Thread: The Future Is Elway

Originally Posted by PatriotsGuy

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

Whatever

Originally Posted by slim

Whatever

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

Originally Posted by slim

Whatever

Slim's spirit animal.

Originally Posted by Rick

I like how when comparing our guys, some are comparing them and saying"can you expect that they turn into a Brandy, a Wilson, a Prescott"...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Cugel

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

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

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

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

Why is the game against Atlanta Lynch's litmus test? It seems short sighted given Atlanta has turned out to be one of the best teams in the NFL.

Originally Posted by Cugel

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

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

Originally Posted by Hawgdriver

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

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

Originally Posted by Hawgdriver

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

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

Originally Posted by Nomad

Why is the game against Atlanta Lynch's litmus test? It seems short sighted given Atlanta has turned out to be one of the best teams in the NFL.

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Al Wilson 4 Mayor

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

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

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

Two points:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Nomad

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

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

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

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

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

I dont think anyone can say Siemian is not the answer considering he really has little experience. And BTW, compare his first year to Brady and Peyton.

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



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