PDA

View Full Version : review day one....OBJECTIVELY



arapaho2
04-23-2010, 01:01 PM
we started the day with

First round - Thursday, April 22, No. 11
Second round - Friday, April 23, No. 43 (from Miami) No. 45
Third round - Friday, April 23, No. 80
Fourth round - Saturday, April 24, No. 114
Fifth round - Saturday, April 24, 137TH
Sixth round - Saturday, April 24, No. 183
Seventh round --

So we traded the 11th for the 13th and a (4th) 113th

we then traded the 13th to the eagles for the 24th overall and 2 3rds...70th and 87th

so now we have

1st...24th
2nd..43rd and 45th
3rd..70th...80th, and 87th picks
4th..113th..and 114th
5th...137th
6th..183rd

all looks good so far right? stockpiling early picks..with 6 picks in the first 3 rounds

thats when the wheels fell off

so we trade the 24th pick and a 3rd 113th..to move back up to 22nd..for thomas...the pats were targeting the corner mccourtny....GB has wrs and needed oline, and got buluga...so why wouldnt thomas still been there at 24???...there is no rreal reason to move up to 22nd to draft thomas..IN ALL LIKELY HOOD he still would have been there at 24

so now we have
1st...22nd....picked Thomas
2nd..43rd and 45th
3rd..70th...80th, and 87th picks
4th..114th
5th...137th
6th..183rd

still setting pretty..but!!

We then do the off the wall shit by

trading the 2nd rnd 43rd ...a 3rd..70th and our 4th..114th..to move back up into the 1st round and get a developmental qb in tebow

SO NOW WE HAVE

1st...22nd... Thomas
1st...25TH...tebow
2nd.. 45th
3rd..80th, and 87th picks
4th..
5th...137th
6th..183rd

so with needs like RG..center...TE...NT...safety...WR..LBr...OLB
we end up with tebow???

so five picks left to fill numerous holes....what does this mean to the orton army?...mcd brought in two qbs this season...

in my opinion day one was a dismall failure..objectively of course

Shazam!
04-23-2010, 01:05 PM
Nice try at being objective.

"That word you keep on using. I do not think it means what you think it means." -
Mandy Potankin as Indigo Montoya, The Princess Bride, 1987

Italianmobstr7
04-23-2010, 01:06 PM
Objectively I think this thread sucks. I also think you're a hater and that Tebow is going to throw all the shit you're talking right back in your face!

Northman
04-23-2010, 01:10 PM
He's entitled to his opinion.

arapaho2
04-23-2010, 01:12 PM
Objectively I think this thread sucks. I also think you're a hater and that Tebow is going to throw all the shit you're talking right back in your face!


objectively...notice how i put the day one in context..in order of things that happened
and that sucks?..so in essence what your saying is mcds second draft is sucking as bad as his first in day one?

and you attack me?...i didnt make the trades skippy

slim
04-23-2010, 01:12 PM
I don't understand why they didn't just take Tebow at 22 and save the rest of their picks. I have to believe Thomas would still be available in the 2nd round.

arapaho2
04-23-2010, 01:14 PM
Nice try at being objective.

"That word you keep on using. I do not think it means what you think it means." -
Mandy Potankin as Indigo Montoya, The Princess Bride, 1987

the chart is actual...how it happened

this :so with needs like RG..center...TE...NT...safety...WR..LBr...OLB
we end up with tebow???

so five picks left to fill numerous holes....what does this mean to the orton army?...mcd brought in two qbs this season...

in my opinion day one was a dismall failure..objectively of course

is my opinion...now unless your little mcd is a god world is crumbling...you may comment on the day one proceedings

roomemp
04-23-2010, 01:15 PM
I don't understand why they didn't just take Tebow at 22 and save the rest of their picks. I have to believe Thomas would still be available in the 2nd round.

Well only if you have to believe it. But realistically he would not have lasted till our second

arapaho2
04-23-2010, 01:16 PM
I don't understand why they didn't just take Tebow at 22 and save the rest of their picks. I have to believe Thomas would still be available in the 2nd round.


agrred on principle...but thomas would have been there at 24 also..in all likely hood tebow would have been there at 43rd

GEM
04-23-2010, 01:16 PM
He's entitled to his opinion.

Of course he is, but when you start out by saying objectively and then aren't objective...

slim
04-23-2010, 01:17 PM
Well only if you have to believe it. But realistically he would not have lasted till our second

Maybe not.

But they could have moved up a few spots in the 2nd and it wouldn't have cost us so much.

arapaho2
04-23-2010, 01:18 PM
Of course he is, but when you start out by saying objectively and then aren't objective...


again...i outlayed the actual happenings of day one

where is the unobjectivity in that?..because it makes your head spin?

as i said in the bottom..in my opinion..
apparently your opinion is day one didnt happen

roomemp
04-23-2010, 01:19 PM
Maybe not.

