PDA

View Full Version : Would you trade up for Sedrick Ellis?



vtroper
03-04-2008, 09:08 AM
With our DT issues seemingly becoming bigger by the day, if Sedrick Ellis makes it out of the top 5, do you think Denver would be wise to trade up in front of Baltimore and Cincy (both of whom would almost certainly take him) to get him?

Moving up 5 picks that high in the draft wouldn't be cheap, and would likely cost something like:

Denver gets New England's 1st rounder (#7 Overall) and New England's 3rd rounder

and

New England gets Denver's 1st rounder (#12 Overall) and Denver's 2nd rounder


Clearly, we have other needs that could be addressed with our #2 pick, but would it be worth giving it up to get a player like Ellis? Sure, like everyone else, I'd love to give New England D Foxworth to move up 5 spots, but that ain't happening...

Superchop 7
03-04-2008, 09:17 AM
Sure, I would do it, but I would also swap a 2 for next years 1 and get in the second round.

We need picks....."this" year.

(But he would be the "only" guy I would move up for)

MOtorboat
03-04-2008, 09:18 AM
No thanks. Too many positions of need this year. We need as many draft picks as we can get.

underrated29
03-04-2008, 09:23 AM
funny you say that because thats what i have been thinking, except that they get foxworth and a 4th instead of our 2nd.

dogfish
03-04-2008, 09:44 AM
no-- as it is, we're already trying to fill half a dozen holes in the starting lineup with two 1st day picks. . . no need to make it one. . . .

SmilinAssasSin27
03-04-2008, 09:54 AM
If all we had to do was jump ahead of Cincy..I'd give up a future pick...but none this year.

BeefStew25
03-04-2008, 09:56 AM
No picks. We need as much young cheap labor as possible.

Of course, this is assuming we can have a good draft.

silkamilkamonico
03-04-2008, 10:43 AM
No. We need picks.

And Shanahan needs to quit giving away future picks for reaching too high for players. Moss and Thomas are clearcut examples of that.

SmilinAssasSin27
03-04-2008, 10:47 AM
I would hardly say clear cut. They were rookies last year and Moss got injured. If these guys are studs for us this year or in the not so distant future, you won't be saying these things. A little early to write em off.

Also remember that Shanny gave away a #1 and it helped him get our QB.

atwater27
03-04-2008, 11:08 AM
No. We need picks.

And Shanahan needs to quit giving away future picks for reaching too high for players. Moss and Thomas are clearcut examples of that.

you are waaay wrong on that one.:rolleyes:

atwater27
03-04-2008, 11:10 AM
I'd do it for the right price. The value of a premier defensive tackle to the entire defense is massive. A good defensive line can make average linebackers, corners and safeties look like all pros.

SmilinAssasSin27
03-04-2008, 11:15 AM
I'd do it for the right price. The value of a premier defensive tackle to the entire defense is massive. A good defensive line can make average linebackers, corners and safeties look like all pros.

Yeah...just ask the patriots. It disn't matter how average the NYG CBs were since Brady wasn't allowed to throw the ball.

mclark
03-04-2008, 11:18 AM
We'd have to give up too much to move up. We moved up to get Cutler; but we had TWO first round picks then.

We only have two first days picks this year.

Never mortgage the future for the present.

We don't need to panic.

atwater27
03-04-2008, 11:21 AM
We'd have to give up too much to move up. We moved up to get Cutler; but we had TWO first round picks then.

We only have two first days picks this year.

Never mortgage the future for the present.

We don't need to panic.

we'd be mortgaging the future for the future. Ellis wouldn't age ten years in one season.

SmilinAssasSin27
03-04-2008, 11:22 AM
I really don't think Bmore goes DT...way too many other issues...but I could be wrong. I think Cincy may be the real competition for eitehr or both DTs. Since NYJ, Buffalo, etc have all invested picks and/or $$ into teh DT spot, I think we may be safe.

JONtheBRONCO
03-04-2008, 12:19 PM
No.

mclark
03-04-2008, 01:06 PM
we'd be mortgaging the future for the future. Ellis wouldn't age ten years in one season.

To get Ellis we'd need to give up anywhere from 2 (2 firsts, this year and next) to 5 picks. Mortgaging the future means giving up 2, 3 or 4 players to get 1.

We need help all over the field.

BOSSHOGG30
03-04-2008, 01:07 PM
I say stay put and see if Ellis or Dorsey drop. If they don't then trade back.

mclark
03-04-2008, 01:10 PM
I say stay put and see if Ellis or Dorsey drop. If they don't then trade back.

No way Ellis drops to us. But Dorsey might. His stock seems to be fluttering a bit now.

Astrass
03-04-2008, 01:12 PM
I'd trade up. I really feel he will be that much of an impact player. Of course this depends what else we are able to do in free agency. If we dont do any more shopping for FA's I may reconsider if the price to move up is too high.

But Ellis will be a stud DT in this league. Something we need more then anything else.

BOSSHOGG30
03-04-2008, 01:25 PM
A lot of this has to do with what we do with the rest of the free agent period. You have to figure that if the Broncos are really serious about moving D.J. back to WILL and Kootie will play MLB and we sign Boss Bailey for SAM we will be set at MLB, at least as far as the Broncos are concerned. We seem to be happy with our defensive ends, and we have plenty of talent at CB. Denver seems high on Abdullah at safety. So it would look as all we need is DT, and S, and maybe one more MLB to give Kootie a challenge. On offense we signed Colbert, again, despite what we think, Denver likes him and hopes he can compete as a #2 with Stokely. We are set at tightend and QB. We need a possible starter at tackle, and depth on the o-line as well. We may need a short yardage RB and a blocking full back. Kicker and Punter also look like positions of need.

Based on what Denver does in free agency will really determine if trading up is worth the risk.

Slick
03-04-2008, 01:34 PM
I say stay put and see if Ellis or Dorsey drop. If they don't then trade back.

I agree with Boss here. Maybe Ellis is a better player than I think, I'm not sure. Most of you have had the luxury of seeing him play a lot more than I have.

If he doesn't slip to us at 12, hopefully we find a dancing partner. I'd like to see us trade down too.

Like dogfish said in another thread, trading down isn't as easy as saying the words 'trade down'. Its not like we will have 15 offers for our #12 pick.

We better have more that a couple players targeted for that pick just in case.

dogfish
03-04-2008, 02:30 PM
I really don't think Bmore goes DT...way too many other issues...but I could be wrong. I think Cincy may be the real competition for eitehr or both DTs. Since NYJ, Buffalo, etc have all invested picks and/or $$ into teh DT spot, I think we may be safe.

baltimore will take a corner, bet on it. . .

Drill-N-Fill
03-04-2008, 02:38 PM
Baltimore doesn't need a DT. They have an under-rated Kelly Gregg and a beast in Ngta.

silkamilkamonico
03-04-2008, 03:15 PM
you are waaay wrong on that one.:rolleyes:

Really?

I'm more right than you are.

You're arguing, "wait and see what happens".

I'm arguing, "Moss has been hurt, and Thomas hardly looked the part of a "first round value. And, he's still hanging around with people that make wrong decisions."

Shanahan not bad with trading picks?

He traded away a third round pick, to move up, what, 3 spots in the draft to get a player that would have likely fallen to where we drafted anyways.

Marcus Thomas? Shanahan traded away a 5th, 6th, and a 3rd, to get a guy in the 4th. "Brilliant".

He also traded away a waht, 5th(?) for Jimmy Kennedy, who was cut before the regular season started?

No wonder this team is in the state that it's in.....

Yea, I'm "waaay" wrong about that......:rolleyes:

BOSSHOGG30
03-04-2008, 03:23 PM
Baltimore might go OT since Odgen retired. They could also go QB or WR.

silkamilkamonico
03-04-2008, 03:25 PM
Baltimore might go OT since Odgen retired. They could also go QB or WR.

They lost their 2nd round pick for drafting Gaither(dude from Maryland) at LT in the supplemental draft last year I believe.

Maybe they will look elsewhere for a T.

gobroncsnv
03-04-2008, 08:15 PM
I wouldn't consider it mortaging the future if we FINALLY got a lineman who could anchor our line for 6-8 years. I'd make the move. Like we saw about a month ago, not even one of Belicheck's Kodak moments can beat a great dline. Ellis would improve Thomas' game like nothing else could, not to mention what he could do for the rest of the dline, and the whole D, for that matter.

Nature Boy
03-04-2008, 08:25 PM
Denver gets New England's 1st rounder (#7 Overall) and New England's 3rd rounder

and

New England gets Denver's 1st rounder (#12 Overall) and Denver's 2nd rounder




Impossible, not New England or anyone would agree to move back from 7th to 12th in the 1st round to gain another team's 2nd in place for their 3rd.

Those middle 2nd round picks are not nearly as valuable. The 40th pick and the 55th pick are not too far off in draft value.

Simple Jaded
03-04-2008, 08:26 PM
No! Absolutely not!

If Denver wanted to trade a No2 for a DT, they could have had Corey Williams, somebody that has actually done something in the NFL......

MOtorboat
03-04-2008, 08:29 PM
No! Absolutely not!

If Denver wanted to trade a No2 for a DT, they could have had Corey Williams, somebody that has actually done something in the NFL......

Not to mention we gave away two picks last year and this year's third for a DT who just got arrested for cocaine...

No, no, no, no to trading up...

Simple Jaded
03-04-2008, 08:30 PM
Really?

I'm more right than you are.

You're arguing, "wait and see what happens".

I'm arguing, "Moss has been hurt, and Thomas hardly looked the part of a "first round value. And, he's still hanging around with people that make wrong decisions."

Shanahan not bad with trading picks?

He traded away a third round pick, to move up, what, 3 spots in the draft to get a player that would have likely fallen to where we drafted anyways.

Marcus Thomas? Shanahan traded away a 5th, 6th, and a 3rd, to get a guy in the 4th. "Brilliant".

He also traded away a waht, 5th(?) for Jimmy Kennedy, who was cut before the regular season started?

No wonder this team is in the state that it's in.....

Yea, I'm "waaay" wrong about that......:rolleyes:

Shanahan traded more for Thomas than was traded for Jenkins or Rogers or Stroud.

Considering Denver has 2 5th round picks, they could have conceivably had two of those DT's had they not traded up to get Thomas (And Thomas may have still been there in the 5th, to boot!).

They might have been able to get Rogers by moving down to Detroit's 1st round spot (A 3rd round value) along with a 5th.

Then they could have traded the 3rd they gave up for Thomas, along with the other 5th rounder for Stroud or Jenkins......

Nature Boy
03-04-2008, 08:53 PM
How about we trade our 1st round pick and our 2nd round pick for the Jet's 1st rounder/6th overall pick and get Chris Long if Chris Long is still on the board by the 6th pick? I'll got for that if we can get it done.

MOtorboat
03-04-2008, 08:54 PM
How about we trade our 1st round pick and our 2nd round pick for the Jet's 1st rounder/6th overall pick and get Chris Long if Chris Long is still on the board by the 6th pick? I'll got for that if we can get it done.

Well, that's just brilliant. We need, by my count, up to around five new starters and upgrades at about 10 positions, and you want to trade away both our first-day picks? When we haven't even really sniffed free agency?

