PDA

View Full Version : IF We Had The 6th Pick in the Draft......



WARHORSE
03-09-2010, 06:18 PM
I think Bradford is going to show up at his pro day with a good chunk of muscle added, and I think his arm will be stronger than what scouts have seen up to date.


If we had the 6th pick and this comes to pass, would you give up the 6th and the 11th to select a very good franchise prospect in Bradford?

Tned
03-09-2010, 06:21 PM
I say pick a running back, you can never have too many...

dogfish
03-09-2010, 06:25 PM
i'm glad it's not a choice i have to make. . . i really like bradford a lot, i think he has a chance to develop into a star QB and i'd love to have him in denver. . . man, that's a ton to give up for a QB coming off a shoulder injury though-- especially a guy who doesn't have elite measureables and physical skills. . .


in any case, i think any scenario involving #6 is nothing better than pure fantasy. . .

let me know if we actually get it, and maybe it'll be worth formulating a real opinion on the subject at that time. . . ;)

Bozo Jr.
03-09-2010, 06:26 PM
Nope! Not with that shoulder.

weazel
03-09-2010, 06:29 PM
I say trade the 6th and 11th for a Big Mac!

... oh, and Maurice Clarett

underrated29
03-09-2010, 06:30 PM
my goodness that would be tough.


so that means we would be taking him at like 3 or so. STL does not take him and we sneak ahead of washinton. Thats a lot of money right there, but I think he will be worth it.......arrr......tough tough call.

I would say No. As much as I want bradford, he is my #1 player for us, I can not go for 2 players. Now both the 6 and 11 salaries would be equal to maybe him at 3, but if we use both those firsts on studs this year. Then we can get a guy like skelton inthe 4th/5th and see if we are within reach of a top prospect next year...


Dang....

weazel
03-09-2010, 06:38 PM
My thinking is that two top players in those slots be greater than just the one player..

BUT...

I am scared that McDaniels and company will completely blow this draft and reach for players that shouldn't be drafted in those slots. I think they blow their picks as they did last season.

And before I get the predictable reply; yes, I understand that any pick is a gamble....

I chose no

BTW, if you're trading two high first rounders like that couldn't you trade for an already proven QB, instead of an unknown?

GEM
03-09-2010, 06:41 PM
I say pick a running back, you can never have too many...

*slaps the admin*

weazel
03-09-2010, 06:44 PM
I say pick a running back, you can never have too many...

If were trading two high first rounders, I want someone like Janikowski!!!
:shots:

ikillz0mbies
03-09-2010, 06:45 PM
I chose no. Mainly because I think that if the Broncos could land the 6th pick to go with their 11th pick, they now have a flexible 1st round. Either they trade one of those picks to gain more picks, or they keep both and draft two really good players. I don't think the Broncos should be trading up for a QB. If anything, I'd like to see them trade up to get Suh or McCoy, not Bradford. I just think there are too many holes to fill on this team....

Tned
03-09-2010, 06:45 PM
*slaps the admin*

Ohhh, I liked that. Let's see if I can get another...

I say, draft a slow, backup nickel back with our 2nd pick!!! ;)

GEM
03-09-2010, 06:48 PM
Ohhh, I liked that. Let's see if I can get another...

I say, draft a slow, backup nickel back with our 2nd pick!!! ;)

*slaps harder* :laugh:

Tned
03-09-2010, 06:49 PM
I chose no. Mainly because I think that if the Broncos could land the 6th pick to go with their 11th pick, they now have a flexible 1st round. Either they trade one of those picks to gain more picks, or they keep both and draft two really good players. I don't think the Broncos should be trading up for a QB. If anything, I'd like to see them trade up to get Suh or McCoy, not Bradford. I just think there are too many holes to fill on this team....

Not being an NCAA guy, I'm just not sure about Bradford or the other QBs in this class. I firmly believe we need a stud QB to get to the next level, but whether or not this is the year to get one, I don't know.