But they could have moved up a few spots in the 2nd and it wouldn't have cost us so much.

Its easy to say that looking back in retrospect though.

silkamilkamonico
04-23-2010, 01:19 PM
Looks like a great assessment to me, and I completely agree 100%.


Objectively I think this thread sucks. I also think you're a hater and that Tebow is going to throw all the shit you're talking right back in your face!

Great job responding about trading (throwing away?) a third round pick to get Thomas, who would have easily been there when we picked at 24.

roomemp
04-23-2010, 01:20 PM
again...i outlayed the actual happenings of day one

where is the unobjectivity in that?..because it makes your head spin?

as i said in the bottom..in my opinion..
apparently your opinion is day one didnt happen

Objectively speaking, McDaniels traded a 4th and 2nd for a 1st.

Pretty good if you ask me.....Objectively speaking of coarse

Broncolingus
04-23-2010, 01:22 PM
Thomas was a solid (and good) pic...

Tebow has some risk - of course what pic doesn't - but I think it was also a good pick...

Overall, I'm happy and optimistic...cause that's the right way to live.

...anything more would just be being a pessimistic, ****-sucker because no one can tell the future...

JMO

slim
04-23-2010, 01:23 PM
Its easy to say that looking back in retrospect though.

Yes, hindsight is awesome!

But I didn't really understand what they did. I'm not going to bitch and moan about it, but it just didn't make sense to me.

GEM
04-23-2010, 01:26 PM
again...i outlayed the actual happenings of day one

where is the unobjectivity in that?..because it makes your head spin?

as i said in the bottom..in my opinion..
apparently your opinion is day one didnt happen

Objectively would have been the facts laid out and then an opinion, not the opinion throughout and the obvious hate for the happenings.

Objectively, I don't like that we lost the draft picks we stockpiled. Objectively, I can't tell you how the WR or QB is going to do in Denver because they have never played a down here. Objectively, I would have rather had Iaputi or Pouncey, objectively that wasn't the way the team went. Objectively, those drafted are Denver Broncos so objectively, I will support them until they give me reason not to.

Italianmobstr7
04-23-2010, 01:34 PM
Objectively would have been the facts laid out and then an opinion, not the opinion throughout and the obvious hate for the happenings.

Objectively, I can't tell you how the WR or QB is going to do in Denver because they have never played a down here. Objectively, those drafted are Denver Broncos so objectively, I will support them until they give me reason not to.

I should have put it like this instead. Thanks Gem.

silkamilkamonico
04-23-2010, 01:35 PM
So we traded the 11th for the 13th and a (4th) 113th

so we trade the 24th pick and a 3rd 113th..to move back up to 22nd

Is anyone else not disgusted by this?

We traded down 2 spots in the draft to acquire a 4th rounder in the top end of the draft, to move from 11th to 13th.

Then, in the bottom half of the draft, we trade a 3rd rounder to move 2 spots up from 24th to 22nd.

Do NFL coaches/GM's honestly value lower first round draft positioning than higher? Is this some sort of a joke?

roomemp
04-23-2010, 01:38 PM
Is anyone else not disgusted by this?

We traded down 2 spots in the draft to acquire a 4th rounder in the top end of the draft, to move from 11th to 13th.

Then, in the bottom half of the draft, we trade a 3rd rounder to move 2 spots up from 24th to 22nd.

Do NFL coaches/GM's honestly value lower first round draft positioning than higher? Is this some sort of a joke?


Damn right they do.......Especially when there is such a deep draft.

silkamilkamonico
04-23-2010, 01:39 PM
Damn right they do.......Especially when there is such a deep draft.

Really? So you are arguing that the 22nd pick is more covetable than the 11th pick?

I seriously doubt that logic.

dogfish
04-23-2010, 01:42 PM
Nice try at being objective.

"That word you keep on using. I do not think it means what you think it means." -
Mandy Potankin as Indigo Montoya, The Princess Bride, 1987

LMAO

well played. . . .

slim
04-23-2010, 01:44 PM
It was the same pick.

Denver traded down 2 spots (from 11 to 13) and acquired pick #113.

Denver traded up 2 spots (from 24 to 22) and gave pick #113 to NE.

GEM
04-23-2010, 01:44 PM
Really? So you are arguing that the 22nd pick is more covetable than the 11th pick?

I seriously doubt that logic.

The cost of the contract is definitely more attractive to owners and coaches.

arapaho2
04-23-2010, 01:45 PM
Objectively speaking, McDaniels traded a 4th and 2nd for a 1st.

