Broncos issues start at the draft

[SmilinAssasSin27]

Broncos issues start at the draft
Beyond Bowlen, Shanny and Sundquist, catching the Chargers key
By Jim Armstrong
The Denver Post
Article Last Updated: 03/18/2008 04:09:57 PM MDT


Pat Bowlen and Mike Shanahan have their work cut out. (THE DENVER POST | ANDY CROSS)Pat Bowlen says he didn't have a problem with Mike Shanahan firing Ted Sundquist.

Well, duh. Shanahan was just following Bowlen's orders.

We can debate all day long whether Sundquist deserved to go, but the fact is, these things happen all the time in the league Jerry Glanville once dubbed the Not For Long.

The issue isn't that Sundquist is gone. Or Jim Bates for that matter. There's only one issue for the Broncos: Catching the Chargers in the AFC West.

Which brings us to next month's draft. The Broncos, you may have heard, had far too many draft-day swings and misses from 2001-05. Now, after unearthing several promising players in the past two drafts, they have to keep the momentum going.

Frankly, it's their only way out of this mess. If this off-season has shown us anything, it's that Pat Bowlen is tired of signing huge checks for aging free agents, many of whom haven't panned out in Denver.

That leaves the draft, scheduled for April 26-27. We're left to wonder which players the Broncos will select, but they'll have major strength in numbers. Denver will have nine picks — two in the fourth, fifth and seventh rounds, none in the third.

It's one thing to find a player in the first or second round. What the Broncos need to do is find one in the fourth and fifth, where they'll have an extra crack at it in each round.

It can be done, witness the Broncos' draft of '06, when they grabbed Brandon Marshall and Elvis Dumervil seven picks apart in the fourth round.

[lex]

Yeah, its time to catch the Chargers...who were routinely picking in the top 10 for several years. Im not saying we didnt do a bad job of drafting but come on. If you draft that high that many times, youre bound to accumulate some talent as SD has done.

[Lonestar]

Yeah, its time to catch the Chargers...who were routinely picking in the top 10 for several years. Im not saying we didnt do a bad job of drafting but come on. If you draft that high that many times, youre bound to accumulate some talent as SD has done.

Your correct but do you really think that we would have drafted wisely like they did?

Their GM's and I mean two of them one of which died and then was replaced by AJ Smith I think it was were first rate talent guys..

What ever the issue has been in DEN, Ted, the scouting or mikey over the past 13 years our drafting has sucked except for 2006-07. Whoever was responsible for those two years is MOOT now. Can mikey or Pat pull 3-4 quality players out of his/their ass this year to get this franchise back on track..

[lex]

Your correct but do you really think that we would have drafted wisely like they did?

Their GM's and I mean two of them one of which died and then was replaced by AJ Smith I think it was were first rate talent guys..

What ever the issue has been in DEN, Ted, the scouting or mikey over the past 13 years our drafting has sucked except for 2006-07. Whoever was responsible for those two years is MOOT now. Can mikey or Pat pull 3-4 quality players out of his/their ass this year to get this franchise back on track..

I definitely think we would be in much better shape than we are now. Whether or not we'd be as good as SD is hard to say and not even relevant either since its pure speculation but I definitely think that it makes a big difference drafting in the top 5 year after year vs drafting in the bottom 5.

[Brand]

Sparkies had some terrible years, and pi$$ poor drafting during those times as well. When they got the number one and Manning was on the board, the sparkies hit the motherlode in picks and players. Sort of the same way Dallas made big with the Walker trade to Minnesota. Just getting a high pick did not make the sparkies a good team. There were other factors involved, too.... Luck is one.....

[Lonestar]

I definitely think we would be in much better shape than we are now. Whether or not we'd be as good as SD is hard to say and not even relevant either since its pure speculation but I definitely think that it makes a big difference drafting in the top 5 year after year vs drafting in the bottom 5.

.

We have been consistently in the late teens and early 20's hardly bottom 5.

I do not think that it would have made a huge difference alot of SAN team success has been because of the DL and LB they drafted.. someone mikey would have never went after. IMO.

[TXBRONC]

.

We have been consistently in the late teens and early 20's hardly bottom 5.

I do not think that it would have made a huge difference alot of SAN team success has been because of the DL and LB they drafted.. someone mikey would have never went after. IMO.

Actually Jr we've been in the mid to lower 20s. At any rate the I believe the point Lex is making is when you don't draft in 10-15 consistently you're not going to get high impact players. Most novices understand this.

[lex]

.

We have been consistently in the late teens and early 20's hardly bottom 5.

I do not think that it would have made a huge difference alot of SAN team success has been because of the DL and LB they drafted.. someone mikey would have never went after. IMO.

Its kind of far fetched to think that drafting 15-20 spots later for several years wouldnt make a difference.

[NameUsedBefore]

In theory, the Denver Broncos really should be one of the league's worst teams. I don't really know how we've gotten away with such mediocre drafting for years and years. But I'd have to think that if Shanahan can scrap together winning teams again and again in the face of dud-drafts, he must be capable of some scary stuff if we can just knock a few out of the ballpark every so often.

[Lonestar]

Actually Jr we've been in the mid to lower 20s. At any rate the I believe the point Lex is making is when you don't draft in 10-15 consistently you're not going to get high impact players. Most novices understand this.

LEts look at this

1 17 Jarvis Moss
1 11 Jay Cutler
none
1 17 D.J. Williams
1 20 George Foster
1 19 Ashley Lelie
1 24 Willie Middlebrooks
1 15 Deltha O'Neal
1 31 Al Wilson
1 30 Marcus Nash
1 28 Trevor Pryce
1 15 John Mobley
none

No offense TX but that looks a lot like high teens to low 20's to me..

Thanks at least for elevating me from stupid to novice..

[lex]

LEts look at this

1 17 Jarvis Moss
1 11 Jay Cutler
none
1 17 D.J. Williams
1 20 George Foster
1 19 Ashley Lelie
1 24 Willie Middlebrooks
1 15 Deltha O'Neal
1 31 Al Wilson
1 30 Marcus Nash
1 28 Trevor Pryce
1 15 John Mobley
none

No offense TX but that looks a lot like high teens to low 20's to me..

Thanks at least for elevating me from stupid to novice..


And in several of those years SD was picking 15-20 spots before us. Whats your point?

[Requiem / The Dagda]

Congratulations JR; nice job on failing to recognize the trade ups with Cutler, Moss and DJ Williams from the 20's up into the teens. What's that, 7/11 or 8/11 that were beyond 20 originally; but made moves to go up and get? Yep, I think so.