I don't know if the problem last year was Orton or the play calling, but I do know that bubble screens and 5 yard passes cannot be your bread and butter play. When you rarely throw it over 6 yards, it compresses the field too much, which makes it nearly impossible for receivers to get seperation, and makes it hard to gets yards after the catch.

But, not knowing if the problem was Orton or McD's play calling, I'm not sure that it's worth picking moving up to get a QB this year.

Tned
03-09-2010, 06:49 PM
*slaps harder* :laugh:

Ohhhh, maybe we should move up and pick a backup, blocking tight end in the 2nd round!!!

Let me have it... :laugh:

weazel
03-09-2010, 06:52 PM
I think Gem's getting ready to grab the ball gag

GEM
03-09-2010, 06:58 PM
T...you shut your dirty mouth!!!

dogfish
03-09-2010, 07:02 PM
at least this thread is providing some entertainment value. . . .

BroncoWave
03-09-2010, 07:23 PM
No, no, no, no, no!

Keep the 6 and 11 and get McClain and Bryant.

SmilinAssasSin27
03-09-2010, 07:26 PM
not even a little

Northman
03-09-2010, 07:26 PM
No, Bradford isnt worth that much.

Tned
03-09-2010, 07:46 PM
I should add -- draft a RB with the 1st pick -- that I am not yet ready to give up on Orton. I saw enough throws to show that he has the arm strength necessary to at least make most of the throws an NFL QB has to make.

I'm just not sure where the problem lies, but I know the passing game didn't cut it last year. We know that most of the bubble screens were called, and there were a lot of them. What we don't know is if the other short passing plays were called with the primary receiver being the short guy, or if that was Orton's decisions. We don't know if it was Orton's lack of comfort with the offense that had him locking onto to receivers. We just know it wasn't working.

Now, the once beloved and now hated, Shanahan used to say it wasn't until the third year in a system that a QB was comfortable enough that it was all second nature and he could perform at his best, so, I am hoping we will see improvement in '10.

Foochacho
03-09-2010, 09:38 PM
Orton looked horrid at the beginning of the year with that glove on his hand. But when the glove came off he looked pretty good. He was lighting up the redskins before he got injured. After that ankle injury he wasn't the same.

If Orton can stay healthy he may have a pretty good year. We will have to wait and see. I would be pissed if we gave up two firsts to move up.

rcsodak
03-09-2010, 11:47 PM
I think Bradford is going to show up at his pro day with a good chunk of muscle added, and I think his arm will be stronger than what scouts have seen up to date.


If we had the 6th pick and this comes to pass, would you give up the 6th and the 11th to select a very good franchise prospect in Bradford?

What if San want to trade one of their 1st rounders?

What if Sea says ok, have our #6, but give us your #11 and we'll add in a #2 to make up the point difference for the #14 spot?

What if TB says swap 1's with us, and we'll throw in additional picks?

Lots of scenarios, where denver can still get closer to the front, while adding picks in a deep draft.

dogfish
03-10-2010, 12:09 AM
What if Sea says ok, have our #6, but give us your #11 and we'll add in a #2 to make up the point difference for the #14 spot?





yes to this. . . .

JDL
03-10-2010, 01:24 AM
I think Bradford is going to show up at his pro day with a good chunk of muscle added, and I think his arm will be stronger than what scouts have seen up to date.


If we had the 6th pick and this comes to pass, would you give up the 6th and the 11th to select a very good franchise prospect in Bradford?

Stop already... this isn't fantasy land.... why don't we just pretend we have the 1st pick ...lmao... ok... I take Suh... done... move along.

atwater27
03-10-2010, 01:49 AM
If we traded up, no way do we touch a QB. DT all the way. I may not be thrilled with McDaniels so far, but I am going to trust that he has a decent QB in his sights in the later rounds.

sneakers
03-10-2010, 02:05 AM
noooooooooooo

Dirk
03-10-2010, 06:21 AM
I voted no. A first round (not to mention top 10) QB is not a gimme. So to trade 2 first round picks for one is a little over the top.

