn't do that on the defensive side.

One of the biggest disconnects between Elway and Fox was that Elway didn't believe that Fox & his staff did enough to develop the young players he and the scouts had drafted or signed. He wanted to see more development out of Paradis, Schofield, and Max Garcia among others. Fox wasn't interested. Those guys were Elway's guys and not Fox's guys. He preferred to bring in his own veterans. Elway felt the culture in the locker room was too lax: not enough "kicking and screaming."

So, he brought in his best friend Gary Kubiak. For a year it worked. Then it didn't. Elway and the personnel people on one side, and Gary and his coaches on the other started developing rifts. Same problem. The OL failed to develop over the course of the year. In fact the OL play got worse and worse as the season progressed right up to the Raiders game.

And worst, it didn't look like Paxton was taking any big steps towards learning to play QB in the NFL. He looked about as lost at the end of the season as he did at the beginning. Not encouraging.

So, now Gary is gone and the new offensive staff has to start over. And develop Paxton Lynch. If Trevor wins the job, well fine. But, he's going to have to be clearly better. And McCoy and the coaching staff are going to design the offense around Lynch's skill set, not Trevor's.

Cugel
01-21-2017, 02:13 PM
I've seen HoF QBs play like shit against average defenses, it didn't happen often, but it happens. Again, I haven't seen one explanation to discount Lynch based off the Atlanta game, in which, everyone seems to use as Lynch's litmus test. Sure, he did have a bad game.

I believe many here discounting Lynch are the same ones that said QBs take 3 yrs to develop, and failure leads to success, in regards to when Cutler was a rookie. Main point is not Culter, but it's inconsistent with fans on how long a rookie QB gets a pass on developing before be regarded as a failure. I'm not saying you personally are saying this, but reading around BRONCOS nation, I seem to get that notion.

Basically, some fans like Trevor Siemian, have totally unrealistic expectations about what kind of player he really is and bad-mouth Lynch.

Reality 101: We don't know for sure whether either of these guys will ever be elite QBs in the NFL. But, we can say after watching Siemian for a season that it wasn't great and there's little reason to expect him to ever be an elite QB. We haven't seen enough of Lynch yet to form such an opinion but what we did see wasn't encouraging.

And based on the entire history of both QBs up to now, nobody would be surprised around the NFL if both flamed out. Nor if Lynch developed into a star. The only thing that would really shock everybody is if Denver stuck with Trevor Siemian as their starting QB for the long-term and he turned out to be the next Derek Carr or Russell Wilson.

WARHORSE
01-21-2017, 03:06 PM
I dont think anyone can say Siemian is not the answer considering he really has little experience. And BTW, compare his first year to Brady and Peyton.

This is not a done deal. Both Siemian and Paxton are still unknowns. I liked alot of the decision making I saw from Siemian. I like the poise.



But I dont see either of them starting here if Elway can get Romo cheaply.

Cugel
01-21-2017, 03:11 PM
I dont think anyone can say Siemian is not the answer considering he really has little experience. And BTW, compare his first year to Brady and Peyton.

This is not a done deal. Both Siemian and Paxton are still unknowns. I liked alot of the decision making I saw from Siemian. I like the poise.

But I dont see either of them starting here if Elway can get Romo cheaply.

Nobody can PROVE that either guy will be great or a bust right now because it hasn't happened.

Just like nobody can "prove" that putting your money on #3 Red in roulette in Vegas is a great way to lose your money. Those are just "statistical odds". Yet Vegas was built on those "statistical odds." Sometimes they lose, but they are right a lot more than they are wrong.

Same thing with scouts and personnel evaluators. There's a REASON why Lynch was a first round pick and Siemian a 7th rounder. And those reasons didn't all go away suddenly when Siemian got into the NFL.

It's not as if he had a season like Dak Prescott. :coffee:

So, if you want to cling to faith that Trevor Siemian is going to emerge as the long-term franchise QB in Denver go right ahead. Nobody can prove you wrong at this point.

It's just not the way that the smart money is betting.

Hawgdriver
01-21-2017, 04:47 PM
Hawg.....I noticed you mentioned a concern over sources in Slick's thread. Are you an "only will believe if Schefter reports" kinda guy like some here?

Not really. That case was particularly egregious--do a bit of sleuthing yourself on that issue and you'll see what I mean. I'm fine with unnamed sources and rumors provided by more accountable reporters.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
01-21-2017, 08:28 PM
Let's not pretend we're sitting Jamies Winston. Lynch could be the next Kyle Boller for all we know.

The coaches needed to play the guy who gave us the best chance to win. It's as simple as that.

Joel
01-21-2017, 09:12 PM
For a second-year first-time starter behind a Swiss cheese line that neither protected him nor gave him the run support to avoid 3rd and long very often, Siemian had an amazing year: REGARDLESS of where he was DRAFTED. Many people have posted the first-year starting stats of guys like Rodgers and Brady, and his are comparable. The difference is those guys built on that to be far more productive in successive years, but Siemian hasn't: Because IT'S STILL HIS FIRST YEAR.

The preseason consensus was that Siemian had a high floor but low ceiling and Lynch just the opposite: All onfield evidence to date supports that. Siemian immediately did many things many pro rookies take YEARS to learn, but not all of them, and his arm is OK, but not great. Lynch is mobile and has a cannon, but right now it's loaded with grape shot (i.e. it goes all over the place) while his rush/coverage recognition and progressions make Siemian look like an All Pro.

The biggest thing BOTH need is a decent line to protect them and provide a run game to relieve some of the pressure, plus practice reps and game film to develop into whatever they'll end up being in the end. Thank God we have a coach who's made a CAREER out of building great rushing and protection lines and developing even subpar QBs and RBs into All Pros. Oh, wait... well, Vance Joseph and Mike McCoys have rebuilt plenty of lines and developed plenty of raw QBs, right? :confused:

Cugel
01-21-2017, 10:34 PM
Well, I don't think Elway gives much of a crap about winning games and going to the playoffs. He has his eyes fixed firmly on the SB. Every year. And in order to get to that Holy Grail he needs an elite QB.

And Trevor Siemian damn sure isn't that guy. Paxton Lynch doesn't look anything like that guy either so far.

Either could suddenly blossom. But, you'll notice amid all the hype about how Peyton Manning sucked in his first year, that unless that actually happens neither of those guys is leading this team anywhere.

Yes, a better OL & running game will help. Maybe they get in the playoffs next year. But, we just saw in the playoffs exactly what happens when you have a mediocre QB like Alex Smith, and they have Ben Roethlisberger, and it wasn't pretty.

Especially if you're the Broncos and your QBs have quite a ways to go to become as good as Alex Smith. If either does he would STILL be only the 3rd best QB in the division.

Every account supports the conclusion that John Elway believes in Paxton Lynch and he doesn't believe in Trevor Siemian in anything like the same degree. That was the basis of his disagreement with Kubiak.

Nomad
01-21-2017, 11:03 PM
Well, I don't think Elway gives much of a crap about winning games and going to the playoffs. He has his eyes fixed firmly on the SB. Every year. And in order to get to that Holy Grail he needs an elite QB.

And Trevor Siemian damn sure isn't that guy. Paxton Lynch doesn't look anything like that guy either so far.

Either could suddenly blossom. But, you'll notice amid all the hype about how Peyton Manning sucked in his first year, that unless that actually happens neither of those guys is leading this team anywhere.

Yes, a better OL & running game will help. Maybe they get in the playoffs next year. But, we just saw in the playoffs exactly what happens when you have a mediocre QB like Alex Smith, and they have Ben Roethlisberger, and it wasn't pretty.

Especially if you're the Broncos and your QBs have quite a ways to go to become as good as Alex Smith. If either does he would STILL be only the 3rd best QB in the division.

