Thread: My 2cents on the QB competition.

Originally Posted by WARHORSE

Lynch looked terrific to me when you take in all the factors.

Doesnt play under center.
Didnt play in a pro offense.
Didnt run a huddle.
Didnt have to call sophisticated plays in the huddle.
A rookie.
Brand new offense.
Brand new terminology.
Pressure of being a first round pick traded up for.
First time under live fire.
Not working with the first team.
Etc. Etc.


Dont tell me he cant play simply because hes a rookie.

Anyone heard of Ben Roethlisberger?
With a stud defense, the rookie, if he keeps making strides, may end up being the best man for the job. His ability jumps off the tv screen.
The arm, the mobility, the calm, the touch, the command......did I say arm?

I was very surprised to see him play under center with that amount of ease. I was very encouraged.

No need to rush him. Not saying he needs to start. But please dont tell me that simply because hes a rookie he cant play game 1.

LOTS of rookie nfl QBs start on game one.

Im hyper enthused about Lynch. So far......hes lookin like a mighty good decision.

Yeah, so far so good. I think you hit on what I would rather happen if Sanchez is not going to be the guy. I would rather have Lynch in there. I know the risk (and it is significant) that you may destroy his confidence if he is shoved in there too soon. That is significant and it is something to consider.

Like you said though, he is very protected by the great defense. He essentially would not be asked to score 30 points per game. He has the skill to run that stretch run since he has the skill to run keepers and bootlegs.

I just do not think it is in the plans. To me Siemian makes it confusing. Like someone said, you go with the best QB. Well, I like Siemian, but I have not seen anything that overwhelming about him.

IMO, unless he is overwhelming, then it needs to be either Sanchez or Lynch.

Originally Posted by Mike

You go with the best QB and worry about tomorrow, tomorrow.

Sanchez wasn't bad, but Siemian was more consistent, has a better arm, and protects the ball better.

Not according to his last year actually starting for Northwestern.

Considering Sanchez throws as many interceptions as touchdowns historically what I expect is a little bit of everything from Sanchez, pretty much what we saw last night. But you choose the experienced guy because he should be better at protecting the rock. Whether you blame Sanchez for the interception last night or not, it's on his stats.

So if Siemian proves he can take care of the football in preseason it's a clear advantage for him. He has the arm and the familiarity with the offense and I think he's make a good starer. Lynch had a little more zip on the ball, and I like what I'm seeing, maybe hes ready after the bye.

Originally Posted by BroncoTech

Considering Sanchez throws as many interceptions as touchdowns historically what I expect is a little bit of everything from Sanchez, pretty much what we saw last night. But you choose the experienced guy because he should be better at protecting the rock. Whether you blame Sanchez for the interception last night or not, it's on his stats.

So if Siemian proves he can take care of the football in preseason it's a clear advantage for him. He has the arm and the familiarity with the offense and I think he's make a good starer. Lynch had a little more zip on the ball, and I like what I'm seeing, maybe hes ready after the bye.

A few things to consider when it comes to Sanchez's INT/TD ratio. Let us look at the success of certain QBs with Kubiak as opposed to what they did elsewhere. Case in point Jake Plummer.

Jake Plummer in Arizona showed flashes, but he was an INT machine. Research those stats with the Cardinals then with Kubiak.

http://www.pro-football-reference.co...P/PlumJa00.htm

In his third season he threw 9 TDs and 24 INTs. Read that again. In only one out of the six seasons did he throw more TDs than INTs. Pretty awful. Then with a running game and Kubiak utilizing his significant skills as a bootleg/keeper QB, he all of a sudden thrived.

Same with Brian Griese. In 2000 Griese threw 19 TDs to only 3 INTs. He was not productive at all wherever else he had been.

I say all of that just to remind that Kubiak's system is very QB friendly. Elway knows exactly the skill set he is looking for and Sanchez has that. Not saying he is going to be a legend or anything, but I am confident that he can flourish with Kubes.

Originally Posted by Broncoknight30

Yeah, so far so good. I think you hit on what I would rather happen if Sanchez is not going to be the guy. I would rather have Lynch in there. I know the risk (and it is significant) that you may destroy his confidence if he is shoved in there too soon. That is significant and it is something to consider.