Nature Boy
03-04-2008, 09:11 PM
Well, that's just brilliant. We need, by my count, up to around five new starters and upgrades at about 10 positions, and you want to trade away both our first-day picks? When we haven't even really sniffed free agency?

No we're not trading away both our 1st day picks. I'm suggesting that we trade our 2nd round pick to move 6 spots up the draft board to nabb Chris Long with the 6th overall pick. That is if Chris Long is still there and if the Jets would do it. I don't know who the Jets are looking at but Chris Long is deffinitely not on their radar screen with their 3-4 defense.

MOtorboat
03-04-2008, 09:33 PM
No we're not trading away both our 1st day picks. I'm suggesting that we trade our 2nd round pick to move 6 spots up the draft board to nabb Chris Long with the 6th overall pick. That is if Chris Long is still there and if the Jets would do it. I don't know who the Jets are looking at but Chris Long is deffinitely not on their radar screen with their 3-4 defense.

Well...one second round pick is not enough...trading firsts and adding a second is maybe enough (I stress maybe), and we don't have a third, so yes, that gets rid of all of our first day picks...

SmilinAssasSin27
03-04-2008, 09:38 PM
Againm, the key spot is 8. We would need to get to 8. Bmore could use a CB and we have Foxxy to trade. Swapping #1s, giving em Foxxy and a future 2 or 3 could get us there. If either DT was on the board, I would offer that in a heartbeat. Foxxy would allow them to address another position at 12 like WR and we would be in ideal position for a DT. Like Boss said...let's wait and see if they both do slide. Very easily, they both could...

Simple Jaded
03-04-2008, 09:43 PM
3rd round picks are no longer considered "First Day Picks", fwiw, round three has been moved to the 2nd day......

SmilinAssasSin27
03-04-2008, 09:43 PM
#8 is worth 1400
#12 is worth 1200

A 200 point difference is valued as the #78 overall pick (mid 3rd round). I think Foxxy and a future #3 is VERY reasonable for one of the few players in THIS draft that could have that much impact for us...and we'd still keep our own #2 for WR, OT, S or LB.

MOtorboat
03-04-2008, 09:46 PM
3rd round picks are no longer considered "First Day Picks", fwiw, round three has been moved to the 2nd day......

Meh, whatever...first three rounds...top flight...four final rounds still are not quite as valuable, imo.

nevcraw
03-04-2008, 09:48 PM
Againm, the key spot is 8. We would need to get to 8. Bmore could use a CB and we have Foxxy to trade. Swapping #1s, giving em Foxxy and a future 2 or 3 could get us there. If either DT was on the board, I would offer that in a heartbeat. Foxxy would allow them to address another position at 12 like WR and we would be in ideal position for a DT. Like Boss said...let's wait and see if they both do slide. Very easily, they both could...


It would help if some of the teams decide to go QB and take Ryan and Brohm before the Broncos Pick. From the sounds of it a couple of DE's may be rising as well.
I would not be suprised to Kernny Philips drop to us in round 2.

MOtorboat
03-04-2008, 09:52 PM
It would help if some of the teams decide to go QB and take Ryan and Brohm before the Broncos Pick. From the sounds of it a couple of DE's may be rising as well.
I would not be suprised to Kernny Philips drop to us in round 2.

Which is why we shouldn't trade the second-round pick away by any means...Unfortunately, our bargaining chip to get up to No. 8, might be the No. 2...so I don't really condone trading up this year, at all.

Get a LT...

SmilinAssasSin27
03-04-2008, 09:53 PM
It would help if some of the teams decide to go QB and take Ryan and Brohm before the Broncos Pick. From the sounds of it a couple of DE's may be rising as well.
I would not be suprised to Kernny Philips drop to us in round 2.

I really don't think Brohm will go, but I still think the DTs can drop. Our concerns would be Cincy and New Orleans at 9 and 10. We get to 8 and we're gold.

1-Dolphins...just signed 2 DTs
2-Rams...spent 1st rounder on DT last year and need OT help
3-Falcons...COULD go DT, but QB is looking most likely
4-Raiders...just spent a LOT of $$ on Kellyfor DT....COULD go DT, but I don't think so
5-Chiefs...NEED OT help
6-Jets...just signed Jenkins for a 3-4 defense
7-Patriots...CB, OT, LB...DT is last on their list of needs


I doubt we could trade w/ Cincy since they need a DT so bad, so Bmore would have to be the fit for a trade.

SmilinAssasSin27
03-04-2008, 09:54 PM
Which is why we shouldn't trade the second-round pick away by any means...Unfortunately, our bargaining chip to get up to No. 8, might be the No. 2...so I don't really condone trading up this year, at all.

Get a LT...

I think Foxxy is a key for us though. Both of their CBs are ailing/aging. They NEED CBs. Foxxy could be the bargaining chip that avoids us needing to use this year's #2...besides, based on the chart a #2 would be WAY too much to jump 4 spots.

MOtorboat
03-04-2008, 10:02 PM
I think Foxxy is a key for us though. Both of their CBs are ailing/aging. They NEED CBs. Foxxy could be the bargaining chip that avoids us needing to use this year's #2...besides, based on the chart a #2 would be WAY too much to jump 4 spots.

Well, hell, if our cornerbacks are ailing/aging...why would we get rid of a young one?

nevcraw
03-04-2008, 10:09 PM
If we stay at 12, I think it will be Williams from Vandy if Ellis or Dorsey do not fall. I see the Chiefs taking Clady, and as much as Stewart or mendehall would be cool it's just not in the Shanny nature to go RB that high nor is it a sound investment. WR would be the worst pick, but i would not be surprised at all to see Rivers being the pick at 12..

BOSSHOGG30
03-04-2008, 10:15 PM
Dolphins
So far it looks as if the Dolphins are setting themselves up to go with Matt Ryan, Chris Long, or Jake Long
Needs:OL, DT, LB, CB, QB

Justin Smiley, OG, SF 49ers(signed); Ian Gold, LB, Denver(signed); Jason Ferguson, DT, DAL(acquired via trade); Josh McCown, QB, Oakland(signed); Ernest Wilford, WR, JAX(signed); Randy Starks, DT, TEN(signed); Sean Ryan, TE, NYJ(signed); Reggie Torbor, LB, NY Giants(signed); Charlie Anderson, LB, Houston(signed)

Rams
Looks like the Rams will go DE here. Gholston or Long?
Needs: DE, OT/G, CB, OLB, WR

Josh Brown, K, Seattle(signed); Jacob Bell, G/T, Tennessee(signed)

Falcons
Falcons are probably hoping that the Dolphins don't draft Matt Ryan, they already fix holes at S and RB, so they will go DT or OT here if Matt Ryan isn't available.
Needs: QB, OT, DT, RB, S

Erik Coleman, S, NY Jets(signed); Von Hutchins, CB/S, Houston(signed); Ben Hartsock, TE, Tennessee(signed); Michael Turner, RB, San Diego(signed)


Raiders
Raiders already took care of all there needs, so it is open here what they will go with, but RB or OL looks like the best bet.
Needs: OT, DT, WR, DE, RB

Gibril Wilson, S, NY Giants(signed); Kwame Harris, OT, SF 49ers(signed); Tommy Kelly, DT, Raiders(signed); Javon Walker, WR, Broncos(signed)

Chiefs
Chiefs will go OT, probably Clady here
Needs: LOT, G, CB, DE, C

Oliver Hoyte, FB, Dallas(claimed via waivers); Demorrio Williams, LB, Atlanta(signed)

Jets
O-line is taken care of, so RB, WR, or LB all look like possibilities
Needs: NT, WR, LB, G, RB

Kris Jenkins, DT, Carolina(acquired via trade); Alan Faneca, OG, Pittsburgh(signed); Calvin Pace, LB, Arizona(signed); Damien Woody, C/G/T, Detroit(signed)

Patriots
Looks like the Pats will look for a linebacker or CB
Needs: LB, CB, DS, OL, RB

Randy Moss, WR,(signed); Sam Aiken, WR, Bills(signed) Jason Webster, CB, Buffalo(signed)

Ravens
They didn't address any needs in free agency yet. They could go many directions
Needs: QB, CB, LOT, ILB, DE/OLB

Bengals
You know they will go DT here if they can. They failed with Shaun Rogers, they failed with Robertson... it is obvious what they are after.
Needs: DT, TE, DE, LB, OT

Antwan Odom, DE, Tennessee(signed)

Saints
They will be looking for a CB, no doubt after the Eagles stole their guy.
Needs: CB, LB, TE, DT, C

Jonathan Vilma, LB, NY Jets(acquired via trade); Randall Gay, CB, New England(signed); Bobby McCray, DE, Jacksonville(signed)

Bills
Bills could go CB or WR here
Needs: WR, DT, CB, LB, TE

Kawicka Mitchell, LB, NYG(signed); Spencer Johnson, DT, Minnesota(signed); Marcus Stroud, DT, JAX(acquired via trade)

vtroper
03-05-2008, 04:28 PM
Impossible, not New England or anyone would agree to move back from 7th to 12th in the 1st round to gain another team's 2nd in place for their 3rd.

Those middle 2nd round picks are not nearly as valuable. The 40th pick and the 55th pick are not too far off in draft value.

Wrong, if anything we're getting the short end of the stick if you go by the trade chart.

The 7th overall pick is worth 1500 points, Our 12th overall pick is worth 1200, so we'd need to come up with 300 points to make up the difference.

Our 2nd rounder is worth 480 points, their 3rd rounder is worth roughly 120 points. So they'd be getting 1680 to our 1620.

If anything, I think the Pats would be more likely then most teams to make a trade like this because the position that every mock I've seen has them taking at #7 is CB. I think it's very likely they could move down from #7 to #12 and still get their choice of CBs. If drafting the same guy you want, paying him less and moving up nearly 50 spots from the late 3rd to the mid 2nd isn't the Patriot way, I don't know what is.

Again, I think the valid arguement is whether or not giving up both our 1st day picks for Ellis is wise, but I think from the Pats side of things is makes alot of sense.

topscribe
03-05-2008, 04:39 PM
Wrong, if anything we're getting the short end of the stick if you go by the trade chart.

The 7th overall pick is worth 1500 points, Our 12th overall pick is worth 1200, so we'd need to come up with 300 points to make up the difference.

Our 2nd rounder is worth 480 points, their 3rd rounder is worth roughly 120 points. So they'd be getting 1680 to our 1620.

If anything, I think the Pats would be more likely then most teams to make a trade like this because the position that every mock I've seen has them taking at #7 is CB. I think it's very likely they could move down from #7 to #12 and still get their choice of CBs. If drafting the same guy you want, paying him less and moving up nearly 50 spots from the late 3rd to the mid 2nd isn't the Patriot way, I don't know what is.

Again, I think the valid arguement is whether or not giving up both our 1st day picks for Ellis is wise, but I think from the Pats side of things is makes alot of sense.

Yes, and the Broncos would become the Patriots' Redskins . . .

-----

SmilinAssasSin27
03-05-2008, 05:42 PM
I still say swap w/ Bmore at 8 and toss in Foxxy and a 2009 3rd or 4th. Bmore doesn't need a DT, but we need to jump ahead of Cincy and New Orleans.

Nature Boy
03-05-2008, 06:10 PM
Well...one second round pick is not enough...trading firsts and adding a second is maybe enough (I stress maybe), and we don't have a third, so yes, that gets rid of all of our first day picks...