Buzz.

[Lonestar]

Its kind of far fetched to think that drafting 15-20 spots later for several years wouldnt make a difference.

lets compare



1 17 Jarvis Moss vs 1 30 Craig Davis +13
1 11 Jay Cutler VS 1 19 Antonio Cromartie +8
none vs 1 12 Shawne Merriman -12
1 17 D.J. Williams vs 1 1 Eli Manning -16
1 20 George Foster vs 1 30 Sammy Davis +10
1 19 Ashley Lelie vs 1 5 Quentin Jammer -14
1 24 Willie Middlebrooks 1 5 LaDainian Tomlinson -19
1 15 Deltha O'Neal none
1 31 Al Wilson none
1 30 Marcus Nash vs 1 2 Ryan Leaf -28
1 28 Trevor Pryce none +28
1 15 John Mobley none +15
none none 0

grand total of 15 spots over 13 years.. NAW do not think that was all that did it..

[DenverBronkHoes]

shanny blows at drafting

his best year was 2 years ago

[Requiem / The Dagda]

Am I the only one who finds error in that formula JR just came up with because he's using the years we had picks -- they didn't, and didn't count for trade ups? LOL.

[Lonestar]

Congratulations JR; nice job on failing to recognize the trade ups with Cutler, Moss and DJ Williams from the 20's up into the teens. What's that, 7/11 or 8/11 that were beyond 20 originally; but made moves to go up and get? Yep, I think so.

Buzz.

When we did actually draft vs where we were supposed to draft means NADA.

It is where we took the player and actually what the actual cost was to get that player.

So that 11 we used to get Jay was not really an 11 but the sum total of picks it took to get there.

Or am I just stupid?

[Lonestar]

Am I the only one who finds error in that formula JR just came up with because he's using the years we had picks -- they didn't, and didn't count for trade ups? LOL.


You have better way, have at it.. The years they did not have a #1 they obviously used ti to get someone else..Same with us..

It was just about as level a playing field as I could come up with.. But then I'm just a novice at this, as I have only seen 47 years of Broncos drafting..

[DenverBronkHoes]

ive whined about it before......


but we could have had Ed Reed and Reggie Wayne... instead we went for the SURE winners and took Willie "how do u play CB" Middlebrooks and Ashley "Im #1" Lelie

[Requiem / The Dagda]

When we did actually draft vs where we were supposed to draft means NADA.

It is where we took the player and actually what the actual cost was to get that player.

So that 11 we used to get Jay was not really an 11 but the sum total of picks it took to get there.

Or am I just stupid?

Of course where we originally drafted matters because had the Broncos not moved up in those rounds and given up more draft ammunition; we wouldn't have been there in the first place. Had the Broncos not traded in the three years I mentioned (Williams, Cutler, Moss) we'd of been picking in the 20's and not the teens like those picks suggest. Which in an instance or two, throws off your formula -- since we'd be picking behind the Chargers.

Had Denver been drafting at those positions originally, your homework would hold merit -- but it doesn't matter.

Denver has not had the value the Chargers have had in prior drafts; or the luxury of selecting high like they had for several years because they have been a consistent team.

Denver drafted at #12 is one of the highest -- if not the highest original selection they've had since taking Mike Croel out of Nebraska in 1994.

So yeah, in the point Lex is making -- it absolutely matters.

[Requiem / The Dagda]

It was just about as level a playing field as I could come up with.. But then I'm just a novice at this, as I have only seen 47 years of Broncos drafting..

Well, you said it JR -- I didn't.

[lex]

lets compare



1 17 Jarvis Moss vs 1 30 Craig Davis +13
1 11 Jay Cutler VS 1 19 Antonio Cromartie +8
none vs 1 12 Shawne Merriman -12
1 17 D.J. Williams vs 1 1 Eli Manning -16
1 20 George Foster vs 1 30 Sammy Davis +10
1 19 Ashley Lelie vs 1 5 Quentin Jammer -14
1 24 Willie Middlebrooks 1 5 LaDainian Tomlinson -19
1 15 Deltha O'Neal none
1 31 Al Wilson none
1 30 Marcus Nash vs 1 2 Ryan Leaf -28
1 28 Trevor Pryce none +28
1 15 John Mobley none +15
none none 0

grand total of 15 spots over 13 years.. NAW do not think that was all that did it..

Lets recap. At the outset I wasnt saying we were great at drafting, which is true.

I also said that in several seasons we drafted 15-20 spots after them. Thats also true.

You also have to look at who SD selected in those years. Those were franchise type players or players that lead to franchise building transactions driven by selecting extremely high. How many times did we draft in the top 15 during the time youre citing (which is semi-erroneous considering a lot of the players selected by either team at that time probably isnt with the team or playing...Im talking about some of the 90s you cite).

Its also erroneous to only look at the first round. If we have a much better season than them, typically they draft well ahead of us in all the subsequent rounds...not just the first...so if they didnt have their first for whatever reason, theyre still picking well before us in the subsequent rounds. Its myopic to only look at the first.

And some of your math is wrong. Picking Merriman at 12 when we had no first round pick, would'nt yield a difference of -12.

[Lonestar]

Of course where we originally drafted matters because had the Broncos not moved up in those rounds and given up more draft ammunition; we wouldn't have been there in the first place. Had the Broncos not traded in the three years I mentioned (Williams, Cutler, Moss) we'd of been picking in the 20's and not the teens like those picks suggest. Which in an instance or two, throws off your formula.

Had Denver been drafting at those positions originally, your homework would hold merit -- but it doesn't matter.

Denver has not had the value the Chargers have had in prior drafts; or the luxury of selecting high like they had for several years because they have been a consistent team.

Denver drafted at #12 is one of the highest -- if not the highest original selection they've had since taking Mike Croel out of Nebraska in 1994.

So yeah, in the point Lex is making -- it absolutely matters.

Lets try this again.. We did not draft at 22 or wherever we were supposed to. We drafted at 11 and 17 and it took more that one draft choice to get there..

So no offense here, BUT it does matter..

If we took lemons in some of those years which we all know we did it is our fault for either believing we knew what we were doing OR not trading up to get the talent we could not get in later choices.

BTW do understand that San might have moved around a bit also in some of those years too.. What happened to the three years they did not pick in the first round?.. Do you suppose they might have traded back for more choices or traded the years before for someone. I just picked SAN because they were in our division and because mikey would have never went after DLINE and 3-4 LB s like they did..

Hey you can believe in the power of mikey all you wish.. I gave up on mikey the GM several years ago for obvious reasons.. SO if you wish to refute the actual numbers I posted go right ahead..

