View Full Version : ESPN Football Power Index - The Broncos are no longer a good football team
tomjonesrocks
08-30-2017, 11:42 AM
Fair prediction I think...
---
Today, FPI is going all-in.
Normally, our Football Power Index delivers information in degrees: a percentage chance of this and the likelihood of that. That's the responsible approach to take with a model like this one. But on the precipice of the NFL season, we're throwing caution to the wind and letting FPI deliver predictions with stone-cold certainty.
It's never advisable for an NFL head coach to preside over a bad year, but some coaches would likely get a mulligan if it happens in 2017. The data says these guys, on the other hand, almost certainly wouldn't.
Of course, keep in mind that in order to do this exercise, we're taking the information that FPI is giving us and then making a leap toward the black and white. FPI does not feel 100 percent certain about anything -- there's a 3.1 percent chance the Patriots will miss the playoffs, after all -- but we'll pretend, for a minute, that it does.
For what it's worth, the 50 percent marker is not special here, either. Some of these predictions are less than 50 percent likely to occur, but that's because they may be the most likely scenarios of possible options or simply because this is, after all, a story about bold predictions. Anyone can guess that the Browns will be bad.
----
The Broncos are no longer a good football team
While Denver missed out on the postseason last year, the Broncos were still widely considered a very solid squad. Those days are over.
FPI projects Denver to win just 7.7 games in 2017, thanks to a lackluster-at-best offense.
While the Broncos' 2015 team proved it could win despite poor quarterback play, it is still an exceptionally difficult task to accomplish. With Trevor Siemian under center again, the defense will have to be just about perfect, and FPI isn't quite as optimistic about the Denver defense this year -- ranking the unit seventh-best in the league."
http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/20497627/bold-predictions-2017-nfl-season-kansas-city-chiefs-win-afc-west
Hawgdriver
08-30-2017, 12:06 PM
You got me interested in the merit of FPI, so I wanted to find out more about it. Here is an excerpt from interview with analytics team than built the model.
What was something that you unexpectedly found mattered (or mattered more than anticipated) in the preseason ratings or game projections?
ZB: As I expected, performance from past seasons is a strong indicator of performance in subsequent seasons. However, to my surprise, offensive performance tends to be noticeably more consistent from season-to-season than defensive performance. The NFL is a QB-driven league, which contributes to this trend.
BroncoWave
08-30-2017, 12:08 PM
Good chance they are right. I see us right around an 8-8 team, much like this model projects.
Good chance they are right. I see us right around an 8-8 team, much like this model projects.
Big wildcard is offense. If the offense isn't significantly better, than with the tougher schedule, it's going to be tough to have a winning record.
dogfish
08-30-2017, 12:17 PM
they could easily be right about our offense. . . this ain't the 7th best defense, though, so i'm going to discredit them in my mind. . . eff off, initials!
BroncoWave
08-30-2017, 12:17 PM
Big wildcard is offense. If the offense isn't significantly better, than with the tougher schedule, it's going to be tough to have a winning record.
I think the defense is more of a wild card than people want to admit as well. As the guys who do these analytics said, defense is harder to maintain year to year than offense. We don't really know yet what the impact will be of losing Wade's coaching or Ware's leadership. And with rumors of Ward being shopped, his potential replacement would be another wildcard. I still think it will be a really good unit, but it wasn't as good in 16 as 15, and if it's the same as 16 or worse this year (which is very possible), then it will be tough to win more than 8 even if the offense is better than we think.
Hawgdriver
08-30-2017, 12:18 PM
7.7 wins.
The single most important factor in that prediction is 2016 offensive production. The greatest uncertainty is how much of jump the QB will make in year 2.
So the QB portion appears to be a unique aspect of NFL FPI. Can you go into more detail how you determine how much a QB is worth, compared to his backup?
ZB: Quarterback impact is measured using a similar approach to Total QBR, with a few differences. The biggest difference from QBR is the incorporation of an aging curve. Young quarterbacks tend to improve with time and the performance of older quarterbacks starts to decline. Given a quarterback's age in the current season and age/efficiency in past seasons, we can estimate a quarterback's expected impact. To obtain a more predictive than descriptive quarterback metric, the effect of extremely lucky and unlucky plays is limited, and there is no down-weighting for when the game is less close as there is in QBR. Players without previous experience are set at replacement level.
If it's a jump as suggested from his 2016 performance and the performance curves based on every QB snap taken since 2006, then the data suggests 7.7 wins.
The part that seems fuzzy to me is this bolded part at the end:
In the preseason, FPI uses a number of predictive factors to project future team strength. The main component of preseason FPI is Vegas expectations; the expected win totals and money lines for each team are an accurate representation of predicted team strength and provide a strong baseline for teams entering the season.
But relying solely on Vegas has its flaws, and more information is needed to determine what percentage of a team's projected win total can be attributed to its offense, defense and special teams units -- the components that make up FPI.
To gather more information on each unit, ESPN polled a panel of NFL experts regarding the expected offensive, defensive and overall performances of teams for the upcoming season.
How much of this is data-driven, and how much is 4 guys in a room making power rankings?
Davii
08-30-2017, 12:27 PM
How much of this is data-driven, and how much is 4 guys in a room making power rankings?
The bolded part makes it seem that quite a bit of it is. If they're asking a panel of experts their opinion regarding overall performance and then using that to effect their model then this metric is trash.
Hawgdriver
08-30-2017, 12:31 PM
The bolded part makes it seem that quite a bit of it is. If they're asking a panel of experts their opinion regarding overall performance and then using that to effect their model then this metric is trash.
I'd prefer they just stuck with Vegas and gave no weight to the opinions of a "panel."
How much of this is data-driven, and how much is 4 guys in a room making power rankings?
Well, when they started talking about how the QB portion (after as much as saying that's synonymous with the entire OFFENSIVE portion) is closely related to QBR, that pretty much tells me four staffers spitballing over the water cooler is about an order of magnitude more "important" here than actual onfield performance.
Plus: "As I expected, performance from past seasons is a strong indicator of performance in subsequent seasons"? What league has HE been watching? :lol: The extreme WEAKNESS of correlation between consecutive NFL records is PRECISELY why I quit trying to make preseason predictions in the first place. As they note, the obvious ones are safe: Cleveland and Jax will remain victims of their FO until the owner dies or sells the team; NE* will always cheat and usually get away with it. Everyone else though, from the guys NEAR (but not IN) the cellar or penthouse to those who just barely missed/made the playoffs? Good luck matching this seasons performance to the last ones, because even a few key injuries and/or FA losses are enough to transform a 10-6 team into a 6-10 team. Didn't last season LOOK pretty good at the start?
We opened by winning our SB re-match, then beat Luck by a pair of TDs, then went on the road for Siemian to torch a Bengals team that had finished in a three-way tie with us and NE* for best in the AFC. Except it turns out the defending 15-1 NFC Champs finished 6-10 last year, the Colts were .500 again and the defending 12-4 AFCN Champs finished 6-9-1. Beating all those teams that were great in 2015 didn't mean squat, because they all sucked in 2016: We were just a little better than suck.
When will people learn the Rasmussens' "statistical predictions" only marginally beat combing through a dead chickens entrails? There's a long statistical history of THAT.