Like you said though, he is very protected by the great defense. He essentially would not be asked to score 30 points per game. He has the skill to run that stretch run since he has the skill to run keepers and bootlegs.

I just do not think it is in the plans. To me Siemian makes it confusing. Like someone said, you go with the best QB. Well, I like Siemian, but I have not seen anything that overwhelming about him.

IMO, unless he is overwhelming, then it needs to be either Sanchez or Lynch.

I can see that.

For me though, out of the three, Lynch passes the eye test best. I just saw the ball coming out on time and quickly. He showed confidence. He moved well......very well.

The guy is fast too.

I just loved what I saw considering everything.

Sanchez passed the eye test too.........until the int. sigh

Originally Posted by VonDoom

I've been saying this for a while now. I think we all think Lynch has the talent to be the QB of this team for many years, but I don't really want to see him in there right now. I'd rather he get in all the scout team work that he can and learn the system from the ground up. Throwing him out there too early is too risky for me.

Still struggling to find an argument against this. Something better than an impatient child hunting for the place mom and dad hid his Christmas presents, so he can play with them early. If you break your expensive new toy before Thanksgiving Mr. Elway won't buy you another.

Until unless our multi-season refrain of "our line sucks SO bad" ends, I don't want Lynch on the field. Our blockers can't give him the protection to throw 5 TDs/week or the run support to make that unnecessary. If people think Sanchez is scared of his own shadow, try throwing a raw rookie QB to the wolves behind our Swiss cheese line. I mean, at least let him learn the offense, or, I dunno, HIS TEAMMATES NAMES before expecting him to fill Manning and Elways shoes.

Originally Posted by VonDoom

For what it's worth, I still maintain that Sanchez starts opening night, but I hope Siemian gets a chance with the first time next week to see if he can win the job.

Works for me. I feel guilty saying it, but the harsh truth is that if our line gets either or even both of them beaten to a pulp we've lost little. Everyone starts as a rookie, so developing a green line OR green QB is inevitable for every team: But there's no reason to do BOTH at once, and many reasons to avoid that.

Originally Posted by Broncoknight30

A few things to consider when it comes to Sanchez's INT/TD ratio. Let us look at the success of certain QBs with Kubiak as opposed to what they did elsewhere. Case in point Jake Plummer.

Jake Plummer in Arizona showed flashes, but he was an INT machine. Research those stats with the Cardinals then with Kubiak.

http://www.pro-football-reference.co...P/PlumJa00.htm

In his third season he threw 9 TDs and 24 INTs. Read that again. In only one out of the six seasons did he throw more TDs than INTs. Pretty awful. Then with a running game and Kubiak utilizing his significant skills as a bootleg/keeper QB, he all of a sudden thrived.

Same with Brian Griese. In 2000 Griese threw 19 TDs to only 3 INTs. He was not productive at all wherever else he had been.

I say all of that just to remind that Kubiak's system is very QB friendly. Elway knows exactly the skill set he is looking for and Sanchez has that. Not saying he is going to be a legend or anything, but I am confident that he can flourish with Kubes.

Sure; as previously discussed, our former NFL backup QB turned QB coach turned HC knows how to get the utmost from any QB. That's how rookie 5th rounder TJ Yates got his first and probably FINAL playoff win. But look at ALL of Griese, Plummer and journeyman turned two-time Pro Bowler Matt Schaubs time with Kubiak: Schaub did the most the longest, but even that ended so badly it got both him AND Kubiak fired. Why'd we get Plummer in the first place? Answer: Because Shanny and Kubes couldn't carry Griese to a second Pro Bowl.

When the QB's just a flat out BUM even Kubiak can't do more than play Three Card Monte with NFL defenses until they have enough tape of the tricks to know all the QBs many crippling disabilities his coach tried to hide for good reason. Then they just take away the few things he does well and force him to do the many things he does poorly. It varies by bum; Griese was a statue helpless outside the pocket, Plummer a sandlot QB helpless INside the pocket, but the net effect's a constant: Abilities so few and narrow that when defenses identify and target them as precisely as Kubiak the only question left is how often our opponents beat the spread.