I suspect we will have to agree to disagree on this one..

When or should I say IF mikey pulls off another great draft (third in a row) I just might get back on his GM wagon..

But I suspect more folks will be jumping off on 28APR than jumping on..

[Lonestar]

Lets recap. At the outset I wasnt saying we were great at drafting, which is true.

I also said that in several seasons we drafted 15-20 spots after them. Thats also true.

You also have to look at who SD selected in those years. Those were franchise type players or players that lead to franchise building transactions driven by selecting extremely high. How many times did we draft in the top 15 during the time youre citing (which is semi-erroneous considering a lot of the players selected by either team at that time probably isnt with the team or playing...Im talking about some of the 90s you cite).

Its also erroneous to only look at the first round. If we have a much better season than them, typically they draft well ahead of us in all the subsequent rounds...not just the first...so if they didnt have their first for whatever reason, theyre still picking well before us in the subsequent rounds. Its myopic to only look at the first.

And some of your math is wrong. Picking Merriman at 12 when we had no first round pick, would yield a difference of -12.

Lets get back on track here the original presumptions only the top few choices under 20 are considered prime time picks and since we was always picking after 20 we were not suppose to hit home runs.

Did I miss something here? So if that is correct then second round or later really has no bearing on this conversation..

BTW I had merriman at -12 perhaps it is someone else I messed up on.

[Requiem / The Dagda]

Lets try this again.. We did not draft at 22 or wherever we were supposed to. We drafted at 11 and 17 and it took more that one draft choice to get there..

So no offense here, BUT it does matter.

Um, yeah. I said it matters. Which is why your formula or whatever you came up with sucks. You said, "Looks like we're picking in the teens more often than the 20's" despite the fact that Moss, Cutler and Williams (those picks) were all in the 20's before we moved up and got them.


If we took lemons in some of those years which we all know we did it is our fault for either believing we knew what we were doing OR not trading up to get the talent we could not get in later choices.

I don't even know what this says.


BTW do understand that San might have moved around a bit also in some of those years too.. What happened to the three years they did not pick in the first round?.. Do you suppose they might have traded back for more choices or traded the years before for someone. I just picked SAN because they were in our division and because mikey would have never went after DLINE and 3-4 LB s like they did..

Yep, I'm well aware of what they did and what happened. They're not a team that usually trades up JR; and the trade records shows that. They were consistently (besides the past few years) picking ahead of us because they were bad. Um, and of course we wouldn't go after 3-4 personnel like they have. We're not a 3-4 team.


Hey you can believe in the power of mikey all you wish.. I gave up on mikey the GM several years ago for obvious reasons.. SO if you wish to refute the actual numbers I posted go right ahead..

I already did, your formula is wrong -- on the basis of the reasons I stated.


I suspect we will have to agree to disagree on this one.

Everyone's disagreeing with you because the arguments you make don't hold any whater.


When or should I say IF mikey pulls off another great draft (third in a row) I just might get back on his GM wagon..

But I suspect more folks will be jumping off on 28APR than jumping on..

Your continuous bashing of Shanahan and the draft is ridiculous. Mike makes the final picks; but he uses the information he gets from the people below him -- it seems like improvement is being made.

Then again, you rarely have anything good to say about the Broncos, so we've gotten used to this sort of posting. There's always some excuse or delusion that goes along with the successes of players here; from Lelie to Dumervil. It just gets old.

The arguments you have and continue to make (especially in the draft sense) don't hold any water. Heck, they don't even make sense.

[DenverBronkHoes]

how well do teams spot talent?

well my impression is if u have more people who know talent, the better... I know Shanny is a great man. But he cannot do everything.

Not supposed to hit homeruns? What the hell does that mean? Were supposed to hit home runs every year. Thats a lame excuse...

[lex]

Lets get back on track here the original presumptions only the top few choices under 20 are considered prime time picks and since we was always picking after 20 we were not suppose to hit home runs.

Did I miss something here? So if that is correct then second round or later really has no bearing on this conversation..

BTW I had merriman at -12 perhaps it is someone else I messed up on.


OK, Im not even sure what youre trying to say here. But since you bring up getting back on track, its worth correcting you on a faux pas in your reply to dream. San Diego didnt come up because you arbitrarily decided they are in our division. San Diego was mentioned in Armstrongs piece and he actually suggested that a talent discrepancy exists because we havent drafted as well as San Diego (which is impossible to know because a lot of their core players were drafted in years where they picked well before us). So, again, it wasnt because a beach ball fell from the sky and landed on your head making you reference San Diego. It was actually in the piece.

And like I said, Im not exactly clear on what youre trying to say in a lot of your post but if Merriman was drafted at 12 and we didnt have a first round pick, it would be impossible to have -12. That would mean we drafted at 24. I think you made that same error in other places where one team had no first round pick.

[DenverBronkHoes]

Um, yeah. I said it matters. Which is why your formula or whatever you came up with sucks. You said, "Looks like we're picking in the teens more often than the 20's" despite the fact that Moss, Cutler and Williams (those picks) were all in the 20's before we moved up and got them.



I don't even know what this says.



Yep, I'm well aware of what they did and what happened. They're not a team that usually trades up JR; and the trade records shows that. They were consistently (besides the past few years) picking ahead of us because they were bad. Um, and of course we wouldn't go after 3-4 personnel like they have. We're not a 3-4 team.



I already did, your formula is wrong -- on the basis of the reasons I stated.



Everyone's disagreeing with you because the arguments you make don't hold any whater.



Your continuous bashing of Shanahan and the draft is ridiculous. Mike makes the final picks; but he uses the information he gets from the people below him -- it seems like improvement is being made.

Then again, you rarely have anything good to say about the Broncos, so we've gotten used to this sort of posting. There's always some excuse or delusion that goes along with the successes of players here; from Lelie to Dumervil. It just gets old.

The arguments you have and continue to make (especially in the draft sense) don't hold any water. Heck, they don't even make sense.


Shanny is not Jesus Christ

did u say Lelie was successful? Why? cuz he caught short dead ducks from Plummer and averaged 20 a catch?

Shanny sucks at drafting... Hes had a few descent years. But he generally blows at it. I love the guy. But hes living in 98 still.

nothing wrong with bashing ur own team.

Just be happy we arent the Lions

[lex]

Um, yeah. I said it matters. Which is why your formula or whatever you came up with sucks. You said, "Looks like we're picking in the teens more often than the 20's" despite the fact that Moss, Cutler and Williams (those picks) were all in the 20's before we moved up and got them.