WARHORSE
08-30-2017, 01:11 PM
Wpi
19-0
Actually, what the "Football Power Index" says of its OWN predictive history is itself telling:
Granted, FPI thought Carolina would walk into the playoffs last year, but then again, who didn't?
Nearly everyone who's ever heard of the SB losers slump, which is nearly everyone who's ever heard of the SB. Guess the FPI didn't factor in things like that, or the "intangible" crisis of confidence that can go with getting so close to being the best only to be brutally and repeatedly beaten down as Camolina was by our D, or the far more tangible crisis that results from a teams best FAs getting the offers that come with reaching the SB without the incentive to stick with a successful organization that comes with WINNING one.
So what ARE the FPIs factors? Well, much like QBR, ESPN doesn't explicitly or exhaustively tell us nor anyone, only selectively site individual metrics as they become relevant and/or convincingly fit data to the predetermined curve. Special teams are measured, which we're told to explain why KC will win the AFCW: Because they've had top five STs the last four years, #1 in two of them! Which makes one wonder why they only won the division ONCE in any of THOSE years, and missed the playoffs entirely in one of them.
FPI doesn't specifically factor Elliott's suspension into its calculation, but that is a factor in the Vegas win total (and the cut taken by the sportsbook, also known as the vig), which is an input for FPI.
So they don't factor in his suspension at all, except where they do, sort of, though HOW is completely opaque. Alrighty then.
5. The Jets will draft another quarterback from USC
THAT'S NOT EVEN A PREDICTION ABOUT THEIR RECORD! So what's it got to do with predicting their record?
FPI believes the Jets are the heavy favorite (32.8 percent) to land the No. 1 overall pick, and fortunately for Gang Green, a quarterback is atop Todd McShay's recently released list of the top 32 players in the 2018 draft (http://www.espn.com/nfl/draft2018/insider/story/_/id/20405576/todd-mcshay-preseason-top-32-prospects-ranking-2018-nfl-draft). Yes, USC's Sam Darnold (http://www.espn.com/college-football/player/_/id/3912547/sam-darnold) could be the next savior in New York. Get those "Broadway Sam" headlines ready.
Ah, right: It relates to the bones some other ESPN writer cast to predict next years #1 overall pick (which itself has a lot to do with which team finishes dead last; I wonder if the two authors discussed both matters much together? :rolleyes: Still, if he IS the #1 overall pick, the Jets are the leading candidate to have that shot at him, because FPI is confident they're terrible. INCREASINGLY confident, in fact:
Believe it or not, FPI actually thinks the Jets are even worse now than last week, when we noted (http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/20437605/nfl-fpi-says-new-york-jets-worst-team-nfl) that the model thought they were particularly terrible.
Okay, FPI, I'll bite: What STATISTICALLY happened within the last WEEK that made the Jets even worse than they already were? I'm OK with math; you can just give me the raw numbers and I'll work out the rest on my own. Because the only POSSIBLE stats that come to mind in that brief time span are from Saturdays crosstown preseason game with the Giants, which the Jets narrowly lost by a single point when their 2PAT failed. All we've been hearing the last month, just as every August, is how utterly useless meaningless games between camp fodder are for predicting the best teams once starters are playing games that COUNT. Apparently this is news to ESPN; odd, since sports news is kind of their raison d'etre.
The best part (of course) was the precisely stated 49.6% chance (basically a coin flip) NE* will return to the SB and the equally precise 32.3% chance they'll WIN it again, alongside alongside predicting they'll only win a modest (by dynasty standards) 11.8 games because "There's just too much variance in the NFL. Not too much randomness to give the Eternal Champions <3:1 odds to win the SB (an order of magnitude better than a purely random chance) but too much to predict they win >12 games. Because even "That's more than a whole win more than any team has been projected by FPI to earn in the last three preseasons."
In other words, NEW ENGLAND IS THE FIRST AND ONLY TEAM FPI HAS PROJECTED TO WIN >11 GAMES IN FOUR YEARS OF TRYING.
Given that OVER A DOZEN teams (nearly 15%) have done just that, including all but one SB team and every Champion, I'm starting to think that maybe preseason games where the guys playing half the downs won't even be on the team Opening Day are a poor predictor of regular season performance. Again, I believe pretty much everyone who knows anything about pro football has always known that—so where does that leave ESPN...? ;)
Holy Hell, is it time for REAL football yet?! I don't know how much more filler and manufactured narratives I can take....
weazel
08-30-2017, 10:57 PM
I am definitely in the minority but I think it's ridiculous to be paying a linebacker 20 million a year, even more so for a team that most likely won't make the playoffs.
topscribe
08-30-2017, 11:13 PM
With the additions of Bolles, Leary, Barbre, and Watson, the return to health of Paradis, and
experience of McGovern, the O-line is far better than last year. Perhaps it is not yet top ten,
but it is improved and deeper.
The RB corps is far deeper than it was, and injury to C.J. or another will not be as devastating
as it was last year. The receivers are deeper. And Siemian is one year removed from his
rookie year now.
This is a much better offense than last year's. It won't live up to Emmanuel Sanders'
prediction (#1 in the league), but it will be improved.
The defense? So a much deeper interior line and edge amount to a decline when the rest of
the defense (ILB and DBs) remain the same?
I understand the team might be challenged to reach a 10-6 record (my prediction), but that
will be because of the brutal schedule, not a decline in talent. I just think that ESPN is way off.
Canmore
08-31-2017, 01:40 AM
With the additions of Bolles, Leary, Barbre, and Watson, the return to health of Paradis, and
experience of McGovern, the O-line is far better than last year. Perhaps it is not yet top ten,
but it is improved and deeper.
The RB corps is far deeper than it was, and injury to C.J. or another will not be as devastating
as it was last year. The receivers are deeper. And Siemian is one year removed from his
rookie year now.
This is a much better offense than last year's. It won't live up to Emmanuel Sanders'
prediction (#1 in the league), but it will be improved.
The defense? So a much deeper interior line and edge amount to a decline when the rest of
the defense (ILB and DBs) remain the same?
I understand the team might be challenged to reach a 10-6 record (my prediction), but that
will be because of the brutal schedule, not a decline in talent. I just think that ESPN is way off.
Hope you are right top, and wrong.
I hope you are right about the offensive line. That is the motor for the whole offense.
I hope you are wrong about the record.
BroncoWave
08-31-2017, 06:13 AM
With the additions of Bolles, Leary, Barbre, and Watson, the return to health of Paradis, and
experience of McGovern, the O-line is far better than last year. Perhaps it is not yet top ten,
but it is improved and deeper.
The RB corps is far deeper than it was, and injury to C.J. or another will not be as devastating
as it was last year. The receivers are deeper. And Siemian is one year removed from his
rookie year now.
This is a much better offense than last year's. It won't live up to Emmanuel Sanders'
prediction (#1 in the league), but it will be improved.
The defense? So a much deeper interior line and edge amount to a decline when the rest of
the defense (ILB and DBs) remain the same?
I understand the team might be challenged to reach a 10-6 record (my prediction), but that
will be because of the brutal schedule, not a decline in talent. I just think that ESPN is way off.