Every account supports the conclusion that John Elway believes in Paxton Lynch and he doesn't believe in Trevor Siemian in anything like the same degree. That was the basis of his disagreement with Kubiak.

I like your takes, Cugel, but this doesn't make sense. BRONCOS have to win in regular season and playoffs to make it to SB.

NightTerror218
01-21-2017, 11:31 PM
Let's not pretend we're sitting Jamies Winston. Lynch could be the next Kyle Boller for all we know.

The coaches needed to play the guy who gave us the best chance to win. It's as simple as that.

There was no point to play siemian the last game of season except it was the spoiler role.

ShaneFalco
01-21-2017, 11:50 PM
cant wait to watch elway play live

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
01-21-2017, 11:59 PM
There was no point to play siemian the last game of season except it was the spoiler role.

I'm addressing the idea he should have played a handful of games last year for development purposes. I thought Lynch should have played the second half of that game, fwiw.

Joel
01-22-2017, 01:15 AM
Well, I don't think Elway gives much of a crap about winning games and going to the playoffs. He has his eyes fixed firmly on the SB. Every year. And in order to get to that Holy Grail he needs an elite QB.
Right: That's why Flacco and Wilson are "elite." Fran Tarkenton was a bum because he was 0-3 in SBs; he's not fit to carry elite 4-0 Terry Bradshaws jock.


And Trevor Siemian damn sure isn't that guy. Paxton Lynch doesn't look anything like that guy either so far.
Key phrase being "so far." Early in his career, Bradshaw was blindsided and carried off on a STRETCHER while the devoted Steeler fans CHEERED yet that bum somehow stumbled his way to a PAIR of back-to-back championships (with BOTH defenses against Landry, Staubach and the Dallas dynastys Doomsday D.)


Either could suddenly blossom. But, you'll notice amid all the hype about how Peyton Manning sucked in his first year, that unless that actually happens neither of those guys is leading this team anywhere.
No kidding: The point is it's too soon to tell. When Steve Young went from USFL star to rocky NFL debut, how well did benching and trading him while drafting Heisman-winner Vinny Testaverde #1 overall work out for Tampa Bay? Answer: INFINITELY worse than it worked out for SF. Remember when Atlanta traded away 2nd round rookie Brett Favre because former 1st round pick Chris Miller finally made his first (and ONLY) Pro Bowl?


Yes, a better OL & running game will help. Maybe they get in the playoffs next year. But, we just saw in the playoffs exactly what happens when you have a mediocre QB like Alex Smith, and they have Ben Roethlisberger, and it wasn't pretty.

Especially if you're the Broncos and your QBs have quite a ways to go to become as good as Alex Smith. If either does he would STILL be only the 3rd best QB in the division.
It's not Smiths fault Reids Chiefs have NEVER had ANY WRs who can catch balls dropped right in their hands. The biggest difference between Big Bens greatness and Smiths mere adequacy is that one of them has a pair of Rings and the other's never even reached the SB. But let me know when KC gets WRs like Mike Wallace, Antonio Brown or Emmanuel Sanders, or ALWAYS maintains its line with top draft picks.

Wanna know why the REAL reason Pitts offense is always so good?


Year
Rnd


Pick
Pos
To
AP1
PB
St
CarAV
G
Cmp
Att
Yds
TD
Int
Att
Yds
TD
Rec
Yds
TD
Int
Sk
College/Univ


2012 (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2012/draft.htm)
1
David DeCastro (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/D/DeCaDa00.htm)
24
G
2016
1
2
4
39
67













Stanford (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/schools/stanford/)


2012 (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2012/draft.htm)
2
Mike Adams (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/A/AdamMi02.htm)
56
T
2016
0
0
0
11
52













Ohio St. (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/schools/ohiost/)


2012 (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2012/draft.htm)
7
Kelvin Beachum (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/B/BeacKe00.htm)
248
T
2016
0
0
3
24
59













SMU (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/schools/smu/)


Year
Rnd
Player
Pick
Pos
To
AP1
PB
St
CarAV
G
Cmp
Att
Yds
TD
Int
Att
Yds
TD
Rec
Yds
TD
Int
Sk
College/Univ


2011 (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2011/draft.htm)
2
Marcus Gilbert (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/G/GilbMa00.htm)
63
T
2016
0
0
5
34
76













Florida (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/schools/florida/)


2011 (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2011/draft.htm)
6
Keith Williams (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/W/WillKe04.htm)
196
G
2012
0
0
1
0
2













Nebraska (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/schools/nebraska/)


Year
Rnd
Player
Pick
Pos
To
AP1
PB
St
CarAV
G
Cmp
Att
Yds
TD
Int
Att
Yds
TD
Rec
Yds
TD
Int
Sk
College/Univ


2010 (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2010/draft.htm)
1
Maurkice Pouncey (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/P/PounMa20.htm)
18
C
2016
2
5
5
55
77








1
0
0


Florida (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/schools/florida/)


2010 (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2010/draft.htm)
5
Chris Scott (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/S/ScotCh23.htm)
151
G
2016
0
0
0
8
45













Tennessee (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/schools/tennessee/)



They drafted two starters in the 1st round and another in the 2nd—and even then they added late round insurance. Note: INSURANCE, not PROJECTED STARTERS. They signed current starting G Ramon Foster as an UDFA—in 2009, after Pitt spent SIX YEARS developing him and the rest of their project linemen so they'd be ready when, say, starting OT Mike Adams was a bust and out of football by 2015. The only FA OT is Alejandro Villanueva, and even he's been in Pitt three seasons.

OUR starters?

LT: A former 1st rounder, but who's only here because of injuries and declining play that got him CUT last a year ago
RT: A 3rd round (#74 overall) pick whose only previous starting season was when KC cut not one but TWO better OTs—then cut him after a SINGLE season.
LG: A 4th round (#133 overall) pick promoted when last years FA du jour bombed out of the NFL.
C: A 6th round (#207 overall) pick promoted from the PS squad two years ago when Man Ram proved no better at C than at G.
RG: A 3rd round (#95 overall) pick, not a bad place for a G—but not a GOOD one for the OT we drafted him to be, before moving him to RG when Elway decided our ONLY All Pro lineman wasn't worth $6M/yr.

Don't expect ANY QB to succeed with THAT. Our sophomore 7th rounder did more with it than the GoAT, but our rushing average fell over half a yard and our D was out of miracles, so we went 9-7 in a tough division (one team was #1 seed til its QB broke his leg; another gave the eventual #1 seed all it could handle last week.)


Every account supports the conclusion that John Elway believes in Paxton Lynch and he doesn't believe in Trevor Siemian in anything like the same degree. That was the basis of his disagreement with Kubiak.
Their draft position supports the first part of that, but the second part is pure speculation.

7DnBrnc53
01-24-2017, 01:33 PM
K
ey phrase being "so far." Early in his career, Bradshaw was blindsided and carried off on a STRETCHER while the devoted Steeler fans CHEERED yet that bum somehow stumbled his way to a PAIR of back-to-back championships (with BOTH defenses against Landry, Staubach and the Dallas dynastys Doomsday D.)

Also, he was benched in 1974 at the start of the season for Joe Gilliam (the black Dan Marino). And, even when he was the starter again, it took him some time to get over his struggles as those first two Steeler SB teams would win with defense.


No kidding: The point is it's too soon to tell. When Steve Young went from USFL star to rocky NFL debut, how well did benching and trading him while drafting Heisman-winner Vinny Testaverde #1 overall work out for Tampa Bay? Answer: INFINITELY worse than it worked out for SF. Remember when Atlanta traded away 2nd round rookie Brett Favre because former 1st round pick Chris Miller finally made his first (and ONLY) Pro Bowl?

