PDA

View Full Version : Is #2 the Highest pick the Broncos have ever had in a draft?



sneakers
01-17-2011, 05:07 AM
Farthest back I can remember was we had #5 pick or something in the draft when I was a little kid, and we got Mike Croel.

jetrazor74
01-17-2011, 05:32 AM
Farthest back I can remember was we had #5 pick or something in the draft when I was a little kid, and we got Mike Croel.

Nope.

Croel was a #4 pick in '91.

But #4 was the highest pick we had since 1962, when we had the #2 pick once again, but failed to sign Merlin Olsen.

The only time we ever picked #1 overall, was in 1961, the first ever AFL draft, and we took Bob Gaiters, but that was based on lottery, rather than previous year's performance.

sneakers
01-17-2011, 05:43 AM
Nope.

Croel was a #4 pick in '91.

But #4 was the highest pick we had since 1962, when we had the #2 pick once again, but failed to sign Merlin Olsen.

The only time we ever picked #1 overall, was in 1961, the first ever AFL draft, and we took Bob Gaiters, but that was based on lottery, rather than previous year's performance.

Bob Gaitors is the worst #1 pick of all time.

jetrazor74
01-17-2011, 05:49 AM
Bob Gaitors is the worst #1 pick of all time.

I'd have to agree, especially considering he was the first player ever drafted in the AFL.

Of course I have a feeling they were trying to pick someone they thought they could actually sign. I mean, can you imagine? Consider if Sam Bradford had been drafted by the Rams, and then a CFL team, and then a UFL team.

I mean, what a dilemma! :lol:

It was the same way back then. All the good players were signing with the NFL teams, and looking at the AFL the same way we look at the UFL... or did before it became defunct.

TXBRONC
01-17-2011, 09:03 AM
This is as close as we have ever been to the number one pick in the draft.

HORSEPOWER 56
01-17-2011, 09:24 AM
This is as close as we have ever been to the number one pick in the draft.

Well, except for trading for one named Elway I guess. ;)

TXBRONC
01-17-2011, 12:04 PM
Well, except for trading for one named Elway I guess. ;)

I was thinking solely in terms of actual draft position.

Superchop 7
01-17-2011, 12:25 PM
'
We have had 2 number #4 picks in our history.

shank
01-17-2011, 12:32 PM
i also didn't read jetrazor's posts and would like to answer. the broncos prefer coors light home draft, straight from the shnozzle.

BroncoStud
01-17-2011, 01:05 PM
What a TERRIBLE year to have such a high draft pick...

Juriga72
01-17-2011, 01:24 PM
What a TERRIBLE year to have such a high draft pick...

Please lets also remember.... "What a crap year to not have alot of picks"

TXBRONC
01-17-2011, 01:56 PM
Please lets also remember.... "What a crap year to not have alot of picks"

That's a worse problem to have.

Foochacho
01-17-2011, 02:51 PM
What a TERRIBLE year to have such a high draft pick...

Hopefully you are wrong about that. We desperately need a stud Dlineman. I hope we can get that with this #2. If there is no elite prospects then I would love to trade back. We can't afford a bust with this pick.

BroncoStud
01-17-2011, 02:53 PM
Hopefully you are wrong about that. We desperately need a stud Dlineman. I hope we can get that with this #2. If there is no elite prospects then I would love to trade back. We can't afford a bust with this pick.

Hopefully we can trade down and stockpile some picks... There are teams that need a QB and there are several QBs that McShay and Kiper will push to the moon to raise draft stock and pocket agent money.

Denver could move back to 3 or 4 and still get their man.

Cugel
01-19-2011, 10:09 PM
Nope.

Croel was a #4 pick in '91.

But #4 was the highest pick we had since 1962, when we had the #2 pick once again, but failed to sign Merlin Olsen.

The only time we ever picked #1 overall, was in 1961, the first ever AFL draft, and we took Bob Gaiters, but that was based on lottery, rather than previous year's performance.

The early AFL drafts don't count because the players drafted often were not even CONTACTED by the AFL teams that drafted them. There was no point. Those players weren't going to go to the upstart AFL instead of the established NFL and the AFL teams just drafted them for publicity, having no real hope or interest in actually signing the players drafted.