Every team THINKS they got better through the draft and FA though. You just never know. We thought Stephenson and Okung would make the o-line better last year and look how that worked out. On paper do we look better? Sure. But there are still plenty of question marks and as you said, a tough schedule.
VonDoom
08-31-2017, 08:34 AM
Wave is speaking a lot of truth in this thread. I have us at 8-8 as well. I always hope to be wrong, but they have to prove it to me first. After we won the Super Bowl, everyone said last year, "We can be better on offense, which will automatically make us better" and how'd that work out? The defense was otherworldly in 2015 and while the pass defense was just as good (if not better) last year, our run defense was putrid. I think we're already looking better there, but it's hard to say how all of this works together. Can we expect yet another top three defense? I sure hope so. Offense is obviously the big wild card, as others have said. It's very hard to figure where we'll end up - I could see us being much better, but I could also see us struggling through another anemic year that has people grumbling by week five.
weazel
08-31-2017, 08:52 AM
I don't see them getting 8 wins on that schedule, I pegged them at 7-9 but maybe they can sneak one more win in there. It's not an easy schedule.
Davii
08-31-2017, 08:56 AM
I don't see them getting 8 wins on that schedule, I pegged them at 7-9 but maybe they can sneak one more win in there. It's not an easy schedule.
We'll see how it looks midway through the season. I agree, right now it doesn't look to be a favorable schedule at all, but we all know teams rise and fall. Not only during the offseason, but throughout the year as well. Some of those we're concerned about we'll walk through, some we're not we'll be lucky to win or we might get smashed.
Krugan
08-31-2017, 11:31 AM
This about where i have us, but the bigger question is, When did ESPN start talking about sports again????????
MasterShake
08-31-2017, 12:44 PM
http://i.imgur.com/9ReRvb8.png
I believe that we are a ten win team, in my eyes. The offense doesn't have to get better, per se, but the line looked better. The running backs and TE's are definitely better. The defense will still be good, but I don't think that they are a top five unit, at least at the start of the year. Part of my prediction is that I think the Chiefs are slotted to take a step back, and I believe that we are getting four games as wins as the division is weaker.
The chargers are awful and their top two picks are out for the year. The Chiefs have injuries on both sides of the ball, and they're not a deep team.
The Raiders are still monsters, but the year after an ACL tear a QB typically isn't what they once were. The closest I saw to that was Brady.
topscribe
08-31-2017, 06:37 PM
I believe that we are a ten win team, in my eyes. The offense doesn't have to get better, per se, but the line looked better. The running backs and TE's are definitely better. The defense will still be good, but I don't think that they are a top five unit, at least at the start of the year. Part of my prediction is that I think the Chiefs are slotted to take a step back, and I believe that we are getting four games as wins as the division is weaker.
The chargers are awful and their top two picks are out for the year. The Chiefs have injuries on both sides of the ball, and they're not a deep team.
The Raiders are still monsters, but the year after an ACL tear a QB typically isn't what they once were. The closest I saw to that was Brady.
I don't know about the TEs. Same old bunch. But maybe they're a bit better with experience and health.
It is good Heuerman is finally healthy. The WRs are deeper, though, which is good. It seemed last year
that after DT and E the well was fairly dry. But we've seen better things out of Fowler and Taylor, and
McKenzie shows some promise. Even Latimer has seemed to look better.
I'm thoroughly encouraged by the depth at RB. Booker was challenging for the starting spot when he
went down, and now he may be coming back to third string, thanks that Charles is showing such
promise.
Siemian has a year under his belt. I'm not too thrilled by those who have been denigrating him as a
quarterback, based on what they think was a subpar performance last year. Not only are they so very
wrong about last year, as Tned has documented so well, but this year should be based on this year,
not last year. He is likely to be improved because of experience.
The O-line may disappoint us for the first handful of games because they have to gel. An O-line has to
work as a unit to be effective, and that takes a little bit. But with the infusion of talent, I look for them
to close the door on the pass rush as they do gel.
What I think is ludicrous are the predictions that the defense is going to decline. Where? The interior
line is bigger, stronger, and deeper across the board. Wolfe and Crick each have gained 20 lbs., and
Peko has shown that he knows what he's there for. Gotsis has also put on about 20 lbs., as I
understand, and he has been flashing, according to what I hear and read.
Shaq and Ray are coming back soon, and when they do, OLB will be deeper than last year. I do hope
Marshall and Davis hold up because they aren't deep there. But the No Fly Zone is still the No Fly
Zone.
So I agree they're a likely 10-win team. If they had last year's schedule, they would be 11 or 12, IMO.
I get what you're saying on the TE's. The reports were good, and they looked like they at least blocked better to me. That being said, I suppose I can't say that I definitively feel confident about them.
In regards to the documentation of QB play - we will respectfully disagree.
topscribe
08-31-2017, 06:49 PM
I get what you're saying on the TE's. The reports were good, and they looked like they at least blocked better to me. That being said, I suppose I can't say that I definitively feel confident about them.
In regards to the documentation of QB play - we will respectfully disagree.
Numbers aren't debatable, my friend. Neither are injuries. :)
Numbers aren't debatable, my friend. Neither are injuries. :)
I agree, and the numbers didn't help TS at all. Remember that 'TS is solid on the long ball' claim? The rebuttal killed that one in the water. Some people took the totality of the situation, and others did cherry picking. And TS' injury doesn't help his argument, either. He's been hurt going back to college. He got hurt here. He showed he couldn't be effective when he was hurt. At best, we can say last year was a wash, and try to forgive his horrid completion percentage in an offense built around short passing.
I agree, and the numbers didn't help TS at all. Remember that 'TS is solid on the long ball' claim? The rebuttal killed that one in the water. Some people took the totality of the situation, and others did cherry picking. And TS' injury doesn't help his argument, either. He's been hurt going back to college. He got hurt here. He showed he couldn't be effective when he was hurt. At best, we can say last year was a wash, and try to forgive his horrid completion percentage in an offense built around short passing.
The numbers showed he was in the top quartile of first year starters over the last decade in virtually all key statistics. On the deep passing, the numbers show he was middle of the pack on accuracy, which was better than many big name QBs.
As Top said, the numbers aren't debatable.
topscribe
08-31-2017, 07:20 PM
I agree, and the numbers didn't help TS at all. Remember that 'TS is solid on the long ball' claim? The rebuttal killed that one in the water. Some people took the totality of the situation, and others did cherry picking. And TS' injury doesn't help his argument, either. He's been hurt going back to college. He got hurt here. He showed he couldn't be effective when he was hurt. At best, we can say last year was a wash, and try to forgive his horrid completion percentage in an offense built around short passing.
Yes, I guess he showed that his effectiveness decreased when he incurred a shoulder injury so
severe that it required surgery after the season. Ask Wolfe if he could run as fast after he sprained
his ankle and whether that makes him fragile.
But I have already said that his worst trait was his tendency to incur injury. Part of the reason, as
I have studied his films, is that he played like a fullback, not learning how to slide after a scramble.
I do hope that Musgrave has worked with him on that. We can't afford for TS to get hurt again.
Regarding the long ball, we have a before and after situation that has been conveniently ignored
by his detractors. Early last season, he had me remarking on how accurate he was with his long
passes. Later in the season, he had me wondering what happened, why he has lost so much of
that accuracy. When the truth of his injury came out, I knew. But, apparently, a lot of people still
don't know. Facts don't seem to have much effect with those who don't want to believe . . .
