PDA

View Full Version : Xanders' podcast about Champ on The Fan



HORSEPOWER 56
02-23-2011, 08:52 AM
Here's a link. Good stuff in there. I really liked what I heard at the end about what type of player we're looking for the #2 pick in the draft. STRONGLY smells of D-line.

Xanders: "We want a disruptive playmaker who causes negative plays in the run game and in terms of sacks, that is a great person who loves football, and wants to be a Bronco for the next 15 years"

D-Mac also said "well, we're relatively certain it's not going to be Patrick Peterson for obvious reasons" to which it sounds like Xanders replied "yeah".

http://www.1043thefan.com/channels/audioOnDemand/Story.aspx?ID=1368603

:beer: GO D-LINE!!!! :defense::defense::defense:

BroncoStud
02-23-2011, 09:07 AM
Xanders is a joke, hopefully Elway can keep up the good work and keep Xanders in check.

tomjonesrocks
02-23-2011, 10:02 AM
What good does it do the team for Xanders to say such a thing?

All it does is signal to teams dying to take Peterson (Dallas) that they can find a trade partner behind us. "Transparency" when it comes to the team's thoughts on potential picks before the draft doesn't make much sense to me...

BigSarge87
02-23-2011, 10:18 AM
Maybe Xanders knows that no one is dumb enough to trade into the number 2 spot to take Peterson.

TXBRONC
02-23-2011, 11:46 AM
Here's a link. Good stuff in there. I really liked what I heard at the end about what type of player we're looking for the #2 pick in the draft. STRONGLY smells of D-line.

Xanders: "We want a disruptive playmaker who causes negative plays in the run game and in terms of sacks, that is a great person who loves football, and wants to be a Bronco for the next 15 years"

D-Mac also said "well, we're relatively certain it's not going to be Patrick Peterson for obvious reasons" to which it sounds like Xanders replied "yeah".

http://www.1043thefan.com/channels/audioOnDemand/Story.aspx?ID=1368603

:beer: GO D-LINE!!!! :defense::defense::defense:

It very much sounds like they intend to draft defensive line.


What good does it do the team for Xanders to say such a thing?

All it does is signal to teams dying to take Peterson (Dallas) that they can find a trade partner behind us. "Transparency" when it comes to the team's thoughts on potential picks before the draft doesn't make much sense to me...

Tom it sounds to me like they don't have any intentions of trading out of the number 2 slot.

It's also possible that they looked into it and found that no one wanted to spend the kind of draft capital it would take to move into that spot.

GEM
02-23-2011, 11:52 AM
Well, if Shanny were still here my first thought right now would be.....Oh ****, we're taking Petersen. :lol:

TXBRONC
02-23-2011, 11:55 AM
Well, if Shanny were still here my first thought right now would be.....Oh ****, we're taking Petersen. :lol:

That maybe true but at least he wouldn't take a blocking tight end with that pick. ;)

BigSarge87
02-23-2011, 01:07 PM
I think that description fits Von Miller too. The more I read/watch about the guy the more I like him.

NightTrainLayne
02-23-2011, 01:14 PM
When you've got one of the top few picks, subterfuge is pretty useless.

underrated29
02-23-2011, 01:29 PM
Sounds to me like fairley or dareus.....

nevcraw
02-23-2011, 01:52 PM
Xanders is being cared for like a mushroom. Fed **** and kept in the dark.

nevcraw
02-23-2011, 01:55 PM
When you've got one of the top few picks, subterfuge is pretty useless.

throwing the baited hook out is never useless...

vandammage13
02-23-2011, 02:02 PM
Sounds to me like he's describing Fairley. Unfortunately, I've been hearing a lot of chatter recently about Carolina taking him. I really feel like Fairley's got the most upside considering the talent he played against week in and week out. Bowers didn't face the same type of competition each game in the ACC.

bcbronc
02-23-2011, 03:12 PM
"who's a great person...has the characteristics that allows him to be a great professional"

sounds like Fairley is off the board.

dogfish
02-23-2011, 03:27 PM
"who's a great person...has the characteristics that allows him to be a great professional"

sounds like Fairley is off the board.

that's just elway using sock-puppet xanders to set a smokescreen. . . . :D

HORSEPOWER 56
02-23-2011, 05:25 PM
What good does it do the team for Xanders to say such a thing?