I don't even know what this says.



Yep, I'm well aware of what they did and what happened. They're not a team that usually trades up JR; and the trade records shows that. They were consistently (besides the past few years) picking ahead of us because they were bad. Um, and of course we wouldn't go after 3-4 personnel like they have. We're not a 3-4 team.



I already did, your formula is wrong -- on the basis of the reasons I stated.



Everyone's disagreeing with you because the arguments you make don't hold any whater.



Your continuous bashing of Shanahan and the draft is ridiculous. Mike makes the final picks; but he uses the information he gets from the people below him -- it seems like improvement is being made.

Then again, you rarely have anything good to say about the Broncos, so we've gotten used to this sort of posting. There's always some excuse or delusion that goes along with the successes of players here; from Lelie to Dumervil. It just gets old.

The arguments you have and continue to make (especially in the draft sense) don't hold any water. Heck, they don't even make sense.

Its saying that whatever the reason, we were still drafting at 12 (or wherever) and have a better shot at a good player than where we would have been. Its a subset of the myopic red herring that suggests only the first round matters.

[Lonestar]

Um, yeah. I said it matters. Which is why your formula or whatever you came up with sucks. You said, "Looks like we're picking in the teens more often than the 20's" despite the fact that Moss, Cutler and Williams (those picks) were all in the 20's before we moved up and got them.



I don't even know what this says.



Yep, I'm well aware of what they did and what happened. They're not a team that usually trades up JR; and the trade records shows that. They were consistently (besides the past few years) picking ahead of us because they were bad. Um, and of course we wouldn't go after 3-4 personnel like they have. We're not a 3-4 team.



I already did, your formula is wrong -- on the basis of the reasons I stated.



Everyone's disagreeing with you because the arguments you make don't hold any whater.



Your continuous bashing of Shanahan and the draft is ridiculous. Mike makes the final picks; but he uses the information he gets from the people below him -- it seems like improvement is being made.

Then again, you rarely have anything good to say about the Broncos, so we've gotten used to this sort of posting. There's always some excuse or delusion that goes along with the successes of players here; from Lelie to Dumervil. It just gets old.

The arguments you have and continue to make (especially in the draft sense) don't hold any water. Heck, they don't even make sense.

What do you not understand?

We actually picked at 17 or 11 not where we were supposed to.. And it took several of our choices to do so..

We are not being ranked on where we were supposed to draft but how we DID in those drafts..how many players are still with the team.. Actuals not theory.. If you wish the folks that rate the drafts to rate us on where we were supposed to draft send them and email and see if they will change there minds..

It kind a like asking the teacher for a grade based on intentions or guesstimates and not actual work.. wonder how that would work out?

Sorry that so many of you continue to drink mikeys koolade, but I got weaned off it several years ago.

I know longer believe every word he says like it is the gospel truth..
If you wish to more power to you.. It does not make me less a fan, than you are.

[Lonestar]

Its saying that whatever the reason, we were still drafting at 12 (or wherever) and have a better shot at a good player than where we would have been. Its a subset of the myopic red herring that suggests only the first round matters.


Well if you must, please name all of our great number twos.. Try not to keep it on one hand OK? Then if you must look at theirs..

Enough said by me n this subject gong to bed.. I need all my beauty sleep.

[lex]

Well if you must, please name all of our great number twos.. Try not to keep it on one hand OK? Then if you must look at theirs..

Enough said by me n this subject gong to bed.. I need all my beauty sleep.


That has nothing to do with anything...certainly nothing I said.

[DenverBronkHoes]

What do you not understand?

We actually picked at 17 or 11 not where we were supposed to.. And it took several of our choices to do so..

We are not being ranked on where we were supposed to draft but how we DID in those drafts..how many players are still with the team.. Actuals not theory.. If you wish the folks that rate the drafts to rate us on where we were supposed to draft send them and email and see if they will change there minds..

It kind a like asking the teacher for a grade based on intentions or guesstimates and not actual work.. wonder how that would work out?

Sorry that so many of you continue to drink mikeys koolade, but I got weaned off it several years ago.

I know longer believe every word he says like it is the gospel truth..
If you wish to more power to you.. It does not make me less a fan, than you are.

which was not very good.... i totally hear ya jr....

fact is this..... if we had the front office of the pats, steelers, or chargers, we'd have better players and possibly a superbowl....

ok... its not a fact but merely my opinion

[fcspikeit]

LEts look at this

1 17 Jarvis Moss
1 11 Jay Cutler
none
1 17 D.J. Williams
1 20 George Foster
1 19 Ashley Lelie
1 24 Willie Middlebrooks
1 15 Deltha O'Neal
1 31 Al Wilson
1 30 Marcus Nash
1 28 Trevor Pryce
1 15 John Mobley
none

No offense TX but that looks a lot like high teens to low 20's to me..

Thanks at least for elevating me from stupid to novice..


The funny thing about that list is that 2 of the better players, Trever Pryce and Al Wilson were taken with our worst picks. LOL (28 & 31)

Lets be fair though JR, we should compare our draft record with teams that have consistently picked lower then us.. How about we compare our drafts with the Pats, Colts, and Pitt... :lol:




lets compare



1 17 Jarvis Moss vs 1 30 Craig Davis +13
1 11 Jay Cutler VS 1 19 Antonio Cromartie +8
none vs 1 12 Shawne Merriman -12
1 17 D.J. Williams vs 1 1 Eli Manning -16
1 20 George Foster vs 1 30 Sammy Davis +10
1 19 Ashley Lelie vs 1 5 Quentin Jammer -14
1 24 Willie Middlebrooks 1 5 LaDainian Tomlinson -19
1 15 Deltha O'Neal none
1 31 Al Wilson none
1 30 Marcus Nash vs 1 2 Ryan Leaf -28
1 28 Trevor Pryce none +28
1 15 John Mobley none +15
none none 0

grand total of 15 spots over 13 years.. NAW do not think that was all that did it..

The math isn't right in the ones in bold.. It actualy works in your favor but just for an example, "none vs 1 12 Shawne Merriman -12" It wouldn't be -12. It would be the difference between 12 and where we picked in the 2nd.. That is how many - positions they picked in front of us.

Beings they didn't pick in the 1st 4 times.. We would gain more ground from where we picked in the 1st to where they picked in the 2nd.


Anyways, this comparison only works if your only comparing each teams 1st pick in the draft.. We would lose ground in every round, so as a whole they would have picked a lot higher then us.