You're not too bright are you? re-read my last 3 post on this thread then you can recant your last couple post on this thread. :welcome:

MOtorboat
03-05-2008, 06:44 PM
You're not too bright are you? re-read my last 3 post on this thread then you can recant your last couple post on this thread. :welcome:


No we're not trading away both our 1st day picks. I'm suggesting that we trade our 2nd round pick to move 6 spots up the draft board to nabb Chris Long with the 6th overall pick. That is if Chris Long is still there and if the Jets would do it. I don't know who the Jets are looking at but Chris Long is deffinitely not on their radar screen with their 3-4 defense.

Maybe I did misunderstand you...you want to trade 1 second round pick to move up six spots in the first round, and not trade first round draft picks? Is that's what I misunderstood? Because if that's what I misunderstood, then your idea is more outlandish than I thought. Why would the Jets trade away the No. 6 pick overall for a second round pick?

What I thought you were saying was actually more plausible, though still kind of strange. I thought you meant, we would trade our two first day picks to get to No. 6 to take Chris Long...a defensive end...meanwhile we've signed two defensive ends, we have a pass-rush specialist in Dumerville, and we have two rookie defensive ends from last year? Then we don't have a pick till the fourth round?

AND, we need DT, LB, WR, possibly RB, OT, maybe a guard...maybe even a C...and you want to take a DE...and give up a second round pick in the process...

Either way...still failing to see how I'm "not that bright."

silkamilkamonico
03-05-2008, 07:11 PM
I think it would be foolish for Denver to trade up for Jake Long, with Chris Williams likely being available at 12.

Both are great prospects.

Jake Long isn't a second round pick prospect better than Chris Williams.

MOtorboat
03-05-2008, 07:32 PM
I think it would be foolish for Denver to trade up for Jake Long, with Chris Williams likely being available at 12.

Both are great prospects.

Jake Long isn't a second round pick prospect better than Chris Williams.

You're right...but Nature Boy wants Chris Long.

mclark
03-05-2008, 07:37 PM
Trading up makes sense if we are one player away from the Super Bowl. We are NOT one player away from the Super Bowl.

Astrass
03-05-2008, 08:05 PM
Trading up makes sense if we are one player away from the Super Bowl. We are NOT one player away from the Super Bowl.

Ellis can make any team 1 player away from the SB =)

gobroncsnv
03-05-2008, 09:22 PM
Trading up makes sense if we are one player away from the Super Bowl. We are NOT one player away from the Super Bowl.

Then if this philosophy makes sense, why hang on to Champ? Think of the draft value he could bring us with a trade. No, I would NOT get rid of Champ, just trying to figure out why we'd keep perhaps the best overall player in the NFL if we are not looking to improve the team? But we're not getting our money's worth out of Champ if we are not looking to go for it. If I were him, I would start getting restless feet, because a player at his stage of his career and his quality of play wants to have a shot at a ring. If Denver is looking at a 3 year plan, his biological clock will be ticking pretty loud. He's probably getting pretty tired having to cover 5 minute long pass patterns because of no rush. I'm tired of bad trades for DT's that bomb. And I'm also tired of dead cap space. But this is something to factor in to all of the above, are we being fair to Champ?

Simple Jaded
03-05-2008, 09:35 PM
"......why hang on to Champ?"......:bored:......

Nature Boy
03-05-2008, 10:19 PM
What I thought you were saying was actually more plausible, though still kind of strange. I thought you meant, we would trade our two first day picks to get to No. 6 to take Chris Long...


Great, you finally got it. Congrats.

See we didn't just trade AWAY our two day 1 picks as you said, as though for nothing as I think you're trying to imply. We traded our two day 1 picks for a 6th overall pick to get a superior DE in Chris Long.

It's pick #12 + pick #44 to the Jets for their #6 pick. See, it's not for nothing, capeesh?

BeefStew25
03-05-2008, 10:22 PM
Then if this philosophy makes sense, why hang on to Champ? Think of the draft value he could bring us with a trade. No, I would NOT get rid of Champ, just trying to figure out why we'd keep perhaps the best overall player in the NFL if we are not looking to improve the team? But we're not getting our money's worth out of Champ if we are not looking to go for it. If I were him, I would start getting restless feet, because a player at his stage of his career and his quality of play wants to have a shot at a ring. If Denver is looking at a 3 year plan, his biological clock will be ticking pretty loud. He's probably getting pretty tired having to cover 5 minute long pass patterns because of no rush. I'm tired of bad trades for DT's that bomb. And I'm also tired of dead cap space. But this is something to factor in to all of the above, are we being fair to Champ?

Because we are not three years away.

MOtorboat
03-05-2008, 10:23 PM
Great, you finally got it. Congrats.

See we didn't just trade AWAY our two day 1 picks as you said, as though for nothing as I think you're trying to imply. We traded our two day 1 picks for a 6th overall pick to get a superior DE in Chris Long.

It's pick #12 + pick #44 to the Jets for their #6 pick. See, it's not for nothing, capeesh?

Again, a stupid move. And, I wasn't wrong. We trade away both first day picks to get a DE which we don't need.

Yes, I am implying that trading away both first-day picks to get a DE is stupid. Because it is.

Nature Boy
03-05-2008, 10:38 PM
Again, a stupid move. And, I wasn't wrong. We trade away both first day picks to get a DE which we don't need.

Yes, I am implying that trading away both first-day picks to get a DE is stupid. Because it is.

We don't need a pro-bowl caliber DE? We wasted a 16th-17th overall pick last yr on Jarvis Moss who doesn't look like he'll ever show up. If we can move up 6 spots in the 1st round to get a for sure impact DE in Chris Long, if he's still there, why is that stupid? Especially if it only cost us a 2nd rounder/ #44 pick overall. Dummerville is great, but I don't think he is the DE Coach Shanahan has been looking for the last 10 yrs.

A second rounder, picks #40-#60 is a crap shoot. You might find a gem or you might find a pile. Wasn't Darius Watts a 2nd rounder and so was Terry Pierce, remember him, you probably don't?

Chris Long looks like the real deal Patrick Kearney like DE that passed on us for Seattle last year. I would give away our 2nd rounder to the Jets to move up 6 spots in the 1st round.

dogfish
03-05-2008, 10:42 PM
keep dreaming. . . regardless of what you want, or think is the right thing to do, denver is most likely not drafting ANY ends this year-- let alone the top one on the board. . . why argue about the wisdom of something that has zero chance of happening?


nevermind, as you were. . . .

MOtorboat
03-05-2008, 10:43 PM
We don't need a pro-bowl caliber DE? We wasted a 16th-17th overall pick last yr on Jarvis Moss who doesn't look like he'll ever show up. If we can move up 6 spots in the 1st round to get a for sure impact DE in Chris Long, if he's still there, why is that stupid? Especially if it only cost us a 2nd rounder/ #44 pick overall. Dummerville is great, but I don't think he is the DE Coach Shanahan has been looking for the last 10 yrs.

A second rounder, picks #40-#60 is a crap shoot. You might find a gem or you might find a pile. Wasn't Darius Watts a 2nd rounder and so was Terry Pierce, remember him, you probably don't?

Chris Long looks like the real deal Patrick Kearney like DE that passed on us for Seattle last year. I would give away our 2nd rounder to the Jets to move up 6 spots in the 1st round.

You completely miss the boat. Why trade away two picks for a position we already are tied-up in? It's a stupid move.

Besides, Chris Long probably won't last till No. 6 anyway. The problem is, we don't have a third rounder. Giving up our first two picks for an unproven DE is just stupid at this point, especially since we have so manu DEs already on the roster.

Nature Boy
03-05-2008, 10:51 PM
You completely miss the boat. Why trade away two picks for a position we already are tied-up in? It's a stupid move.

Besides, Chris Long probably won't last till No. 6 anyway. The problem is, we don't have a third rounder. Giving up our first two picks for an unproven DE is just stupid at this point, especially since we have so manu DEs already on the roster.

Other than Dummerville, the rest of them DEs suck. Ekuban is too old and Engleburger doesn't exactly scare any tackles.

But reason I say you don't seem to bright is, you made it sound as though I suggested we trade away our 2 day 1 picks for nothing.

Moving up 6 spots in the 1st round to #6 for a 2nd rounder is in my opinion a steal. Obviously the Jets would never go for that, but if they do if proposed and Chris Long is there, Mike Shanahan would crap his pants in joy.

I watched Chris Long's Combine performance and at 6'4'' and 280lbs, he moved better than most linebackers and some DBs.

MOtorboat
03-05-2008, 10:54 PM
Other than Dummerville, the rest of them DEs suck. Ekuban is too old and Engleburger doesn't exactly scare any tackles.

But reason I say you don't seem to bright is, you made it sound as though I suggested we trade away our 2 day 1 picks for nothing.

Moving up 6 spots in the 1st round to #6 for a 2nd rounder is in my opinion a steal. Obviously the Jets would never go for that, but if they do if proposed and Chris Long is there, Mike Shanahan would crap his pants in joy.

I watched Chris Long's Combine performance and at 6'4'' and 280lbs, he moved better than most linebackers and some DBs.

No matter how you spin it, drafting a DE and not having another pick till the fourth round is pretty stupid.

You attack my intelligence when you propose one of the dumbest trades ever. A "steal" is akin to idiocy by the Jets. That's not going to happen, so please come back to reality.

Nature Boy
03-05-2008, 11:01 PM
I never missed no boat. Trading down to get more early-middle to middle picks don't guarantee nothing. How many of our 2nd, 3rd and 4th and even later 1st rounders the last 5 years are making an impact. Not many if you count them all up.

Missou. if I offended you, I apologize, but obviously trading up 6 spots to #6 in the 1st round for a mere 2nd rounder/or #44 pick would be a steal and you know it.

See, you finally caught on, I didn't suggest we trade away our 2 day 1 picks AWAY for nothing in return as you implied a few post back resulting me in suggesting your dimness.

MOtorboat
03-05-2008, 11:04 PM
I never missed no boat. Trading down to get more early-middle to middle picks don't guarantee nothing. How many of our 2nd, 3rd and 4th and even later 1st rounders the last 5 years are making an impact. Not many if you count them all up.

Missou. if I offended you, I apologize, but obviously trading up 6 spots to #6 in the 1st round for a mere 2nd rounder/or #44 pick would be a steal and you know it.

See, you finally caught on, I didn't suggest we trade away our 2 day 1 picks AWAY for nothing in return as you implied a few post back resulting me in suggesting your dimness.

Trading one second round pick for No. 6 isn't going to happen, so you should probably deal with that fact. Drafting a DE is also kind of dumb.

Nature Boy
03-05-2008, 11:16 PM
Hahahahaha. You don't have to tell me it ain't gonna happen cause I know it wont. But if that's the best reply you have, congrats, you win the special award for being special.

This is a Broncos forum and it's draft season and I only simply made a suggestion to ponder and discuss. This thread suggest we trade up to get Seddrick Ellis so I brought up what I think is a better alternative, Chris Long.

If guys can start threads like sign Favre and any old washed up names, I think my idea is pretty good, should it happen.

fcspikeit
03-05-2008, 11:23 PM
Great, you finally got it. Congrats.