All it does is signal to teams dying to take Peterson (Dallas) that they can find a trade partner behind us. "Transparency" when it comes to the team's thoughts on potential picks before the draft doesn't make much sense to me...

Dallas would have to mortgage 1/2 their draft to trade up from #7 to #2. NOBODY does dumb shit like that for a CB, not even Jerry Jones (well, maybe McDaniels). For a QB... maybe, for a CB... no F'n way. Especially when they could take Prince Amukamara at #7 or trade back in the 1st and get one of the other two 1st round projected CBs.

The only teams that might be interested in #2 overall are teams that get infatuated with Newton (if Carolina passes on him) and are trying to trade up in front of Buffalo. It's not likely that we'll have many trade offers for the #2 overall pick. Even with a rookie pay scale in place, the #2 overall pick is very valuable and would cost a team outside the top 5 most of their draft to get. There's just not anyone that valuable this year... especially not Peterson.

Ravage!!!
02-23-2011, 05:32 PM
NO ONE IS TRADING UP TO THE #2 SPOT in the draft. Its just not going to happen!

IF there is a rookie pay scale, then those spots are only going to go UP in value points. The NFL does NOT want the top teams moving into the top spots easily. The NFL does NOT want those top picks given away. The NFL's draft is BIGGER than NBA playoffs. It has btter ratings than the world series.

The last thing the NFL wants is to lower the value of those picks. It takes a TON of draft picks to move into the top 5, and despite people here feeling they know exactly how much Jerry Jones loves Peterson, there is no way they move into the #2 spot to take him. Lets let that pipe-dream go.

zbeg
02-23-2011, 05:37 PM
"who's a great person...has the characteristics that allows him to be a great professional"

sounds like Fairley is off the board.

Fairley hasn't had any off-the-field issues, has he? Just a little bit of a mean/cheap streak on the field?

Suh's kind of the same way. Nice guy off the field, but definitely has a mean streak on the field. I think that's perfectly acceptable.

topscribe
02-23-2011, 05:40 PM
Fairley hasn't had any off-the-field issues, has he? Just a little bit of a mean/cheap streak on the field?

Suh's kind of the same way. Nice guy off the field, but definitely has a mean streak on the field. I think that's perfectly acceptable.

Maybe even desirable . . .

-----

GEM
02-23-2011, 05:55 PM
Maybe even desirable . . .

-----

Damn skippy....especially on THIS defense!

spikerman
02-23-2011, 06:23 PM
Somebody should float a rumor to the Rams that there's either a blocking TE or an undersized CB who lacks speed, but are good TEAM players who can be had at #2. Maybe their new genius offensive coordinator can put a bug in their front office's ear.

bcbronc
02-23-2011, 06:50 PM
Fairley hasn't had any off-the-field issues, has he? Just a little bit of a mean/cheap streak on the field?

Suh's kind of the same way. Nice guy off the field, but definitely has a mean streak on the field. I think that's perfectly acceptable.

fair enough. imo Fairley crosses the line on the field from cheap to dirty. I'm all for cheap, have zero respect for dirty. some of the things Fairley has done seems to me to be intentional attempts to injure. I have no use for that kind of person.

with that said, I'm sure the FO will cross the dots etc for all the top 3 or 4 defensive players. If they talk to his peers, former coaches etc and think he's worth the risk, I'll be on board. a lot of red flags, imo, but if he hits his potential he's the perfect addition.

spikerman
02-23-2011, 07:25 PM
fair enough. imo Fairley crosses the line on the field from cheap to dirty. I'm all for cheap, have zero respect for dirty. some of the things Fairley has done seems to me to be intentional attempts to injure. I have no use for that kind of person.

with that said, I'm sure the FO will cross the dots etc for all the top 3 or 4 defensive players. If they talk to his peers, former coaches etc and think he's worth the risk, I'll be on board. a lot of red flags, imo, but if he hits his potential he's the perfect addition.