Maybe we should compare there second round picks to our 1st's.? Or we could just do as I already suggested and compare our picks against the teams who have been "consistently" picking around & behind us.. Pats, Colts, Pitt. We all know how that would turn out, It's not even close! :D

[Lonestar]

The funny thing about that list is that 2 of the better players, Trever Pryce and Al Wilson were taken with our worst picks. LOL (28 & 31)

Lets be fair though JR, we should compare our draft record with teams that have consistently picked lower then us.. How about we compare our drafts with the Pats, Colts, and Pitt... :lol:





The math isn't right in the ones in bold.. It actualy works in your favor but just for an example, "none vs 1 12 Shawne Merriman -12" It wouldn't be -12. It would be the difference between 12 and where we picked in the 2nd.. That is how many - positions they picked in front of us.

Beings they didn't pick in the 1st 4 times.. We would gain more ground from where we picked in the 1st to where they picked in the 2nd.


Anyways, this comparison only works if your only comparing each teams 1st pick in the draft.. We would lose ground in every round, so as a whole they would have picked a lot higher then us.

Maybe we should compare there second round picks to our 1st's.? Or we could just do as I already suggested and compare our picks against the teams who have been "consistently" picking around & behind us.. Pats, Colts, Pitt. We all know how that would turn out, It's not even close! :D

I'm not sure what your trying to get to comparing our late 1's with there 2s but probably since i did not sleep well last night and am real tired.. Maybe tomorrow it will make sense..

BTW a great catch on the price and wilson being our best draft choices at 30 and 31.. Pryceless pardon the pun..

[fcspikeit]

Of course where we originally drafted matters because had the Broncos not moved up in those rounds and given up more draft ammunition; we wouldn't have been there in the first place. Had the Broncos not traded in the three years I mentioned (Williams, Cutler, Moss) we'd of been picking in the 20's and not the teens like those picks suggest. Which in an instance or two, throws off your formula -- since we'd be picking behind the Chargers.

It was said..


"I definitely think we would be in much better shape than we are now. I definitely think that it makes a big difference drafting in the top 5 year after year vs drafting in the bottom 5"

Since when has pick 33-37 been considered a "top 5" pick? The statement refers to the 1st round, so Jr compared "1st" round picks..


It's true they have had more draft value "overall" then we have.

However, If we're comparing the value of both teams first pick we have had more value in the first round because we have had 3 more 1st round picks..

This statement was also made..


Actually Jr we've been in the mid to lower 20s. At any rate the I believe the point Lex is making is when you don't draft in 10-15 consistently you're not going to get high impact players. Most novices understand this.

Once again, 10-15 is referring to the "1st round", Unless we are to believe you can't get "high impact" players 16-32 yet you can get "high impact" players 33-47? :confused:

If one is using the argument 1-15 are high impact players then that is only referring to the 1st round.. If we are going that rout then it wouldn't matter how we got our 1st round picks. It would only matter where in fact we picked in the 1st round.

[fcspikeit]

I'm not sure what your trying to get to comparing our late 1's with there 2s but probably since i did not sleep well last night and am real tired.. Maybe tomorrow it will make sense..

BTW a great catch on the price and wilson being our best draft choices at 30 and 31.. Pryceless pardon the pun..



Here is what I am talking about... You were comparing the value of each teams "first" pick. Beings we are counting the first pick, it wouldn't matter if it was made in the 1st or 2nd round. One would have to compare the difference between our pick and theirs. If they picked at 12 and we didn't pick they wouldn't gain 12 on us. They would gain the difference between 12 and were we picked..

_____Den_San

1996. 15. 41. = +26
1997. 28. 45. = +17
1998. 30. 02. = -28
1999. 31. 60. = +29
2000. 15. 43. = +28
2001. 24. 05. = -19
2002. 19. 05. = -14
2003. 20. 30. = +10
2004. 17. 01. = -16
2005. 56. 12. = -44
2006. 11. 19. = +8
2007. 17. 30. = +13

Total 283 293 = +10

We have actualy had a better Value with our "first" pick then they have.

They have only picked in the top 15, 5 times in the last 12 years. We have only picked 20+ 6 times. It's worth noting that they have also picked 20+ 6 times.

Their average "first" pick is, 24.4... Our average first pick has been, 23.5..

So what was that about San Diego having a higher percentage of "Impact picks" again? :confused:

I guess if we we're only counting 1-15 as Impact picks as Tx said, then they have had 2 more then us. They have had 5 total and we have had 3..

[Superchop 7]

It is worth noting that the two guys that San Diego is clamoring about are Kenny Phillips and Cromartie.

I couldn't agree more.

[lex]

Here is what I am talking about... You were comparing the value of each teams "first" pick. Beings we are counting the first pick, it wouldn't matter if it was made in the 1st or 2nd round. One would have to compare the difference between our pick and theirs. If they picked at 12 and we didn't pick they wouldn't gain 12 on us. They would gain the difference between 12 and were we picked..

_____Den_San

1996. 15. 41. = +26
1997. 28. 45. = +17
1998. 30. 02. = -28
1999. 31. 60. = +29
2000. 15. 43. = +28
2001. 24. 05. = -19
2002. 19. 05. = -14
2003. 20. 30. = +10
2004. 17. 01. = -16
2005. 56. 12. = -44
2006. 11. 19. = +8
2007. 17. 30. = +13

Total 283 293 = +10

We have actualy had a better Value with our "first" pick then they have.

They have only picked in the top 15, 5 times in the last 12 years. We have only picked 20+ 6 times. It's worth noting that they have also picked 20+ 6 times.

Their average "first" pick is, 24.4... Our average first pick has been, 23.5..

So what was that about San Diego having a higher percentage of "Impact picks" again? :confused:

I guess if we were only counting 1-15 as Impact picks as Tx said, then they have had 2 more then us. They have had 5 total and we have had 3..

First of all, it doesnt even make sense to go back to 1997 since San Diegos main core of players werent drafted until after that. I wouldnt start until 2000 or 2001. I dont even think 1996 is relevant here.

Second, youre math has built into it the argument you arlready acknowledged about only looking at the first rounds.

Third, how many times has Denver picked in the top 15 since 2000 or 2001? Not only does that affect our chance at a high impact player such as a running back like Tomlinson or a LB like Merriman but youre also picking lower iin every subsequent rounds...even in years when San Diego had a poor season but finished low.

Since 2000 theyve picked in the top 15 four times. We have twice. We have Cutler to show for it, so were 1/2. Now, consider that their 3 of their top 15 were actually top 5. And their basically 3/4 since they have Tomlinson, Merriman, and were able to parlay one of their picks into Rivers and another pick. But again, they were dealing from a position of greater advantage being in the top 5.

