Could What Happens With Champ Bailey Tip Broncos Hand On Draft Pick?

[Cugel]

I was taking it for granted that the Broncos would re-sign Champ Bailey now that McDaniels is gone. McMoron alienated and shipped out so many of Denver's best players that I just assumed the "offer withdrawn off the table" was another typical McDaniels stunt -- humiliate Denver's best player and then slap the franchise tag on him amid massive acrimony -- then knowing McDaniels they'd probably wind up trading him for a 6th round draft pick and an anonymous backup LB who will be cut during training camp. :coffee:

But, there's been NO movement on the Bailey front in the month since McDaniels departure, Elway was totally non-committal about re-signing him saying that they would "look at that situation with the new HC" and Woody Paige has now written he expects Bailey will shortly become a FA:


Why would McDaniels pull an offer from a guy who McDaniels publicly stated he wanted to retire as a Bronco?
---Marc, Santa Barbara

Marc: Josh didn't always say what he meant. Why? The feeling was that the Broncos wanted to see how Champ would play this year before putting an offer back on the table, and that they also could keep him by giving him the franchise tag (which could still happen). (http://www.denverpost.com/woodysmailbag/ci_17078384)

It sounds to me like the Broncos are willing to let him go. I haven't been told that specifically; it's, as I said, a feeling — which I hope is either a mistaken belief or an opinion John Elway has that he will change soon.

But, if it DOESN'T change soon, that's going to leave one GIANT hole at CB! Clearly Andre Goodman would be overmatched as a #1 CB, and Cox could be heading for a long prison sentence meaning they can't count on him.

One logical interpretation (if the Broncos do NOT re-sign Bailey) is that they intend to start over with draft picks -- specifically taking Patrick Peterson with the #2 pick).

Then Goodman would only be the #1 CB for a year (presumably) until Peterson was ready to be installed as the #1 CB. I wouldn't be particularly happy with this at all!

It would mean NO: Fairley or Da'Quan Bowers in the draft, ignoring Denver's top need with the top pick. But, if they feel they can get reasonable DL help for a 3-4 in the 2nd round then they might do it.

If they go to a 4-3 and pass on Fairley and Bowers though I'm going to have to hit something! :mad:

But, I could see the Broncos doing this -- get rid of older players, especially those that will cost you a BIG salary, and start a "youth movement" via the draft by drafting a CB #1 to replace Champ Bailey.

It would certainly save Pat Bowlen money, which seems to be an increasing theme with him in recent years. Just because it would be unpopular with the fans doesn't mean they won't do it.

Since when have the Broncos EVER drafted anybody the fans wanted? And Denver could conclude that they are in total rebuilding mode for the next few years and therefore it makes no sense to keep older expensive players like Bailey (and probably Dawkins). :coffee:

[broncohead]

Why let Champ go only to use the #2 on a CB? Doesn't make sense to me. Regardless if Champ is on the roster next season we do not need a CB #2. A better DL will make the DBs better!

[silkamilkamonico]

Why let Champ go only to use the #2 on a CB? Doesn't make sense to me. Regardless if Champ is on the roster next season we do not need a CB #2. A better DL will make the DBs better!

I don't understand this logic either. It tells me the organization prioritizes the secondary as being more important than the front 7. There's more than one reason why it's called the "secondary".

Let Bailey go to free agency, take Peterson, meaning ignore the dline (again), and watch your defense rank among the league's worst (again).

If this happens, someone needs to slap the shit out of Bowlen and the organization.

[jhildebrand]

I have heard it said several times that the tag cannot be used on Champ. I think it has to do with his tenure and the uncapped year business.

[Cugel]

I have heard it said several times that the tag cannot be used on Champ. I think it has to do with his tenure and the uncapped year business.

I was just going by what Woody Paige said in his column:


they also could keep him by giving him the franchise tag (which could still happen).

Perhaps Wood's full of crap, or else he's just assuming that there will be a new CBA that will permit the franchise tag to be used this season. I don't know.

[Ravage!!!]