See we didn't just trade AWAY our two day 1 picks as you said, as though for nothing as I think you're trying to imply. We traded our two day 1 picks for a 6th overall pick to get a superior DE in Chris Long.

It's pick #12 + pick #44 to the Jets for their #6 pick. See, it's not for nothing, capeesh?

This would be one of the dumbest moves Mikey could make! Why on earth would we trade 2 potential starters to gain a DE? We don't even need a Defensive End!

At least if we made that trade to get Ellis or Dorsey we would be filling 1 need. If we drafted Chris Long we would be filling 0 needs. How could that possible be good for the team?

Long would be double teamed every play and we would still suck against the run.

Maybe we should work a trade with the Phins and select Ryan? We need a DE about as bad as a QB :lol:

SmilinAssasSin27
03-05-2008, 11:30 PM
We don't need a pro-bowl caliber DE? We wasted a 16th-17th overall pick last yr on Jarvis Moss who doesn't look like he'll ever show up.

Seriously? THAT is your argument? Yer bashing a ROOKIE who was playing well prior to being injured? Really?

Next I'll bet yer gonna say Elvis is our only good DE...

SmilinAssasSin27
03-05-2008, 11:31 PM
Other than Dummerville, the rest of them DEs suck. Ekuban is too old and Engleburger doesn't exactly scare any tackles.

...And there it is. WOW. Elvis, the one trick pony, is as bad vs the run as he is good vs the pass. BTW, we also have this rook named Crowder who isn't too shabby.

silkamilkamonico
03-06-2008, 12:13 AM
Other than Dummerville, the rest of them DEs suck.

This just in.

Chris Long sucks too.

He has 0 sacks in the NFL. The dude has 0 tackles in the NFL.

:coffee:

silkamilkamonico
03-06-2008, 12:15 AM
Seriously? THAT is your argument? Yer bashing a ROOKIE who was playing well prior to being injured? Really?


People that use his logic said Mario Williams was a complete bust after his first year and the Texans were the ultimate "idiots" for drafting him.


Ooops.........

Nature Boy
03-06-2008, 12:24 AM
Our DEs suck. Eckuban is probably the best all around but he ain't getting younger and he's coming back from injury.

Yes, this team's got a lot of positions to fill; on both sides of the ball. All I'm saying is, if given the chance to get Chris Long, especially under the hopeless deal I suggested, that would be a win win for the Broncos.

Cowder, Jarvis Moss, EngleBurger, Eckuban, all below average DEs at best compared to what other teams have. I'm not one of those fans who praise every player in a Broncos jersey as great and or they will be. Results and wins is what everyone is after, not potential.

Don't get too caught up in hype, as that's the way it's been here in Denver since Elway left. They always look good on paper before the season but fall aprt by the 10th week.

silkamilkamonico
03-06-2008, 12:37 AM
Our DEs suck. Eckuban is probably the best all around but he ain't getting younger and he's coming back from injury.

Yes, this team's got a lot of positions to fill; on both sides of the ball. All I'm saying is, if given the chance to get Chris Long, especially under the hopeless deal I suggested, that would be a win win for the Broncos.

Cowder, Jarvis Moss, EngleBurger, Eckuban, all below average DEs at best compared to what other teams have. I'm not one of those fans who praise every player in a Broncos jersey as great and or they will be. Results and wins is what everyone is after, not potential.


Dude, every rookie DE sucks. There's a less than 10% chance that a DE is going to get drafted, come into the league, and light it up.

I don't want to bank our success on a 10% chance that we draft Chris Long and he actually doesn't suck. And then on top of that, we can be known as the Detroit Lions of drafting, in wasting all our early picks on the same position, because we can't seem to get it right the first time.

If can't get it right the first time, I would be convinced that Chris Long would suck too, because Denver saw enough of him to draft him.

Nature Boy
03-06-2008, 01:09 AM
Dude, every rookie DE sucks. There's a less than 10% chance that a DE is going to get drafted, come into the league, and light it up.

I don't want to bank our success on a 10% chance that we draft Chris Long and he actually doesn't suck. And then on top of that, we can be known as the Detroit Lions of drafting, in wasting all our early picks on the same position, because we can't seem to get it right the first time.

If can't get it right the first time, I would be convinced that Chris Long would suck too, because Denver saw enough of him to draft him.

I wasn't expecting Jarvis Moss to light it up last season but to just show some potential with what he's suppose to possess, light quick speed. Moss played in 6 games for the Denver Broncos. He recorded 12 tackles and 1 sack before he got hurt last season. Not exactly breath taking is it? Look at Dummerville in his rookie year and he was a mid round pick.

Denver can't draft Chris Long even if they wanted to. That was why I brought up the idea of the trade up to get him.

fcspikeit
03-06-2008, 01:11 AM
Cowder, Jarvis Moss, EngleBurger, Eckuban, all below average DEs at best compared to what other teams have. I'm not one of those fans who praise every player in a Broncos jersey as great and or they will be. Results and wins is what everyone is after, not potential.


So your not saying we should bank both our 1st day picks on the "potential" of Chris Long being the real deal? :confused: :laugh:


Long has proven nothing more in the NFL then Moss has. If you were saying you would rather have Long over Moss based on potential alone I can respect that. However your suggesting we throw the meat of our draft away for a "possible" up grade.

Why should we do this, because Long had a great combine? Moss had a good day at the Combine too if I remember... The point is, no one knows if Long will be better then Moss and it would be dumb to take the chance when we have so many other needs.

I do however agree with you, Long looks to be better then Moss, But not so much better that we should ignore all our other needs to draft him..


Don't get too caught up in hype, as that's the way it's been here in Denver since Elway left. They always look good on paper before the season but fall aprt by the 10th week.

come on Nature Boy, are you not getting caught up in the hype of Chris Long? He too looks great on paper but has proven nothing yet. Even if we knew for sure he was destined for the Hall.. We can't just ignore the hole we have at DT among other places.. Esp since we don't know how good Moss and Crowder are going to be.. They have every bit the chance to be as good as Long... If nothing else, they haven't showed anything that would warrant us just writing them off and sacrificing the better part of our draft in the proses...

Nature Boy
03-06-2008, 01:20 AM
That is why I suggested we trade to up get Chris Long as oppose to trading up to get Seddrick Ellis as that's what this thread is about. It's only conversation.

Yes, I am sold on Chris Long as being a pro-bowl DE in the near future and an impact player his rookie year for any team that he goes to.

silkamilkamonico
03-06-2008, 02:51 AM
Yes, I am sold on Chris Long as being a pro-bowl DE in the near future and an impact player his rookie year for any team that he goes to.


I heard that same argument for Mario Williams.

Williams was also a better prospect that Long is in just about every measurable out there.

Lonestar
03-06-2008, 02:01 PM
That is why I suggested we trade to up get Chris Long as oppose to trading up to get Seddrick Ellis as that's what this thread is about. It's only conversation.

Yes, I am sold on Chris Long as being a pro-bowl DE in the near future and an impact player his rookie year for any team that he goes to.


Are you like a cousin of his?

Let it rest everyone knows how you feel no matter how wrong you might be..

DEN is not in the market for a DE. regardless of you desires.. Perhaps once he is drafted you can follow his career elsewhere..

SmilinAssasSin27
03-06-2008, 05:38 PM
Cowder, Jarvis Moss, EngleBurger, Eckuban, all below average DEs at best compared to what other teams have. I'm not one of those fans who praise every player in a Broncos jersey as great and or they will be. Results and wins is what everyone is after, not potential.

.


Nor am I, yet you do praise the LEAST well rounded of the bunch. You don't consider potential...but you HAVE to when discussing drafting a DE to replace our rookies. Our rookies! makes no sense whatsoever. Crowder showed all signs of being a very good, well rounded DE.

Now I am not against taking Merling or Harvey at 12 but this is beacuse they are bigger and could rush from DT on passing downs...not simply to replace Crowder, etc. because I have given up hope. I also am not so dumb as to want to mortgage the future to get to the #1 spot for a position that we do have POTENTIAL at.

Astrass
03-06-2008, 07:18 PM
That is why I suggested we trade to up get Chris Long as oppose to trading up to get Seddrick Ellis as that's what this thread is about. It's only conversation.

Yes, I am sold on Chris Long as being a pro-bowl DE in the near future and an impact player his rookie year for any team that he goes to.

No to your idea. :2thumbsdown: No to Chris Long. Now back on topic lol. Go start a "Draft Chris Long" thread or something. :wave:

Go Ellis!!

TXBRONC
03-06-2008, 08:39 PM
keep dreaming. . . regardless of what you want, or think is the right thing to do, denver is most likely not drafting ANY ends this year-- let alone the top one on the board. . . why argue about the wisdom of something that has zero chance of happening?


nevermind, as you were. . . .


It's not like we don't have any young defensive ends to develop.

Nature Boy
03-06-2008, 09:57 PM
I heard that same argument for Mario Williams.

Williams was also a better prospect that Long is in just about every measurable out there.

You kidding me. I dont' know what you're getting at. Are you calling Mario Williams a bust? I guess you forget to watch the NFL this last season.

As it stands now, the Texans made the right decision in drafting Mario Williams ahead of Reggie Bush and more than most would say is a better choice than Vince Young as well.

Mario Williams played all 16 games in 2007 recording 14 sacks and 4 passes defensed. Not to shabby for a sophomore DE is he?

MOtorboat
03-06-2008, 09:59 PM
You kidding me. I dont' know what you're getting at. Are you calling Mario Williams a bust? I guess you forget to watch the NFL this last season.

As it stands now, the Texans made the right decision in drafting Mario Williams ahead of Reggie Bush and more than most would say is a better choice than Vince Young as well.

Mario Williams played all 16 games in 2007 recording 14 sacks and 4 passes defensed. Not to shabby for a sophomore DE is he?

They HAD the No. 1 pick. We have the No. 12 pick. You proposed moving up to take a DE that may or may not be better. Meanwhile, we have plenty of DEs...There is a distinct difference.

Drafting DE in the first round for us is dumb.

Nature Boy
03-06-2008, 10:03 PM
I think your opinion is dumb.

SmilinAssasSin27
03-06-2008, 10:06 PM
I think the idea of NO fat chicks is dumb.

MOtorboat
03-06-2008, 10:07 PM
I think your opinion is dumb.

Are you trying to start a fight?

DE is not a need. Yet, you seem to think that it is, or, you're trying to start a fight. Either way, you're in the wrong. Congrats.

Nature Boy
03-06-2008, 10:11 PM
Are you trying to start a fight?

DE is not a need. Yet, you seem to think that it is, or, you're trying to start a fight. Either way, you're in the wrong. Congrats.

:elefant::elefant::elefant:

OK, enough. Done, no more opinions from you please.

MOtorboat
03-06-2008, 10:12 PM
:elefant::elefant::elefant:

OK, enough of this childish talk. Done, no more opinions from you please.

Tell me, I've never felt this way, how does it feel to bait someone into a fight?

tubby
03-06-2008, 10:46 PM
NZ likes dudes.

frauschieze
03-06-2008, 10:57 PM
You kidding me. I dont' know what you're getting at. Are you calling Mario Williams a bust? I guess you forget to watch the NFL this last season.

As it stands now, the Texans made the right decision in drafting Mario Williams ahead of Reggie Bush and more than most would say is a better choice than Vince Young as well.

