Denver franchise now a fixer-upper

[TXBRONC]

You all might find this artcle interesting. The excerpt that I copied is from last third of the article.



Denver franchise now a fixer-upper
By Mike Klis
The Denver Post
Posted: 02/05/2011 10:16:35 PM MST
Updated: 02/06/2011 12:16:27 AM MST


Fixing the Broncos
The Broncos can improve considerably in 2011 and still fall short. Here's a five-step look at how their turnaround should begin:

1. A-one, and a-two, and a-three . . .

The Broncos have three of the top 46 picks in the NFL's April 28-30 draft — No. 2, No. 36 and No. 46. They should trade back from No. 2 and pick up an extra second-round pick. They would have four of the top 50 picks. They must get at least two immediate starters from this draft and two more who will be ready by season's end.

2. Tebow or bust

New coach John Fox doesn't understand Tebowmania. No one does until they have experienced firsthand. Fox's honeymoon will be short if he doesn't play QB Tim Tebow. Even if Tebow doesn't work out, the Broncos can't move forward until they find out.

http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_17306782

[BigSarge87]

We HAVE to resign Champ. Although there are some solid young FA's out there in the LB/DL area, even if we sign three of them they still won't fill the hole that Champ would leave if we lose him.

I know he's going to be costly to keep, and he want's to be on a SB contending team, but hear me out.

Maybe we could franshise him for one year, give him a chance to see what the team will be with the new emphasise on defense, then sign him to a 3 year deal if he's sold on us next year. If not, we let him walk and draft secondary next year.

When the new CBA deal gets done, if the rookie pay scale serves it's purpose, it might free up enough money to help resign Champ and one or two quality, young FA's, and still sign the draft picks. Especially if we can get rid of Orton and his contract. Que the Orton vs Tebow thread derailment (that's you, Juriga).

From what I've read, Bowlen hasn't hit the salary cap in years. (or what the salary cap would have been last year if there was one) We'll see how truely committed he really is by how much he's willing to spend to get/keep the players here everyone knows we badly need to be competitive. I don't see how we're possibly taking a step forward by letting Champ go.

[HORSEPOWER 56]

Stunning article by Klis... well, not really. Pretty much everything most people know. I agree with his thoughts about running the ball and how it really needs to become a priority for our offense again.

I completely disagree, however, with trading down. We aren't some team in the middle of the pack that just needs to build some depth and take the chance that our mid-first rounder can get traded back and pick up more later round picks because most of the talent is the same after #10 overall anyway. We need STARTERS with these picks and we need ELITE talent. You don't get that by trading a top 5 pick in hopes to pick up an extra second. With our history of 2nd round picks, name me ONE worth a shit? I'm not just talking McDaniels, but Shanahan, too.

Right now, the guys who were only 2nd round picks of the past decade to crack the starting lineup were Portis, Tatum Bell, Tony Scheffler, and now Zane Beadles. Except for Portis, not exactly game changers. Do you really want to trade away a shot at Fairley, Bowers, Dareus, or Peterson for another Darcel McBath? How about another Richard Quinn? Perhaps Tim Crowder peaks your interest? Terry Pierce perhaps?

You just don't give up the #2 overall pick when your team is 4-12 and has the ability to finally in 20 years pick up a true, elite blue-chip prospect for the chance to maybe find a diamond in the second round? I think trading down would be a TERRIBLE idea because there is a huge difference between the top tier prospects and the second tier guys. Fairley/Dareus vs Taylor? Bowers vs Kerrigan/Watt? There really is no comparison. We need players who will help get this defense turned around.

As for the QB position, I don't want to see Orton ever get the start for the Broncos again but it doesn't mean it won't happen. If the new staff still feels that he's our best chance to win (I don't see how anyone could actually watch him play and feel that way, just me) they will keep him to be a security blanket.

If Elway and Fox are smart, they'll trade Orton to eliminate the QB controversy that will develop if he's still here. The fans have seen Tebow play, they've seen him start, and they've seen him rally the team from 17 points down to win at home (something they've never seen with Orton). They've had their appetite for Tebow Time whetted and Orton will not satiate them.