He was higher on accuracy because he rarely threw those deep passes. The stat site I linked you to had a lot of those guys ranked higher in overall production on those numbers even though some of them were worse in completion percentage because they threw those passes a lot more. And when compared to his peers, as I pointed out, via the guys that you choose, he was middle or worse than them in TDs, yards, etc. He was ranked third in INTS, iirc. He wasn't ranked well, overall for those types of passes. If TS actually flashed what some propose he did, people would be much higher on our chances as a team. Just about everyone around the league says the guy is a game manager, or serviceable. They saw the same things we did.
In regards to the rest of his numbers, not only are you still trying to compare him to guys who were rookies, his completion percentage was worse than just about all the first rounders who panned out. So, I'm not, nor is anyone else, clamoring over a sub 60% total over busts, or doing worse than true rookies on completions.
http://www.nfl.com/player/marcusmariota/2552466/careerstats Compare him second year to second year and see how far away TS was/is. And then, if you want, compare their 'first years starting'. Note that MM beat him in TD's, INTS, % and the like. Then note that had Mariota got hurt, too. TS had him beat in yards, but MM made plays with his legs, and stressed defenses that way.
Here's another contemporary - http://www.nfl.com/player/carsonwentz/2555259/careerstats
More TDs, yards, and %. The INT ratio was bad. But Wentz was also asked to do more, and was a true rookie. And PPF had Wentz ahead of TS for overall production. Wentz wins the comparison.
Here's another one. https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/W/WinsJa00.htm
If you compare their second years, TS gets slaughtered. But, I'll still cede you the 'first year starting' argument. Winston gives me a slightly worse % with an offense built on deeper throws, I might add. But I'll get almost 700 more yards and 4 more TD's.
The closer we get in that decade to now the worst TS is in comparison. I agree, the numbers don't lie.
Cugel
08-31-2017, 07:33 PM
I think the defense is more of a wild card than people want to admit as well. As the guys who do these analytics said, defense is harder to maintain year to year than offense. We don't really know yet what the impact will be of losing Wade's coaching or Ware's leadership. And with rumors of Ward being shopped, his potential replacement would be another wildcard. I still think it will be a really good unit, but it wasn't as good in 16 as 15, and if it's the same as 16 or worse this year (which is very possible), then it will be tough to win more than 8 even if the offense is better than we think.
The reason they are reportedly shopping TJ is that they have Will Parks and Justin Simmons behind him. Simmons particularly is their future. They've already made the decision not to renew TJ's contract after this year, and this move would simply be to give Simmons a chance to start. They believe he is a potential pro-bowl S and they want him on the field more. He's also on his rookie deal so he's vastly cheaper than TJ.
S Justin Simmons: 5/16/2016: Signed a four-year, $3.027 million contract. The deal includes a $645,420 signing bonus. 2017: $540,000 (+ $13,000 workout bonus), 2018: $630,000 (+ $14,000 workout bonus), 2019: $720,000 (+ $15,000 workout bonus), 2020: Free Agent
NBC Denver reports the Broncos are expected to "part ways" with SS T.J. Ward by Saturday's cut-down deadline. Reporter Mike Klis says the move will come "preferably by trade." That means release is on the table if a deal can't be worked out. Due a non-guaranteed $4.5 million, Ward missed most of training camp with a hamstring issue. In that time, the Broncos apparently grew comfortable with second-year pro Justin Simmons as 30-year-old Ward's successor. Ward would quickly and easily find a new home if cut loose.
Reports on 104.3 the Fan this AM the Raiders and Patriots are expected to have some interest in Ward if he's released on Saturday. I think it's a mistake to get rid of him this season rather than just letting him play out his contract. But, they're not going to get anything for him now. Every team in the league knows they just have to wait until Saturday and pick him up off waivers. And if nobody picks him up and he clears waivers, (100% certain because the team that picked him up would have to compensate the Broncos), then he's a FA and can negotiate his own contract with anybody.
And the Raiders (whose defense would be immeasurably stronger with Ward in the secondary) and the Patriots (because they love to troll the Broncos) are expected to be interested in signing him as a FA.
I would seriously barf in my mouth if he winds up on the Pats or especially the Raiders. I think I could live with it if he went to the Pats, because they're so good anyway that it probably wouldn't change much. But, Ward could give the Raiders a serious boost to their defense.
And that's the last thing we need! :tsk:
Yes, I guess he showed that his effectiveness decreased when he incurred a shoulder injury so
severe that it required surgery after the season. Ask Wolfe if he could run as fast after he sprained
his ankle and whether that makes him fragile.
But I have already said that his worst trait was his tendency to incur injury. Part of the reason, as
I have studied his films, is that he played like a fullback, not learning how to slide after a scramble.
I do hope that Musgrave has worked with him on that. We can't afford for TS to get hurt again.
Regarding the long ball, we have a before and after situation that has been conveniently ignored
by his detractors. Early last season, he had me remarking on how accurate he was with his long
passes. Later in the season, he had me wondering what happened, why he has lost so much of
that accuracy. When the truth of his injury came out, I knew. But, apparently, a lot of people still
don't know. Facts don't seem to have much effect with those who don't want to believe . . .
And he wasn't that effective sans one game before that, nor was he effective for the rest of the season sans one game. He wasn't that great looking in the entire offseason either.
He complete 14 long passes the entire year. Four of them occurred in one game. So I think you watched the starting QB of the Denver Broncos with a little bit too much love.
In regards to the injury, It was on his non-throwing arm. No one cares about injuries - Steve McNair, Donovan McNabb, Peyton Manning, Brett Favre: excuses are for people who need them. Apparently TS needs the excuses.
He was higher on accuracy because he rarely threw those deep passes. The stat site I linked you to had a lot of those guys ranked higher in overall production on those numbers even though some of them were worse in completion percentage because they threw those passes a lot more. And when compared to his peers, as I pointed out, via the guys that you choose, he was middle or worse than them in TDs, yards, etc. He was ranked third in INTS, iirc. He wasn't ranked well, overall for those types of passes. If TS actually flashed what some propose he did, people would be much higher on our chances as a team. Just about everyone around the league says the guy is a game manager, or serviceable. They saw the same things we did.
In regards to the rest of his numbers, not only are you still trying to compare him to guys who were rookies, his completion percentage was worse than just about all the first rounders who panned out. So, I'm not, nor is anyone else, clamoring over a sub 60% total over busts, or doing worse than true rookies on completions.
http://www.nfl.com/player/marcusmariota/2552466/careerstats Compare him second year to second year and see how far away TS was/is. And then, if you want, compare their 'first years starting'. Note that MM beat him in TD's, INTS, % and the like. Then note that had Mariota got hurt, too. TS had him beat in yards, but MM made plays with his legs, and stressed defenses that way.
Here's another contemporary - http://www.nfl.com/player/carsonwentz/2555259/careerstats
More TDs, yards, and %. The INT ratio was bad. But Wentz was also asked to do more, and was a true rookie. And PPF had Wentz ahead of TS for overall production. Wentz wins the comparison.