So getting back to the whole point of origin of the discussion, which is that San Diego has been better at drafting than us and not just drafting from an advantageous position. Its something that you can easily poke holes in. You have to look at where they pick when theyve been able to get high impact players and also where they pick relative to us throughout the draft, not just the first round.

[TXBRONC]

LEts look at this

1 17 Jarvis Moss
1 11 Jay Cutler
none
1 17 D.J. Williams
1 20 George Foster
1 19 Ashley Lelie
1 24 Willie Middlebrooks
1 15 Deltha O'Neal
1 31 Al Wilson
1 30 Marcus Nash
1 28 Trevor Pryce
1 15 John Mobley
none

No offense TX but that looks a lot like high teens to low 20's to me..

Thanks at least for elevating me from stupid to novice..

And as usual you didn't read the rest of my post. No offense JR but I said most impact players are found in the top 10 to 15, this is what most novices understand.

[TXBRONC]

Am I the only one who finds error in that formula JR just came up with because he's using the years we had picks -- they didn't, and didn't count for trade ups? LOL.


I don't even consider it a formula.

[mclark]

In theory, the Denver Broncos really should be one of the league's worst teams. I don't really know how we've gotten away with such mediocre drafting for years and years. But I'd have to think that if Shanahan can scrap together winning teams again and again in the face of dud-drafts, he must be capable of some scary stuff if we can just knock a few out of the ballpark every so often.

I agree. This shows how much his players respect Shanahan. He's been winning with a lot of second-day draftees.

[fcspikeit]

First of all, it doesnt even make sense to go back to 1997 since San Diegos main core of players werent drafted until after that. I wouldnt start until 2000 or 2001. I dont even think 1996 is relevant here.


The reason I went to 1996 was because shanahan took over in 95.. I believe he also made the selections for us in 95 but I didn't count 95 because we didn't pick until the 4th round. I don't remember why that was for sure? If I remember right Reeves traded away our early picks in previous years... Not just that but being Shanahan wasn't the coach in 94 he had no part in where we picked..



Second, youre math has built into it the argument you arlready acknowledged about only looking at the first rounds.


It wasn't my argument.. I was just using the logic of another's argument which was, only the 1st "pick" is an impact player. It would go without saying that the higher your first pick has been the higher an impact player you could get...

Keep in mind, I said first "pick" not first round. Teams do not trade out of the 1st to get impact players. They trade out of the 1st to fill more needs. At any rate, it doesn't matter. If we are only going to call the first pick the impact players then you would have to count SD first pick even if it was in the 2nd round. After all, they chose to trade back..



Third, how many times has Denver picked in the top 15 since 2000 or 2001? Not only does that affect our chance at a high impact player such as a running back like Tomlinson or a LB like Merriman but youre also picking lower iin every subsequent rounds...even in years when San Diego had a poor season but finished low.


I agree with you here... If we drop the impact argument brought up by TX, and look at the draft as a whole, They have had better over all draft value..

But we have had a higher first "pick" average... As I shown before, in Mikey's tenner our average first pick has been 23.5 while theirs has been 24.4. The reason that is important is because it was brought up, we pick consistently in the 20's, while San diego is consistently picking in the top 15. That is not the case.. You have to compare the average of every "first" pick and not just those made in the first round. Otherwise the % gets screwed up because of all the trading out of the 1st round. Besides that, the argument was that they are consistently picking in the top 15. That is simply not the case.



Since 2000 theyve picked in the top 15 four times. We have twice. We have Cutler to show for it, so were 1/2. Now, consider that their 3 of their top 15 were actually top 5. And their basically 3/4 since they have Tomlinson, Merriman, and were able to parlay one of their picks into Rivers and another pick. But again, they were dealing from a position of greater advantage being in the top 5.


If your looking at the pick value based on the # chart, you are right here.. However, as with this year, If the guy you want/need isn't going to go in the top 10, then you either have to over draft or try and trade back... Therefore, when you compare the ability to feel a need to where your going to pick the #'s chart loses some value... In other wards, You can easily feel a need with your 1st pick regardless where you pick if you choose the right guy... This is proven by the fact 2 of Shanahan best 1st picks have been some of his latest picks, 31 & 28 (Al Wilson, Trever Pryce)

You and I both know we could look 20 picks after ours in every draft Mikey drafted a dud with his first pick and we could find a better player, that would have filed more of a need. In some case's we could look back 200 players and find 100+ players that would have been better. We of course would have the advantage of hindsight. So the comparison wouldn't be fair...

Either way, my point is that, there were a lot better players on the board when we picked. Mikey just picked the wrong guys... Just like San Diego did when they waisted a #2 over all on Ryan Leaf. It happens to every GM.. It just happens more to Shanahan then it does the others.. Well that isn't entirely true either, there have been a lot of GM's who have been fired who drafted as bad as Shanahan.



So getting back to the whole point of origin of the discussion, which is that San Diego has been better at drafting than us and not just drafting from an advantageous position Its something that you can easily poke holes in. You have to look at where they pick when theyve been able to get high impact players and also where they pick relative to us throughout the draft, not just the first round.

Do you honestly believe the only reason they have drafted better players is because of the drafting position? That doesn't explain why their 2nd round picks have been better then our 1st's.. It doesn't explain why the Pats, Colts & Pitt have drafted so much better then us and they have been picking behind us...

lex, you are a smart guy, I have seen your past mocks... Knowing how the players have turned out, are you honestly telling me if we would have picked your guys over those who Shanahan chose we wouldn't be better off?

I don't agree with every guy you like and I'm sure you have wanted some guys who have busted, But you know how right you have been and how wrong, so think about it, then tell me you don't believe you could have done a better job then Mikey, picking exactly where he picked..

Then figure in all the access he has that you don't, Figure in the amount of time he has to scout players compared to you. You have the ability to hire anyone you want to help you.. You have the ability to devote as much time as you want because your getting paid for it. Then tell me you couldn't have done a better job then Shanahan..

It is one thing if a guy is always picking out of need. You will have a higher % of bust's... Shanahan doesn't even do that, he says he picks BPA... Hell, in most cases we would have done better picking the top guy at our position of need.. Mikey will draft a guy at a position we don't hardly need, and he will have been the 3 or 4th best at the position he drafted from. The top guy at our position of need is rated higher then the guy he drafted... That is except for on Mikeys rating and god only knows how he makes that list?