Mario Williams played all 16 games in 2007 recording 14 sacks and 4 passes defensed. Not to shabby for a sophomore DE is he?

So Mario Williams is kick ass for a sophomore DE but how was his rookie year? Not as stellar. So you don't want to give our rookie DEs the same chance Mario had to improve?

Your argument makes no sense.

SmilinAssasSin27
03-06-2008, 11:08 PM
WTF did I do? I brought up valid points he still has yet to address. Instead he starts w/ feeble attempts at smack against prolly the nicest, most easy going dude on the board.

Nature Boy
03-06-2008, 11:09 PM
So Mario Williams is kick ass for a sophomore DE but how was his rookie year? Not as stellar. So you don't want to give our rookie DEs the same chance Mario had to improve?

Your argument makes no sense.

Mario Williams showed great potential his rookie year. Jarvis Moss showed zilch. Need I pull out Mario's rookie year and compare it to Jarvis'.

Point just proven.:welcome:

MOtorboat
03-06-2008, 11:09 PM
wow. . . if nature boy takes any more hits in this thread, he's going to have to change his name to "whipping boy". . . .

I'm sorry...you read that, and you're now defending him?

MOtorboat
03-06-2008, 11:09 PM
Mario Williams showed great potential his rookie year. Jarvis Moss showed zilch. Need I pull out Mario's rookie year and compare it to Jarvis'.

Point just proven.:welcome:

You proved nothing. Good job.

SmilinAssasSin27
03-06-2008, 11:11 PM
So Mario Williams is kick ass for a sophomore DE but how was his rookie year? Not as stellar. So you don't want to give our rookie DEs the same chance Mario had to improve?

Your argument makes no sense.

That's what Mizzou said, but his reading comprehension isn't up to snuff.

dogfish
03-06-2008, 11:12 PM
I'm sorry...you read that, and you're now defending him?

no, i'm laughing at him. . .

MOtorboat
03-06-2008, 11:12 PM
That's what Mizzou said, but his reading comprehension isn't up to snuff.

Not to mention Moss was taken 17 picks after Williams, but what do I know?

BeefStew25
03-06-2008, 11:13 PM
Nature Boy obviously has mommy issues....I will talk to him.

frauschieze
03-06-2008, 11:16 PM
Oh....and stats:

Mario Williams in 2007: 16 games, 14 sacks but only 1 pass defended
Mario Williams in 2006: 16 games, 4.5 sacks, 3 passes def
Tim Crowder in 2007: 13 games, 4 sacks, 1 forced fumble
Jarvis Moss in 2007: 6 games, 1 sack, 1 forced fumble
Elvis Dumervil in 2006: 13 games, 8.5 sacks, 1 pass def
Elvis Dumervil in 2007: 16 games, 12.5 sacks, 4 pass def, 1 INT

Now why don't we want to give Crowder and Moss another year?

SmilinAssasSin27
03-06-2008, 11:17 PM
Mario Williams showed great potential his rookie year. Jarvis Moss showed zilch. Need I pull out Mario's rookie year and compare it to Jarvis'.

Point just proven.:welcome:

He had 4.5 sacks his rookie year while playing 16 games. Where is this point that you have proven?

frauschieze
03-06-2008, 11:22 PM
Mario Williams showed great potential his rookie year. Jarvis Moss showed zilch. Need I pull out Mario's rookie year and compare it to Jarvis'.

Point just proven.:welcome:

Uh....I just posted the stats. Along with Doom's and Crowder's.

Funny thing. They support my statement. :coffee:

Nature Boy
03-06-2008, 11:27 PM
So Mario Williams is kick ass for a sophomore DE but how was his rookie year? Not as stellar. So you don't want to give our rookie DEs the same chance Mario had to improve?

Your argument makes no sense.

Mario Williams in 2006, his rookie year played all 16 games, started all 16, got 4.5 sacks, 4 passes batted and 35 tackles.

Jarvis in 2007, his rookie year played 6 games, stated just 1, got 1 sack and a measly 9 tackles.

Although Mario didn't have a stellar rookie campaign, he definitely showed promise and was good enough to hold down the starting job unlike Jarvis. However, as much as Jarvis sucked, he will get his chance in 2008, but I reserve the right as a fan to rate his performance and say that Jarvis really sucked and showed no potential. There is no comparison to Jarvis Moss and Mario Williams currently.

slim
03-06-2008, 11:30 PM
Purposely done as to be less insulting but I wouldn't expect you to understand that. I am done. As I don't want to break forum rules just as you 2 are breaking the rules as well, but I'm the one that will get in trouble as I am not in the Freak circle like you 2 circle high-5ing mates are.

WTF are you talking about? The freak is dead, man. There are no freaks here.

Nature Boy
03-06-2008, 11:31 PM
Oh....and stats:

Mario Williams in 2007: 16 games, 14 sacks but only 1 pass defended
Mario Williams in 2006: 16 games, 4.5 sacks, 3 passes def
Tim Crowder in 2007: 13 games, 4 sacks, 1 forced fumble
Jarvis Moss in 2007: 6 games, 1 sack, 1 forced fumble
Elvis Dumervil in 2006: 13 games, 8.5 sacks, 1 pass def
Elvis Dumervil in 2007: 16 games, 12.5 sacks, 4 pass def, 1 INT

Now why don't we want to give Crowder and Moss another year?

My "he suck" remark was about Jarvis Moss, cause he's a 1st rounder, not Crowder or Dummerville. What's your point?

frauschieze
03-06-2008, 11:33 PM
Mario Williams in 2006, his rookie year played all 16 games, started all 16, got 4.5 sacks, 4 passes batted and 35 tackles.

Jarvis in 2007, his rookie year played 6 games, stated just 1, got 1 sack and a measly 9 tackles.

Although Mario didn't have a stellar rookie campaign, he definitely showed promise and was good enough to hold down the starting job unlike Jarvis. However, as much as Jarvis sucked, he will get his chance in 2008, but I reserve the right as a fan to rate his performance and say that Jarvis really sucked and showed no potential. There is no comparison to Jarvis Moss and Mario Williams currently.

Moss is not the same type of DE that Williams is. A better comparison would be Williams to Crowder. Moss is a project DE. It has been said since the first day of the draft last year, that Crowder would be a more complete DE and play at a higher level before Moss did but Moss' top potential was high but it would take more work.

Bottom line is linemen take time to develop. It is a waste if you don't give them that time.

Nature Boy
03-06-2008, 11:33 PM
He had 4.5 sacks his rookie year while playing 16 games. Where is this point that you have proven?

He was good enough to hold down the starting spot and didn't get injured to play all 16 games. Al though he only got 4 sacks his rookie year, he did pressure the QB plenty batting down 4 balls.

Nature Boy
03-06-2008, 11:35 PM
Moss is not the same type of DE that Williams is. A better comparison would be Williams to Crowder. Moss is a project DE. It has been said since the first day of the draft last year, that Crowder would be a more complete DE and play at a higher level before Moss did but Moss' top potential was high but it would take more work.

Bottom line is linemen take time to develop. It is a waste if you don't give them that time.

So what, he still sucks. Especially when a 17th overall pick is wasted on him not to mention the cap space his contract occupied. Your excuses don't dismiss the fact that he sucks.

You can't compare Mario Williams to Jarvis Moss. You can't even mention the 2 in the same sentence without saying, "Jarvis sucks and he was a 1st rounder."

slim
03-06-2008, 11:38 PM
Judging a player after only six games in asinine.

Nature Boy
03-06-2008, 11:46 PM
JRWiz, I will now cease to comment on this thread as long as I have no more comments to reply to. Please keep the thread as is, or locked.

BeefStew25
03-06-2008, 11:48 PM
JRWiz, I will now cease to comment on this thread as long as I have no more comments to reply to. Please keep the thread as is, or locked.

Pity party pants. Come on. Agree you need to give Jarvis more than 6 games and a broken fibula.

slim
03-06-2008, 11:56 PM
Pity party pants. Come on. Agree you need to give Jarvis more than 6 games and a broken fibula.

Beefy, who is this guy? I am out of the loop.

Nature Boy
03-06-2008, 11:58 PM
Pity party pants. Come on. Agree you need to give Jarvis more than 6 games and a broken fibula.

Yes, I will give Jarvis the 2008 season to at least show some potential. He is a Broncos 1st rounder and I only wish him best. But I do reserve the right as a fan to say that he sucks and he looks like he'll be a bust; I hope not, especially cause of his draft status.

No mas post para me on this threato por favor.

Refer to JrWiz for any comments, answers or concerns.

Lonestar
03-07-2008, 12:04 AM
Now can we get back to ellis ?


:focus:

dogfish
03-07-2008, 12:05 AM
Now can we get back to ellis ?


:focus:

love to, but he'll be gone long before we get on the clock. . . :sad:

BeefStew25
03-07-2008, 12:06 AM
Yes, I will give Jarvis the 2008 season to at least show some potential. He is a Broncos 1st rounder and I only wish him best. But I do reserve the right as a fan to say that he sucks and he looks like he'll be a bust; I hope not, especially cause of his draft status.

No mas post para me on this threato por favor.

Refer to JrWiz for any comments, answers or concerns.

Well, now you just look a wimp. A woman killed you throwing up stats. Come on. Sit with me under the trust tree. We can disagee and still be friends.

Watch. This is how you do it:

Jake Plummer sucks donkey balls and is living in a tree eating the crap he finds in his belly button.

BeefStew25
03-07-2008, 12:07 AM
Beefy, who is this guy? I am out of the loop.

I don't know, but we need to give him the benefit of the doubt. He might just be brilliant. I am giving him six games, and if he sucks, I am going to run a hangnail down his pany hose so he gets a runner.

Astrass
03-07-2008, 05:51 PM
I've been thinking more and more about moving up to draft Ellis......I really want him but now I think we just flat out can't afford it. I think he will go in the top 5.

He is a freak.....he will go ahead of Dorsey.

shank
03-08-2008, 02:34 PM
if we trade up for any position besides DT i will be epically angry.


SHANK SMASH!

SmilinAssasSin27
03-08-2008, 03:04 PM
I wish I had my own internet spokesperson.

shank
03-08-2008, 04:51 PM
if either is there at 8, i like smile's idea of using foxy to get up.

#12, Foxy, and our 4th (#104) for #8 from Baltimore. That gives Foxy a value of 114, which falls in between the last pick in the 3rd and the 1st pick in the 4th. This means that Baltimore picks him up for less than his original draft position, less than his RFA tender, and we get one of the 2 great DTs.

I think this is the only trade up that I would be able to stomach, and could actually make me pretty happy.

lex
03-08-2008, 04:59 PM
If Ellis were to fall to the Jets or Cincinnati. I can see it being extremely difficult to move up. I think either of teams would be doing back flips if that were to happen. Mayock today had him going to Cincinnati. We'd have to trade in front of Cincinnati before their pick comes up cause if they dont draft Ellis, you have to question why theyd draft anyone then.

SmilinAssasSin27
03-08-2008, 05:05 PM
Jets are at 6 I believe...but just signed Jenkins and pla a 3-4.

Cincy is at 9 or 10 and NO is at the other. That is why I feel we need to jump up to #8 in a trade w/ Bmore if we have ANY chance at one of these guys. yes, they still have to drop that far, and that's no sure thing, BUT if Cincy gets a chance they are taking the one still there...and Bmore won't trade in division. Luckily they are set at DT w/ Ngata andGregg and could use a young CB like Foxxy.

lex
03-08-2008, 05:09 PM
Jets are at 6 I believe...but just signed Jenkins and pla a 3-4.