In those days the AFL was like the Arena league -- a 2nd class organization all the way. Nobody was even sure it would last. There was MUCH less public interest in the AFL and until 1967 when the Packers played the Chiefs, the teams never played each other. And few players preferred to play for the AFL rather than the NFL.

When the Jets beat the Colts in 1969 that was a revolution that made everybody realize that the old AFL had caught up. Until then both the NFL and everybody in the media just assumed that the NFL was light-years ahead of the upstart AFL. The question wasn't WHETHER the mighty Colts would CRUSH the pipsqueak Jets and their loudmouth QB Joe Namath, but by HOW MUCH?

Three TDs some thought. 30 points said some others. :coffee:

After that drubbing by the Jets though, it was inevitable that the leagues would merge. The AFL won again in 1970 with a convincing Chiefs victory over the highly rated Vikings and that clinched the deal.

Cugel
01-20-2011, 05:48 AM
Hopefully we can trade down and stockpile some picks... There are teams that need a QB and there are several QBs that McShay and Kiper will push to the moon to raise draft stock and pocket agent money.

Denver could move back to 3 or 4 and still get their man.

#1 -- No NFL GMs care a fig what McShay and Kiper say about anything. Those analysts are simply talking to NFL personnel people and trying to establish what the teams are thinking, not the other way around.

#2 -- No team needs to trade up to #2 to get a QB. Luck is sitting it out, and Newton, Locker and Mallett, et al will all probably be available at #4 or later. So, why trade up to #2 when it costs much more?

#3 -- Teams know that the Broncos WON'T select a QB so they don't need to trade up to Denver's spot. They can trade up to the pick AFTER Denver and still get any offensive player (because Denver will take Defense).

#4 -- NO team is willing to trade up to #2 to grab a defensive player (that hasn't happened in the last 10 years and nobody is going to do it this year either since there's no defensive player who's rated that highly).

Hence NOBODY is going to want to give up what it would take to move that high. For this reason Denver will be stuck with it's pick and likely CANNOT trade down.

That sort of thing is why you almost NEVER see trades in the top 5. I think the last time was when the Chargers took Eli Manning, the consensus #1 QB and the Giants at #4 were willing to trade 2 first round draft picks and a 3rd to move up 3 places to get him (the Chargers got Phillip Rivers, the Giants pick instead, plus the #12 pick of the first round the NEXT year (which turned out to be Shawne Merriman), and some other picks as well.

This sort of thing could happen IF Luck were available AND if Carolina were willing to deal him, OR if Carolina took somebody else and Denver had a chance to draft him, neither of which is true. But, with him out there's nobody else that teams want that badly.

EDIT: I forgot that the Jets gave up their 1st pick (#17) their second round pick, and three players to trade up to #5 to grab Mark Sanchez, but they didn't trade up as high as #2. They didn't need to, just as teams don't need to this year to get someone like Cam Newton. :coffee:

Ravage!!!
01-20-2011, 12:04 PM
But then, if Luck was at #2, we wouldn't be trading that away either. But I digress.

BroncoWave
01-20-2011, 12:26 PM
But then, if Luck was at #2, we wouldn't be trading that away either. But I digress.

Oh hey, I didn't know you've been chatting with Elway. He give you any other good nuggets?

Cugel
01-20-2011, 01:29 PM
But then, if Luck was at #2, we wouldn't be trading that away either. But I digress.

You're a rabble rouser all right! Just trying to stir up dissension! :laugh:

WARHORSE
01-20-2011, 02:05 PM
#1 -- No NFL GMs care a fig what McShay and Kiper say about anything. Those analysts are simply talking to NFL personnel people and trying to establish what the teams are thinking, not the other way around.

#2 -- No team needs to trade up to #2 to get a QB. Luck is sitting it out, and Newton, Locker and Mallett, et al will all probably be available at #4 or later. So, why trade up to #2 when it costs much more?

#3 -- Teams know that the Broncos WON'T select a QB so they don't need to trade up to Denver's spot. They can trade up to the pick AFTER Denver and still get any offensive player (because Denver will take Defense).

#4 -- NO team is willing to trade up to #2 to grab a defensive player (that hasn't happened in the last 10 years and nobody is going to do it this year either since there's no defensive player who's rated that highly).

Hence NOBODY is going to want to give up what it would take to move that high. For this reason Denver will be stuck with it's pick and likely CANNOT trade down.