What's sad is that the Bucs took Vinny #1 overall in spite of having many other needs, and in spite of his performances in his last two bowl games (against Tennessee in 85 and Penn State in 86). As for Favre, though, it looked like he would party his way out of the league after his first season. Also, the coach didn't like him because GM Ken Herock picked him, and Glanville didn't like players that Ken picked.


It's not Smiths fault Reids Chiefs have NEVER had ANY WRs who can catch balls dropped right in their hands. The biggest difference between Big Bens greatness and Smiths mere adequacy is that one of them has a pair of Rings and the other's never even reached the SB. But let me know when KC gets WRs like Mike Wallace, Antonio Brown or Emmanuel Sanders, or ALWAYS maintains its line with top draft picks.

Smith is an interesting case. When he came out 12 years ago, I didn't really understand why he was considered the #1 pick. He just didn't seem that impressive to me. Both him and A-Rod should have been projected to go in the 20-30 range (maybe Shanahan doesn't trade his first-round pick away if they are). When he got to SF, though, he always had different offensive coordinators. Then, he got replaced by Kaepernick when he may not have deserved to be (that doesn't seem to be working out too well now).

As far as the Steeler O-line is concerned, though, there was a time (between 2007 and 11 or 12) when it was considered one of the worst in the NFL (remember what Ayers and Dumervil did to Big Ben at the end of regulation in the 2011 AFC WC game?).

Cugel
01-24-2017, 02:07 PM
Right: That's why Flacco and Wilson are "elite." Fran Tarkenton was a bum because he was 0-3 in SBs; he's not fit to carry elite 4-0 Terry Bradshaws jock.

Flacco is elite because he is an elite playoff QB. His record in the playoffs speaks for itself. I grew UP watching Fran Tarkenton play for the Giants. That was a completely different era. Terry Bradshaw was basically Trent Dilfer. It's just that football changed from the 1970s to now. The rules are very different. Offenses are different.

Wilson is an elite QB because he is an elite top 10 QB. Does anybody seriously dispute that? If John Elway had drafted Russell Wilson instead of Brock Osweiler the Broncos would be perennial elite team right now instead of desperately trying to find a QB to avoid an otherwise inevitable slide into mediocrity.

You do realize that you're pissing in the wind here right? You can argue for Siemian until the cows come come, but he's a placeholder for Paxton Lynch. Either Paxton Lynch wins the starting job this year or Elway will go back to the draft NEXT year and draft another QB. In neither case will Trevor Siemian be the long term answer for the Broncos at QB. It's just not going to happen.


Their draft position supports the first part of that, but the second part is pure speculation.

Well, here's the clincher that is NOT "pure speculation" but news from Troy Renk, Broncos insider as reported on The Fan. Elway has stated that Paxton Lynch will be given "every chance" to win the starting job come training camp. What does that mean? It means the Broncos are not going to sign a veteran QB this off season, because that would take snaps away from their 2 young QBs.

Elway wants Lynch to get the job, not because they drafted him, but because of all the reasons they drafted him. He has elite athletic talent. Siemian doesn't. Athletic talent however, only takes an NFL QB so far. Much more important is his mental understanding of the game.

I can easily see Siemian winning the starting job this season. But, if he does, he'd better win the SB or at least lead the team deep into the playoffs, or Elway will go out next off-season and draft another future franchise QB.

Trevor Siemian is ALWAYS going to be the ugly, disfavoured step-child, because he was a 7th rounder and nobody has anything invested in him, and nobody particularly believes in his "upside potential."

Just ask yourself a simple question: "If the play of the two QBs is roughly comparable this off-season, who will start?" Answer: Lynch. Lynch doesn't have to beat out Trevor. He just has to tie and Elway and the coaching staff will name him the starter.

A tie goes to the favoured guy. And that guy is Lynch. As Mark Schlereth and Brandon Stokely, and Tyler Polumbus have been saying all over the radio the last week, life ain't fair in the NFL. If you are a 1st round pick, you will not only get a lot more money, you will get a lot more chances, and if the coaching staff can convince themselves that you're at least roughly as good as that ugly 7th round step-child that NOBODY has squat invested in, then you will start. Period. Because of your "upside potential" - that magic pixie dust that nobody ever sees, but all NFL scouts and coaches and personnel guys believe in.

Elway is not just picking a guy who will win the next game, he's trying to find the next the next elite QB so that his team can compete year in and year out with the Patriots. Oh, and meanwhile the other 3 teams in the Division have better QBs than the Broncos Siemian. They might very well win 8 or 9 games this year and still finish last in this division.

Elway is 100% about getting an elite QB. And Trevor Siemian is obviously never going to be that guy. If you believe differently, you will get to watch and see. NOBODY but NOBODY in the NFL expects ANYTHING long term out of Siemian, except that he will be a successful backup.

That is the almost universal fate of 7th round QBs. How many of them are starters in the NFL? And of those that are, how many of their teams are still looking for that elite QB, probably in the first round of the draft. Look at Buffalo getting rid of Tyrod Taylor.

Cugel
01-24-2017, 02:22 PM
Trevor Siemian has already exceeded the Broncos expectations for him. He's going to have to continue to dramatically exceed expectations if he expects to keep his job. And being the "better" QB is just not going to be enough. Go back and watch the 2007 Hard Knocks season with the Chiefs under coach Herm Edwards. Know who was the best QB in camp that year? Casey Printer.

They had long-term veteran Damon Huard who was expected to backup, and did, and Brodie Croyle (their "franchise QB") of the future - until he flamed out.

You probably don't remember Casey Printer, but he clearly outplayed both other QBs. Instead you can watch Hardknocks as he gets cut. Why did he get cut if he was the best QB on the roster during training camp and the pre-season?

Answer: There was no role for him. He wasn't a veteran starter with years of experience, so he wasn't displacing Huard. And he wasn't the designated "upside potential" guy who the team invested a draft pick in, so he wasn't beating out Brodie Croyle - who was Herm's "developmental guy".

So, they cut him. And naturally he asks why. Wasn't his play the best of the three?: And Herm's assistant tells him that "you would have had to turn shit into shineola if you wanted to stick around." He would basically have had to be so completely awesome that the team couldn't possibly cut him. He wasn't so he got cut, and that was basically the end of his career.

The Broncos are in essentially the same situation, except that Siemian isn't getting cut unless the Broncos trade for a veteran QB like Tony Romo (unlikely).

That's how life in the NFL works if you're a late round draft pick. It is decidely UNFAIR, and slanted in favour of 1st round draft picks. They have to prove they can't do the job to get fired. A 7th rounder constantly has to prove all the scouting departments in the NFL wrong. And there's that bias against believing that they COULD all be that wrong.

There must be a reason why nobody wanted to draft you in the first 2 rounds, right? And they keep having those expectations that he's going to revert ultimately to being the 7th round guy they always said he was!

Can Siemian emerge as the next Tom Brady or Tony Romo, a late round pick (or undrafted) who becomes an NFL star? Sure. If he proves it at every point. But, that's wildly unlikely. And if he falters even a little, the team is going to go to Lynch (or somebody else).

Cugel
01-24-2017, 02:41 PM
I like your takes, Cugel, but this doesn't make sense. BRONCOS have to win in regular season and playoffs to make it to SB.

The question is this, in Elway's mind: The Broncos are in the playoffs. They nearly got there with virtually NO help from their offense last year.

So, now they are in and they have to travel to Pittsburgh or Foxborough to play Ben Roethlisberger or Tom Brady. They have Trevor Siemian as their QB. Do they have a realistic chance of winning?