Although I'm COMPLETELY on board about NOT taking the CB with the #2 pick... how is it that we are "ignoring" the DL if we don't use the #2 pick on the DL? We still have 5 other picks, and two 2nd rounders. Do NOT expect us to use every pick on defense, and not using the 1st on defense is NOT ignoring that problem.

I just don't get that kind of thinking. I mean, I get that the newest mantra is to fix the defense (and rightfully so), but its getting to the point of being ridiculous in the thinking that the ONLY way to fix the defense is to use the 1st round pick on a DLman.

[Ravage!!!]

I have heard it said several times that the tag cannot be used on Champ. I think it has to do with his tenure and the uncapped year business.

I think the ONLY way that Champ can't be tagged is if there is something in his contract that says the Broncos can't tag him.

But I think it would be stupid to tag him. You just forced him to play out the last year of his career without locking him up in an extension where he agreed to play for less than he was asking. You wait to see if he's going to get hurt, and put all the risk on HIS shoulders, and then instead of extending him in contract, you pay him for yet ONE more year, as if we are just soooooo close to getting there. I think this would be the worst way to treat Champ, and the locker room will absolutely know it.

[Cugel]

I don't understand this logic either. It tells me the organization prioritizes the secondary as being more important than the front 7. There's more than one reason why it's called the "secondary".

Let Bailey go to free agency, take Peterson, meaning ignore the dline (again), and watch your defense rank among the league's worst (again).

If this happens, someone needs to slap the shit out of Bowlen and the organization.

I'm not arguing in FAVOR of this. But, if you keep the 3-4 defense there's an argument to be made for using the 1st round pick on a CB, because there's no NT worth a #2 pick and you can conclude, like Pittsburgh that getting a guy who will mostly soak up blockers (like most 3-4 DEs do) can be done in the 2nd or 3rd round. Thus, you don't need a guy like Fairley or Bowers who project as top rated 4-3 DT and DE respectively.

As I've mentioned before Pittsburgh's Brett Keisel was a 7th rounder, his backup Nick Eason was Denver's 4th round pick, and their other DE, Aaron Smith was also a 4th rounder. So, it can be done. But for some reason the recent trend has been to use 1st round draft picks on 3-4 DEs.

Personally, I'd like to see either Bowers (if they believe he could be converted to an OLB like Doom was) or else Fairley. But, I haven't evaluated all these players the way Xanders is doing.

If they are going to a 4-3 then you abso-freaking-lutely MUST take a DE with your top pick! It would be criminal negligence to do anything else when you could get either Bowers or Fairley, whoever Carolina doesn't take. Then you either have a stud DT and Doom at DE or Bowers & Doom at opposing DE positions. (I don't think Doom is any good as a 4-3 DE despite all the speculation because he's too small to stand up to constant mauling by 320 lbs. OTs all day and still rush the passer in the 4th quarter). He gets man-handled whereas as OLB he is a terror who got 16 sacks.

[broncohead]

Although I'm COMPLETELY on board about NOT taking the CB with the #2 pick... how is it that we are "ignoring" the DL if we don't use the #2 pick on the DL? We still have 5 other picks, and two 2nd rounders. Do NOT expect us to use every pick on defense, and not using the 1st on defense is NOT ignoring that problem.

I just don't get that kind of thinking. I mean, I get that the newest mantra is to fix the defense (and rightfully so), but its getting to the point of being ridiculous in the thinking that the ONLY way to fix the defense is to use the 1st round pick on a DLman.

But thats assuming we know how to draft which we don't.

[Ravage!!!]

which is why, I'm not opposed to moving to the 43.

[Cugel]

Although I'm COMPLETELY on board about NOT taking the CB with the #2 pick... how is it that we are "ignoring" the DL if we don't use the #2 pick on the DL? We still have 5 other picks, and two 2nd rounders. Do NOT expect us to use every pick on defense, and not using the 1st on defense is NOT ignoring that problem.

I just don't get that kind of thinking. I mean, I get that the newest mantra is to fix the defense (and rightfully so), but its getting to the point of being ridiculous in the thinking that the ONLY way to fix the defense is to use the 1st round pick on a DLman.