The biggest lesson from Plummer is probably that even a physically gifted QB can be ruined by demanding a rookie single-handedly lead a bad offense to victory against all the top NFL teams. By the time he got to Denver panic had become a reflex action: He was always uncomfortable and awkward (and looked it) trying to play a DISCIPLINED game with a TALENTED offense because he'd never HAD one long enough to learn HOW.

Let's not do that to Lynch, m'k?

Originally Posted by Joel

Still struggling to find an argument against this. Something better than an impatient child hunting for the place mom and dad hid his Christmas presents, so he can play with them early. If you break your expensive new toy before Thanksgiving Mr. Elway won't buy you another.

Until unless our multi-season refrain of "our line sucks SO bad" ends, I don't want Lynch on the field. Our blockers can't give him the protection to throw 5 TDs/week or the run support to make that unnecessary. If people think Sanchez is scared of his own shadow, try throwing a raw rookie QB to the wolves behind our Swiss cheese line. I mean, at least let him learn the offense, or, I dunno, HIS TEAMMATES NAMES before expecting him to fill Manning and Elways shoes.


Works for me. I feel guilty saying it, but the harsh truth is that if our line gets either or even both of them beaten to a pulp we've lost little. Everyone starts as a rookie, so developing a green line OR green QB is inevitable for every team: But there's no reason to do BOTH at once, and many reasons to avoid that.

You're the only one who chants unceasingly the line sucks.

This week didn't change my mind about anything. Sanchez moved the offense against Chicago's first team defense (a John Fox defense, no less) and, after the first TD, had nothing to prove on the night. He adjusted to the fact that he was getting pass rush pressure and lofted throws more than zipped throws. He's a solid professional that will make a great back-up when the time comes. He also showed mobility on rollouts which looked so much smoother than either Manning or Ostrich trying to run them.

Lynch, everyone agrees, is the future. Transitioning to Lynch will come in one of three points, barring injury:

Point one: After 10/13 Thurs. nite game at San Diego, giving Lynch extra time to work with the first team offense. This happens if either Sanchez sucks or the Broncos have been losing.

Point two: The bye week after Week 10. A natural point in the season for coaches to switch #1 quarterbacks. If Broncos are playing well with Sanchez or are close to wrapping up a playoff berth, you could see Kubiak unwilling to make a change for change sake.

Point three: At season's end.

At one of those three points, Lynch takes over. Early in the season, it will be Sanchez, Simien and Lynch. By mid-season, it will be Sanchez, Lynch and Simien. Whenever Lynch takes over, it will be Lynch, Sanchez and Simien. Finally, in 2017, it will be Lynch and Simien.

I don't know Hoof. If Sanchez is playing well I can't see him arbitrarily removing him as the starting quarterback if he's playing well and the team is winning. It's one thing to be Peyton Manning and playing horribly while the team is winning and being Mark Sanchez in the same circumstances.

The only circumstances I could see Kubiak pulling Sanchez or Siemian is injury, poor preformance, or the team isn't going to make the playoffs.

Originally Posted by TXBRONC

You're the only one who chants unceasingly the line sucks.

That's never been true, but for two years the whole NFL's been chanting. That wasn't me bashing our line on national TV, it was Mark Schlereth; even that pollyanna John Fox eventually had a press conference where he admitted our line needed improvement. Two years later we don't even know who half the starters are.

Who in their right mind would send a raw rookie QB out behind THAT kind of "protection," with that kind of run "support"?!

Originally Posted by TXBRONC

I don't know Hoof. If Sanchez is playing well I can't see him arbitrarily removing him as the starting quarterback if he's playing well and the team is winning. It's one thing to be Peyton Manning and playing horribly while the team is winning and being Mark Sanchez in the same circumstances.

The only circumstances I could see Kubiak pulling Sanchez or Siemian is injury, poor preformance, or the team isn't going to make the playoffs.

How is either of those last two scenarios an argument for starting Lynch?

We just won the SB; Elway and Kubiak won't be fired for failing to IMMEDIATELY win another, nor even missing the playoffs. Their jobs are safe unless we're consistently awful for 3-4+ years; permanently crippling Lynch right out of the gate is the "best" way to make that happen.

Let the rookie learn the trivial things like the playbook, the NFL and his teammates names while we find him some blocking worthy of the name. At least if he fails with all of that we'll be able to easily identify the problem and move on to finding its solution, instead of guessing whether it's the QB, the blocking or both.