If you could jump in a time machine and find out if the guy will be a true franchise NFL QB..then sure. But alas, they stopped making the flux capacitor...

Nomad
03-10-2010, 08:21 AM
If Bradford was there I'd take him, other than that, the best defensive player available! I wouldn't choose Clausen in the 5th rd! For the 11th, I would take Iupati! Bryant's a holdout waiting to happen and a headache for the future!

But we won't have this scenerio because Seattle won't make this deal!! BRONCOS have done anything to fix the oline in FA so far, so I still would pick Iupati at 11 for now!!

CoachChaz
03-10-2010, 08:37 AM
If we traded up, no way do we touch a QB. DT all the way. I may not be thrilled with McDaniels so far, but I am going to trust that he has a decent QB in his sights in the later rounds.

McCoy and Suh are not 3-4 players, unless you try to make DE's out of them. I would have a hard time paying 12 million a year to a solid DT...but I'd never pay that much for a 3-4 DE. Keep #6, trade #14 to TB for their two 2nd round picks? Send one of those 2nd round picks to Philly for Kolb. Either way, we would have a ton of possibilities if Seattle pays the price

LTC Pain
03-10-2010, 08:58 AM
Draft Dan Williams, NT, Tennessee at #6. Waive Fields. Use a NT rotation of Chris Baker and Dan Williams all year.

CoachChaz
03-10-2010, 09:05 AM
Draft Dan Williams, NT, Tennessee at #6. Waive Fields. Use a NT rotation of Chris Baker and Dan Williams all year.

If they spent the #6 pick on a DT that has shown NO signs of even being able to play a 0 or 1 technique...I would be highly pissed. Besides...we already have a 3-man rotation at NT after signing Williams. I just dont see us adding a 4th right away

atwater27
03-10-2010, 11:29 AM
McCoy and Suh are not 3-4 players, unless you try to make DE's out of them. I would have a hard time paying 12 million a year to a solid DT...but I'd never pay that much for a 3-4 DE. Keep #6, trade #14 to TB for their two 2nd round picks? Send one of those 2nd round picks to Philly for Kolb. Either way, we would have a ton of possibilities if Seattle pays the price

Since when is there a rule on what defensive alignment a tackle can play? I understand most decent anchors are well over 300, but Suh has the power and the ability to clog holes for nose. And if you think it is hard for a DT to learn a new "technique" that they aren't used to, give em a break. It's like the easiest position to learn. By the way, Kolb would be a steal.

Buff
03-10-2010, 11:30 AM
I like Bradford, but I thought Marshall Faulk made a good point last night on NFLN. They were discussing whether or not St. Louis should take Bradford with the #1 pick and Marshall said the one thing about QBs and shoulder injuries is once they have one, they are bound to have more. Especially when he's a little thin to begin with.

I think if he falls past #10 then you'd have to pounce on him, but any higher than that and I'd be a little nervous about investing that kind of $$ in him.

SOCALORADO.
03-10-2010, 11:33 AM
I like Bradford, but I thought Marshall Faulk made a good point last night on NFLN. They were discussing whether or not St. Louis should take Bradford with the #1 pick and Marshall said the one thing about QBs and shoulder injuries is once they have one, they are bound to have more. Especially when he's a little thin to begin with.

I think if he falls past #10 then you'd have to pounce on him, but any higher than that and I'd be a little nervous about investing that kind of $$ in him.

You do know that Bradford weighed in at 236 right?
But i agree with the overall shoulder statement made by Faulk.
Just sayin...

Buff
03-10-2010, 11:41 AM
You do know that Bradford weighed in at 236 right?
But i agree with the overall shoulder statement made by Faulk.
Just sayin...