Pretty good if you ask me.....Objectively speaking of coarse

to pick a qb that probably would have beeen there at our own 43rd pick..objectively of course

silkamilkamonico
04-23-2010, 01:46 PM
It was the same pick.

Denver traded down 2 spots (from 11 to 13) and acquired pick #113.

Denver traded up 2 spots (from 24 to 22) and gave pick #113 to NE.

Ugh. And then to think we didn't even have to make that trade. That #113th pick was just lost.

slim
04-23-2010, 01:47 PM
Ugh. And then to think we didn't even have to make that trade. That #113th pick was just lost.

Yeah, it seems like the FO crapped their pants in the last 1/3 of the 1st round.

arapaho2
04-23-2010, 01:48 PM
Thomas was a solid (and good) pic...

Tebow has some risk - of course what pic doesn't - but I think it was also a good pick...

Overall, I'm happy and optimistic...cause that's the right way to live.

...anything more would just be being a pessimistic, ****-sucker because no one can tell the future...

JMO

sure thomas is a solid pick...but he would have still been there at 24

thats the issue

WARHORSE
04-23-2010, 01:49 PM
We juked, we jived, we stayed alive.

We got picks.......and we got players.


Rock n roll.

arapaho2
04-23-2010, 01:50 PM
The cost of the contract is definitely more attractive to owners and coaches.


when the team and owners start to build the team based on cost savings...you get a shitty team..the team should be built on talent...great talent sometimes comes with cost

G_Money
04-23-2010, 01:51 PM
If the Bills really were planning on trading back up into the end of the first to take Tebow, as has been rumored in several places, then we did what we had to do to take Tebow.

Whether we should have or not is a different debate, but he wasn't gonna last til our 2nd round pick. Since we wanted him, we paid the exact price it took to get him.

Now we'll see how we do about filling our other needs. Plenty of good players left, and the draft is made on the backs of non-first-rounders. Whether you draft Couch or Manning in the first, you still need your Rod Smiths and Terrell Davises and Tom Nalens and Shannon Sharpes to win games.

~G

roomemp
04-23-2010, 01:52 PM
Really? So you are arguing that the 22nd pick is more covetable than the 11th pick?

I seriously doubt that logic.

If there is a player at 22 you like more than than the player at 11.

roomemp
04-23-2010, 01:53 PM
when the team and owners start to build the team based on cost savings...you get a shitty team..the team should be built on talent...great talent sometimes comes with cost

Very true......Lets cut Moreno............When does Travis Henry get out of jail?

Mike
04-23-2010, 01:56 PM
If the Bills really were planning on trading back up into the end of the first to take Tebow, as has been rumored in several places, then we did what we had to do to take Tebow.

Whether we should have or not is a different debate, but he wasn't gonna last til our 2nd round pick. Since we wanted him, we paid the exact price it took to get him.

Now we'll see how we do about filling our other needs. Plenty of good players left, and the draft is made on the backs of non-first-rounders. Whether you draft Couch or Manning in the first, you still need your Rod Smiths and Terrell Davises and Tom Nalens and Shannon Sharpes to win games.

~G

Pretty much how I feel. They made moves that had me scratching my head, like they did last year. But they are the pros and have the inside scoops that we know nothing about.

What's done is done. Time to move on to the next couple of rounds. I will say this about McD, he makes the draft interesting to watch.

G_Money
04-23-2010, 01:57 PM
when the team and owners start to build the team based on cost savings...you get a shitty team..the team should be built on talent...great talent sometimes comes with cost

The idea is that the #24 pick is gonna cost us about 13-14 million dollars. The #22 will be in that area as well.

The #11 is gonna cost about 25 million (these are all 2009 figures). So we got two players for the price of one. Considering we could have drafted Thomas or Dez Bryant in the #11 slot and paid just a WR that much money, we're not doing too badly.

I'd rather spread that money for rookies out a bit and save the bucks for some proven pros and re-signing our own good players (assuming we ever feel like doing that).

Just me.

~G

silkamilkamonico
04-23-2010, 01:57 PM
If there is a player at 22 you like more than than the player at 11.

So clearly you're saying Denver got raped when they traded the 11th pick, to move the same spots they moved, when they spent that same pick on a player 13 spots later.

slim
04-23-2010, 01:59 PM
The idea is that the #24 pick is gonna cost us about 13-14 million dollars. The #22 will be in that area as well.

The #11 is gonna cost about 25 million (these are all 2009 figures). So we got two players for the price of one. Considering we could have drafted Thomas or Dez Bryant in the #11 slot and paid just a WR that much money, we're not doing too badly.

I'd rather spread that money for rookies out a bit and save the bucks for some proven pros and re-signing our own good players (assuming we ever feel like doing that).

Just me.