I think it depends Rav:

#1 If they are going back to a 4-3 then you ABSOLUTELY need to use the #2 pick on a DE! It is SO HARD to find elite 2-way DEs like a Mario Williams with the size and speed and athleticism who can both rush the passer AND stuff the run that they all get taken in the top 5 and often top 3.

#2 If they are going to keep the 3-4 then it's more questionable.

Teams like Pittsburgh in the past made a practice of taking DEs later in the draft and found some great ones. They weren't expected to penetrate and rush the passer so a guy like Mario Williams would be wasting his talents.

In fact that's why the 3-4 became so popular -- because it's so tough to find great DEs for a 4-3 that not every team can even have one, let alone 2.

But, in recent years for some reason teams have been using higher picks for these 3-4 DEs. KC took 2 in the top 5 in Glenn Dorsey & Tyson Jackson in 2 straight years and are paying them a combined $53 million guaranteed money!

The only justification for this is IF you think they are going to be massive disruptive pass-rushing threats in the future. So far they've been good but I don't see them being worth the money.

Pittsburgh also used a 1st round (32nd pick) in 2009 on Ziggy Hood who now starts ahead of their long-time stalwart DE Aaron Smiith (former 4th rounder).

But, you just can't justify top 2 money on a DE or DT unless they are projected as a monster pass-rusher. If they are just going to soak up blockers and stuff the run there are guys who can do that you can find in the 2nd round or even THIRD round who WON'T cost you $50+ million contracts! OR your #2 pick of the draft!

Taking all this into account, I'd say: either keep the 3-4 and draft an OLB (perhaps Bowers could convert the way Doom did?) or else select at some other position -- which pretty much means CB. That is, UNLESS you think Fairley is going to be a MONSTER dominating presence who can rush the passer despite being constantly double-teamed as a DE and is going to be worth the $35+ million guaranteed money you will have to pay him if you use the #2 pick on drafting him!


I' don't understand why this would be worth the money OR the pick unless you project moving Fairley to NT. He's never done that of course and I have no idea if he'd be any good at it. Using a #2 pick on a great NT for a 3-4 makes perfect sense IF you project that guy as a monster disruptive force in the middle.

Or convert to a 4-3 and take Bowers or Fairley, whoever is available because both project as elite 4-3 DE/DTs. Because this will be probably your ONLY chance to draft this high and you CANNOT screw this up when ELITE Mario Williams/Julius Peppers type monster pass-rushing 4-3 DEs are so hard to find outside the top 5.

[Ravage!!!]

Right. Top 2 money can't go to just any position, nor can it go to just any player. I'm not opposed to moving to the 43, thus using that pick on a top DL would be huge. But since we don't see a Suh or a Wilfork on the draft board, I don't know. Now, I'm not.. NOT...saying we draft a CB with the #2 pick, because as I said before, I think I'll scream like a lil 12yr old girl if we use the #2 pick on a CB.

But I don't think that we are "neglecting" the defense if we simply don't use the #2 overall pick on a defensive player... or the first rounder for hat matter. I think we can still buld the defense through the draft without it being strictly based on what we take with the 2nd pick in the draft.

[broncohead]

Can't really justify taking Peterson though. We had a good pass defense with the pressure doom was able generate on his own. And why would we take a CB #2 and let Champ walk? Plus Fairley and Bowers are good prospects that wouldn't be a reach

[Northman]

Although I'm COMPLETELY on board about NOT taking the CB with the #2 pick... how is it that we are "ignoring" the DL if we don't use the #2 pick on the DL? We still have 5 other picks, and two 2nd rounders. Do NOT expect us to use every pick on defense, and not using the 1st on defense is NOT ignoring that problem.

I just don't get that kind of thinking. I mean, I get that the newest mantra is to fix the defense (and rightfully so), but its getting to the point of being ridiculous in the thinking that the ONLY way to fix the defense is to use the 1st round pick on a DLman.

Considering the kind of talent there at #2 it would be heinous to select a DB. Just totally moronic at every level. We've tried taking late round Dlineman and its blown up in our face and now we have a legitimate shot at a top tier guy who can make an immediate impact. So yes, while we could take a Dline guy later it would be pretty pointless considering the history of this team.