Playing Tebow actually does much more than just playing to the fans, it actually allows Elway and Fox a season to assess the team and build the new system without too high of expectations. If Orton starts, playoffs will be the expectation in Bronco land because it means everything else is "figured out" long-term and Orton is "our guy". A veteran QB who should be in his prime should lead this team to the playoffs.

With Tebow, nobody will have playoff expectations right away. They'll still look at him as young/developing and if our offense struggles, he'll still be crucified by the media (because he's Tebow) but Bronco fans will be much more willing to give this season a pass. I think it's smarter for Elway and Fox to move on into the new future with Tebow than to hitch their wagon to a "never-was" journeyman who won't lead this team to the playoffs much less a winning record this year.

[BigSarge87]

I agree completely with HP (as usual). Trading down doesn't make sense when we can possibly land a franchise DL that we can anchor to.

[HORSEPOWER 56]

From what I've read, Bowlen hasn't hit the salary cap in years. (or what the salary cap would have been last year if there was one) We'll see how truely committed he really is by how much he's willing to spend to get/keep the players here everyone knows we badly need to be competitive. I don't see how we're possibly taking a step forward by letting Champ go.

"In years" means the Josh McDaniels era. I remember that was one of the great "NE model" things that McDaniels was supposed to bring to Denver - cutting the costs of high priced FAs and building through the draft. :laugh:

Instead he cut/traded the high priced "talent" and hired more high-priced, NE castoff "talent" (Green, Paxton, Jordan, etc) and we ended up 4-12 and he ended up McFired.

Shanahan was always right at the cap every year and although he made some horrid draft picks and FA signings, he at least kept us competitive and used all the resources he had to at least try.

IMO, the salary cap is like the budget. If there's a deficit you're spending too much (obviously), but if there's a budget surplus you are overtaxing the people and not properly providing them with the services they deserve for their tax dollar. NFL teams are the same way. The cap should be reached every year to show you're willing to to try to field the best team, just not exceeded.

[T.K.O.]

if the new cba does'nt contain a rookie scale or cap....we wont be trading out of the #2 spot.nobody wants it the way things are now.
we just have to hope (like suh) that #2 is a big hit not a HUGE BUST !:salute:

[Ravage!!!]

I dont' think there will be a rookie salary cap.

I also am not convinced that with a 4-12 team, that you have to start off with a pick as high as #2. Is that one player really enough, and hasn't there been more busts picking DL from that high than success? If its a 50/50 shot (not really knowing the odds), the odds aren't less with lower round picks because the more picks you have, the more chances you have of finding success.

I guess my problem is, there just doesn't seem to be that "Guy" that just really says #2 overall pick at that position to me that is a "must have." Its more of that he is the best of the position that we want. Thats a huge difference.

[gobroncsnv]

Can't stand the idea of trading down with the players that are going to be at that spot who are unquestionably skilled for our point of the biggest neglect for 12+ years. If we don't shore up Dline when we have a chance like this, welcome to the land of 4-12, 6-10, etc, for a string of years. Don't care who the DC, head coach, dline coaches are if we don't give them some talent. We've tried picking dlinemen in lesser rounds before, and it has not at all worked. Best chance (I HOPE) we'll ever have to get quality up front. If we don't draft for this need, it just means we've ignored it again. At some point, the Dr Phil moment has to kick in... How's that working out for ya?

[hotcarl]

too many words

[TXBRONC]

Personally I think the guys that could most help us as well as being the best prospects available are in the top five.

That being said the possible willingness/desire to trade down doesn't mean they want or for that matter will be able to trade out of five or ten. They may not even be able to trade down at all.

[PAINTERDAVE]

I agree completely with HP (as usual). Trading down doesn't make sense when we can possibly land a franchise DL that we can anchor to.

I have heard that trading down with Dallas is a possibility.

Jones covets Peterson... we'd get their #10 pick overall..
their 2nd round #10 pick... and a RB.
That might not be too bad...

but I agree...
not good to trade down with a team drafting in the late 20's....

