Thread: Good-Bye Sanchez

Originally Posted by Dzone

Nobody puts himself down better in postgame interviews than Mark Sanchez.

I liked his candor. It was un-Sam Bradford-like.

He's not a bad dude, he's just not a very good NFL QB. He's still very, very rich though so there's that.

I don't find much reason to celebrate his exit, should it occur per se. I don't get the impression he's a slug not making an effort, he just can't do the job well.

Originally Posted by BroncoWave

Definitely seems like Siemian has the inside track to start week 1 unless he really shits the bed this weekened. I don't think we'll cut Sanchez though. We still need a veteran backup, and better him than someone who would come in not knowing the system or any of our WRs.

This is where I'm at. I said in the game thread sometime after the second fumble that Sanchez was playing himself out of a job, and it sure seems like that's what's happening. He would be the odd man out, because I assume Kubiak wants Siemian to have a chance for at least part of the season and if he's tanking and Lynch looks better in practice every week, he would be the guy to go to, not Sanchez.

That being said, I agree with Wave. First, if Siemian were to get injured and Lynch ISN'T ready, we're back to square one. Any QB that comes in now would have to have time to learn the system and I don't really see them being better than Sanchez. $4.5 million is a perfectly reasonable amount to spend on a veteran backup QB, which is what Sanchez was when we traded for him. He seems like a good guy, and he's probably good to have around in the locker room, even if the biggest role he plays this year is mentor.

Originally Posted by BroncoWave

We would almost definitely trade Siemian, unless he plays at a Pro Bowl level. We used a first rounder on Lynch for him to be the future. Siemain would have to really surpass everyone's wildest expectations for us to keep him and get rid of Lynch.

I think the better Siemian plays the more likely it is you get rid of him, otherwise you're looking at paying Top 5 QB money for Sam Bradford with the way the QB market is so obscenely perverted.

Siemian is TJ Yates with a better arm, Kubiak gets a boner out of pets like this, but they come with diminishing returns.

I really like Sanchez. He owns his mistakes and has the leadership qualities you want to have at QB. The problem is he isn't a good QB. All I was hoping to see from him is to be a game manager. If you can't at LEAST do that PLUS turn the ball over then I don't see you lasting long here in Denver.

Hopefully Siemian doesn't do what he did last week on a consistent basis. QBs are going to get turnovers in this league. It's just going to happen whether we like it or not but they have to minimize those mistakes. Legwold is already saying the Broncos will start Trevor next week so he'll at least get another shot.

Didn't Big Ben and Russell Wilson start their rookie years? If Goff and Wentz get thrown into the fire then what's stopping us from giving Lynch a shot? Mentally he is no Ryan Leaf....so I think he can handle it. He's a big dude that can toss around defenders like ragdolls, has a canon arm and I believe Lynch will be just fine.

Originally Posted by VonDoom

This is where I'm at. I said in the game thread sometime after the second fumble that Sanchez was playing himself out of a job, and it sure seems like that's what's happening. He would be the odd man out, because I assume Kubiak wants Siemian to have a chance for at least part of the season and if he's tanking and Lynch looks better in practice every week, he would be the guy to go to, not Sanchez.

That being said, I agree with Wave. First, if Siemian were to get injured and Lynch ISN'T ready, we're back to square one. Any QB that comes in now would have to have time to learn the system and I don't really see them being better than Sanchez. $4.5 million is a perfectly reasonable amount to spend on a veteran backup QB, which is what Sanchez was when we traded for him. He seems like a good guy, and he's probably good to have around in the locker room, even if the biggest role he plays this year is mentor.

If Christian Ponder is released by the 49ers which seems highly likely Denver could pick him up. Since he did have brief stay in Denver before it wouldn't be quite back to square one. Ultimately it's Elway's decision to make but if Kubiak isn't comfortable with letting Sanchez then I doubt Elway would send Sanchez packing.

And he's single. A lot of chicks will take a millionaire QB who wets the bed when pass rush is on.

What happens when he's starting?

Tebow Time.

Originally Posted by ShaneFalco

Tebow Time.

This is "Broncos Talk," not "MLB"

Originally Posted by Al Wilson 4 Mayor

I don't see us rolling with 2 qb's with no game experience

Fer reals, and I couldn't get behind the idea of throwing Lynch to the wolves when we KNOW our line's bad even if Kubiak hadn't pretty much said he doesn't like that idea either. If we weren't in "Win NOW1eleven1" mode before winning a SB, why on Earth should we be there as reigning world champs?

Originally Posted by VonDoom

That being said, I agree with Wave. First, if Siemian were to get injured and Lynch ISN'T ready, we're back to square one. Any QB that comes in now would have to have time to learn the system and I don't really see them being better than Sanchez. $4.5 million is a perfectly reasonable amount to spend on a veteran backup QB, which is what Sanchez was when we traded for him. He seems like a good guy, and he's probably good to have around in the locker room, even if the biggest role he plays this year is mentor.

All good points, but especially the monetary one: $4.5M with NO dead money in 2017 is peanuts for any vet starter, but a guy who's won PLAYOFF games against the likes of Manning and Brady? Many very good QBs can't say they've beaten both in January (ask Philip Rivers—whom Sanchez ALSO beat in the playoffs.) Sure, we can say (with more than ample fairness) that was more Sanchez' D than Sanchez, but: Have you looked at our roster?

Originally Posted by MOtorboat

What happens when he's starting?

The exact same thing that will happen if he's starter we roll with it. That said, if he was going to be the starter why Siemian going to start game three?

Grow some balls and start Paxton Lynch. Lean on the D and coach him up, hell come olong fine and most likely surprise. Dude already has the best arm since Cutler and the best mobility since a young Elway. He can't play any worse than Manning did(at least in the regular season)

Originally Posted by atwater27

Grow some balls and start Paxton Lynch. Lean on the D and coach him up, hell come olong fine and most likely surprise. Dude already has the best arm since Cutler and the best mobility since a young Elway. He can't play any worse than Manning did(at least in the regular season)

I don't think he will start in September. I have a feeling that they will give Siemian the ball next month, and Sanchez will be cut.

However, in October, Lynch may be making his debut, and I think he will do fine.

In April, Mike Evans (on 104.3 The Fan) was leery of taking Lynch, thinking it would be a reach, and comparing it to the 2011 fail drafts of Locker, Gabbert, and Ponder. However, that is a bad comparison.

Lynch was taken right where he should have been, and those guys were severe reaches. Locker and Gabbert should have been taken in the late second to early third round, and Ponder should have been a fifth-rounder (Tyrod Taylor should have been taken ahead of him). Lynch is a better QB than those guys (and he is better than anyone that came out in 2011 not named Cam Newton).

Originally Posted by atwater27

Grow some balls and start Paxton Lynch. Lean on the D and coach him up, hell come olong fine and most likely surprise. Dude already has the best arm since Cutler and the best mobility since a young Elway. He can't play any worse than Manning did(at least in the regular season)

This is where I'm at. Let the rookie play and learn from mistakes. If one of our QB's is going to throw 20 interceptions, I prefer it be the guy that is projected to actually be here 5 years from now, so that he can learn and develop sooner rather than later.

You can ruin a rookie just as easily as you can 'groom' him by throwing him to the wolves.