Cincy is at 9 or 10 and NO is at the other. That is why I feel we need to jump up to #8 in a trade w/ Bmore if we have ANY chance at one of these guys. yes, they still have to drop that far, and that's no sure thing, BUT if Cincy gets a chance they are taking the one still there...and Bmore won't trade in division. Luckily they are set at DT w/ Ngata andGregg and could use a young CB like Foxxy.

I realize the Jets just signed Jenkins but if you were the Jets would you pass on Ellis? Is there someone you could get at 12 thats worth moving down? If Im the Jets, Im not so sure Id pass up on Ellis even with Jenkins on the roster.

dogfish
03-08-2008, 05:13 PM
I realize the Jets just signed Jenkins but if you were the Jets would you pass on Ellis? Is there someone you could get at 12 thats worth moving down? If Im the Jets, Im not so sure Id pass up on Ellis even with Jenkins on the roster.

they could easily take gholston or mcfadden instead of ellis-- both of them are every bit as highly rated, and fill needs that are more pressing than DT with the acquisition of jenkins (especially if they end up keeping robertson). . .

SmilinAssasSin27
03-08-2008, 05:13 PM
I realize the Jets just signed Jenkins but if you were the Jets would you pass on Ellis? Is there someone you could get at 12 thats worth moving down? If Im the Jets, Im not so sure Id pass up on Ellis even with Jenkins on the roster.

Possibly McFadden. Some say he's a lock for NYJ if he gets past Oakland.

Another option is Gholston.

They just paid Jenkins beau coup bux. I doubt they go DT. And don't forget, Robertson has yet to be traded.

shank
03-08-2008, 05:13 PM
I realize the Jets just signed Jenkins but if you were the Jets would you pass on Ellis? Is there someone you could get at 12 thats worth moving down? If Im the Jets, Im not so sure Id pass up on Ellis even with Jenkins on the roster.

if I were the jets, i would Definitely pass on ellis. you just wrote a 35 million dollar contract to jenkins, and you play a 3-4. with the ridiculous salaries that are given to 1st round picks, especially top 10, you just can't have that much money tied up into 1 position, when only one of them is on the field at a time, or you have to move your #6 overall to a "different" position.

dogfish
03-08-2008, 05:16 PM
Possibly McFadden. Some say he's a lock for NYJ if he gets past Oakland.

Another option is Gholston.

They just paid Jenkins beau coup bux. I doubt they go DT. And don't forget, Robertson has yet to be traded.

too slow. . . . :laugh:

lex
03-08-2008, 05:18 PM
they could easily take gholston or mcfadden instead of ellis-- both of them are every bit as highly rated, and fill needs that are more pressing than DT with the acquisition of jenkins (especially if they end up keeping robertson). . .

Do you really see a scenario where both McFadden and Ellis are available at 6? It just doesnt seem likely. It seems more likely that Oakland is going to take either McFadden or Ellis. Only time will tell, but I was kind of assuming that if Ellis is available, McFadden likely will not be. Gholston is a possibility.

dogfish
03-08-2008, 05:25 PM
Do you really see a scenario where both McFadden and Ellis are available at 6? It just doesnt seem likely. It seems more likely that Oakland is going to take either McFadden or Ellis. Only time will tell, but I was kind of assuming that if Ellis is available, McFadden likely will not be. Gholston is a possibility.

actually, i do thhink oakland is likely to take ellis-- but that could mean that dorsey is available. . . i know the thread is technically about ellis, but personally i'd be every bit as happy to get dorsey. . .

SmilinAssasSin27
03-08-2008, 05:26 PM
Do you really see a scenario where both McFadden and Ellis are available at 6? It just doesnt seem likely. It seems more likely that Oakland is going to take either McFadden or Ellis. Only time will tell, but I was kind of assuming that if Ellis is available, McFadden likely will not be. Gholston is a possibility.

We only need 1 of em to slip past Oakland to have a chance to trade w/ Bmore. 6 is NYJ. 7 is NE...both ahve very good DTs. Bmore also has good DTs and could be a trade partner. Cincy WILL pounce at #9 if permitted to do so.

SmilinAssasSin27
03-08-2008, 05:29 PM
Atlanta and Oakland are the biggest players here if we are looking at one of the stud DTs. IF Atlanta goes QB and IF Oakland goes McFadden, they should both drop. Miami just signed 2 DTs. We want them to take Chris Long. The Rams drafted DT last year and Jake Long is the money choice there. Atlanta at 3 and Oakland at 4 are the question marks...but if they go Ryan at #3 and McFadden at #4, the Chiefs may be tempted, but need OLine help. many are saying Clady is their guy. We'll see. After that I think we'd be in the clear.

lex
03-08-2008, 05:29 PM
if I were the jets, i would Definitely pass on ellis. you just wrote a 35 million dollar contract to jenkins, and you play a 3-4. with the ridiculous salaries that are given to 1st round picks, especially top 10, you just can't have that much money tied up into 1 position, when only one of them is on the field at a time, or you have to move your #6 overall to a "different" position.

Jenkins is getting older and how much of that is guaranteed?

shank
03-08-2008, 05:31 PM
Jenkins is getting older and how much of that is guaranteed?

$20 million.

SmilinAssasSin27
03-08-2008, 05:33 PM
Jenkins is getting older and how much of that is guaranteed?

age aside...he JUST got a brand new deal.

shank
03-08-2008, 05:38 PM
age aside...he JUST got a brand new deal.

plus, he's only 28. yes he's aging in the sense that we ALL are aging, but he could easily be an effective player throughout his entire, brand new, 5 year contract and beyond.

i don't know about the jets, but i can say with conviction that there's NO way i take ellis if i am them.

SmilinAssasSin27
03-08-2008, 05:42 PM
Yeah...Gholston just seems like a perfect fit for em.

lex
03-08-2008, 05:48 PM
plus, he's only 28. yes he's aging in the sense that we ALL are aging, but he could easily be an effective player throughout his entire, brand new, 5 year contract and beyond.

i don't know about the jets, but i can say with conviction that there's NO way i take ellis if i am them.
Wow, youre right. He's younger than I thought. I had seen his age brought up though.

Lonestar
03-08-2008, 07:00 PM
I realize the Jets just signed Jenkins but if you were the Jets would you pass on Ellis? Is there someone you could get at 12 thats worth moving down? If Im the Jets, Im not so sure Id pass up on Ellis even with Jenkins on the roster.


Not so sure that Ellis plays NT and seems to big to play DE.. So that might not make him the guys they go after they have other needs to fill on that team.. They could real easily pass on him..

TXBRONC
03-08-2008, 07:39 PM
Not so sure that Ellis plays NT and seems to big to play DE.. So that might not make him the guys they go after they have other needs to fill on that team.. They could real easily pass on him..

Remember in a 3-4 defense the defensive end is more like a defensive tackle in a 4-3 defense. The defensive ends for the Chargers Olshansky and Castillo were both defensive tackles in college. In fact Castillo was an NT in college if I'm not mistaken.

That being said Ellis looks like he is a better fit for 4-3.

Stargazer
03-09-2008, 04:35 AM
No trade up when there's a giant hole regarding the 3rd round pick. Denver will either select at #12 or trade down if the opportunity is there.

WARHORSE
03-09-2008, 05:46 AM
If you ask me, the Patriots will be trading up to number five with KC. Gholston would be absolutely killer in the hands of Belicheat, and they know that theres no way Gholston gets past the Jets at 6. Gholston is a taylor made 3-4 beast. He is Shawn Merriman without the roids, and faster.

If we were ever thinking about moving to a 3-4, I would be saying GET GHolston.


If the Pats dont go for a corner, then Im sure that will be another area that will need addressing. If they score on a good corner, like Talib, then theyre doing nothing other than replacing Samuels. But the Pats getting Gholston, and picking up a corner in the second? Ouch. Theres gonna be some AFC QBs planted on their backs quite abit.

Astrass
03-10-2008, 02:50 PM
Yay! http://www.draftking.com/nfl/2008/mockdraft.shtml

lol

BOSSHOGG30
03-10-2008, 02:51 PM
Yay! http://www.draftking.com/nfl/2008/mockdraft.shtml

lol

That would be AWESOME!

Broncospsycho77
03-10-2008, 03:17 PM
That would be AWESOME!

I would gladly trade my pinky finger for that scenario...

turftoad
03-10-2008, 03:27 PM
Yay! http://www.draftking.com/nfl/2008/mockdraft.shtml

lol

This would be so great. Looks like it could happen. I really don't see Rivers going that early but then again, what do I know. I'd love to see Ellis slide right into our laps.

Noticed, as the draft moves closer Mendenhall seems to moving keep up the board and is almost always ahead of Stewart. This particular mock has F.Jones going before Stewart.

fcspikeit
03-10-2008, 03:35 PM
This would be so great. Looks like it could happen. I really don't see Rivers going that early but then again, what do I know. I'd love to see Ellis slide right into our laps.

Noticed, as the draft moves closer Mendenhall seems to moving keep up the board and is almost always ahead of Stewart. This particular mock has F.Jones going before Stewart.

I was thinking the same thing, Stewert might even be concidered a reach at 12

dogfish
03-10-2008, 03:36 PM
no way the vultures take brohm at 8-- ozzie newsome is NOT an idiot!

dogfish
03-10-2008, 03:38 PM
I was thinking the same thing, Stewert might even be concidered a reach at 12

absolutely not! they're smoking crack if they have felix jones going ahead of him. . . .


let's not forget the last ducks back that slipped to 24-- if stewart drops, somebody is going to get an insane value. . . .

fcspikeit
03-10-2008, 03:43 PM
absolutely not! they're smoking crack if they have felix jones going ahead of him. . . .


let's not forget the last ducks back that slipped to 24-- if stewart drops, somebody is going to get an insane value. . . .

Well, I don't see Jones going ahead of sterwert..

All I'm saying is, if you pick a guy at 12 who is predicted to go 15 to 20 then it is a bit of a reach...

No matter who we get at 12, if they turn out to be a stud, people will say it wasn't a reach. However, that really isn't how it works. If we would have drafted TD in the 1st it would have been a reach because we could have picked him in the 6th. ;)

dogfish
03-10-2008, 03:55 PM
Well, I don't see Jones going ahead of sterwert..

All I'm saying is, if you pick a guy at 12 who is predicted to go 15 to 20 then it is a bit of a reach...

No matter who we get at 12, if they turn out to be a stud, people will say it wasn't a reach. However, that really isn't how it works. If we would have drafted TD in the 1st it would have been a reach because we could have picked him in the 6th. ;)

well, obviously if you're talking about a projected late 2nd day guy, sure. . . :lol:



but what's the difference between 12, 15 and 18? they're completely arbitrary numbers. . . . besides, how many people out there create mock drafts and haven't the slightest clue what they're talking about? i can put a mock on my blog and copy and paste it here to this site-- does that really prove anything? stewart is an extremely talented back with prototypical build and measurables, and the production at a major college program to back it up. . . he is most certainly NOT a reach at 12 just because some guy with draftking.com (who the hell are they? i've never heard of 'em before) has him going lower. . . .

fcspikeit
03-10-2008, 06:50 PM
well, obviously if you're talking about a projected late 2nd day guy, sure. . . :lol:



but what's the difference between 12, 15 and 18? they're completely arbitrary numbers. . . . besides, how many people out there create mock drafts and haven't the slightest clue what they're talking about? i can put a mock on my blog and copy and paste it here to this site-- does that really prove anything? stewart is an extremely talented backback with prototypical build and measurables, and the the production at a major college program to back it up. . . he is most certainly NOT a reach at 12 just because some guy with draftking.com (who the hell are they? i've never heard of 'em before) has him going lower. . . .