And unless they have an elite QB, the answer is "no." So, unless Siemian starts looking like the next Russell Wilson this year, he's going to be the backup, and either Lynch or somebody else will start.

If by the end of this season, Lynch hasn't even been able to beat out Trevor Siemian, then his career is in serious trouble, because Elway will draft another QB and Lynch will sit, maybe be cut or traded.

BroncoJoe
01-24-2017, 03:20 PM
When did this board become a platform for novellas?

Like I've always said, if you require that much verbiage to make a point, you probably don't have one.

Valar Morghulis
01-24-2017, 03:21 PM
When did this board become a platform for novellas? Like I've always said, if you require that much verbiage to make a point, you probably don't have one.

Could you elaborate please?

BroncoJoe
01-24-2017, 03:21 PM
Could you elaborate please?

On what?

EDIT: Nevermind! That went over my head. I guess my reflexes aren't as honed in as Dave's. This makes me sad.

Hawgdriver
01-24-2017, 04:25 PM
And he wasn't the designated "upside potential" guy who the team invested a draft pick in, so he wasn't beating out Brodie Croyle - who was Herm's "developmental guy".

So, they cut him. And naturally he asks why. Wasn't his play the best of the three?: And Herm's assistant tells him that "you would have had to turn shit into shineola if you wanted to stick around." He would basically have had to be so completely awesome that the team couldn't possibly cut him. He wasn't so he got cut, and that was basically the end of his career.

If my franchise is doing this, shame on them. Sounds like office politics bullshit for losers.

Cugel
01-25-2017, 10:26 AM
If my franchise is doing this, shame on them. Sounds like office politics bullshit for losers.

Sorry to spoil your magic pony view of life in the NFL, but this is how EVERY team operates ALL OF THE TIME. There are no exceptions, or virtually none.

If there were a surplus of really great QBs just waiting to join teams, it would be easy. Just choose one, and if the guy doesn't develop into an immediate impact player in his first season or two, bench him and get somebody else. And at some positions, that's exactly what they do do.

But there aren't enough good NFL QBs to go around. So, teams are desperately trying to develop them.

But, you can only have so many projects on a team. Generally, unless you already have an established veteran QB who management believes can win a SB, one QB is a "developmental guy", one guy is your current starter whom they are looking to replace with someone better whenever that becomes possible, and one guy is your emergency guy - usually a veteran QB who failed with some other franchise, but has starting experience.

On the Broncos, Lynch is your designated "developmental guy", your "upside potential" guy. Mark Sanchez was supposed to be the place-holder starter. And Trevor Siemian was your "break glass in case of emergency" QB. Only Butt-fumbler flamed out and they cut him. Siemian won the current starting job. But, nobody in the NFL expects him to keep it for long.

Unless your current starter is a "franchise QB" management believes can lead them to a super bowl, then the team is looking to find someone better to replace him with; usually a draft pick.

And usually, that "developmental guy" is a 1st or 2nd round pick. Because experience tells all NFL GMs that it's usually the 1st or 2nd round guys who ever pan out as elite QBs. Not always, but the exceptions (Brady) merely point out the rule.

But, to criticize poor Herm Edwards for getting rid of some player who outplayed Damon Huard or Brodie Croyle? They all sucked. He was in a no win situation. In retrospect we can see that no matter which of his 3 QBs he chose, the team was going to suck and he was getting fired. Which he did the next year and now he's an NFL analyst.

Hawgdriver
01-25-2017, 10:53 AM
My magic pony wants to know if you are available tonight. You guys might be a good match.

Cugel
01-25-2017, 10:55 AM
My magic pony wants to know if you are available tonight. You guys might be a good match.

Sorry, but I just heard from your magic pony, and he's got a hot date with your fantasy girl friend tonight!

Hawgdriver
01-25-2017, 11:40 AM
Sorry, but I just heard from your magic pony, and he's got a hot date with your fantasy girl friend tonight!

So you have his number..how long has this been going on?

Joel
01-26-2017, 06:26 AM
On what?

EDIT: Nevermind! That went over my head. I guess my reflexes aren't as honed in as Dave's. This makes me sad.
It's a natural consequence of never bothering to put >5 seconds thought into anything. Almost no sound bite in history's stated anything important, because no one needs to be told simple obvious things, and if complicated things could be stated simply they wouldn't be COMPLICATED. In memespeak (1337speaks poor relation,)
10081
Closely related to
10082

Long=/=profound, but one-liners can't cover anything complex enough to be the worlds most profitable sport, dominate US TV and spawn countless websites.

Joel
01-26-2017, 06:28 AM
All that said, I must ALSO say:

Cugel, you're a sharp guy most of the time, but in THIS case you're long on speculation and VERY short on evidence. And I think (hope) you're smarter than THAT.

Cugel
01-26-2017, 03:54 PM
So you have his number..how long has this been going on?

You should probably check your email, he probably sent you an update. They both got tired of you and ran away together to Vegas!

10083
The one on the left is your fantasy girl.

Cugel
01-26-2017, 03:56 PM
All that said, I must ALSO say:

Cugel, you're a sharp guy most of the time, but in THIS case you're long on speculation and VERY short on evidence. And I think (hope) you're smarter than THAT.

Wrong about what?

I'm wrong about a lot of things. You'll have to be more specific.

Cugel
01-26-2017, 04:02 PM
Do you mean my posts about the OL? Well, we won't have long to wait to find out.

If the Broncos have re-negotiated Russell Okung's deal prior to the start of FA that means they intend to keep him and start him at LT. If they let him go, they mean to go out in FA and get a franchise LT.

That would be a risky move though. What happens if they release Okung, try and land a FA LT and the guy they target signs elsewhere? That's fairly likely, since Elway has very great cap discipline and won't dramatically overpay any player.

Now the Broncos would be royally screwed, without a starting LT. They drafted Ty Sambrailo to fill that role, but he's flamed out due to injury. His shoulders are injured which has prevented him from getting in the weight room and adding muscle. That led to him getting pushed around out there.

He might get cut this off-season or he might ride the bench, but it would be unlikely they start him at LT.

So they could wind up in a worse spot than if they kept Okung and re-did his deal. There is also the possibility that he will REFUSE to re-do his deal, forcing Denver to release him.

Then it's like the prom is coming up and you don't have a date. You'd better get out there and start asking around. You'd ask the homecoming queen but she's going with some guy who promised to buy her a convertible and you can't afford to do that. So, you wind up with the girl with lazy eye, a bad disposition, and garlic breath! :laugh:

LawDog
01-26-2017, 04:26 PM
Wrong about what?

I'm wrong about a lot of things. You'll have to be more specific.

He didn't say you were wrong. In fact, some and maybe a lot of what you are saying may come to fruition, however you are stating things as fact when they are merely just opinions at this point. You've been doing it this whole thread.

Joel
01-27-2017, 01:49 AM
Then it's like the prom is coming up and you don't have a date. You'd better get out there and start asking around. You'd ask the homecoming queen but she's going with some guy who promised to buy her a convertible and you can't afford to do that. So, you wind up with the girl with lazy eye, a bad disposition, and garlic breath! :laugh:
What LawDog said. As far as whether we can afford a homecoming queen, OTC projects us with $33M of cap space next year; if we extended Roby and Webster/Doss, then cut Talib (or trade him if anyone wants to go on the hook for a big 1-year contract, then re-sign him themselves) that would add $10M.

Point being, we can make some FA moves if there's anyone worth having. Elway could revisit the Joe Thomas trade if he finally realizes the difference between him and Okung is more than the difference between a 3rd and 5th round pick. We could trade Siemian for him straight up since their best current alternative is RGIII; may sound like a bad deal for them, but when you look at the salary differences (i.e. $8.8M/yr for 2 years vs. the minimum for 3) it's not.

