Thread: Comparing Siemian's first year to other first years since 2007

Kudos on all the work that you put into this, Tned. I love me some stats and research.

This will be an interesting year. I'm not as high on Trevor as you are, but I liked what I saw last year and I said after the season that he could be a good QB. He won this job, again, and hopefully the offense around him has improved enough that it will lift him up by default.

QB stats are funny, though. Look at that passer rating list. I mean, what a year for Foles, right? You never know how it's going to play out, but I feel much more comfortable with Siemian as he is right now than I would have if they had tried to force feed us Lynch because measurables.

Originally Posted by BroncoWave

No QB with Lynch's physical toolset would ever go in the 7th round. He has all the tools to be a great QB. Scouts will take the chance every single time that they can grab a raw specimen and coach up the rest.

That's dumb. He obviously does not have all the tools or he would be starting. He has a strong arm, height, and good mobility for a big guy. Obvious physical traits and it seems to stop there.

The scouting process just isn't that good. You are making excuses for a flawed system capable of improvement.

With hindsight, where do you draft Jamarcus Russell? Why is foresight so inadequate compared to hindsight? Rather than throw up our hands and say it's complicated, it's a crapshoot--how about we improve the science?

Originally Posted by BroncoWave

No QB with Lynch's physical toolset would ever go in the 7th round. He has all the tools to be a great QB. Scouts will take the chance every single time that they can grab a raw specimen and coach up the rest.

The two most important attributes for a QB IMHO are IQ and accuracy, Lynch has neither.

Question is sophomore slump? Or will 1 year of tape affect his game since coaches can better prepare for him?

Stats comparing QBs is nice but the biggest factor in if they fail or not is being able to, learn from mistakes and grow as a QB. Some of the all time greats had bad 1st years but got better and better as time went on.

Originally Posted by Freyaka

That's kind of the point though Wave. It's too early to write the book on him. He could still end up a crappy QB, but he could end up much better than expected. Everyone assumes they know exactly how far he can climb and no further, but he's comparable to both good and bad QB's. He literally looked like a first year starter last year and that isn't a bad thing necessarily.

This is it in a nutshell. Rice and Mason were talking about this on 760 yesterday afternoon, which is the total lack of basis for the belief that so many have that what we saw last year was the best it will ever get from Siemian. That he won't grow in his second year, and third year, just like you would expect from first and second round picks, like those listed in the stats above.

For some reason, because he was a seventh round pick, the narrative has been written that what we saw is the best it will ever be.

Originally Posted by VonDoom

Kudos on all the work that you put into this, Tned. I love me some stats and research.

This will be an interesting year. I'm not as high on Trevor as you are, but I liked what I saw last year and I said after the season that he could be a good QB. He won this job, again, and hopefully the offense around him has improved enough that it will lift him up by default.

QB stats are funny, though. Look at that passer rating list. I mean, what a year for Foles, right? You never know how it's going to play out, but I feel much more comfortable with Siemian as he is right now than I would have if they had tried to force feed us Lynch because measurables.

The Cassel effect. He got a lot of money from what good year in a good system and a team got burned. So, yes, a good statistical year does not tell the whole story.

Originally Posted by NightTerror218

Question is sophomore slump? Or will 1 year of tape affect his game since coaches can better prepare for him?

Stats comparing QBs is nice but the biggest factor in if they fail or not is being able to, learn from mistakes and grow as a QB. Some of the all time greats had bad 1st years but got better and better as time went on.

Fully agreed.

Originally Posted by chazoe60

The two most important attributes for a QB IMHO are IQ and accuracy, Lynch has neither.

AKA Brady and Manning before the body wore out.

Originally Posted by Tned

This is it in a nutshell. Rice and Mason were talking about this on 760 yesterday afternoon, which is the total lack of basis for the belief that so many have that what we saw last year was the best it will ever get from Siemian. That he won't grow in his second year, and third year, just like you would expect from first and second round picks, like those listed in the stats above.

For some reason, because he was a seventh round pick, the narrative has been written that what we saw is the best it will ever be.