Top,, I don't want to ferther this thread off topic anymore then we have so this will be last post on the matter :salute:

If we were picking 18th and wanted to move up to 12th we would surly see the difference!

I am not saying Stewart would be a reach... But he would be as much of a reach as Clady to those like Mayock who have both going later then 12.

When I suggested Laws at 12 everyone said it would be a major reach, well, now he seems to be crawling into the first round.. Someone said at 12 you need to pick in the top 2 at any position... Well, Stewart according to most all the "experts" is the 3rd rated back in this draft. Clady is also rated 3rd on a lot of the "experts" board. These are the same experts that have Laws ranked 3-6...

IMO, what it all comes down to, is people like certain players for what ever reason, so they find a mock and "Expert" that supports their player. It's all good.. Hell its the off season..

We all seem to differ a bit on exactly what a reach is. Is it taking a bad player or taking someone higher then they were projected to go?

According to the different "experts" all three Stewart, Clady and Laws could be considered a reach... Regardless, if we got any of the 3 at 12 and they provided us with an upgrade that lead to us winning games in the future, it would be a good pick.

Some will say, they have to live up to their draft position, How many 12th picks have busted? How many 2nd day picks have become all pros? Therefore, how could we possibly even put an expected level of play on any of the draft selections? Do we judge every 6th round pick to TD?

:beer:

HammeredOut
03-10-2008, 07:46 PM
Both Dorsey, and Ellis will be gone, by time the Broncos select.

I like a Kenny Phillips at Safety if he is still available, and wait for another DT because this season is a rare season for good DTs. I think it is a deep draft when it comes to drafting DTs.

Kentwan Balmer, North Carolina in the second
Height: 6-4. Weight: 308.
Benchx225: 33
Combine 40 Time: 5.28.
Has potential to be an everydown player.

Dre Moore, Maryland
Height: 6-4. Weight: 305
Benchx225: 31
Combine 40 Time: 4.88
One of the fastest/strongest Dts in the draft
Best game of the season was against West Virginia, steering Slaton around.

Frank Okam, Texas
Height: 6-4. Weight: 347
Combine 40 Time: 5.32
Benchx225: 32. Vertical 23
This guy is big strong plug up the middle. He could be a goal line specialist.

BOSSHOGG30
03-10-2008, 07:50 PM
Both Dorsey, and Ellis will be gone, by time the Broncos select.

I like a Kenny Phillips at Safety if he is still available, and wait for another DT because this season is a rare season for good DTs. I think it is a deep draft when it comes to drafting DTs.

Kentwan Balmer, North Carolina in the second
Height: 6-4. Weight: 308.
Benchx225: 33
Combine 40 Time: 5.28.
Has potential to be an everydown player.

Dre Moore, Maryland
Height: 6-4. Weight: 305
Benchx225: 31
Combine 40 Time: 4.88
One of the fastest/strongest Dts in the draft
Best game of the season was against West Virginia, steering Slaton around.

Frank Okam, Texas
Height: 6-4. Weight: 347
Combine 40 Time: 5.32
Benchx225: 32. Vertical 23
This guy is big strong plug up the middle. He could be a goal line specialist.

How many SS type safeties do we need?

McCree, Lynch, Abullah who is playing FS and out of position, and now you want to add Phillips?

We need a FS, cover safety. Unless you think Roderick Rogers and Abdullah are the answer there.

Drill-N-Fill
03-10-2008, 07:55 PM
I say since Baltimore picks 8 and doesn't need a tackle, trade with them b/c at 9 Cincy will def take Dorsey/Ellis.

Ravens are prob targeting a WR, Cb, QB, OT, RB. All could be had by trading down.

We should give up our 1st, 2nd, and foxworth for their 1st and 3rd. Wouldn't be a bad trade for either side. Everybody goes home happy and we end up addressing our biggest need. And with the 3rd rounder we could draft a guy like eddie royal.

HammeredOut
03-10-2008, 07:59 PM
How many SS type safeties do we need?

McCree, Lynch, Abullah who is playing FS and out of position, and now you want to add Phillips?

We need a FS, cover safety. Unless you think Roderick Rogers and Abdullah are the answer there.

I think Phillips would out play Lynch and a few aspects of the game. Also I think Lynch should retire. He is more of a 3-4 linebacker then a safety with any cover skills. Besides if Phillips is available in which i doubt he will be, then this team needs to look at other positions on defense. Lynch is a lights out hitter, but this game is to fast for him these days. A fan fav, pro-bowler, but a Pass liability.

Abullah is not anything to geer about, If any position this team needs to rebuild, it is DT and Safety.

SmilinAssasSin27
03-10-2008, 08:39 PM
I say since Baltimore picks 8 and doesn't need a tackle, trade with them b/c at 9 Cincy will def take Dorsey/Ellis.

Ravens are prob targeting a WR, Cb, QB, OT, RB. All could be had by trading down.

We should give up our 1st, 2nd, and foxworth for their 1st and 3rd. Wouldn't be a bad trade for either side. Everybody goes home happy and we end up addressing our biggest need. And with the 3rd rounder we could draft a guy like eddie royal.

Now where have I heard that before?:cool:

We wouldn't need to make it that complex...Foxxy and a 4th for a swap of spots. The value between 8 and 12 is 200 pts which is equal to a mid 3rd rounder. Foxxy and a 4th or 5th should get it done...especially since Bmore needs Safety and could still get their OT to replace the likely retiring Ogden.

Drill-N-Fill
03-10-2008, 08:47 PM
Now where have I heard that before?:cool:

We wouldn't need to make it that complex...Foxxy and a 4th for a swap of spots. The value between 8 and 12 is 200 pts which is equal to a mid 3rd rounder. Foxxy and a 4th or 5th should get it done...especially since Bmore needs Safety and could still get their OT to replace the likely retiring Ogden.

Have you said the same thing before? If so, great minds think alike...:D

But wait, just b/c the points add up doesn't usually mean a team will do it. Sometimes you need to twist their hands a lil more. ie. 2nd round for 3rd.

SmilinAssasSin27
03-10-2008, 08:52 PM
Have you said the same thing before? If so, great minds think alike...:D

But wait, just b/c the points add up doesn't usually mean a team will do it. Sometimes you need to twist their hands a lil more. ie. 2nd round for 3rd.

Well...They NEED CB and OT. I don't think that much twisting would be needed. Foxxy's tender is a 3rd round pick as it is...basically the difference in value between #8 and #12. The "twisting" would actually be tossing in the 4th or 5th. It'd basically be gravy for Bmore whose CBs are aging and not very healthy. Call me a homer, but if I was Bmore and I could get a young solid and experienced CB, a mid round pick AND still be in position for one of the top 3 OTs in this draft, I'd do it twice tomorrow and once on Wednesday.

And yes...I've been calling for thsi deal for @ 3 weeks now. If one of the DTs drops, we MUST get ahead of NO and Cincy. The area of doom are the 3 and 4 spots. If 1 or both of the DTs slip past ATL AND OAK, we'd be in great position if we swapped w/ Bmore cuz KC, NYJ and NE do not need DTs at this point.

Drill-N-Fill
03-10-2008, 09:33 PM
How dissapointed would you guys be if Shanny does what we all wouldn't expect and draft Malcolm Kelley? The guys sure looks good on this highlight vid.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9W7nTi4JFQ

dogfish
03-10-2008, 09:41 PM
How dissapointed would you guys be if Shanny does what we all wouldn't expect and draft Malcolm Kelley? The guys sure looks good on this highlight vid.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9W7nTi4JFQ

i will cry like a little girl. . . .

SmilinAssasSin27
03-10-2008, 10:20 PM
How dissapointed would you guys be if Shanny does what we all wouldn't expect and draft Malcolm Kelley? The guys sure looks good on this highlight vid.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9W7nTi4JFQ

Not my 1st choice, but I'd be fine with it. As I said before...anything but QB and TE. We get a Kelly or Sweed and our entire passing game is young and ready to explode.

Astrass
03-13-2008, 12:48 AM
Another day rolls by. Sunkist is gone and I still want us to trade up for Ellis.

vtroper
03-14-2008, 08:06 AM
I say since Baltimore picks 8 and doesn't need a tackle, trade with them b/c at 9 Cincy will def take Dorsey/Ellis.

Ravens are prob targeting a WR, Cb, QB, OT, RB. All could be had by trading down.

We should give up our 1st, 2nd, and foxworth for their 1st and 3rd. Wouldn't be a bad trade for either side. Everybody goes home happy and we end up addressing our biggest need. And with the 3rd rounder we could draft a guy like eddie royal.


I think any of these trade suggestions involving Foxworth are a reach. Basically, any of the other 31 teams in the NFL could have him right now for a 3rd round pick if they wanted and he hasn't gotten an offer. So while yes, technically, he and Paymah are tendered as 3rd rounders, until someone signs either one of them to an offer sheet I don't think it's fair to assume we could get "3rd round value" for them in a trade. If anyone valued him as a 3rd rounder, he'd already be gone.

I will agree however, that Eddie Royal would be a tremendous pick for us, although I have my doubts about whether he'll last to the early 3rd after his stellar combine. As a graduate and season ticket holder of Virginia Tech, Royal could step in right away and be a servicable 3rd WR and fill our neverending void at KR and PR that we've spent dozens of 2nd day draft picks trying to fill over the years.

If I could somehow be assured that Royal would fall to us in the 3rd, I'd willingly give up our 1st two picks to get Ellis (or Dorsey now that he seems to be falling on some mocks) and a second 3rd rounder.

Requiem / The Dagda
03-14-2008, 11:20 AM
No, and I wouldn't take him at #12 even if he was there.

Lonestar
03-14-2008, 12:16 PM
I think any of these trade suggestions involving Foxworth are a reach. Basically, any of the other 31 teams in the NFL could have him right now for a 3rd round pick if they wanted and he hasn't gotten an offer. So while yes, technically, he and Paymah are tendered as 3rd rounders, until someone signs either one of them to an offer sheet I don't think it's fair to assume we could get "3rd round value" for them in a trade. If anyone valued him as a 3rd rounder, he'd already be gone.

I will agree however, that Eddie Royal would be a tremendous pick for us, although I have my doubts about whether he'll last to the early 3rd after his stellar combine. As a graduate and season ticket holder of Virginia Tech, Royal could step in right away and be a servicable 3rd WR and fill our neverending void at KR and PR that we've spent dozens of 2nd day draft picks trying to fill over the years.

If I could somehow be assured that Royal would fall to us in the 3rd, I'd willingly give up our 1st two picks to get Ellis (or Dorsey now that he seems to be falling on some mocks) and a second 3rd rounder.

