CSpringsNSD wrote:
Is it the QBs or the coaching? Siemian I think has already exceeded expectations, but they were never high for him. Lynch on the other hand was supposed to be much better. Is he just not adjusting quickly enough or is the coaching carousal that he has endured his past 2 seasons claimed a victim? I think the first 4-5 seasons of a young QBs career are highly fragile when it comes to changes in coaching. Lynch has seen 2 now. Kelly may be at a better advantage there since he is new in the system but it's all he's known. We don't get to see him play yet though due to his injury.
I hear what you are saying Springs, consistency is an important part of development, but I don't think it's the problem here. Elway invested heavily in bringing Paxton along. Hiring McCoy to open up the offense, and bringing in Muskgrave to develop his tools. I don't think it would've benefited Lynch to spend a second year under the same system. A change needed to be made, and it was, sooner rather than later. There was a reason he was tagged as a project before he was drafted, and we are seeing that the prediction made (by many), was on target. It is still too early in the investment, to judge whether or not it was a good one. I for one, think that the best way to find out, is now, and with trial by fire. The best way for him to improve, is to learn from his mistakes, and be able to implement the corrections the following week. I guess my point is, the coaching change was better for his development not worse. I give you Carr as my best example. Look at his first year, and where he is now. Give Muskgrave a chance to develop him in real game experience, and then we can see what we've got. Trevor is as good of a back up as anyone can ask for, ready when we need him. Let's use him as our ace in the hole, and go with Paxton learning and growing as he goes. Bottom line is, even if he doesn't pan out after this year, the up side is there to shoot for, while it certainly is not there with Siemian.