[BigSarge87]

Can't stand the idea of trading down with the players that are going to be at that spot who are unquestionably skilled for our point of the biggest neglect for 12+ years. If we don't shore up Dline when we have a chance like this, welcome to the land of 4-12, 6-10, etc, for a string of years. Don't care who the DC, head coach, dline coaches are if we don't give them some talent. We've tried picking dlinemen in lesser rounds before, and it has not at all worked. Best chance (I HOPE) we'll ever have to get quality up front. If we don't draft for this need, it just means we've ignored it again. At some point, the Dr Phil moment has to kick in... How's that working out for ya?

IMO trading down is the riskier move.

Yeah, you might pick up another high pick and MAYBE both will be starters by trading down, but I would think your more likely to end up with a Jarvis Moss/Marcus Thomas situation than success. In the mean time, if the top 5 pick you passed on becomes a stud, your suddenly the biggest idiot in the NFL.

I would rather take one pretty safe bet on a top 5 rated guy that gives you the best chance of having an impact player as soon as possible.

Elway cannot afford to take too many risks with this draft. He won't survive if he screws it up.

[BigSarge87]

I have heard that trading down with Dallas is a possibility.

Jones covets Peterson... we'd get their #10 pick overall..
their 2nd round #10 pick... and a RB.
That might not be too bad...

but I agree...
not good to trade down with a team drafting in the late 20's....

Ahhh! That would be tempting. Do you remember where you saw this? I'd love to read about it.

I guess if JJ wants to throw his draft at your feet to land a certain guy... IDK, tough call. Sword has two sides in that situation. If you decline it, and Fairley/Bowers busts, then you look dumb too.

If this is true, maybe we better start 'leaking' our interest in Peterson.

[Traveler]

In my opinon, whenever a team picks in the Top 5 of the draft, they should select the BPA. Regardless of position. If that player happens to fill a position need, that's icing on the cake IMO.

My wish is that there was that must have talent available in this draft, but there isn't. So, how should Denver proceed?

What happens if Peterson, Bowers, and Dareus are all equally rated? It's a dilema I'd personally hate to make a decision on. Nonetheless a decision has to be made, and BPA seems the safest course.

Winding up with any of those three isn't a bad thing. Trading back should only be an option if they can still select one of those three.

[SOCALORADO.]

DEN should NOT trade down.

[TXBRONC]

In my opinon, whenever a team picks in the Top 5 of the draft, they should select the BPA. Regardless of position. If that player happens to fill a position need, that's icing on the cake IMO.

My wish is that there was that must have talent available in this draft, but there isn't. So, how should Denver proceed?

What happens if Peterson, Bowers, and Dareus are all equally rated? It's a dilema I'd personally hate to make a decision on. Nonetheless a decision has to be made, and BPA seems the safest course.

Winding up with any of those three isn't a bad thing. Trading back should only be an option if they can still select one of those three.

I don't know Trav, if a wide receiver comes out of nowhere to be rated as the second best pick in the draft I wouldn't take him.

[Traveler]

I don't Trav, if a wide receiver comes out of nowhere to be rated as the second best pick in the draft I wouldn't take him.

Although that's not likely to happen this year considering the players available, you make a valid point.:salute:

I just happen to disagree. A team has to get value for a pick that high, regardless of position. Gotta think long term value to the organzation.

Not saying it will happen or that I want it to happen, but say we draft A.J. Green #2 overall. It makes more long term sense than keeping Brandon Lloyd or Jabar Gaffney.

They are both on the back end of their careers and could actually help Denver acquire more picks since one or both them become expendable.

Even with all the holes we have to fill on this team, as Elway said, "We have to hit on the #2 choice." BPA & value is the way to best make that happen.

[Traveler]

I don't Trav, if a wide receiver comes out of nowhere to be rated as the second best pick in the draft I wouldn't take him.

Sometimes teams might not have a choice. What happens if they can't trade out of that slot?

[SOCALORADO.]

Sometimes teams might not have a choice. What happens if they can't trade out of that slot?

Take the BPA.
In DENs case, that would be a toss up between
Bowers
Miller
Peterson
Fairley

(Obviously if the player was avaliable with the #2 pick)

[Traveler]

Take the BPA.
In DENs case, that would be a toss up between
Bowers
Miller
Peterson
Fairley

(Obviously if the player was avaliable with the #2 pick)

Like I've been saying.:beer:

[SpringsBroncoFan]

We HAVE to resign Champ. Although there are some solid young FA's out there in the LB/DL area, even if we sign three of them they still won't fill the hole that Champ would leave if we lose him.