Originally Posted by BroncoTech

Considering Sanchez throws as many interceptions as touchdowns historically what I expect is a little bit of everything from Sanchez, pretty much what we saw last night. But you choose the experienced guy because he should be better at protecting the rock. Whether you blame Sanchez for the interception last night or not, it's on his stats.

So if Siemian proves he can take care of the football in preseason it's a clear advantage for him. He has the arm and the familiarity with the offense and I think he's make a good starer. Lynch had a little more zip on the ball, and I like what I'm seeing, maybe hes ready after the bye.

Siemian had a sure Int hit the ground when the CB didn't even see it go by, threw behind Fowler on a slant.

Also had Latimer down the seam for a TD but checked down to Booker instead.

Last year the plan was "Peyton is our starter unless he's injured but eventually we want to give our QOTF (Osweiler) sufficient playing time to determine if he's our starter in 2016."

This year the plan is "Sanchez is our starter unless he's injured but eventually we want to give our QOTF (Lynch) sufficient playing time to make him our starter in 2017."

Just like last year, they will juggle that need with winning the division and securing a playoff berth. I expect we'll be nose-to-nose with KC in the division standings most of the year. Oakland needs another year to gel while SD is in decline and can't even decide where their home city is or how to get their first-round pick signed.

If the season goes exceedingly well or exceedingly poorly, I expect Lynch to make some starts late in the year. However, if we *need* a win that week and he's both healthy and productive, they'll be starting Sanchez.

Then again, Dan Marino took over in Week 6 of his rookie season and the Dolphins didn't look back for 17 years.

Originally Posted by OrangeHoof

Last year the plan was "Peyton is our starter unless he's injured but eventually we want to give our QOTF (Osweiler) sufficient playing time to determine if he's our starter in 2016."

This year the plan is "Sanchez is our starter unless he's injured but eventually we want to give our QOTF (Lynch) sufficient playing time to make him our starter in 2017."

Just like last year, they will juggle that need with winning the division and securing a playoff berth. I expect we'll be nose-to-nose with KC in the division standings most of the year. Oakland needs another year to gel while SD is in decline and can't even decide where their home city is or how to get their first-round pick signed.

If the season goes exceedingly well or exceedingly poorly, I expect Lynch to make some starts late in the year. However, if we *need* a win that week and he's both healthy and productive, they'll be starting Sanchez.

Then again, Dan Marino took over in Week 6 of his rookie season and the Dolphins didn't look back for 17 years.

Osweiler doesn't start if Manning is healthy. Even so Kubiak maintained that Manning would start when he was healthy.

If Denver is in dog fight for the division I don't see how Lynch will go on the field barring injury or poor play by whomever is the starter at the time.

I remember when Marino became the startering quarterback. He became the starter because David Woodley was terrible.

Originally Posted by Joel

That's never been true, but for two years the whole NFL's been chanting. That wasn't me bashing our line on national TV, it was Mark Schlereth; even that pollyanna John Fox eventually had a press conference where he admitted our line needed improvement. Two years later we don't even know who half the starters are.

Who in their right mind would send a raw rookie QB out behind THAT kind of "protection," with that kind of run "support"?!


How is either of those last two scenarios an argument for starting Lynch?

We just won the SB; Elway and Kubiak won't be fired for failing to IMMEDIATELY win another, nor even missing the playoffs. Their jobs are safe unless we're consistently awful for 3-4+ years; permanently crippling Lynch right out of the gate is the "best" way to make that happen.

Let the rookie learn the trivial things like the playbook, the NFL and his teammates names while we find him some blocking worthy of the name. At least if he fails with all of that we'll be able to easily identify the problem and move on to finding its solution, instead of guessing whether it's the QB, the blocking or both.

No team is going to make decisions based on the pissy attitude of know-it-all fans or the national media. Quite honestly you don't what line will be like this year. I understand you think you know it all better than Elway and Kubiak but quite honestly you don't.

What I had to say to Hoof didn't have anything to do with offensive line. You never get it. This team is very good I know it bugs the shit out you but facts are facts Denver is good enough to win with a rookie quarterback at the helm if need be. If Denver run the consistently which I expect they will then there is no reason Lynch couldn't handle the job.