~G

G - who is the best interior OL still available?

roomemp
04-23-2010, 02:01 PM
So clearly you're saying Denver got raped when they traded the 11th pick, to move the same spots they moved, when they spent that same pick on a player 13 spots later.

How is that getting raped. The got the player they want. picked up additional picks, and get to pay that pick less money...........

jhildebrand
04-23-2010, 02:03 PM
Objectively I think this thread sucks. I also think you're a hater and that Tebow is going to throw all the shit you're talking right back in your face!

So his being objective first then offering his OPINION sucks. Yet you are entitled to be a blind homer (as much as any one can be a critic) and just derail the thread by offering ABSOLUTELY nothing to the thread? :confused:

Aren't you one of the posters who cries and moans the critics derail every thread yet you are doind the same here.

:focus:

I liked all the extra picks. I am ok if McDaniels really wanted Tebow. I just would have much rather seen us take him at 22 or 24 and save the picks. If it means we would have lost out on Thomas then so be it. I would be ok taking Tate, Benn, Decker, or some other WR later.

silkamilkamonico
04-23-2010, 02:04 PM
How is that getting raped. The got the player they want. picked up additional picks, and get to pay that pick less money...........

No they didn't.

They traded from 11th to 13th for pick #113.

They they traded 24th to 22nd for pick #113.

Where are the additional picks?

Zweems56
04-23-2010, 02:04 PM
From Adam Schefter. Take it as you will. I like.


Denver went into Thursday with a 1st, two 2nds and a 3rd -- and came out with two 1sts, one 2nd, two 3rds, and the two players it wanted.

slim
04-23-2010, 02:05 PM
From Adam Schefter. Take it as you will. I like.

That is a good way to look at it.

roomemp
04-23-2010, 02:06 PM
No they didn't.

They traded from 11th to 13th for pick #113.

They they traded 24th to 22nd for pick #113.

Where are the additional picks?

Oops your right.......

So they picked the player they really wanted and are going to pay far less for him.

How is that?

silkamilkamonico
04-23-2010, 02:09 PM
Oops your right.......

So they picked the player they really wanted and are going to pay far less for him.

How is that?

Perhaps instead of just throwing the pick away for a player they wanted to pay less for, how about trying to get more value out of the first trade, or give up less value for the second.

I understand your logic, but it's like saying, "who cares about a 3rd round pick when we can get a guy we like and pay him less?"

roomemp
04-23-2010, 02:11 PM
Perhaps instead of just throwing the pick away for a player they wanted to pay less for, how about trying to get more value out of the first trade, or give up less value for the second.

I understand your logic, but it's like saying, "who cares about a 3rd round pick when we can get a guy we like and pay him less?"

Again that is easy to say in retrospect. What happens if someone grabs that player before you do all because you wanted to try and save a 3rd?

You end up with players you didn't really want but your stuck

Northman
04-23-2010, 02:13 PM
Again that is easy to say in retrospect. What happens if someone grabs that player before you do all because you wanted to try and save a 3rd?

You end up with players you didn't really want but your stuck

Not really, its a deep draft so the next best player should be just as serviceable. :laugh:

G_Money
04-23-2010, 02:13 PM
G - who is the best interior OL still available?

I freakin' adore JD Walton the center, slim. But he and Tennant are neck and neck at the position. I just think Walton's meaner, and meanness means something at that position. Wouldn't be unhappy with either guy. Walton could be available in the 3rd, though. Some of the other guys might not be.

Saffold is interesting and could move from tackle to guard successfully I think (unlike Charles Brown IMO). They say he isn't as strong as he should be but I don't see it as an issue. He's a lot like Kuper.

Ducasse is another major project - think George Foster, if George had a work ethic. He can't come in and help us much this year IMO but might be a beast later and is a huge guy with a lot of athleticism.

My list would go Walton (have him higher than others) then Saffold, Tennant, and Ducasse. Don't be unhappy if you hear any of those names called. Just stay away from Brown and Campbell if the above guys are still there, though.

~G

BigDaddyBronco
04-23-2010, 02:18 PM
I freakin' adore JD Walton the center, slim. But he and Tennant are neck and neck at the position. I just think Walton's meaner, and meanness means something at that position. Wouldn't be unhappy with either guy. Walton could be available in the 3rd, though. Some of the other guys might not be.

Saffold is interesting and could move from tackle to guard successfully I think (unlike Charles Brown IMO). They say he isn't as strong as he should be but I don't see it as an issue. He's a lot like Kuper.

Ducasse is another major project - think George Foster, if George had a work ethic. He can't come in and help us much this year IMO but might be a beast later and is a huge guy with a lot of athleticism.