I know he's going to be costly to keep, and he want's to be on a SB contending team, but hear me out.

Maybe we could franshise him for one year, give him a chance to see what the team will be with the new emphasise on defense, then sign him to a 3 year deal if he's sold on us next year. If not, we let him walk and draft secondary next year.

When the new CBA deal gets done, if the rookie pay scale serves it's purpose, it might free up enough money to help resign Champ and one or two quality, young FA's, and still sign the draft picks. Especially if we can get rid of Orton and his contract. Que the Orton vs Tebow thread derailment (that's you, Juriga).

From what I've read, Bowlen hasn't hit the salary cap in years. (or what the salary cap would have been last year if there was one) We'll see how truely committed he really is by how much he's willing to spend to get/keep the players here everyone knows we badly need to be competitive. I don't see how we're possibly taking a step forward by letting Champ go.

From what I've read Broncos were about 7 million below league average last year.

I'm really hoping there will be a rookie wage scale... then Bowlin really has no excuse...

Still, if we do shed about 3 mil or so as projected with not resigning players then there is room for Champ...

[gobroncsnv]

In my opinon, whenever a team picks in the Top 5 of the draft, they should select the BPA. Regardless of position. If that player happens to fill a position need, that's icing on the cake IMO.


I can see this being a draft strategy for a team that is fairly well established... But we are not. Say for instance the BPA is a wide receiver... that would just sparkle with redundancy for Denver right now. We're pretty set there. The way our roster looks, I go for need, and our biggest need is dline. Maybe going that way is a big risk, but we can't say we've spent our best capital at that position yet. This coming season, I don't want our front line to be Elvis and the other guys. We need to be rock solid at all 4 (or 3, whatever) spots.

[PAINTERDAVE]

It sure seems to me like the track should be to take the BPA on DEFENSE.

If a wideout rises to the top of Mel Kipers list....
I would trust that Elway would not be fool enough to bite on a wideout
simply because Kiper and a few other hacks moves the list around.

Take the Best DEFENSIVE player available. :defense:

[BigSarge87]

Agreed. I hope we don't take any offensive players this year.

And I hope we don't trade our first rounder next year for a 2nd rounder this year. That would suck.

[gobroncsnv]

If we spend this number 2 draft pick correctly, we won't have to worry about being "burdened" with so lofty a pick for quite a while.
I'm not entirely sure about this, so don't take it personally... but wasn't Detroit going the BPA route during those years they used high picks for all wide receivers? They were a team with serious needs that they kept ignoring, and now Matt Millen is back to being an analyst.
I really think we have too much to build before we have our roster set. Once we are fielding a credible team, I'd be all for taking that tack, because that is how you build consistently good teams. I like the theory, but that is more a position of luxury than we are in right now.

[TXBRONC]

[QUOTE=BigSarge87;1208103]Agreed. I hope we don't take any offensive players this year.

I don't agree completely. I think that should be the emphasis but we also have two positions on offense that will need to be addresse that being tight end and right tackle. If a player at one of those offensive positions is better than a defensive player I wouldn't hesistate to take him.

[silkamilkamonico]

If we spend this number 2 draft pick correctly, we won't have to worry about being "burdened" with so lofty a pick for quite a while.
I'm not entirely sure about this, so don't take it personally... but wasn't Detroit going the BPA route during those years they used high picks for all wide receivers? They were a team with serious needs that they kept ignoring, and now Matt Millen is back to being an analyst.

Taking the BPA isn't going to prevent Denver from again being one of the worst teams in the league. I don't think we will be, but with the state our defense is in and the fact that our offense will probably be worse than it was the last couple years that could very well happen.

[Ravage!!!]

It sure seems to me like the track should be to take the BPA on DEFENSE.

If a wideout rises to the top of Mel Kipers list....
I would trust that Elway would not be fool enough to bite on a wideout
simply because Kiper and a few other hacks moves the list around.