Cugel
01-27-2017, 08:09 PM
What LawDog said. As far as whether we can afford a homecoming queen, OTC projects us with $33M of cap space next year; if we extended Roby and Webster/Doss, then cut Talib (or trade him if anyone wants to go on the hook for a big 1-year contract, then re-sign him themselves) that would add $10M.

Point being, we can make some FA moves if there's anyone worth having. Elway could revisit the Joe Thomas trade if he finally realizes the difference between him and Okung is more than the difference between a 3rd and 5th round pick. We could trade Siemian for him straight up since their best current alternative is RGIII; may sound like a bad deal for them, but when you look at the salary differences (i.e. $8.8M/yr for 2 years vs. the minimum for 3) it's not.

Give it up with the "Cut Talib!" nonsense. They are not cutting Talib, or Von Miller or Chris Harris or Bradley Roby, or Shane Ray or Darien Stewart or any other stalwart on the defense.

Once again: Siemian has no trade value. Cecil Lammey asked a bunch of NFL scouts and personnel guys at the East West Shrine game and they all can't figure out what Denver is doing. They keep asking Lammey "what is Denver doing?" in not starting Lynch.

Normally, when a team drafts their franchise QB in the first round, they play him to get him ready. Of course, things were different in Denver because they were coming off winning the SB. But, the expectation around the league was and is to see Lynch start (more than 2 games) and try and determine what kind of QB he is.

Nobody out there wants Siemian. Now that may change if he starts this season and does well. Then there would be teams willing to trade for him.

As for the Joe Thomas trade, I would hope Elway would revisit it just to make sure, but that ship has sailed.

The previous regime in Cleveland was willing to trade Joe Thomas for a 2nd round pick. Denver said no. Then they all got fired. The new GM and coach Sashi Brown and Hue Jackson have no interest in moving Thomas, and he's said recently that he wants to remain in Cleveland and is glad the trade didn't happen.

He keeps hoping they will eventually win a SB in Cleveland. Well, that would be rather like me hoping for a hot date with Jessica Alba. That's not happening either. :coffee:

Hawgdriver
01-27-2017, 08:14 PM
Because Paxton Akili Marinovich sucks, and whoever drafted him made a huge mistake?

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
01-27-2017, 09:34 PM
Because Paxton Akili Marinovich sucks, and whoever drafted him made a huge mistake?

Which brings the question to mind, "why would a quarterback from Stanford..." oh never mind

Joel
01-28-2017, 06:46 AM
Give it up with the "Cut Talib!" nonsense. They are not cutting Talib, or Von Miller or Chris Harris or Bradley Roby, or Shane Ray or Darien Stewart or any other stalwart on the defense.
ALL those guys are much younger, have longer contracts and (except for Von) smaller salaries, but that's not the point: The point is we've got plenty of room for a bidding war with >$33M in cap space, and can easily get another $10M with a single cut; Okung would do as well, and is more scalawag than stalwart.


Once again: Siemian has no trade value. Cecil Lammey asked a bunch of NFL scouts and personnel guys at the East West Shrine game and they all can't figure out what Denver is doing. They keep asking Lammey "what is Denver doing?" in not starting Lynch.
Meh. Second hand off record comments aren't worth the paper on which they're written. Everyone knew Lynch was very raw and we had no means to protect him; I highly doubt anyone is asking "what's Denver doing" when EVERYONE knew EXACTLY what we were doing by keeping Lynch benched. He's hardly the first first round QB who never started his rookie season. More to the point, I'd hardly expect rival GMs to tell a Broncos beat reporter they'd pay top dollar for our current starter.

There's two lively threads here right now—one of them YOURS—arguing quality QBs are so vital we should devote $20M of our cap annually for the next three years to get an aging former All Pro, one of whom's a broken down shell of a QB our line would instantly turn into confetti. No one's saying Siemian's the next Rivers or Romo, but even behind OUR line he outperformed a dozen starting QBs, and will be doing it for the league minimum the next two years, not $20M/yr.

With all the Cassels, Osweilers and Flynns earning eye-popping cap-crushing contracts based on a handful of games, you're seriously going to sit there and pretend NO Minnesota, Cleveland, Houston etc. would offer ANYTHING to have Siemian for two years at the league minimum? Hell, we at least got a 7th round pick for Chris Clark: Trevor Siemian's less valuable than a bad backup OT?

That's almost a no-lose proposition for any GM with a .500 team but no franchise QB. Worst case, Siemian bombs, but costs next to nothing and leaves him with a top 5 pick to find his franchise QB, with an decent experienced insurance backup for the guys rookie year. Best case, Siemian continues improving and he's got a future All Pro for nothing the first two years, then happily signs him to a big long term deal in 2019.

Remember last years drama over the $20M an aging Brees was due from NO? How'd it end: They PAID the ONLY person who keeps them competitive.


As for the Joe Thomas trade, I would hope Elway would revisit it just to make sure, but that ship has sailed.

The previous regime in Cleveland was willing to trade Joe Thomas for a 2nd round pick. Denver said no. Then they all got fired. The new GM and coach Sashi Brown and Hue Jackson have no interest in moving Thomas, and he's said recently that he wants to remain in Cleveland and is glad the trade didn't happen.

He keeps hoping they will eventually win a SB in Cleveland. Well, that would be rather like me hoping for a hot date with Jessica Alba. That's not happening either. :coffee:
Again meh. All the same things were said last year, right down to the Jessica Alba fixation. Meanwhile, the new Cleveland coachs QB depth is Josh McCown, Cody Kessler and NO ONE: A Siemian-Thomas trade's hardly unthinkable. As previously noted, it may sound crazy, but when one compares their contracted salaries and ages, it's not. That is, we'd be giving Cleveland a potential starter/solid backup QB AND $10M OF CAP SPACE, while taking on a $9M/yr hit of our own through 2018.

Put it this way: Cleveland's far more likely to trade away it's only genuinely great player than SD, if only because one NEEDS a franchise QB the other would LOSE.

Cugel
02-06-2017, 02:03 PM
ALL those guys are much younger, have longer contracts and (except for Von) smaller salaries, but that's not the point: The point is we've got plenty of room for a bidding war with >$33M in cap space, and can easily get another $10M with a single cut; Okung would do as well, and is more scalawag than stalwart.

They aren't getting rid of Okung unless they can find someone better, and there's not anybody really better available in FA, so they're not really in the market for a LT.


Meh. Second hand off record comments aren't worth the paper on which they're written. I highly doubt anyone is asking "what's Denver doing" when EVERYONE knew EXACTLY what we were doing by keeping Lynch benched.

This is nothing more than "I don't agree so I'm going to dismiss what experts said and substitute my own opinion." Nobody believes in Trevor Siemian because they all did their own analysis of him before the draft and that analysis was "meh" - marginal camp guy. Well, he exceeded expectations, but not by much.

He's started, but his offense was horrible and his team failed to make the playoffs as defending SB champions. That means "you can start this guy, he has some experience now, but so what?"

There are about 15 teams in the NFL with QBs like Trevor Siemian. And all of them are looking for a future franchise QB.


With all the Cassels, Osweilers and Flynns earning eye-popping cap-crushing contracts based on a handful of games, you're seriously going to sit there and pretend NO Minnesota, Cleveland, Houston etc. would offer ANYTHING to have Siemian for two years at the league minimum? Hell, we at least got a 7th round pick for Chris Clark: Trevor Siemian's less valuable than a bad backup OT?

Where this analysis fails is that it doesn't take into account that practically every team has a backup guy like Trevor Siemian, and nobody wants that guy to be their long-term starter. They're not trading for a former 7th round pick who is projected to be a "replacement level" starter.