[lex]

The reason I went to 1996 was because shanahan took over in 95.. I believe he also made the selections for us in 95 but I didn't count 95 because we didn't pick until the 4th round. I don't remember why that was for sure? If I remember right Reeves traded away our early picks in previous years... Not just that but being Shanahan wasn't the coach in 94 he had no part in where we picked..

This whole discussion was prompted by the "why cant we be more like the Chargers" sentiment in Armstrongs piece.




Keep in mind, I said first "pick" not first round. Teams do not trade out of the 1st to get impact players. They trade out of the 1st to fill more needs. At any rate, it doesn't matter. If we are only going to call the first pick the impact players then you would have to count SD first pick even if it was in the 2nd round. After all, they chose to trade back..

To which my response has steadfastly been, fine, there are 6 other rounds where SD is picking higher than us...so even if they trade out or whatever, they are still picking ahead of us in every subsequent round unless they trade away their draft.






I agree with you here... If we drop the impact argument brought up by TX, and look at the draft as a whole, They have had better over all draft value..

But we have had a higher first "pick" average... As I shown before, in Mikey's tenner our average first pick has been 23.5 while theirs has been 24.4. The reason that is important is because it was brought up, we pick consistently in the 20's, while San diego is consistently picking in the top 15. That is not the case.. You have to compare the average of every "first" pick and not just those made in the first round. Otherwise the % gets screwed up because of all the trading out of the 1st round. Besides that, the argument was that they are consistently picking in the top 15. That is simply not the case.

First of all you dont have to drop the high impact argument. Youve already acknowledged the higher you pick the better opportunity you have to improve your team with a great player or with several good players by trading down. San Diegos been able to do that by picking very high. But the reason you dont have to drop the high impact argument is because its not one or the other. You need high impact guys (which SD has acquired with high picks) and also other good players (which SD has a better chance of accumulating by picking higher than us in every round). The two arent mutually exclusive.

It most certainly is the case. Weve picked in the top 15 twice, while they have at least twice that and at least three of those times was top 5 whereas 12 is the highest we picked and thats when we drafted Cutler. There are varying opinions on Cutler but most are positive and a lot of experts say he is the best QB in that class. We recognized that and shrewdly maneuvered up to get him because we had to. So we should actually get bonus points for that pick because it required more work and insight.










Do you honestly believe the only reason they have drafted better players is because of the drafting position? That doesn't explain why their 2nd round picks have been better then our 1st's.. It doesn't explain why the Pats, Colts & Pitt have drafted so much better then us and they have been picking behind us...

This discussion is as much about the Chargers as it is the Broncos. The Chargers were the benchmark against which Armstrong was judging the Broncos but thats erroneous because its apples and oranges due to them picking so high for so long, whether its in the 1st-7th or 2nd-7th. The Colts were never mentioned in the piece. But I would say if someone of Bill Polians caliber was providing input to Shanahan, our drafts would be better.


lex, you are a smart guy, I have seen your past mocks... Knowing how the players have turned out, are you honestly telling me if we would have picked your guys over those who Shanahan chose we wouldn't be better off?

Again, you act like Im saying we have great picks. At the outset, I acknowledged we havent been the best at drafting but San Diego is an erroneous comparison. But to disavow that San Diego isnt where they are by being at an advantageous draft position is pure poppycock.

[Requiem / The Dagda]

The argument is really this simple: Denver has been a consistent team; who has only picked in the teens (several times -- and three of them due to trade up) while Shanahan has coached. We're under the impression, Lex and I -- and probably a few others; that had we picked in the top ten or fifteen like the Chargers had for several years, we would have had a better shot at landing talent.

Obviously, it's an easy argument to make, and an extremely logical one. What players we were targeting, or who we would have targeted wouldn't have mattered.

I think most people would be in agreement that the higher you pick, the easier it is to get an "elite" talent and franchise player. Evidence of the Chargers getting Tomlinson, Rivers, etc.

Denver has never had that opportunity. They had to trade up from the mid 20's TWICE - to even have a shot at Jay Cutler. Thats' the earliest they've picked in 12-15 years since Mike Croel. Now, at #12 -- that's the highest spot they've had in quite some time. Maybe now, Denver will have a shot at getting an elite player.

It's generally accepted that the higher you draft, the better shot you have at getting good talent. That's all are argument is. Simple and it makes sense.

Had Denver sucked as bad as San Diego did for a while -- or like Oakland did for a while, etc. -- it's quite possible we would have had an All-Star player on our team by now. Of course we think Shanahan can improve; but then again -- picking in the mid-20's to late 20's on a consistent basis -- an area with such ambiguity does not make things easy.

That's pretty much it.

[fcspikeit]

This whole discussion was prompted by the "why cant we be more like the Chargers" sentiment in Armstrongs piece.


He didn't say that.. He said

"There's only one issue for the Broncos: Catching the Chargers in the AFC West."

In other wards. We have to improve our team and we will have to do it through the draft..

He also said,

"The Broncos, you may have heard, had far too many draft-day swings and misses from 2001-05. Now, after unearthing several promising players in the past two drafts, they have to keep the momentum going."

He didn't say the Bolts have had great drafts at all.. He did point out that we have had to many swings and misses..

I agree with him! Jr seemed to agree with him too. Then it was brought up about why the Bolts have had better drafts..



To which my response has steadfastly been, fine, there are 6 other rounds where SD is picking higher than us...so even if they trade out or whatever, they are still picking ahead of us in every subsequent round unless they trade away their draft.


I agree with this.. They have picked higher then us in every round.. None of that excuses Mikey's terrible draft record..





First of all you dont have to drop the high impact argument. Youve already acknowledged the higher you pick the better opportunity you have to improve your team with a great player or with several good players by trading down. San Diegos been able to do that by picking very high. But the reason you dont have to drop the high impact argument is because its not one or the other. You need high impact guys (which SD has acquired with high picks) and also other good players (which SD has a better chance of accumulating by picking higher than us in every round). The two arent mutually exclusive.

It most certainly is the case. Weve picked in the top 15 twice, while they have at least twice that and at least three of those times was top 5 whereas 12 is the highest we picked and thats when we drafted Cutler. There are varying opinions on Cutler but most are positive and a lot of experts say he is the best QB in that class. We recognized that and shrewdly maneuvered up to get him because we had to. So we should actually get bonus points for that pick because it required more work and insight.

IMO, Cutler was the best pick Mikey ever made.. That one pick and a few others have saved Shanahan for now..

The Impact player argument only really works for 1st pick's. Here is why, If their top 15 pick in the 2nd round (33-48) is considered a high impact pick, then surly our 1st round pick (15-30) would also be considered a high impact pick..

you are right about one thing though.. The top 10 picks in the draft are by far your best players. Beings they have picked there 3 times they should have come away with better talent then what we were picking in the late teens.