My list would go Walton (have him higher than others) then Saffold, Tennant, and Ducasse. Don't be unhappy if you hear any of those names called. Just stay away from Brown and Campbell if the above guys are still there, though.

~G
Saffold would be good insurance for Harris and his injury bug.

If he can play G as well it would help.

BroncoWave
04-23-2010, 02:19 PM
We entered the day with 8 picks and ended it with 7 (2 spent in the first round and 5 still to go). People need to quit freaking acting like we traded our whole draft for Tebow. That's just not the case. We got 2 good players in the first and still have 3 picks today. It's not the end of the world people.

BigDaddyBronco
04-23-2010, 02:19 PM
If we get a S or a WR in the 2nd or 3rd round I'm going to flip out.

roomemp
04-23-2010, 02:19 PM
Not really, its a deep draft so the next best player should be just as serviceable. :laugh:

Good point :tsk:

DenBronx
04-23-2010, 02:21 PM
we started the day with #11 and #43

josh manipulated the draft and we ended up with #22 and #25

and we still have the rest of our draft in tact. nothing has changed yet secured the players we wanted.

brilliant job.

Broncolingus
04-23-2010, 02:24 PM
This draft is deep...there is still PLENTY of talent left out there.

I am looking forward to the draft tonight and esp. being able to have some (read 'several') beers during which because I don't have to work tomorrow...

Northman
04-23-2010, 02:25 PM
I think we need some more QB's. We dont have enough of them yet.

underrated29
04-23-2010, 02:33 PM
we started the day with

First round - Thursday, April 22, No. 11
Second round - Friday, April 23, No. 43 (from Miami) No. 45
Third round - Friday, April 23, No. 80
Fourth round - Saturday, April 24, No. 114
Fifth round - Saturday, April 24, 137TH
Sixth round - Saturday, April 24, No. 183
Seventh round --

So we traded the 11th for the 13th and a (4th) 113th

we then traded the 13th to the eagles for the 24th overall and 2 3rds...70th and 87th

so now we have

1st...24th
2nd..43rd and 45th
3rd..70th...80th, and 87th picks
4th..113th..and 114th
5th...137th
6th..183rd

all looks good so far right? stockpiling early picks..with 6 picks in the first 3 rounds

thats when the wheels fell off

so we trade the 24th pick and a 3rd 113th..to move back up to 22nd..for thomas...the pats were targeting the corner mccourtny....GB has wrs and needed oline, and got buluga...so why wouldnt thomas still been there at 24???...there is no rreal reason to move up to 22nd to draft thomas..IN ALL LIKELY HOOD he still would have been there at 24

so now we have
1st...22nd....picked Thomas
2nd..43rd and 45th
3rd..70th...80th, and 87th picks
4th..114th
5th...137th
6th..183rd

still setting pretty..but!!

We then do the off the wall shit by

trading the 2nd rnd 43rd ...a 3rd..70th and our 4th..114th..to move back up into the 1st round and get a developmental qb in tebow

SO NOW WE HAVE

1st...22nd... Thomas
1st...25TH...tebow
2nd.. 45th
3rd..80th, and 87th picks
4th..
5th...137th
6th..183rd

so with needs like RG..center...TE...NT...safety...WR..LBr...OLB
we end up with tebow???

so five picks left to fill numerous holes....what does this mean to the orton army?...mcd brought in two qbs this season...

in my opinion day one was a dismall failure..objectively of course






Basically I see it as this:


We turned our 11th into TWO First rounders and gained a 3rd! That is pretty dam good no matter who we drafted. Esp. In this deep draft.



I am not in Love with our picks. mainly over skipping bryant, but I think they will be solid for us.....I have reviewed what I scouted about tebow back in January and I am really really warming up to the thought he is here.

weazel
04-23-2010, 02:42 PM
I don't understand why they didn't just take Tebow at 22 and save the rest of their picks. I have to believe Thomas would still be available in the 2nd round.

it was an epic ******* failure. I didn't think he could look any more foolish to the league as he did, but he went above and beyond on this one! congratulations McD, you are now on par with Al Davis!!!

... speaking objectively, of course.

Italianmobstr7
04-23-2010, 02:43 PM
to pick a qb that probably would have beeen there at our own 43rd pick..objectively of course

Dude WTF are you talking about? Have you not read or seen anything on ESPN or Twitter or on here? THE BILLS WERE GOING TO TAKE TEBOW. That's the only reason we traded up to get him. We had to trade up to get the player that we pretty clearly coveted. It was basically a known fact that we were going to draft Tebow. It's been all over the place. I posted it 2 or 3 days before the draft even started. People keep talking about smoke screens and what not, but our coach is not SHANAHAN any longer. Things are different in Denver. Time to get used to it. McDaniels is building the team the way HE wants to. I'm all for it. He's had 1 season at 8-8 when most thought we'd be 4-12 or worse. We're not even done with the draft and people are already bitching. Maybe Tebow will be great, but maybe Tebow will suck. We don't know, but lets at least give him a chance first. The f'ing draft isn't even over yet and people are already crying about how we haven't filled needs and how we've wasted picks. GTF over it, there's still 6 more rounds to go!