For there to be any market for Siemian he would have to start for another year and do well = perhaps winning a playoff game. But, if that happens, of course the Broncos aren't trading him!
1st round draft picks have "potential" and teams might want to develop that "potential".

That's why you see former high first round QB busts get a second chance somewhere else. The team that acquires them had them rated as a good prospect, so there's a tendency to believe that the player's coaches failed to develop him properly, and that the new team could do better with the cast-off. It usually doesn't work of course. But, that doesn't stop desperate teams from trying.

But NOBODY around the league ever believed in Trevor Siemian or they would have drafted him and they don't believe in him now because he hasn't proven anything. SO, NO TRADE VALUE!

As for Osweiler, the Texans obviously fell in love with him, but there's a difference between signing a guy as an unrestricted FA where you don't have to offer any compensation for him, and trading for him! Teams value those draft picks very highly - even 7th round ones.

I'll take Cecil Lammey's insight over yours every day of the week and twice on Sunday. :coffee:

BTW: Joe Thomas does NOT WANT A TRADE. He' wants to play his entire career in Cleveland. If he wanted out of there he could have forced a trade about 2 coaches ago. He feels strongly about that and says so publicly, when he commented that he's glad he wasn't traded to Denver prior to the 2015 season because "it felt wrong."

As for Chargers, they aren't trading Rivers because they believe they can compete for the division right now with him. They are deluded, but that's what they believe.

Jaded
02-06-2017, 09:19 PM
I remember when Lammey said Ronnie Hillman was an every down back in the mold of LeSean McCoy. Sampro went from a wasted pick to a future Pro Bowler in the span of a commercial break. LITERALLY.

He's a fraud.

Joel
02-07-2017, 02:01 AM
Because Paxton Akili Marinovich sucks, and whoever drafted him made a huge mistake?
It's still too soon to know if he sucks, so too soon to know who drafted him.

If he's great, he was Elways pick: He sees and so GETS his franchise player, like Von; the Duke rewrote the book on roster management but Kubiak forced Siemian.

If he sucks, he was Kubiaks pick, because he has a hardon for reaches like Griese, Yates and Siemian.

People too honest to be sports beat writers become political speech writers. :tongue:

Joel
02-07-2017, 03:23 AM
They aren't getting rid of Okung unless they can find someone better, and there's not anybody really better available in FA, so they're not really in the market for a LT.
They're not taking an $11½M cap hit EACH of the next TWO years for Okung, period. If they can talk him down by at least half, maybe you're right, but as it stands they could do as well or better in FA for WAY less, and Elway's consistently shown himself sensitive to that reasoning.


This is nothing more than "I don't agree so I'm going to dismiss what experts said and substitute my own opinion." Nobody believes in Trevor Siemian because they all did their own analysis of him before the draft and that analysis was "meh" - marginal camp guy. Well, he exceeded expectations, but not by much.
THAT'S nothing more than Appeal to Authority, and anonymous authority at that. Who are these "experts" and what makes them "experts" in the first place? We don't and CAN'T know, because the sportswriters "citing" them don't name names. Those writers could be making the whole thing up to sell ad space and no one would ever know the difference: It's impossible to prove an UNNAMED person DIDN'T say something.


He's started, but his offense was horrible and his team failed to make the playoffs as defending SB champions. That means "you can start this guy, he has some experience now, but so what?"
"Defending SB Champs" means FA cost his team several big players AND they had to play all other defending AFC division champs plus another from the NFC—that just happened to be the defending CONFERENCE Champ—AND any playoff teams from his own division: That meant two games against a team that made the divisional round last year and won the division this year, plus two more against a strong wildcard team. Oh, and the reigning Conference Champs as well.

8-6 against THAT competition with THIS line isn't bad for a young guy in his first CAREER starts.


There are about 15 teams in the NFL with QBs like Trevor Siemian. And all of them are looking for a future franchise QB.
The QB wasn't the problem with this offense, as you, me and the whole NFL knows well. It WAS the problem for many others, which is why it was almost effortless to think of half a dozen teams where Siemian would be a big upgrade over guys like Kirk Cousins and Cody Kessler.


Where this analysis fails is that it doesn't take into account that practically every team has a backup guy like Trevor Siemian, and nobody wants that guy to be their long-term starter. They're not trading for a former 7th round pick who is projected to be a "replacement level" starter.
"Projected" by whom? People so confident of that assessment they won't even go on the record when talking about another teams 7th round first-time starter? Very few teams have even stopgap quality QBs, because starting QBs are so important and hard to find there are ALWAYS desperate teams willing to take a flier on ANY backup showing even a hint of ability, and no one in his right mind will sit on the bench as a backup if he has a chance at starting NFL QB money.

Now you're not just saying a SINGLE season with a brutal schedule AND line is enough to say Siemian's worse than 32 other QBs, but worse than 64. Not buying it.


For there to be any market for Siemian he would have to start for another year and do well = perhaps winning a playoff game. But, if that happens, of course the Broncos aren't trading him! 1st round draft picks have "potential" and teams might want to develop that "potential".

That's why you see former high first round QB busts get a second chance somewhere else. The team that acquires them had them rated as a good prospect, so there's a tendency to believe that the player's coaches failed to develop him properly, and that the new team could do better with the cast-off. It usually doesn't work of course. But, that doesn't stop desperate teams from trying.

But NOBODY around the league ever believed in Trevor Siemian or they would have drafted him and they don't believe in him now because he hasn't proven anything. SO, NO TRADE VALUE!

As for Osweiler, the Texans obviously fell in love with him, but there's a difference between signing a guy as an unrestricted FA where you don't have to offer any compensation for him, and trading for him! Teams value those draft picks very highly - even 7th round ones.
Right: Chris Clark "value." What teams "value very highly" is even the remotest CHANCE of escaping QB Hell; so highly they'll invest $40M of cap space for a career backup based on HALF a season. Siemian put up basically the same numbers as Os for nearly TWICE as long, but Oz could get a $37M guarantee and Siemian can't even get a late 7th round pick?


I'll take Cecil Lammey's insight over yours every day of the week and twice on Sunday. :coffee:
They're NOT "his" insights though, they're the "insights" he reported from unnamed scouts on other teams. That's RUMOR, not "insight."

Even if we give Lammey the benefit of a doubt, do you think any FO staff for a team that IS considering a trade for a rivals player would tell that teams beatwriter? WHY?! So the team will raise its trade demands while anyone and EVERYONE else competing for the player will raise their offers? Playing down ones interest in a deal is the most basic negotiation tactic there is; if the "disinterest" is revealed "in confidence" yet KNOWING it will be revealed, so much the better.


BTW: Joe Thomas does NOT WANT A TRADE. He' wants to play his entire career in Cleveland. If he wanted out of there he could have forced a trade about 2 coaches ago. He feels strongly about that and says so publicly, when he commented that he's glad he wasn't traded to Denver prior to the 2015 season because "it felt wrong."
What else COULD he say publicly? "I HATE this frigid post-industrial Hellscape, its redneck and gangbanger fanbase with too few teeth and too many chromosomes, its perpetual 4-win seasons, its FO too inept to post a winning season despite a DECADE of top 5 picks, and teaching the same signal calls to a new 1st round bust QB EVERY offseason; I'll never forgive our GM denying my ONLY shot at a Ring because he was too greedy for a 3rd round pick."

Might get him back on the trade block, but that's all, and earning the uncoveted "locker room cancer" label's no way to attract a SB team.

Yet let's assume, for sake of argument, that you're right he doesn't want a trade: So what? As long as he's under contract it's not his call.