Scouts & media types were saying they were surprised he came in that heavy... Thinking his playing weight will probably be lower.

T.K.O.
03-10-2010, 11:51 AM
McClain and iupati....with #6 and #11....then wait and take a chance on colt McCoy ,if we are looking at a qb with shoulder issues.
besides it would be cool to have a guy named "colt" qbing the broncos:laugh:

CoachChaz
03-10-2010, 12:34 PM
Since when is there a rule on what defensive alignment a tackle can play? I understand most decent anchors are well over 300, but Suh has the power and the ability to clog holes for nose. And if you think it is hard for a DT to learn a new "technique" that they aren't used to, give em a break. It's like the easiest position to learn. By the way, Kolb would be a steal.

Taking a 3-techinique or 2-gap athletic pass-rushing DT like McCoy or Suh and putting 25 pounds on them and asking them to be a 0-tech run stopper? Good luck with that.


Then paying an undersized NT 12 million a year? No thanks

atwater27
03-10-2010, 01:35 PM
Taking a 3-techinique or 2-gap athletic pass-rushing DT like McCoy or Suh and putting 25 pounds on them and asking them to be a 0-tech run stopper? Good luck with that.


Then paying an undersized NT 12 million a year? No thanks

Jay Ratliff is doing just fine around 300. Jason Ferguson was productive for years at the same weight. Ron Edwards is only 315. Robinson in Arizona is only 305. Suh and McCoy are 295 right now, but very young and still growing. I understand that 6'3" 330 is probably the ideal size for nosetackle, but guys can be very productive at a lighter weight as long as they have the skill and attitude.

atwater27
03-10-2010, 01:49 PM
That being said, I see your point that it would waste his athleticism, but Suh is a monster and has the lower body strength and ability to fight off double teams to play NT in a 3-4.

WARHORSE
03-10-2010, 02:15 PM
Stop already... this isn't fantasy land.... why don't we just pretend we have the 1st pick ...lmao... ok... I take Suh... done... move along.

Actually, it IS fantasyland.

Thats why it says....."What IF......"


See?;)

WARHORSE
03-10-2010, 02:19 PM
That being said, I see your point that it would waste his athleticism, but Suh is a monster and has the lower body strength and ability to fight off double teams to play NT in a 3-4.

Suh would play both positions for us, but mostly he would be at DE.

Think Richard Seymour.

WARHORSE
03-10-2010, 02:23 PM
Scouts & media types were saying they were surprised he came in that heavy... Thinking his playing weight will probably be lower.

I dont.

One way to help alleviate questions about the shoulder is to come in with more muscle.

His arm will also be stronger than it has ever been.

When they see his quick decision making, coupled with an arm that they will be hoping to see, as well as more muscle........a clear medical report will send him up top of the draft for many.

Another is, how many times you gonna see Bradford get bounced on that right shoulder if you have great backside protection?


Bradford should have gotten rid of the ball when he took those hits or stepped forward in order to elude.

Whoever drafts him will help him with that.

How many starting NFL QBs do you see getting dumped on their throwing shoulders?

Answer: Not many.

SOCALORADO.
03-10-2010, 02:37 PM
I dont.

One way to help alleviate questions about the shoulder is to come in with more muscle.

His arm will also be stronger than it has ever been.

When they see his quick decision making, coupled with an arm that they will be hoping to see, as well as more muscle........a clear medical report will send him up top of the draft for many.

Another is, how many times you gonna see Bradford get bounced on that right shoulder if you have great backside protection?


Bradford should have gotten rid of the ball when he took those hits or stepped forward in order to elude.

Whoever drafts him will help him with that.

How many starting NFL QBs do you see getting dumped on their throwing shoulders?

Answer: Not many.

Look at Drew Brees. Hes fine and he had an injury that was much worse than Bradfords. Brees never sees the turf, cause he has a great line, and he knows now when to get rid of the ball.
Then theres Pennington....