Italianmobstr7
04-23-2010, 02:45 PM
I think we need some more QB's. We dont have enough of them yet.

3 on the active roster and 1 on the practice squad is too many? I'm pretty sure that's the norm in the league. 3 active qb's on the roster and usually 1 on the practice squad. Orton is on a 1 year contract, which means he'll likely be gone next year. I don't think there's anything wrong with having 4 total qb's.

weazel
04-23-2010, 02:48 PM
I think we need some more QB's. We dont have enough of them yet.

North, you got too accustomed to Shanny's roster, with only 2 QB's on the entire team.

Northman
04-23-2010, 02:48 PM
3 on the active roster and 1 on the practice squad is too many? I'm pretty sure that's the norm in the league. 3 active qb's on the roster and usually 1 on the practice squad. Orton is on a 1 year contract, which means he'll likely be gone next year. I don't think there's anything wrong with having 4 total qb's.

I think we need more.

SBboundBRONCOS
04-23-2010, 02:57 PM
objectively speaking i dont think your needs are quite on par with what most view as our needs, but i think u added some just to make your point seem a little stronger.

S is NOT a need we have like 5-6 deep there, NT again fields was good last year and we added a rotation guy in williams to keep them both at their fresherest. TE, i really dont know how you even added this in there, graham and quinn are fine as well as bransen, we obviously dont want nor care to have a recieving TE e

2 LBers i believe were taken in the first as well, 1 before we even had a shot at. not too mention only TWO freaking players on the OL in positions that we needed were taken in the first in pouncey and iupati. that leaves basically the ENTIRE draft full of G's & C's and ILBers too choose from, thats being objective, NOT giving facts and then completely bashing the picks we chose

OrangeHoof
04-23-2010, 02:58 PM
What I've concluded is that the Broncos' front office is much better at acquiring draft picks than acquiring talent.

Imagine all the multiple picks we've added from trading Cutler and Marshall (principally as there were others) and trading down from #11 if we had just left well enough alone instead of trading last year's #1 for Alphonso Smith, trading up two spots to get Thomas and then trading up to get Tebow.

Please note if we had passed on trading for Smith last year, Denver's own #1 would have been there for us to take Thomas this year then there would have been Philly's #1 to take Tebow and we would still be holding onto all the 2s, 3s and 4s we got from trading Marshall and moving down from #11.

Did you get that?

We could have had Thomas and Tebow and still have all those second-day picks had we not wasted this year's #1 on Alphonso Smith last April.

And THAT'S being objective.

Gimpygod
04-23-2010, 03:51 PM
Objectively would have been the facts laid out and then an opinion, not the opinion throughout and the obvious hate for the happenings.

Objectively, I don't like that we lost the draft picks we stockpiled. Objectively, I can't tell you how the WR or QB is going to do in Denver because they have never played a down here. Objectively, I would have rather had Iaputi or Pouncey, objectively that wasn't the way the team went. Objectively, those drafted are Denver Broncos so objectively, I will support them until they give me reason not to.

*or until McDaniels drives them away after which people will call them a crybaby who didn't really want to be here. A lot like calling people who left parts of Europe during the Black plague turncoats and not blaming the Black plague for driving them away.

Corrected for accuracy

Tempus Fugit
04-23-2010, 04:10 PM
Looking objectively:

The Broncos got the two players they wanted, in round one, at the cost above original outlay of a 3rd round pick and a 5 position swap in the 4th round, and preserved a pick for use in round 2.

WARHORSE
04-23-2010, 04:18 PM
Looking objectively:

The Broncos got the two players they wanted, in round one, at the cost above original outlay of a 3rd round pick and a 5 position swap in the 4th round, and preserved a pick for use in round 2.


Yup. Everyone was saying they didnt mind Tebow if it was in the second.....it WAS in the second.


Josh and X executed a plan, which netted us Tebow for our second rounder,, AND got us an extra third.........

G_Money
04-23-2010, 04:25 PM
If we'd taken Thomas at #11 and Tebow in the 2nd, people would have been just as pissed about the reach for Thomas.

*shrugs* I didn't want a 1st round WR. If we just felt we HAD to take one, Thomas isn't a terrible choice. And paying him 14 mil instead of 25 is gonna be good.

Instead of taking a WR in the 2nd or 3rd, now we just need to get some Line and defensive help there instead. There are still talented players - it's not the order I would have done it in but if we add some monsters to the line and grab a good LB it's a perfectly viable strategy.