Here's another one. https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/W/WinsJa00.htm
If you compare their second years, TS gets slaughtered. But, I'll still cede you the 'first year starting' argument. Winston gives me a slightly worse % with an offense built on deeper throws, I might add. But I'll get almost 700 more yards and 4 more TD's.
The closer we get in that decade to now the worst TS is in comparison. I agree, the numbers don't lie.
Not going to repost everything in here, but there is a whole thread on this. Take a look at his first year starting vs. Carr's for instance, that's pretty contemporary.
http://www.broncosforums.com/forums/showthread.php/606702-Comparing-Siemian-s-first-year-to-other-first-years-since-2007
Cugel
08-31-2017, 07:45 PM
The more I think about this the less I like the idea of releasing TJ. Even if they're right that Justin Simmons is a better cover guy and would take more playing time away from Ward, I'm scared he really is going to wind up on some AFC West Team.
TJ Ward strikes me as a very bad man to have mad at you. And if the Broncos cut him loose he's going to be totally furious with them for cutting him without reason (he's a pro-bowler still) and determined to screw them over if he can.
And he can. If he signs with an AFC West rival the Broncos are going to look like such imbeciles! He knows the playbook inside and out, he can tell the other team every defensive play and what defenses the Broncos will run in any given situation. This sort of thing happens all the time of course and the Patriots are famous for signing guys from key rivals just to pump them for information (Spygate ain't nothin' compared with all the other espionage the Patriots get up to).
But, Ward could wind up giving an impact player to a division rival. That would be bad.
Take a look at Jamal Charles. He's on a serious mission to destroy the Chiefs this season if he possibly can. That's a big reason he signed here. He wanted to stick it to the Chiefs for cutting him by going to a division rival and then playing against his old team and kicking their ass. As of right now, I'd be real nervous if I were a Chiefs fan because he's looking pretty healthy right about now. They all assume he'll just get hurt because he has the last 2 seasons and they're disappointed in him.
But, he's healthy now. What if he stays that way? Lookout KC!
I'd hate for the same thing to happen in reverse with TJ Ward!
Cugel
08-31-2017, 07:54 PM
And he wasn't that effective sans one game before that, nor was he effective for the rest of the season sans one game. He wasn't that great looking in the entire offseason either.
He complete 14 long passes the entire year. Four of them occurred in one game. So I think you watched the starting QB of the Denver Broncos with a little bit too much love.
In regards to the injury, It was on his non-throwing arm. No one cares about injuries - Steve McNair, Donovan McNabb, Peyton Manning, Brett Favre: excuses are for people who need them. Apparently TS needs the excuses.
I'm not a Trevor fan and wanted Paxton to take the job. But, TS played with several (4 actually) broken bones in his shoulder. If that was you you'd be crying in the hospital for weeks and have your arm in a sling for months!
No big deal because it was his non-throwing shoulder that 300 lbs. DL slam into multiple times a game? No big deal that his arm was so injured they had to strap it to his side and inject him with all kinds of drugs so he could go out there and play.
Personally, I think he was stupid to let them send him out there with that kind of injury - but that's the culture of the NFL. Players are expected to play hurt. But, this was injured. Not hurt.
I don't particularly honor screwing up your body like that. I don't think it should be permitted. But he did something so painful I could never even think about it. For TS to be able to take the field at all was very surprising. He deserves a ton of credit there for being a true blue warrior for the Broncos.
And that is a big reason why they liked him so much. It shows in the attitude of Elway & Joseph and all the coaching staff.
topscribe
08-31-2017, 07:57 PM
And he wasn't that effective sans one game before that, nor was he effective for the rest of the season sans one game. He wasn't that great looking in the entire offseason either.
He complete 14 long passes the entire year. Four of them occurred in one game. So I think you watched the starting QB of the Denver Broncos with a little bit too much love.
In regards to the injury, It was on his non-throwing arm. No one cares about injuries - Steve McNair, Donovan McNabb, Peyton Manning, Brett Favre: excuses are for people who need them. Apparently TS needs the excuses.
Your reference to his non-throwing arm shows you have never played quarterback, nor do you
know the physiology of the forward pass. The arm is just one major aspect of the motion. It
involves the whole body. And I guess you didn't hear about the surgery or see him walking
around for several months with his arm in a sling.
With some of you, I think a sprinter could break his leg, and when he couldn't run, you would
call it an excuse. Injuries do have an impact on an athlete's effectiveness, depending on the
nature of the injury.
But the reason it's not excuses to me is because Trevor played well for a rookie last season.
You seem to think that he played badly except for two games. As I look over the chart for last
year, I see a year that McNair, McNabb, or Manning didn't match in their first years, and only
Favre, among those you listed, had a comparable one. (Elway didn't have as good a first year,
either, BTW.) All those, incidentally, had a full college experience before joining the NFL. TS
essentially had one year.
But it just occurred to me; this is being debated into the ground. I had enough of that through
the Kyle Orton and Jake Plummer years. I'm backing out of this. I'm tired.
Not going to repost everything in here, but there is a whole thread on this. Take a look at his first year starting vs. Carr's for instance, that's pretty contemporary.
http://www.broncosforums.com/forums/showthread.php/606702-Comparing-Siemian-s-first-year-to-other-first-years-since-2007
He grades out favorably in that comparison.
He grades out horribly comparing his second year to Carr's second year. The closer to 'now' we get the worse TS does. That's horrifying.
He's up and down on some of those comparisons. And again, that's him as a second year player vs. true rookies, which is never going to be a fair comparison.
For passer rating - he's ahead of these good or solid QB's, Lucky, Carr, Dalton, and Newton. But, Dak, Cutler, Mariota, and Ryan are ahead of him. Newton and Luck were on worse teams than TS. Dalton had an average team, Carr had...I guess an average team? I wouldn't have said they were putrid. This is a mixed bag.
On yards he beats out Mariota (missed three games on a run heavy team), Flacco, and Carr. Flacco threw the ball about 20 times a game at most on Baltimore. He compares well to Carr.
In fact, he's beating out guys who were either horrid, more runners, conservative rookies, etc. He gets crushed by just about everyone else in front of him. This doesn't bode well.
On YPC, most of the guys below him are horrid - the notable exceptions are Luck, Dalton, Bradford, Carr, and Flacco and Stafford on the two win Lions. He's beaten out by Ryan, Wilson, Mariota, Newton, Dak, and Cutler.
This is one of the areas that I did feel decent about him on, though. So we're fine here.
YPG - let's talk about this. This is why I'm insistent in regards to comparing him to the more recent guys than the older veterans. The closer he gets to being compared to WInston, etc, the worse he does.
Compare him to the Stafford lions, one of the worst teams in recent memories, how does that make much sense? Or compare him to Mariota, who did not throw a lot as a rookie. He was seventh in YPC but so high in YPG because he average 34 attempts a game. Dak, in comparison averaged 28. Go ahead and compare the attempts per game and that'll give you the entire picture, and that picture isn't lovely.
His TD total wasn't bad, and it's worth noting that I misread Wentz TD total so TS does have him beat out there as well.
The INT total is nice, but it's still not 2-1.
With more context, TS looks less impressive in comparison.