As for Chargers, they aren't trading Rivers because they believe they can compete for the division right now with him. They are deluded, but that's what they believe.
I'm sure they'd take a good enough offer, but equally sure it's not coming. He's too old and came up short in too many do-or-die games; the poor mans Romo, even with a better injury history.

Cugel
02-08-2017, 04:58 PM
"Projected" by whom? People so confident of that assessment they won't even go on the record when talking about another teams 7th round first-time starter? Very few teams have even stopgap quality QBs, because starting QBs are so important and hard to find there are ALWAYS desperate teams willing to take a flier on ANY backup showing even a hint of ability, and no one in his right mind will sit on the bench as a backup if he has a chance at starting NFL QB money.

Now you're not just saying a SINGLE season with a brutal schedule AND line is enough to say Siemian's worse than 32 other QBs, but worse than 64. Not buying it.

Don't really care if you "buy it" or not. They're not trading Siemian anyway because he's cheap and under contract for the next 3 years. So, unless some team wants him in a trade for a veteran QB (not happening) he's sticking around.

But, "fan-tasies" aside Trevor Siemian is not a marketable commodity in the NFL because every team personnel department has already passed on him, and he's done virtually nothing in the NFL to radically alter the perception among NFL Personnel managers that he's not worth anything.

Certainly they're not going to trade for him and make him their starter. The downside risk for them in doing that would be too great if he failed.

This is the how personnel departments cover their asses. If they bring in a guy who's "highly qualified" in the view of all the experts (in this case the former #1 draft pick), then if he fails they can point to various factors that indicated he could succeed - including their own scouting report.

But, if they bring in the 7th round pick nobody wanted - and he fails, then they look like total chumps. "What on earth made you idiots think that Trevor Siemian, the former 7th round pick whom the Broncos didn't want, would be a great starting QB in this league?" Looking like a total chump, and not having a cover your ass position ready "well everybody thought he'd make be great" is a great way to be fired. That's why companies often value paper qualifications over proven ability.

You are simply not going to convince 31 player pro personnel departments that they were totally wrong about Trevor Siemian when they passed on him 7 times, not 3 years ago. Not unless he goes out and plays great this season and takes the Broncos to the playoffs. And if he does that the Broncos would obviously not trade him.

For what it's worth, I don't think Elway will bring in Tony Romo either. It looks like they are sticking with Trevor and Paxton and starting one of them this season.

Cugel
02-08-2017, 05:12 PM
They're not taking an $11½M cap hit EACH of the next TWO years for Okung, period. If they can talk him down by at least half, maybe you're right, but as it stands they could do as well or better in FA for WAY less, and Elway's consistently shown himself sensitive to that reasoning.

Of course the Broncos are not just going to accept the contract as written, but no other team would do that either. So, the Broncos are going to re-sign him to a more cap friendly deal than $11M a year. But, he'd get something close to around $10 M so I expect him to get around that. I could be wrong of course, but that's the most likely scenario.

And, despite your insistence that they can do better in FA, it sure doesn't look like it. Who are these great FA LTs who are just waiting for the Broncos to call? I don't see it. The guys I've seen available are either old or injured or both. And none of them will be cheap. So, why bother? It's not like there's someone awesome just waiting in the wings to come here!


The QB wasn't the problem with this offense, as you, me and the whole NFL knows well. It WAS the problem for many others, which is why it was almost effortless to think of half a dozen teams where Siemian would be a big upgrade over guys like Kirk Cousins and Cody Kessler.

Your views are not the views of NFL teams. That's why Kirk Cousins is making a boat load of $ this year and Trevor Siemian is not. Cousins is in the middle of negotiations and the Redskins may even make him a franchise contract offer - despite the $24 M cap hit if they can't get a deal done.

They could have Trevor Siemian for about $23M less, if they wanted to trade for him, which would be a no-brainer if they thought Trevor Siemian is better than Kirk Cousins, which they don't. They aren't even considering it so far as anybody is reporting, and it's not likely they will ever do it.

Jaded
02-08-2017, 07:01 PM
It's still too soon to know if he sucks, so too soon to know who drafted him.

If he's great, he was Elways pick: He sees and so GETS his franchise player, like Von; the Duke rewrote the book on roster management but Kubiak forced Siemian.

If he sucks, he was Kubiaks pick, because he has a hardon for reaches like Griese, Yates and Siemian.

People too honest to be sports beat writers become political speech writers. :tongue:

Lynch was Elway's pick.

MOtorboat
02-08-2017, 07:24 PM
Because Paxton Akili Marinovich sucks, and whoever drafted him made a huge mistake?

How am I the only one to have saluted this?

Cugel
02-11-2017, 06:19 PM
How am I the only one to have saluted this?

Because we have no idea whether Paxton Lynch is going to be an good or not.

MOtorboat
02-12-2017, 12:53 AM
Because we have no idea whether Paxton Lynch is going to be an good or not.

Chill out Cugel. It's a Saturday night in ******* February.

Joel
02-12-2017, 06:22 AM
Don't really care if you "buy it" or not. They're not trading Siemian anyway because he's cheap and under contract for the next 3 years. So, unless some team wants him in a trade for a veteran QB (not happening) he's sticking around.

But, "fan-tasies" aside Trevor Siemian is not a marketable commodity in the NFL because every team personnel department has already passed on him, and he's done virtually nothing in the NFL to radically alter the perception among NFL Personnel managers that he's not worth anything.
Hold up: He's too valuable for US to trade for anything less than vet QB, but too valueLESS for all OTHER teams to offer so much as a 7th round pick? Can't be both. It seems like you view this stuff from a single perspective in a vacuum, but we and all 31 other teams have multiple needs and interests.


Certainly they're not going to trade for him and make him their starter. The downside risk for them in doing that would be too great if he failed.

This is the how personnel departments cover their asses. If they bring in a guy who's "highly qualified" in the view of all the experts (in this case the former #1 draft pick), then if he fails they can point to various factors that indicated he could succeed - including their own scouting report.

But, if they bring in the 7th round pick nobody wanted - and he fails, then they look like total chumps. "What on earth made you idiots think that Trevor Siemian, the former 7th round pick whom the Broncos didn't want, would be a great starting QB in this league?" Looking like a total chump, and not having a cover your ass position ready "well everybody thought he'd make be great" is a great way to be fired. That's why companies often value paper qualifications over proven ability.

You are simply not going to convince 31 player pro personnel departments that they were totally wrong about Trevor Siemian when they passed on him 7 times, not 3 years ago. Not unless he goes out and plays great this season and takes the Broncos to the playoffs. And if he does that the Broncos would obviously not trade him.
Case in point: Minimum wage over 2 full years (not 3: No 5th year option on 7th rounders) for a QB with starter experience and decent production right out the gate on a bad offense IS valuable. Even if he bombs, no one's gonna become a league laughing stock for giving up as much as 4th or even 3rd round pick to get that, because the pick's the ONLY thing they stand to lose, and the potential upside is huge.

In other words, your argument against Denver trading him is the same argument I've BEEN making for the other 31 teams to offer a trade in the first place.


For what it's worth, I don't think Elway will bring in Tony Romo either. It looks like they are sticking with Trevor and Paxton and starting one of them this season.
Elway MUST bring in someone like Romo, because "The downside risk" of sticking with Siemian/Lynch "would be too great if he failed,"making Elway "Look[] like a total chump" for forgetting to "cover your ass." It's just basic logic, right? ;) Another case in point:


Of course the Broncos are not just going to accept the contract as written, but no other team would do that either. So, the Broncos are going to re-sign him to a more cap friendly deal than $11M a year. But, he'd get something close to around $10 M so I expect him to get around that. I could be wrong of course, but that's the most likely scenario.