...I just want to see it enacted well. No trades of future #1 picks for slow nickels and consolidating picks to take backup blocking TEs.

~G

slim
04-23-2010, 04:28 PM
I just read on NFL.com that the Rams are fielding offers for pick 33, offers that include first round picks next year...just saying.

Foochacho
04-23-2010, 04:50 PM
I just read on NFL.com that the Rams are fielding offers for pick 33, offers that include first round picks next year...just saying.

Uh oh 2 years in a row. Josh likes that 33 pick.

slim
04-23-2010, 04:52 PM
Uh oh 2 years in a row. Josh likes that 33 pick.

I wonder if there are any undersized, underperforming DB's available?

Northman
04-23-2010, 04:54 PM
I wonder if there are any undersized, underperforming DB's available?

Lets trade for Foxworth. I miss him.

arapaho2
04-23-2010, 09:15 PM
So his being objective first then offering his OPINION sucks. Yet you are entitled to be a blind homer (as much as any one can be a critic) and just derail the thread by offering ABSOLUTELY nothing to the thread? :confused:

Aren't you one of the posters who cries and moans the critics derail every thread yet you are doind the same here.

:focus:

I liked all the extra picks. I am ok if McDaniels really wanted Tebow. I just would have much rather seen us take him at 22 or 24 and save the picks. If it means we would have lost out on Thomas then so be it. I would be ok taking Tate, Benn, Decker, or some other WR later.

THATS WHAT I MEAN... mcds nuthuggers keep insisting he's doing great here

but if mcd coveted tebow enough to pay the price he did...why not take him at 24 when we still had all those picks we got from the eagles and 9rs....we go up ..down..sideways..and end up with tebow and a lot less picks at 25

we coulda moved down..taken tebow at 24...then got any one of the equal talented wrs in the 2nd...i know thomas is good...but is he any better then golden tate...or benn

if he played it straight up instead of getting cute showing his pick tradeing prowness..we coulda had tebow at 24..and any one of a sslew of equally talented wrs in the second and had alot more picks

i like the olinemen he got ..but still there was no need to waste the picks he did getting cute

Hoser
04-23-2010, 09:18 PM
I love all the picks today for sure, but I am a little pissed we didn't take anything on defense. There were some guys we could have used on D, and they're probably gonna be gone tomorrow in the 4th round where we don't have any picks.

That being said, I love the offense we're building for the future. Beadles is a pure mauler, Walton is who I wanted all along for OC, and Decker is a solid possession WR who some had as a top 5 receiver.

CrazyHorse
04-23-2010, 09:26 PM
I've almost forgotten about trading for Alphonso Smith and Richard Quinn from last year. Almost...

arapaho2
04-23-2010, 09:26 PM
If we'd taken Thomas at #11 and Tebow in the 2nd, people would have been just as pissed about the reach for Thomas.

*shrugs* I didn't want a 1st round WR. If we just felt we HAD to take one, Thomas isn't a terrible choice. And paying him 14 mil instead of 25 is gonna be good.

Instead of taking a WR in the 2nd or 3rd, now we just need to get some Line and defensive help there instead. There are still talented players - it's not the order I would have done it in but if we add some monsters to the line and grab a good LB it's a perfectly viable strategy.

...I just want to see it enacted well. No trades of future #1 picks for slow nickels and consolidating picks to take backup blocking TEs.

~G

again g..not the point..i have no problem trading down...we gained 4 picks by tradeing down to 24...if mcd wanted tebow so much...he coulda just taken him there at 24 and still had the extra four picks to get a wr and fill some holes

instead we waste a pick tradeing back up to 22...then three more good picks to get tebow at 25...when we shoulda pulled the trigger at 24 and saved the picks..utterly ridiculous

Tned
04-23-2010, 09:27 PM
we started the day with

First round - Thursday, April 22, No. 11
Second round - Friday, April 23, No. 43 (from Miami) No. 45
Third round - Friday, April 23, No. 80
Fourth round - Saturday, April 24, No. 114
Fifth round - Saturday, April 24, 137TH
Sixth round - Saturday, April 24, No. 183
Seventh round --

So we traded the 11th for the 13th and a (4th) 113th

we then traded the 13th to the eagles for the 24th overall and 2 3rds...70th and 87th

so now we have

1st...24th
2nd..43rd and 45th
3rd..70th...80th, and 87th picks
4th..113th..and 114th
5th...137th
6th..183rd

all looks good so far right? stockpiling early picks..with 6 picks in the first 3 rounds

thats when the wheels fell off

so we trade the 24th pick and a 3rd 113th..to move back up to 22nd..for thomas...the pats were targeting the corner mccourtny....GB has wrs and needed oline, and got buluga...so why wouldnt thomas still been there at 24???...there is no rreal reason to move up to 22nd to draft thomas..IN ALL LIKELY HOOD he still would have been there at 24

so now we have
1st...22nd....picked Thomas
2nd..43rd and 45th
3rd..70th...80th, and 87th picks
4th..114th
5th...137th
6th..183rd

still setting pretty..but!!