Your reference to his non-throwing arm shows you have never played quarterback, nor do you
know the physiology of the forward pass. The arm is just one major aspect of the motion. It
involves the whole body. And I guess you didn't hear about the surgery or see him walking
around for several months with his arm in a sling.
With some of you, I think a sprinter could break his leg, and when he couldn't run, you would
call it an excuse. Injuries do have an impact on an athlete's effectiveness, depending on the
nature of the injury.
But the reason it's not excuses to me is because Trevor played well for a rookie last season.
You seem to think that he played badly except for two games. As I look over the chart for last
year, I see a year that McNair, McNabb, or Manning didn't match in their first years, and only
Favre, among those you listed, had a comparable one. (Elway didn't have as good a first year,
either, BTW.) All those, incidentally, had a full college experience before joining the NFL. TS
essentially had one year.
But it just occurred to me; this is being debated into the ground. I had enough of that through
the Kyle Orton and Jake Plummer years. I'm backing out of this. I'm tired.
I understand phyisology just fine - I think you under appreciate what a QB is expected to do, and overappreciate the injury. You can't compare a sprinter's leg to a non-throwing arm. You need the leg to sprint. The throwing arm isn't the arm that throws the ball, is less important.
You're now comparing the numbers that TS had last year, in 2017, to guys who played in the league as true rookies in the late 90's or early 2000's. That comparison is very flawed.
I'm not a Trevor fan and wanted Paxton to take the job. But, TS played with several (4 actually) broken bones in his shoulder. If that was you you'd be crying in the hospital for weeks and have your arm in a sling for months!
No big deal because it was his non-throwing shoulder that 300 lbs. DL slam into multiple times a game? No big deal that his arm was so injured they had to strap it to his side and inject him with all kinds of drugs so he could go out there and play.
Personally, I think he was stupid to let them send him out there with that kind of injury - but that's the culture of the NFL. Players are expected to play hurt. But, this was injured. Not hurt.
I don't particularly honor screwing up your body like that. I don't think it should be permitted. But he did something so painful I could never even think about it. For TS to be able to take the field at all was very surprising. He deserves a ton of credit there for being a true blue warrior for the Broncos.
And that is a big reason why they liked him so much. It shows in the attitude of Elway & Joseph and all the coaching staff.
I didn't know I was a QB for the Broncos! OH **** yes! Gimme the money!
I didn't say it was no big deal - I said that the expectations don't change because someone's hurt - it's football.
topscribe
08-31-2017, 08:11 PM
I understand phyisology just fine - I think you under appreciate what a QB is expected to do, and overappreciate the injury. You can't compare a sprinter's leg to a non-throwing arm. You need the leg to sprint. The throwing arm isn't the arm that throws the ball, is less important.
You're now comparing the numbers that TS had last year, in 2017, to guys who played in the league as true rookies in the late 90's or early 2000's. That comparison is very flawed.
Just one final comment: I played the position in college.
Well . . . played at the position. I wasn't very good. But I do appreciate it more than you think.
Just one final comment: I played the position in college.
Well . . . played at the position. I wasn't very good. But I do appreciate it more than you think.
Duly noted.
BroncoWave
08-31-2017, 08:18 PM
Just one final comment: I played the position in college.
Well . . . played at the position. I wasn't very good. But I do appreciate it more than you think.
Yeah but the forward pass hadn't even been invented yet, so can we really count that experience? :D
topscribe
08-31-2017, 08:21 PM
Yeah but the forward pass hadn't even been invented yet, so can we really count that experience? :D
Okay, Wave. Better to be a smartass than a dumbass, right? :D
Okay, Wave. Better to be a smartass than a dumbass, right? :D
My client refuses to answer this question!
topscribe
08-31-2017, 08:24 PM
My client refuses to answer this question!
Dictionary definition of "client" is one under your protection.
Sure you want to do that for Wave?
BroncoWave
08-31-2017, 08:24 PM
My client refuses to answer this question!
It doesn't fit, he must acquit!
Dictionary definition of "client" is one under your protection.
Sure you want to do that for Wave?
I'm two weeks into law school and I'm trying to build a client base! Top, why don't you want me to succeed? :(:(:(:(:(:(:(
topscribe
08-31-2017, 08:29 PM
I'm two weeks into law school and I'm trying to build a client base! Top, why don't you want me to succeed? :(:(:(:(:(:(:(
Just remember, I warned you. :coffee:
He grades out favorably in that comparison.
He grades out horribly comparing his second year to Carr's second year. The closer to 'now' we get the worse TS does. That's horrifying.
He's up and down on some of those comparisons. And again, that's him as a second year player vs. true rookies, which is never going to be a fair comparison.
For passer rating - he's ahead of these good or solid QB's, Lucky, Carr, Dalton, and Newton. But, Dak, Cutler, Mariota, and Ryan are ahead of him. Newton and Luck were on worse teams than TS. Dalton had an average team, Carr had...I guess an average team? I wouldn't have said they were putrid. This is a mixed bag.
On yards he beats out Mariota (missed three games on a run heavy team), Flacco, and Carr. Flacco threw the ball about 20 times a game at most on Baltimore. He compares well to Carr.
In fact, he's beating out guys who were either horrid, more runners, conservative rookies, etc. He gets crushed by just about everyone else in front of him. This doesn't bode well.
On YPC, most of the guys below him are horrid - the notable exceptions are Luck, Dalton, Bradford, Carr, and Flacco and Stafford on the two win Lions. He's beaten out by Ryan, Wilson, Mariota, Newton, Dak, and Cutler.
This is one of the areas that I did feel decent about him on, though. So we're fine here.
YPG - let's talk about this. This is why I'm insistent in regards to comparing him to the more recent guys than the older veterans. The closer he gets to being compared to WInston, etc, the worse he does.
Compare him to the Stafford lions, one of the worst teams in recent memories, how does that make much sense? Or compare him to Mariota, who did not throw a lot as a rookie. He was seventh in YPC but so high in YPG because he average 34 attempts a game. Dak, in comparison averaged 28. Go ahead and compare the attempts per game and that'll give you the entire picture, and that picture isn't lovely.
His TD total wasn't bad, and it's worth noting that I misread Wentz TD total so TS does have him beat out there as well.
The INT total is nice, but it's still not 2-1.
With more context, TS looks less impressive in comparison.
It's an even less fair comparison to compare a first year starter to a second year starter.
While I think you are reaching greatly on the claiming that anything past a year or two is a different era in terms of passing production (a case can be made for 15 years ago, maybe even 7 or so, but even that's a bit of a reach). When you are talking only a couple years back like Carr, who Siemian beats in nearly every category, no real case can be made for it being a different passing league/era. Anyway, here is how Siemian stacks up with the other four QBs that were first year starters last year or the year before.
The ranks listed are where each player compared to all first year starters of the last decade.