Heck it might take a few years. Tom Brady didn't turn into an offensive juggernaut until several years into his career. Needed the right elements and the right offense.

The idea that he has a low ceiling is stupid. How the hell does anyone know that. These guys would have given up on Rodgers since he hadn't beaten out Brett Favre yet.

Originally Posted by BigDaddyBronco

Heck it might take a few years. Tom Brady didn't turn into an offensive juggernaut until several years into his career. Needed the right elements and the right offense.

The idea that he has a low ceiling is stupid. How the hell does anyone know that. These guys would have given up on Rodgers since he hadn't beaten out Brett Favre yet.

Well, of course, Favre was one of the best football players ever to play the game. But your
point is well taken. It seems that Siemian's image of having a low ceiling is based on one
factor: 7th round. Forget that he was considered 3rd round talent until he blew out his knee
in his final college game.

Even last year, when he acquitted himself well -- even while playing with a seriously injured
shoulder -- was dismissed by his detractors. He was a 7th rounder, a camp body, a band-aid
until Paxton was ready to take the reins. He's going to have to become a Pro Bowler to
change some minds, and even then some won't like him because he can't throw the ball 80
yards while on his knees. So be it. I'm excited to see what he can do.

What Does Trevor Siemian's QB Victory Mean for Paxton Lynch?

This is Troy Renck talking in regards to what all happened during the QB competition which led to Trevor being named the starting QB.

http://broncos.vsporto.com/episode/2...-paxton-lynch/

Originally Posted by Denver Native (Carol)

What Does Trevor Siemian's QB Victory Mean for Paxton Lynch?

This is Troy Renck talking in regards to what all happened during the QB competition which led to Trevor being named the starting QB.

http://broncos.vsporto.com/episode/2...-paxton-lynch/

Really good report by Troy Renck.

Then I clicked on one of the other reports in the sidebar there, and the guy was saying that
if Siemian is good the Broncos should be "7-9, maybe 8-8" this year. I switched it off. Last
year, the Broncos were 9-7 with a bad O-line and lack of a decent running game. Why would
their record be worse with a better O-line and a ridiculously deep RB corps -- and a healthy
Siemian?

I find better comments from some of the posters right here than among many of the pundits . . .

Tned, I stole your stats because they were helpful in a couple of debates on another forum. Thanks for the effort.

All these opinions will fade before the evidence when the regular season starts. Either Trevor will be vastly improved over last year or the Broncos will lose a lot of close games during an absolutely brutal schedule. A murderer's row of one playoff team after another.

If it's the latter, then this thread will look rather foolish a year from now, rather like the expressions of happiness the night Paxton was drafted among many fans and pundits.

As of now, I'm not particularly optimistic about Trevor becoming the long term answer at QB. I don't think the Broncos franchise QB is on the roster right now, although in 2018 they need to give Chad Kelly and Kyle Sloter a serious look.

The problem is that Elway will have to make a decision about drafting a QB in the 2018 draft without being able to judge whether either Sloter or Kelly have any real chance of becoming elite QBs.

One way to finesse the problem would be to sign a veteran FA QB (possibly Drew Brees or Matt Stafford?) for a season or two while developing the young guns for a year or two.

But, unless Trevor shows signs by season's end of becoming a top 10 QB - like the next Derek Carr, then Elway will have to make a move to acquire a new QB in the off-season.

Originally Posted by topscribe

Really good report by Troy Renck.

Then I clicked on one of the other reports in the sidebar there, and the guy was saying that
if Siemian is good the Broncos should be "7-9, maybe 8-8" this year. I switched it off. Last
year, the Broncos were 9-7 with a bad O-line and lack of a decent running game. Why would
their record be worse with a better O-line and a ridiculously deep RB corps -- and a healthy
Siemian?

I find better comments from some of the posters right here than among many of the pundits . . .

Because the schedule is really brutal. The team could easily be better than last year and finish with a worse record. They play the toughest schedule in the NFL. I don't mind that because if they make the playoffs they'll be battle tested, but it could easily turn out to be a 7-9 or 8-8 season because they play really difficult road schedule - 6 out of the final 9 games are on the road.