Take the Best DEFENSIVE player available. :defense:


Drafting for position isn't always the best route to go. I don't know what Kiper's list has to do with anything, but then, why take the best Defensive player on Kiper's list?? If they draft a DEFENSIVE player, I'm sure it will have nothing to do with Kiper's or anyone's list. If they DO draft a WR, I'm STILL sure it will have absolutely NOTHING to do with Kiper's list.

If you take the best player on DEFENSE, as you said, then that might be the corner.

This team needs defense, but it NEEDs players. We need to be sure to spend the 2nd overall pick on a guy thats good enough to be here for a long time, and not just because he's the best at his position THIS year.

We all agree that defense is a priority, but I'm still not sold that these particular DL players are worth the #2 pick, just because they play DL.

[dogfish]

I agree completely with HP (as usual). Trading down doesn't make sense when we can possibly land a franchise DL that we can anchor to.

don't be surprised if JJ watt ends up being better than all of the "big three" DLs at the top of this year's class. . .

[TXBRONC]

don't be surprised if JJ watt ends up being better than all of the "big three" DLs at the top of this year's class. . .

Is he grading out as a possible first round pick?

[dogfish]

Is he grading out as a possible first round pick?

yes. . .

[bcbronc]

Dog, what's so great about Watt? (I'm seriously asking)

I don't watch much college ball, but I did see Watt's bowl game this year, and he no-showed. Why all the hype?
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

[dogfish]

Dog, what's so great about Watt? (I'm seriously asking)

I don't watch much college ball, but I did see Watt's bowl game this year, and he no-showed. Why all the hype?
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

i love his relentlessness-- you just don't find that many big guys that have that really high motor, and i think it bodes very well for his success at the next level, where willingness to work can separate guys from a group where everyone is talented. . . lunchpail work ethic plus legit physical size and ability is a powerful combo IMO. . .

more so, note that i said "don't be surprised if he's better," not "he's going to be better" or even "i think he's going to be better". . . it's just as much a commentary on the fallibility of high picks as it is an endorsement of watt. . . i do think dareus is a pretty safe pick, but both bowers and fairley have plenty of bust potential. . .

i just don't agree with the idea that you have a significantly better chance of getting a true impact DL in the top couple picks than the first half of the round this year. . . granted, the top prospects are ranked there for a reason, but guys like watt and cameron jordan are very much legit stud prospects in their own right, even if they're ranked a little lower. . .

not to mention, those guys have much better chances of going to better teams-- i think you can pencil in either watt or jordan with new england's first pick, and is it really tough to imagine a guy turning out better there than in our embarrassing cluster of a defense that has no track record of developing linemen?

[bcbronc]

[QUOTE]i love his relentlessness-- you just don't find that many big guys that have that really high motor, and i think it bodes very well for his success at the next level, where willingness to work can separate guys from a group where everyone is talented. . . lunchpail work ethic plus legit physical size and ability is a powerful combo IMO. . .

more so, note that i said "don't be surprised if he's better," not "he's going to be better" or even "i think he's going to be better". . . it's just as much a commentary on the fallibility of high picks as it is an endorsement of watt. . . i do think dareus is a pretty safe pick, but both bowers and fairley have plenty of bust potential. . .

what do you see his floor and ceiling like (and likelihood of hitting either)?


i just don't agree with the idea that you have a significantly better chance of getting a true impact DL in the top couple picks than the first half of the round this year. . . granted, the top prospects are ranked there for a reason, but guys like watt and cameron jordan are very much legit stud prospects in their own right, even if they're ranked a little lower. . .

so I should put you down in the "draft Peterson" camp? :lol:


not to mention, those guys have much better chances of going to better teams-- i think you can pencil in either watt or jordan with new england's first pick, and is it really tough to imagine a guy turning out better there than in our embarrassing cluster of a defense that has no track record of developing linemen?

We're obviously pretty far from NE as far as developing DL, but at least there's reason for some hope at Dove Valley now. More than since...when? Shanny's early years I'd guess.

Add two solid pieces to our still-young pieces in Ayers, Doom, and Thomas and we could have a good line sooner rather than later.