Passer Rating
Rank - Player Rate
2 - Dak Prescott 104.9
6 - Marcus Mariota 91.5
11 - Trevor Siemian 84.6
13 - Jameis Winston 84.2
18 - Carson Wentz 79.3
Yards
3 - Jameis Winston 4042
5 - Carson Wentz 3782
6 - Dak Prescott 3667
10 - Trevor Siemian 3401
23 - Marcus Mariota 2818
Yards per attempt
3 - Dak Prescott 7.99
7 - Marcus Mariota 7.62
8 - Jameis Winston 7.56
15 - Trevor Siemian 7
36 - Carson Wentz 6.23
Yards per game
Rank - Player Y/G
3 - Jameis Winston 252.6
4 - Trevor Siemian 242.9
6 - Carson Wentz 236.4
7 - Marcus Mariota 234.8
8 - Dak Prescott 229.2
Touchdowns
Rank - Player TD
5 - Dak Prescott 23
6 - Jameis Winston 22
12 - Marcus Mariota 19
14 - Trevor Siemian 18
17 - Carson Wentz 16
Interception %
Rank - Player Int%
2 - Dak Prescott 0.87
6 - Trevor Siemian 2.06
10 - Carson Wentz 2.31
19 - Marcus Mariota 2.7
21 - Jameis Winston 2.8
4th Quarter Comebacks
Rk - Player Year 4th QTR Comback
1 - Dak Prescott 2016 5
4 - Trevor Siemian 2016 3
11 - Jameis Winston 2015 2
14 - Marcus Mariota 2015 2
n/A - Carson Wentz 2016 0
300 Yard Games
Rk - Player 300 Yard Games
2 - Carson Wentz 4
3 - Trevor Siemian 3
9 - Dak Prescott 2
9 - Jameis Winston 2
9 - Marcus Mariota 2
Completion %
Rank - Player Cmp%
1 - Dak Prescott 67.76
9 - Carson Wentz 62.44
11 - Marcus Mariota 62.16
19 - Trevor Siemian 59.47
23 - Jameis Winston 58.32
Just remember, I warned you. :coffee:
Next year I'll be working in the domestic violence clinic, so there's that.
How is it less fair? They'd both have been in the league for two years. At least that's equal. Comparing a guy who got to sit and learn from PFM to a pure rookie is far more unfair.
I just pointed out some pretty big flaws with your numbers. If you want to act like they don't exist, that's fine.
How is it less fair? They'd both have been in the league for two years. At least that's equal. Comparing a guy who got to sit and learn from PFM to a pure rookie is far more unfair.
I just pointed out some pretty big flaws with your numbers. If you want to act like they don't exist, that's fine.
Because in the first start of Carr's second year, he came in with the experience of playing 16 regular season games, 657 regular season, on field snaps. In first start of Siemian's 2nd season, he had one regular season snap, which was a kneel down.
I think it's pretty evident why that's an unfair comparison.
As to the flaws, you really didn't point them out. In each category, you justified why he was above various groups of people, with different explanations to attempt to discredit his standing. I could come back with why each one of those was a cherry picked criticism, but instead, I'm just going with what you said was a more contemporary comparison.
The numbers speak for themselves, he's right there with the other recent first year starters, and as I said, in the top quarterly in nearly every key stat when compared to starters of the last decade.
As Top said, the numbers speak for themselves.
When we compare him to first year rookies who are close in age, he's losing out overall. As a second year guy. There's a reason why they compare rookies to rookies. This isn't baseball.
When we compare him to first year rookies who are close in age, he's losing out overall. As a second year guy. There's a reason why they compare rookies to rookies. This isn't baseball.
They compare first year starting QBs all the time in football, which is why the stat engines provide for that parameter.
Are you really going to claim that being third string, and only getting Scout team snaps in practice with one regular season kneel down snap provides for the same experience as staring 16 games and getting 657 regular season stats?
Meaning, that when Carr goes into start 17 with 657 regular season snaps of experience, then it's appropriate to compare that to Siemian's first start with 1 snap?
That it's an apples to apples comparison to compare Carr's 17th - 32nd start to Siemian's First to 16th (even though we know he only had 14 starts)?
Can you really continue to make that claim?
I Eat Staples
08-31-2017, 09:01 PM
I am definitely in the minority but I think it's ridiculous to be paying a linebacker 20 million a year, even more so for a team that most likely won't make the playoffs.
Von Miller? Barring serious injury I think he retires as one of the best defensive players of all time. He's worth every penny.
They compare first year starting QBs all the time in football, which is why the stat engines provide for that parameter.
Are you really going to claim that being third string, and only getting Scout team snaps in practice with one regular season kneel down snap provides for the same experience as staring 16 games and getting 657 regular season stats?
Meaning, that when Carr goes into start 17 with 657 regular season snaps of experience, then it's appropriate to compare that to Siemian's first start with 1 snap?
That it's an apples to apples comparison to compare Carr's 17th - 32nd start to Siemian's First to 16th (even though we know he only had 14 starts)?
Can you really continue to make that claim?
They compare rookies to rookies. They don't put up second year players who ate bench. Every 'rookie' record belongs to an actual rookie and not a first year starter. There's a reason.
I'm simply stating that being a third stringer, getting more snaps, and more time for theory and recognition, is something that definitely matters.
I'm comparing the entire first year and second year. BEcause I hate to say it, but going 'hey man, I got an entire year to watch pros and be on a pro team, get coaching by pro coaches, work with a pro playbook, etc, and now you have to compare yourself as a pure rookie to that' is just as unfair. It would be like if I got to sit in on law school classes for each class once a week and be gifted teh textbooks to read out of and then go into law school the next year. You can't handwaive it away.
When Carson Palmer ate bench his entire rookie year, the rest of the league did not compare year two, his first year starting, to rookies. Nor did they do that when first round QB's routinely ate bench as rookies, either. Neither comparison is fair. But when you boil it down, at least comparing the second year to second year, both guys were in the NFL for two years in some capacity. The fact that you're so horrified to do year two to year two is pretty telling.
topscribe
08-31-2017, 09:06 PM
They compare first year starting QBs all the time in football, which is why the stat engines provide for that parameter.
Are you really going to claim that being third string, and only getting Scout team snaps in practice with one regular season kneel down snap provides for the same experience as staring 16 games and getting 657 regular season stats?
Meaning, that when Carr goes into start 17 with 657 regular season snaps of experience, then it's appropriate to compare that to Siemian's first start with 1 snap?
That it's an apples to apples comparison to compare Carr's 17th - 32nd start to Siemian's First to 16th (even though we know he only had 14 starts)?
Can you really continue to make that claim?
Moreover, I've already pointed out that most of the other QBs played all through college,
whereas Trevor had scant experience even in college.
TS wasn't good enough to win his job in college. That's a horrible argument.
topscribe
08-31-2017, 09:13 PM
TS wasn't good enough to win his job in college. That's a horrible argument.
I was comparing his level of experience to the others. You are twisting the argument.
I was comparing his level of experience to the others. You are twisting the argument.
But why have to know why he doesn't have that experience. I'm testing the presupposition of the argument. It's very valid and encouraged!
They compare rookies to rookies. They don't put up second year players who ate bench. Every 'rookie' record belongs to an actual rookie and not a first year starter. There's a reason.
I'm simply stating that being a third stringer, getting more snaps, and more time for theory and recognition, is something that definitely matters.
I'm comparing the entire first year and second year. BEcause I hate to say it, but going 'hey man, I got an entire year to watch pros and be on a pro team, get coaching by pro coaches, work with a pro playbook, etc, and now you have to compare yourself as a pure rookie to that' is just as unfair. It would be like if I got to sit in on law school classes for each class once a week and be gifted teh textbooks to read out of and then go into law school the next year. You can't handwaive it away.