We then do the off the wall shit by

trading the 2nd rnd 43rd ...a 3rd..70th and our 4th..114th..to move back up into the 1st round and get a developmental qb in tebow

SO NOW WE HAVE

1st...22nd... Thomas
1st...25TH...tebow
2nd.. 45th
3rd..80th, and 87th picks
4th..
5th...137th
6th..183rd

so with needs like RG..center...TE...NT...safety...WR..LBr...OLB
we end up with tebow???

so five picks left to fill numerous holes....what does this mean to the orton army?...mcd brought in two qbs this season...

in my opinion day one was a dismall failure..objectively of course

When will the objective part of the post be coming?

arapaho2
04-23-2010, 09:31 PM
When will the objective part of the post be coming?


that is my review of day one in my objective view...unless you got something of your own to add other than kiddie slams feel free

underrated29
04-23-2010, 09:39 PM
again g..not the point..i have no problem trading down...we gained 4 picks by tradeing down to 24...if mcd wanted tebow so much...he coulda just taken him there at 24 and still had the extra four picks to get a wr and fill some holes

instead we waste a pick tradeing back up to 22...then three more good picks to get tebow at 25...when we shoulda pulled the trigger at 24 and saved the picks..utterly ridiculous



Problem is dude, that D. Thomas would not have been there when we picked again at 42. Neither was our boy Benn who is not nearly as good. Sure we could have had tate and decker and still had another 3rd rd pick, but who is that 3rd that would do worlds for us????



I love the draft just the way it is.... We still have a couple picks to go and WE ALL know josh will add another 10 UFDAs

Tned
04-23-2010, 09:46 PM
that is my review of day one in my objective view...unless you got something of your own to add other than kiddie slams feel free

Can you rephrase that in the form of a question? Or, as a statement? I can't quite follow what you mean when it is a questment. ;confused:

sakic_avs
04-23-2010, 10:10 PM
He's entitled to his opinion.

Yes, he is.

I am also entitled to my opinion. And my opinion is that his opinion is uninformed, unintelligent and nowhere near objective.

Tempus Fugit
04-23-2010, 11:03 PM
that is my review of day one in my objective view...unless you got something of your own to add other than kiddie slams feel free

Your view is clearly not objective, which is the point people are trying to get across.

Northman
04-23-2010, 11:16 PM
Yes, he is.

I am also entitled to my opinion. And my opinion is that his opinion is uninformed, unintelligent and nowhere near objective.

Awww, no wonder your vagina is still sore.

sakic_avs
04-23-2010, 11:21 PM
So his opinion is not allowed because you can make vulgar references to me personally. Let me know when get off that high horse.

arapaho2
04-24-2010, 04:15 PM
Your view is clearly not objective, which is the point people are trying to get across.


ok captain hero...tell me what isnt objective about it..aside from my opinion at the bottom

did the sequence of events not mash?....did we not move up from 24 to 22 to draft a wr that in all likelyhood would have been there at 24?
did we not trade a 2nd..3rd and 4th round pick to move back up into the 1st for qb noone had a 1st round grade on....in fact few even had a high 2nd on?...a qb that is a 2-3year project at best if used in the position he was drafted for...qb?

was project player a key need ?...enough to use those three good picks on..objectively with all the pressing needs?

are allthe analysts and expert trashing the move...unobjective to?

was the comments made that it was a huge reach ..unobjective?

face it if i had said mcd was brilliant in swapping multi picks for a player who is a project ..................you wouldnt have an issue with the post at all

silkamilkamonico
04-24-2010, 04:20 PM
Problem is dude, that D. Thomas would not have been there when we picked again at 42. Neither was our boy Benn who is not nearly as good. Sure we could have had tate and decker and still had another 3rd rd pick, but who is that 3rd that would do worlds for us????




He most certaily would have been ther at 24 though. McDaniels moved up fro 24 to 22, and basically threw away pick #113, which I believe was a 4th rounder. The Patriots wanted the CB, and the Packers were'nt going to draft a WR in the first round.

I don't mind the Thomas pick, in fact I actually kind of like it, but that 4th rounder could have been a quality draft pick.

I see no legitimate reason why Josh McDaniels made that trade, also not to mention that the 4th rounder was the same pick that was the difference of Denver moving from 11th, to 13th, which makes it even worse IMHO.