Not necessarily so.. All that means is they can sign him to an offer sheet.. because we can match it, it tips it back into our favor.. It is not as simple as taking him away from us for a 3..

atwater27
03-14-2008, 12:23 PM
:eek::crazy::screwy::loco:
No, and I wouldn't take him at #12 even if he was there.

crazy talk.

Requiem / The Dagda
03-16-2008, 02:28 PM
:eek::crazy::screwy::loco:

crazy talk.

Sorry, I don't feel like adding another 3-technique guy who would work best in a Tampa 2 defense to our roster; and one that has a lingering history of injuries, such as ankle and other leg issues.

TXBRONC
03-16-2008, 07:06 PM
Another day rolls by. Sunkist is gone and I still want us to trade up for Ellis.

How far do you want trade up. It would get pretty costly to go past the 10th pick.

fcspikeit
03-16-2008, 07:51 PM
Sorry, I don't feel like adding another 3-technique guy who would work best in a Tampa 2 defense to our roster; and one that has a lingering history of injuries, such as ankle and other leg issues.

No one seems to be worried/talking about Ellis' injury history...

Aren't we going to be running the Tampa 2 a lot this year with Slow's scheme?

Requiem / The Dagda
03-16-2008, 08:05 PM
No one seems to be worried/talking about Ellis' injury history...

They should be though. Having lingering knee and leg injuries, not to mention shattering your ankle completely. That's something to be concerned about.


Aren't we going to be running the Tampa 2 a lot this year with Slow's scheme?

Denver's been running Cover 2 variants for the past four years heavily. Thomas and McKinley would all serve well as undertackles (3 techniques) in Denver's 4-3 under Slowik. Getting Ellis would just be pointless, unless Denver wants to use two attacking style defensive tackles; but that doesn't mean sense to me, considering that they're interesting in Robertson who is a typical 1 technique guy in a 4-3 and would make a nice pair with Thomas. That's why I see us being interested in Laws as well.

dogfish
03-16-2008, 08:51 PM
They should be though. Having lingering knee and leg injuries, not to mention shattering your ankle completely. That's something to be concerned about.



Denver's been running Cover 2 variants for the past four years heavily. Thomas and McKinley would all serve well as undertackles (3 techniques) in Denver's 4-3 under Slowik. Getting Ellis would just be pointless, unless Denver wants to use two attacking style defensive tackles; but that doesn't mean sense to me, considering that they're interesting in Robertson who is a typical 1 technique guy in a 4-3 and would make a nice pair with Thomas. That's why I see us being interested in Laws as well.



gee, that's funny-- draftscout and PFW both say that laws will fit best as a three-technique in the pros. . . .

"Size issues hurt him when playing in the gap, making him a liability at nose guard"

"Is an adequate pass rusher at the "three" technique, but struggles inside as a zero- or one-tech bull rusher"

"Projects best inside in a 4-3 front, where he played as a junior, slanting, stunting and playing in gaps from the three-technique position"

from scout.com:


This player just flat out works his butt off game in and game out. Has very good quickness, plays with good leverage and has good strength in his hands and through his lower body. not a natural pass rusher. Very intense and his play effort was second to none. Might not be quick or stout enough to play a nose, but is going to factor as a strong inside rotational player. Very solid football player.


i'm not against getting laws, but he's not a pure one-technique/4-3 nosetackle. . . if that's the prototype we want, red bryant or ahtyba rubin are better fits (not necessarily better players). . . .




just sayin'. . . .

Requiem / The Dagda
03-16-2008, 09:34 PM
gee, that's funny-- draftscout and PFW both say that laws will fit best as a three-technique in the pros. . . .

"Size issues hurt him when playing in the gap, making him a liability at nose guard"

"Is an adequate pass rusher at the "three" technique, but struggles inside as a zero- or one-tech bull rusher"

"Projects best inside in a 4-3 front, where he played as a junior, slanting, stunting and playing in gaps from the three-technique position"

from scout.com:




i'm not against getting laws, but he's not a pure one-technique/4-3 nosetackle. . . if that's the prototype we want, red bryant or ahtyba rubin are better fits (not necessarily better players). . . .




just sayin'. . . .


Laws' versatility is why I like him. He's a multiple scheme fit. Rubin is a guy I'd really enjoy getting. I'm not sure when those articles were written, but Laws has went up to 305 since then and looks like he's put up the reps on the bench. He can play either; as can Ellis - but I'd much rather wait on Laws than trade up for Ellis. We'll see what happens; but we have to stay away from most of the 3-technique's because that's not what we need, IMHO.

Harrison and Rubin are probably our best bets at DT; if we're looking for a true NT type guy.

dogfish
03-16-2008, 10:13 PM
Laws' versatility is why I like him. He's a multiple scheme fit. Rubin is a guy I'd really enjoy getting. I'm not sure when those articles were written, but Laws has went up to 305 since then and looks like he's put up the reps on the bench. He can play either; as can Ellis - but I'd much rather wait on Laws than trade up for Ellis. We'll see what happens; but we have to stay away from most of the 3-technique's because that's not what we need, IMHO.

Harrison and Rubin are probably our best bets at DT; if we're looking for a true NT type guy.

i would probably agree about waiting for laws rather than trading up for ellis-- but it would depend on what we were giving up. . . i actually think they have a fair number of similarities-- both are short, squatty guys with good functional strength, high motor and active against the run with some quickness to collapse the pocket-- but ellis is a consensus top ten pick, and i would imagine there's a reason on film. . . i've said for a while now that my preference would be to add a real, big-bodied one-tech (that's why i was interested in shaun rogers), but those guys are pretty hard to find, and i wouldn't complain about an upgrade from mckinley. . .

it really depends on what kind of gap control scheme slowik plans to run, and i have never seen any definitive answer to that. . . without knowing for sure, it's tough to say who'll best fit what he wants. . . of course, when you're talking about acquiring talent, we also have to remember that if they're any good, they're likely to be here a lot longer than slowik is. . . :laugh:

i'd rather have an athletic space-eater to plug lanes, but if we're going to run a blitz-heavy scheme it might make more sense to go with two quick penetrators at DT. . .

WARHORSE
03-17-2008, 01:45 AM
Normally the guys that are tendered are signed later in the offseason..once free agency kinda dries up. No one wants to give up picks for guys that may be had without giving up picks.

The offers for Foxworth will come, unless we trade him away first.

powderaddict
03-17-2008, 10:49 AM
I'm a bit late to the party, so here's my $0.02.

I'd really like to see the Broncos either stay put or trade down, and draft a good OT prospect in the 1st (Williams would be my 1st choice), address DT in the 2nd, and go from there.

I wouldn't be upset to see Ellis in a Broncos uniform though, as long as the o-line is addressed later in the draft.

I'm more worried about the long-term viability of the O-line more than the D-line, as we have some good young prospects on the d-line. Not that we dont desperately need another solid DT though.

Astrass
03-17-2008, 05:20 PM
How far do you want trade up. It would get pretty costly to go past the 10th pick.

I'm not sure. I've never really been a fan of trading up but there is something about Ellis that make it seem worth it to me. I think if we had to get to the 7th pick I would try.

We aren't going to be SB contenders for maybe 2 to 3 years. So we have time to build through the draft. But I see an opportunity right here with Ellis that I feel should not be passed up.

There are many other people we could draft instead of Ellis and I'm sure they would do an OK job but they probably won't be the kinda franchise guy we need on that d-line. He will produce, he will make everyone elses job on the dline easier, he will help our passing D and he will be a high character team player.

Astrass
03-20-2008, 12:54 PM
So, we sign some depth on the oline and Robertson failed his physical. DT is still the only "need" position we have not yet addressed in any way.

Astrass
03-20-2008, 01:12 PM
how do i create a thread???????????????

You have to have 200+ posts

Fan in Exile
03-20-2008, 01:18 PM
No you don't. Just go to Forumn tools and select post a new thread.

LRtagger
03-20-2008, 02:13 PM
Lol

broncohead
03-20-2008, 07:57 PM
I agree that we need space eating DTs. Our biggest problem last year was the run-D. I read somewhere that Marcus Harrison had some character concerns so I wouldn't take him inless he falls. Sims quite his football team so that is a red flag. The 2 later round guys that I would take is Red Bryant in the 3rd or Rubin in the 4th. Solid guys that doesn't have character concerns.

vtroper
04-19-2008, 04:12 AM
6 Weeks after this thread was started, the question still seems viable. It looks like Glen Dorsey will be gone with the 3rd pick at the latest, so Ellis remains our most likely option. I don't think there's any chance Cincy passes on him at #9, so we have to get ahead of them if we want a shot at him. Realistically, I don't think Baltimore would be interested in trading down (unless Matt Ryan is gone) so New England once again becomes our obvious trading partner. With Foxworth offically drawing no extra picks for us, the question once again is, would you be willing to give up the necessary picks to move up for one of the drafts impact DT's?

Denver gets New England's 1st rounder (#7 Overall) and New England's 3rd rounder

and

New England gets Denver's 1st rounder (#12 Overall) and Denver's 2nd rounder

Is it worth moving from the early-mid 2nd round to one of the last picks of the 3rd round to jump up 5 picks to get Ellis? I like Ellis an awful lot, but this is a team with alot of needs right now...

Ziggy
04-19-2008, 08:30 AM
6 Weeks after this thread was started, the question still seems viable. It looks like Glen Dorsey will be gone with the 3rd pick at the latest, so Ellis remains our most likely option. I don't think there's any chance Cincy passes on him at #9, so we have to get ahead of them if we want a shot at him. Realistically, I don't think Baltimore would be interested in trading down (unless Matt Ryan is gone) so New England once again becomes our obvious trading partner. With Foxworth offically drawing no extra picks for us, the question once again is, would you be willing to give up the necessary picks to move up for one of the drafts impact DT's?

Denver gets New England's 1st rounder (#7 Overall) and New England's 3rd rounder

and

New England gets Denver's 1st rounder (#12 Overall) and Denver's 2nd rounder

Is it worth moving from the early-mid 2nd round to one of the last picks of the 3rd round to jump up 5 picks to get Ellis? I like Ellis an awful lot, but this is a team with alot of needs right now...


If AJ Smith were making our draft picks I'd say no. Keep all the picks we have. But given the Broncos history in the draft I'd take that deal in a minute. Sorry, but other than the 2006 draft (too early to tell about last year's yet) we have screwed the pooch on nearly all of our picks. Of the 26 players taken by the Denver Broncos between 2003-2005, 19 of them no longer play in the nfl. Can I make it any clearer than that? Everyone wants to hoard picks, but until the Broncos prove that they can use them wisely on a consistent basis, I'd rather we either took a top player in the first round or trade for young veterans like Dwayne Robertson or Jared Allen.

HolyDiver
04-19-2008, 06:34 PM
I would trade our 2nd round pick to move up to get Ellis................I think he can make that big of a difference..................Maybe Zbikowski lasts until the 4th round and Silva later, I'm hearing he'll be a late round pick....although, I really think the dude can play............Let the O-line play out, now that Nalen and Hamilton are back.

Npba900
04-19-2008, 08:24 PM
No. We need picks.

And Shanahan needs to quit giving away future picks for reaching too high for players. Moss and Thomas are clearcut examples of that.

Not so fast! Moss and Thomas have 2 to 3 years yet to prove whether they are bust or not.