When Carson Palmer ate bench his entire rookie year, the rest of the league did not compare year two, his first year starting, to rookies. Nor did they do that when first round QB's routinely ate bench as rookies, either. Neither comparison is fair. But when you boil it down, at least comparing the second year to second year, both guys were in the NFL for two years in some capacity. The fact that you're so horrified to do year two to year two is pretty telling.
You kind of glossed over this and didn't directly respond to it.
Meaning, that when Carr goes into start 17 with 657 regular season snaps of experience, then it's appropriate to compare that to Siemian's first start with 1 snap?
That it's an apples to apples comparison to compare Carr's 17th - 32nd start to Siemian's First to 16th (even though we know he only had 14 starts)?
Can you really continue to make that claim?
topscribe
08-31-2017, 09:20 PM
But why have to know why he doesn't have that experience. I'm testing the presupposition of the argument. It's very valid and encouraged!
You were pointing out that Trevor was actually in his second year because he learned at Peyton's
feet. So he was in his second year, according to your presupposition, when the others were rookies.
That in itself is a horrible argument because experience comes from playing, not watching. But I
didn't take that up. I just pointed out that if the experience comparison as a pro wasn't fair, some
of it, at least, was neutralized because the others had many times more college experience than
did Trevor. The relative quality of play is a different issue. We're talking about experience here.
I didn't gloss over anything. In that scenario, they would have had at least a year in the NFL, albeit differently in circumstance. That's still fairer than going "my first year after being in the league for a year, i.e. two years, vs. your one).
You were pointing out that Trevor was actually in his second year because he learned at Peyton's
feet. So he was in his second year, according to your presupposition, when the others were rookies.
That in itself is a horrible argument because experience comes from playing, not watching. But I
didn't take that up. I just pointed out that if the experience comparison as a pro wasn't fair, some
of it, at least, was neutralized because the others had many times more college experience than
did Trevor. The relative quality of play is a different issue. We're talking about experience here.
Experience comes from experience. Practicing, studying, and getting coaching all matters. We can say it doesn't, but it does.
topscribe
08-31-2017, 09:22 PM
Experience comes from experience. Practicing, studying, and getting coaching all matters. We can say it doesn't, but it does.
King, you obviously have never played. Experience comes from reps. That also is not debatable.
King, you obviously have never played. Experience comes from reps. That also is not debatable.
And you get reps in practice. This is why they split the reps in the preseason with the first teams. There's not just one way or learning.
TS wasn't good enough to win his job in college. That's a horrible argument.
Not really, they had a very bad offensive line and his coach talked about how they couldn't protect a pocket passer, so ran them as a platoon, normally running the QB with the athletic running QB, and when they fell behind, putting Siemian in to try and pass them back into contention.
Not really, they had a very bad offensive line and his coach talked about how they couldn't protect a pocket passer, so ran them as a platoon, normally running the QB with the athletic running QB, and when they fell behind, putting Siemian in to try and pass them back into contention.
If he was good enough they'd have put him in there full time. Great college players can do that because they're great. It doesn't work that well in the pros, but it does in college. You just gave us another example as to how limited he is.
And you get reps in practice. This is why they split the reps in the preseason with the first teams. There's not just one way or learning.
So, you're saying that in Siemian's rookie year, he, Manning and Osweiler split first team reps? How many first team reps did Siemian get in that first preseason, where he impressed Kubiak and Elway enough to keep him as the third QBs?
If he was good enough they'd have put him in there full time. Great college players can do that because they're great. It doesn't work that well in the pros, but it does in college. You just gave us another example as to how limited he is.
“We knew from day one Trevor had the skills. He’s always had a big arm and been a cerebral guy. We were never able to protect him long enough and put some weapons around him that would allow him to succeed.” Jacob Schmidt, a former teammate of Siemian’s and now the director of player development for Northwestern football.
I Eat Staples
08-31-2017, 09:32 PM
In Siemian's one year as a full-time starter at Northwestern, he wasn't even a top 10 QB...in his own conference.
“We knew from day one Trevor had the skills. He’s always had a big arm and been a cerebral guy. We were never able to protect him long enough and put some weapons around him that would allow him to succeed.” Jacob Schmidt, a former teammate of Siemian’s and now the director of player development for Northwestern football.
This isn't true. Almost every report on him from the draft said at best he had an above average arm. I know this because I produced those links time and time again. He doesn't have a big arm, he has an arm that might be above average. And he still struggles with deep throws and he still struggles with outs. Literally every last benefit of the doubt has to be given to the guy. I don't do that for players. They have to earn it.
topscribe
08-31-2017, 09:33 PM
If he was good enough they'd have put him in there full time. Great college players can do that because they're great. It doesn't work that well in the pros, but it does in college. You just gave us another example as to how limited he is.
King, you are the master of oversimplification.
At least, you're good at something. :D
King, you are the master of oversimplification.
At least, you're good at something. :D
I'm actually giving a lot of nuance. You don't have to be mean, Top. I'm nice to everyone on the board.
topscribe
08-31-2017, 09:34 PM
In Siemian's one year as a full-time starter at Northwestern, he wasn't even a top 10 QB...in his own conference.
One year (actually, not even that). That is the key . . .
topscribe
08-31-2017, 09:35 PM
I'm actually giving a lot of nuance. You don't have to be mean, Top. I'm nice to everyone on the board.
I am being nice. You haven't seen me mean. :wink:
I am being nice. You haven't seen me mean. :wink:
Well, I convinced a few people that I was smart, so I guess I have that, Top. I'll go back to briefing cases in solitude. I can tell where I am wanted. So long, Top.
Al Wilson 4 Mayor
08-31-2017, 09:38 PM
I'm two weeks into law school and I'm trying to build a client base! Top, why don't you want me to succeed? :(:(:(:(:(:(:(
Can I sue Tom Brady for giving me anxiety? It's real dude.
This isn't true. Almost every report on him from the draft said at best he had an above average arm. I know this because I produced those links time and time again. He doesn't have a big arm, he has an arm that might be above average. And he still struggles with deep throws and he still struggles with outs. Literally every last benefit of the doubt has to be given to the guy. I don't do that for players. They have to earn it.
Well, Kubiak seemed to disagree with you on that arm, since he said it was the reason they drafted him.
topscribe
08-31-2017, 09:43 PM
Well, I convinced a few people that I was smart, so I guess I have that, Top. I'll go back to briefing cases in solitude. I can tell where I am wanted. So long, Top.
You're wanted, King. Hope you were kidding. I was. :)
weazel
09-01-2017, 09:11 AM
it all depends if they can run the ball, if it's the same production we've seen the last couple years than this team is going to be below .500
it all depends if they can run the ball, if it's the same production we've seen the last couple years than this team is going to be below .500
I mostly agree with you, but not all in. I agree that if we aren't running the ball much better, then it's going to be a massive struggle, but with McCoy, the team has a fighting chance to switch to a shotgun, spread type scheme, including runs here and there from shotgun to keep them honest. But, in the end, it will really come down to how the defense plays that if the running game sucks will determine if it's a .500 team of 10 win team.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.4 Release Candidate 2 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.