CoachChaz
03-10-2010, 02:45 PM
Jay Ratliff is doing just fine around 300. Jason Ferguson was productive for years at the same weight. Ron Edwards is only 315. Robinson in Arizona is only 305. Suh and McCoy are 295 right now, but very young and still growing. I understand that 6'3" 330 is probably the ideal size for nosetackle, but guys can be very productive at a lighter weight as long as they have the skill and attitude.

But Ratliff is really best suited as a DE. Cant remember where, but I was looking at Cowboys info a few days ago and something like 80% of Ratliff's sacks and tackles come when he is playing DE. Dallas has been looking to get a good NT to replace him and slide him over permanently.

Ferguson goes around 310, but really...he hasnt been much of anything since his days with teh Jets

Not sure who Robinson in Arizona is, but their NT is Allan Branch who goes 338. Campbell and Dockett play DE at 290 and 285



I agree that a NT doesnt HAVE to weigh 350...but if they are going to be a true run-stuffing, line collapsing NT...it sure as hell helps

Lonestar
03-10-2010, 03:18 PM
Look at Drew Brees. Hes fine and he had an injury that was much worse than Bradfords. Brees never sees the turf, cause he has a great line, and he knows now when to get rid of the ball.
Then theres Pennington....

but Brees did not come back super strong that next year either. IIRC

And now he is an elite QB behind an hell of an OLINE


Pennington and greasy really never recovered not that they had cannons to start with.

WARHORSE
03-10-2010, 03:55 PM
but Brees did not come back super strong that next year either. IIRC

And now he is an elite QB behind an hell of an OLINE


Pennington and greasy really never recovered not that they had cannons to start with.


I really dont see the shoulder being a problem. If theres any concerns, Im sure they will be flushed out by NFL medical staffs, and considered when making an evaluation of Bradfords worth.

As I said, I think the only real problem would be to see Bradford continue to show that he doesnt know how to protect his own shoulder during pursuit in a game, or being in the grasp of a defender.

The key is to not allow 310 lb plus defensive linemen to drive you shoulder first into the turf.

I think he may get it soon.:coffee:

Lancane
03-10-2010, 06:42 PM
No, or at least in my opinion...I believe Denver would wait and see who falls, whether it be McCoy or Clausen, there is a chance that one of the two could be there, or they may not. But either would be excellent additions in the eyes of the front office; Clausen fits well into the system, but if McCoy is there and not Clausen, Denver will get a premier 3-4 defensive end that could be a game changer.

Denver IMHO will try and trade down from the 11th overall pick though, no matter if they get the 6th overall pick or not.

T.K.O.
03-10-2010, 07:05 PM
No, or at least in my opinion...I believe Denver would wait and see who falls, whether it be McCoy or Clausen, there is a chance that one of the two could be there, or they may not. But either would be excellent additions in the eyes of the front office; Clausen fits well into the system, but if McCoy is there and not Clausen, Denver will get a premier 3-4 defensive end that could be a game changer.

Denver IMHO will try and trade down from the 11th overall pick though, no matter if they get the 6th overall pick or not.

they will trade down and still get a premier 3-4 DE game changer ?
i guess its possible but the odds of getting that gamechanger are better at #11

Lancane
03-10-2010, 08:29 PM
they will trade down and still get a premier 3-4 DE game changer ?
i guess its possible but the odds of getting that gamechanger are better at #11

If McCoy is available with the 6th overall pick, he would be the premier 3-4 defensive end gamechanger...there is no 3-4 Defensive End prospects worth the 11th overall pick, McCoy will not be available at that point, so that makes no sense. I still think Denver will trade the 11th pick to move down, or try at least.

xzn
03-10-2010, 08:52 PM
We can't just assume that we could get a fair deal to trade down, unless there is someone who slides that teams are really eager to trade up and get.

It's not like we have an option to trade back that can just be exercised, we have to find a willing partner.