To be honest, I don't consider SD to be a great draft team... But they are surly better then Mikey.. Even if we were picking in the top 5, would we have taken LT? With how Shanahan values his RB's I just don't see him even taking LT.. He hasn't had his priorities in order when it comes to the draft. Most GM's would agree. The most important position is QB, D-line, O-line and RB.

Just look at how he has valued those positions. He drafts the most important positions on the second day.. He seems to value WR and CB way to high..

The last couple drafts have been better. At least concerning QB & D-line.. Maybe he has learned something in the last couple years? This draft should provide some insight into that..




This discussion is as much about the Chargers as it is the Broncos. The Chargers were the benchmark against which Armstrong was judging the Broncos but thats erroneous because its apples and oranges due to them picking so high for so long, whether its in the 1st-7th or 2nd-7th. The Colts were never mentioned in the piece. But I would say if someone of Bill Polians caliber was providing input to Shanahan, our drafts would be better.


I don't really care about the Chargers drafts, My point is that The Broncos have sucked at the draft.. I do believe even at our picking position, if the Bolts GM's had been picking they would have done a better job then Mikey.. But that really isn't saying much.

Your right, to eliminate the difference between picking order, we should just compare what Mike has done against the other teams who have been picking with the same and even less value then us.. (Pats, Colts & Pitt) They have even out picked the Chargers despite the apparent disadvantage in picking order. They have proven, you don't have to be picking in the top 15 to get good players. If you have a good GM you can still build your team through the draft, regardless where you pick.

That is my point, Shanahan is not a good GM!!

Look at the Pats, they draft good players late, then they trade the good players for high picks in the future. They went 19 -1 and are still picking 5 spots ahead of us. Maybe that's why they went 19 - 1 ;)

What does Mikey do, Just look at the tenders he puts on his draft selections. Did we gain value with them?



Again, you act like Im saying we have great picks. At the outset, I acknowledged we havent been the best at drafting but San Diego is an erroneous comparison. But to disavow that San Diego isnt where they are by being at an advantageous draft position is pure poppycock.

And saying we are where we are because of poor drafting position is pure poppycock. ;)

[lex]

He didn't say that.. He said

"There's only one issue for the Broncos: Catching the Chargers in the AFC West."

In other wards. We have to improve our team and we will have to do it through the draft..

He also said,

"The Broncos, you may have heard, had far too many draft-day swings and misses from 2001-05. Now, after unearthing several promising players in the past two drafts, they have to keep the momentum going."

He didn't say the Bolts have had great drafts at all.. He did point out that we have had to many swings and misses..

I agree with him! Jr seemed to agree with him too. Then it was brought up about why the Bolts have had better drafts..





I agree with this.. They have picked higher then us in every round.. None of that excuses Mikey's terrible draft record..






IMO, Cutler was the best pick Mikey ever made.. That one pick and a few others have saved Shanahan for now..

The Impact player argument only really works for 1st pick's. Here is why, If their top 15 pick in the 2nd round (33-48) is considered a high impact pick, then surly our 1st round pick (15-30) would also be considered a high impact pick..

you are right about one thing though.. The top 10 picks in the draft are by far your best players. Beings they have picked there 3 times they should have come away with better talent then what we were picking in the late teens.

To be honest, I don't consider SD to be a great draft team... But they are surly better then Mikey.. Even if we were picking in the top 5, would we have taken LT? With how Shanahan values his RB's I just don't see him even taking LT.. He hasn't had his priorities in order when it comes to the draft. Most GM's would agree. The most important position is QB, D-line, O-line and RB.

Just look at how he has valued those positions. He drafts the most important positions on the second day.. He seems to value WR and CB way to high..

The last couple drafts have been better. At least concerning QB & D-line.. Maybe he has learned something in the last couple years? This draft should provide some insight into that..






I don't really care about the Chargers drafts, My point is that The Broncos have sucked at the draft.. I do believe even at our picking position, if the Bolts GM's had been picking they would have done a better job then Mikey.. But that really isn't saying much.

Your right, to eliminate the difference between picking order, we should just compare what Mike has done against the other teams who have been picking with the same and even less value then us.. (Pats, Colts & Pitt) They have even out picked the Chargers despite the apparent disadvantage in picking order. They have proven, you don't have to be picking in the top 15 to get good players. If you have a good GM you can still build your team through the draft, regardless where you pick.

That is my point, Shanahan is not a good GM!!

Look at the Pats, they draft good players late, then they trade the good players for high picks in the future. They went 19 -1 and are still picking 5 spots ahead of us. Maybe that's why they went 19 - 1 ;)

What does Mikey do, Just look at the tenders he puts on his draft selections. Did we gain value with them?




And saying we are where we are because of poor drafting position is pure poppycock. ;)

Go re-read the article and pay particular attention to the fact that he mentions San Diego then proceeds to talk about drafting and how we're bereft of talent. He most certainly is talking about a talent discrepancy. Notice how he didnt talk about San Diego and go on to say we need a better X&O coach...what then is he referring to in referencing San Diego?

You cant know if SD was better than us at drafting. You can only know that if you remove their position of advantage which is impossible.

[Lonestar]

IMO FA and the draft are supposed to level the playing field in the NFL but have they?

It seems those elite teams manage to draft well and pick up and occasional FA to fill a gaping hole..

Where we have drafted poorly, have lost quality players because of indecision or hard headedness (not sure which) in FA and have had to fill more than gaping holes with expensive FA.. When you go back and look at what mikey has done well with in drafting it has been 3 positions LB 4-5 on day one, OLINE on day two and RB mixed mostly second day choices..

Outside that:

QB 1 of six unless you call one good season by greasy..
WR is 1.5 of 13 if you consider ashley as a winner he is my .5..
DB 0 for 12 unless you really believe that Darrent was a real starting CB. Most folks at the end of his last season were calling for foxy to replace him..
DL 3 maybes two confirmed out of 15 choices..

And lets not even talk about all the high priced busts FA mikey or someone (for those of you that believe Ted made all these decisions by himself) have brought in and went belly up..

How many years of cap hell because of dead money on the books.. How many bloated contracts we had to eat or cut decent to valuable players because mikey or Ted signed them to huge contracts we could not sustain....

I say long live Mike the head coach, slay mikey the GM or guy that makes that final final decisions on personnel..

[Astrass]

IMO, drafting higher then other teams consistantly is no excuse for losing to them. Doesn't matter how you look at it.