And, despite your insistence that they can do better in FA, it sure doesn't look like it. Who are these great FA LTs who are just waiting for the Broncos to call? I don't see it. The guys I've seen available are either old or injured or both. And none of them will be cheap. So, why bother? It's not like there's someone awesome just waiting in the wings to come here!
Denver won't pay far more than Okung's worth, but HE won't TAKE far LESS: Unless BOTH agree on something in the middle he's gone, REGARDLESS of whether anyone better's available. Meanwhile, most other teams are in the same boat, looking at either a hefty long term cap hit to re-sign a good LT (in several cases, an aging and/or injury-prone one) or a DESPERATE need to upgrade their franchise QBs turnstile blindside "protector." That position's so critical Denver's not even the only one facing a big cap hit for a BAD LT: That's why Seattle released AND Denver signed Okung in the first place!

It's a multivariate equation, and Elways historically "solved" it at the intersection of FA cost and value curves, hence Broncos fans spend each FA season raving about "steals" like Okung or KCs single-season stopgap starter at RT. It's a good solution for all the many complementary positions, but not critical ones like those. If a bargain starting QB makes Siemian worthless, a bargain OT protecting the franchise QBs blindside from the best pass rushers is equally worthless.

Again, many positions permit bargain hunting, but NO premium position does. ALL teams need a solid QB, #1WR, #1CB, and a PAIR of solid pass rushers and OTs. Precisely because there are 32 demands for most of those positions, and 64 for pass rushers and OTs, teams get what they pay for AT BEST; second tier salaries "produce" far worse than second tier performance.

There will be cap casualties nonetheless, because the cap not only doesn't make allowances for a teams need at critical positions, it implicitly exploits them.


Your views are not the views of NFL teams. That's why Kirk Cousins is making a boat load of $ this year and Trevor Siemian is not. Cousins is in the middle of negotiations and the Redskins may even make him a franchise contract offer - despite the $24 M cap hit if they can't get a deal done.

They could have Trevor Siemian for about $23M less, if they wanted to trade for him, which would be a no-brainer if they thought Trevor Siemian is better than Kirk Cousins, which they don't. They aren't even considering it so far as anybody is reporting, and it's not likely they will ever do it.
It's a no brainer if they think Siemian's even CLOSE to Cousins' production: Because 90% of Cousins+2-3 All Pros>Cousins alone, and $23M/yr for two years is that big a difference. Meanwhile, other teams are DESPERATE for even a Cousinsesque QB, another reason the 'Skins are in a hurry to do a deal and might even eat the franchise tag for QUARTERBACKS to keep one who's merely above average (if that.)
You think NONE of them would offer ANYTHING for Siemian?

A 3rd or 4th round pick, or a starting but sub-Pro Bowl quality OT's not worth an alternative to fielding Cody Kessler or RGIII all of 2017?

John Lynch wouldn't offer even a 5th for more options than Gabbert (because, let's face it, Kaepernick's done in SF; he might be the top FA QB anyway)?

The Jets wouldn't give up ANYTHING to improve on Fitzpatrick and Geno Smith?

Philly would offer NOTHING as insurance against Wentz failing to improve on his 7-9 record and 79.3 rating?

Chicagos 2016 roster had no less than FIVE QBs, NONE of whom won even TWO games; they'd have NO interest in Siemian?

The bad news for us at LT is that even mediocre players command top dollar at critical positions; the good news for us in trading Siemian is that EVEN MEDIOCRE PLAYERS COMMAND TOP DOLLAR AT CRITICAL POSITIONS.

In our particular "position," Elway may be unwilling to accept anything but Herschel Walker-like trade for Siemian, not because he's sold on him, but because we ALSO have a young 1st round QB with even less experience than Wentz, while Siemian's played better than Wentz (and Lynch.) Whether we'd give up that insurance policy for a 5th+ round pick, or an adequate but unremarkable starter, remains to be seen.

Don't expect Okung back though: Elway won't exercise our two-year option, and even with a season like 2016 Okung can get more money out of 31 teams than 1. They have about ONE MONTH to renegotiate new deal before Elway must fish or cut bait on Okungs $12M/yr 2017-2018 option; any word they've even DISCUSSED it? C'mon, put those beat writers' anonymous sources and rumor mills to good use. :tongue:

Joel
02-12-2017, 06:24 AM
Lynch was Elway's pick.
If Shane Ray was Kubiaks pick, so was Lynch. Conversely, if Elway picked the QB whisperers QB, he picked Ty Sambrailo too.

Jaded
02-13-2017, 02:37 AM
If Shane Ray was Kubiaks pick, so was Lynch. Conversely, if Elway picked the QB whisperers QB, he picked Ty Sambrailo too.

What the **** ever, Joel, you just keep your head firmly planted in your ass.

Joel
02-13-2017, 04:03 AM
What the **** ever, Joel, you just keep your head firmly planted in your ass.
Okay, fine: The former QB coach only picked the OLB, not the QB.

Hawgdriver
02-13-2017, 11:37 AM
I can't believe Kubiak gave Elway the OK to draft Lynch.

Jaded
02-13-2017, 12:01 PM
I can't believe Kubiak gave Elway the OK to draft Lynch.

Do you at least concede that Siemian was Kubiak's pick?

Valar Morghulis
02-13-2017, 12:28 PM
Do you at least concede that Siemian was Kubiak's pick?

And a truly inspiring pick at that

Hawgdriver
02-13-2017, 12:59 PM
Do you at least concede that Siemian was Kubiak's pick?

That's the vibe I get.

JPPT1974
02-13-2017, 01:10 PM
Yeah as it will be up to Elway over the QB picks. As with Lynch vs Siemian will be a wacky battle.

Joel
02-14-2017, 11:16 AM
I can't believe Kubiak gave Elway the OK to draft Lynch.
That's "OK:" I can't believe Kubiak gave Elway the OK to draft ANYONE.

If HCs got to make draft picks and sign FAs they wouldn't covet the GMs job so desperately. ALL the coaches "had input," and I'm sure Elway and Kubiak hads lots of long CONVERSATIONS (i.e. not monologues, but an exchange of ideas and perspectives) about ALL the QBs in BOTH drafts. They've been having long one-on-one conversations about the best way to play QB for FOUR DECADES. Dennison was surely involved with much of that, as was Wade with defensive prospects, and I'm also sure Elway got "input" about each position from that positions coaches, either directly or via the coordinators and Kubiak.

Yet ULTIMATELY I'm also sure Kubiak had as much complete unilateral control over any and ALL draft picks as he had over 3rd and 7 plays against the '85 Raiders.

Jaded
02-14-2017, 09:07 PM
Joel, you should contact Mike Klis if you're not going to take my word for it. Maybe he can give you a few more hairs to split.

Cugel
02-20-2017, 07:50 PM
Elway probably didn't give a crap about that 7th round pick. Can you imagine Elway arguing with Kubiak over some 7th round pick who will probably be a training camp arm and be among the first cuts? Cause that's normally the fate of 7th round picks.

Why argue? It's just not that important. Elway probably had a lot more input on the 1st round pick than the 7th. If the head coach wants some guy in the 7th round, why not let him have his way?

Jaded
02-20-2017, 09:31 PM
I love 7th rnd picks, wish we had extra every draft.

Cugel
02-21-2017, 11:16 AM
I love 7th rnd picks, wish we had extra every draft.

For every 7th round guy who makes it, a bunch don't.

Where are they now?

2016: Riley Dixon, P
2015: DBs Josh Furman & Taurean Nixon
2014: LB Corey Nelson!
2013: Zak Dysert, QB
2011: Virgil Greene, TE!, but Jeremy Beal, DE. Bah.

On it goes. Normally, a 7th round pick isn't worth much and is probably not going to make the team.