That sort of thing is why you almost NEVER see trades in the top 5. I think the last time was when the Chargers took Eli Manning, the consensus #1 QB and the Giants at #4 were willing to trade 2 first round draft picks and a 3rd to move up 3 places to get him (the Chargers got Phillip Rivers, the Giants pick instead, plus the #12 pick of the first round the NEXT year (which turned out to be Shawne Merriman), and some other picks as well.

This sort of thing could happen IF Luck were available AND if Carolina were willing to deal him, OR if Carolina took somebody else and Denver had a chance to draft him, neither of which is true. But, with him out there's nobody else that teams want that badly.

EDIT: I forgot that the Jets gave up their 1st pick (#17) their second round pick, and three players to trade up to #5 to grab Mark Sanchez, but they didn't trade up as high as #2. They didn't need to, just as teams don't need to this year to get someone like Cam Newton. :coffee:


If Buffalo shows interest in say, Cam Newton, and another team is gaga over him, they may trade up.

When cam Newton lights it up at the combine......teams will be gaga. They cant help themselves.

But besides that, there are some very good defensive linemen available here.

Both Fairley and Bowers are going to peak interest, and teams are going to be willing to trade up to get those as well.

While I dont disagree with your understanding that the chances arent great, I believe the rookie salary cap, which will not be negotiable by the NFL imo, will be in place. By saying not negotiable, Im talking about going forward without one, not the high low scale of salaries ultimately decided on.

The owners will not agree to any CBA that does not include a rookie salary cap.

That means in this draft, the parameters for trades are going to be more conducive than they have been in a long, long time.

And we all know human nature.................man who go to bed with itchy butt.......wake up with stinky finger.:coffee:

I Eat Staples
01-20-2011, 04:28 PM
Hopefully we can trade down and stockpile some picks... There are teams that need a QB and there are several QBs that McShay and Kiper will push to the moon to raise draft stock and pocket agent money.

Denver could move back to 3 or 4 and still get their man.

Lmao. :lol:

One thing I cannot understand about Kiper...he has Cam Newton going #10 overall. Now I never heard him speak his own opinion of Newton so I don't know if he likes him as a prospect or just expects a team to take him that high, but he was extremely critical of Tebow so I'd expect him to feel the same way about Newton. Cam Newton is exactly like Tebow, great college player, not a good pro prospect.

BroncoWave
01-20-2011, 06:39 PM
Lmao. :lol:

One thing I cannot understand about Kiper...he has Cam Newton going #10 overall. Now I never heard him speak his own opinion of Newton so I don't know if he likes him as a prospect or just expects a team to take him that high, but he was extremely critical of Tebow so I'd expect him to feel the same way about Newton. Cam Newton is exactly like Tebow, great college player, not a good pro prospect.

I watched Kiper compare the 2 yesterday. He says that Newton has much better mechanics and a stronger arm than Tebow and thus should go higher. He did admit that Tebow has much better intangibles and leadership ability but didn't value those as high.

I will give Newton the mechanics but I wouldn't say is arm is that much if any stronger than Tebow's.

I do think that Newton is every bit as good a prospect if not better than Tebow though, so I kinda begrudgingly have to agree with Kiper in that regard.

I do think much more highly of Tebow than Kiper does though.

Dzone
01-20-2011, 06:50 PM
Mel Kiper was so in love with Ryan Leaf. Kiper is also in cahoots with certain agents to hype up their clients. Kiper is a total fraud with ZERO credibility.

I am very surprised that worthless piece of crap still has a job

I Eat Staples
01-20-2011, 09:02 PM
I watched Kiper compare the 2 yesterday. He says that Newton has much better mechanics and a stronger arm than Tebow and thus should go higher. He did admit that Tebow has much better intangibles and leadership ability but didn't value those as high.

I will give Newton the mechanics but I wouldn't say is arm is that much if any stronger than Tebow's.

I do think that Newton is every bit as good a prospect if not better than Tebow though, so I kinda begrudgingly have to agree with Kiper in that regard.

I do think much more highly of Tebow than Kiper does though.

I agree with you on the mechanics and arm strength. I think Newton's mechanics are better but I haven't seen anything to indicate that he has a stronger arm than Tebow.

I don't think highly of either. I think Ryan Mallett is a good prospect and I really don't know much about Gabbert. Just started hearing a lot about him recently.