Can you define "cheap"? We probably have different definitions, but in the context of play on the field I would consider "cheap" and "dirty" to be synonymous.

turftoad
02-23-2011, 08:41 PM
Well, if Shanny were still here my first thought right now would be.....Oh ****, we're taking Petersen. :lol:

If Shanny were still here...... I'm pretty sure we wouldn't be drafting #2 overall. Just sayin.

bcbronc
02-23-2011, 08:42 PM
Can you define "cheap"? We probably have different definitions, but in the context of play on the field I would consider "cheap" and "dirty" to be synonymous.

cheap = playing in that grey zone (popping a guy standing beside the pile just as the whistle blows, or just as the ball carrier steps out of bounds for example) where you're trying to intimidate, even trying to hurt, but not trying to injure. Sometimes the cheap player crosses the line, but when he does it results in a flag on the field, not a stretcher.

dirty = when you cross that line of trying to intimidate and intentionally try to injure your opponent. intentionally going for a knee of a guy whose not the ball carrier, for example. Or a full-fledged spear to the back of a guy no where near the play.

I don't think this is a universal distinction, but it's how I define the terms.

bcbronc
02-23-2011, 08:43 PM
If Shanny were still here...... I'm pretty sure we wouldn't be drafting #2 overall. Just sayin.

nope. pick no. 15 ftw.

turftoad
02-23-2011, 08:44 PM
I think it's Mayock but not sure that has Darius ahead of Fairley because he doesn't take plays off. Says he's a safer pick.

TXBRONC
02-23-2011, 09:27 PM
When you've got one of the top few picks, subterfuge is pretty useless.

Yeah with only one other team in the draft ahead of us it's really not much of a worry of someone jumping ahead of us.

TXBRONC
02-23-2011, 09:31 PM
I think it's Mayock but not sure that has Darius ahead of Fairley because he doesn't take plays off. Says he's a safer pick.

I saw on NFLN's ticker tape that Dareus was ranked ahead of Fairley so I assumed it was Mayock's ranking.

Lonestar
02-23-2011, 09:32 PM
Well, if Shanny were still here my first thought right now would be.....Oh ****, we're taking Petersen. :lol:

Actually I'd be thinking that they are looking for another one handed receiver.

dogfish
02-23-2011, 09:37 PM
Actually I'd be thinking that they are looking for another one handed receiver.

mikey spent a second on a receiver with a bad hand, joshy spent a first on a receiver with a bad foot. . . call it even?


:D

spikerman
02-23-2011, 09:43 PM
cheap = playing in that grey zone (popping a guy standing beside the pile just as the whistle blows, or just as the ball carrier steps out of bounds for example) where you're trying to intimidate, even trying to hurt, but not trying to injure. Sometimes the cheap player crosses the line, but when he does it results in a flag on the field, not a stretcher.

dirty = when you cross that line of trying to intimidate and intentionally try to injure your opponent. intentionally going for a knee of a guy whose not the ball carrier, for example. Or a full-fledged spear to the back of a guy no where near the play.

I don't think this is a universal distinction, but it's how I define the terms.

Fair enough, but by rule many of the plays in your "cheap" category can be, and should be, flagged. Hopefully none of the guys the Broncos draft have a habit of doing that.

Lonestar
02-23-2011, 09:56 PM
mikey spent a second on a receiver with a bad hand, joshy spent a first on a receiver with a bad foot. . . call it even?


:D

there is a huge DIFFERENCE in a guy that has NO function in a hand to someone that broke a bone in a foot. The second will heal the first will never be functional again..

Maybe a UDFA but never the 54 pick in the draft. NEVER..

TXBRONC
02-23-2011, 11:01 PM
mikey spent a second on a receiver with a bad hand, joshy spent a first on a receiver with a bad foot. . . call it even?


:D

I would take Shanahan's one handed receiver over McDaniels two hands of stone tight end (one reception in two seasons).

bcbronc
02-23-2011, 11:27 PM
I would take Shanahan's one handed receiver over McDaniels two hands of stone tight end (one reception in two seasons).

to be fair, Quinn is playing behind the best blocking TE in the league. ;) You only gonna throw so many passes to your blocking TEs.

TXBRONC
02-23-2011, 11:34 PM
to be fair, Quinn is playing behind the best blocking TE in the league. ;) You only gonna throw so many passes to your blocking TEs.

I think really to be fair, that's piss poor production regardless whose ahead of him especially when you consider McDaniels moved up in the second round to take him.

bcbronc
02-23-2011, 11:37 PM
I think really to be fair, that's piss poor production regardless whose ahead of him especially when you consider McDaniels moved up in the second round to take him.

he gave up two picks and got two picks in return. two thirds for one second, one fourth. no big whup, really.

TXBRONC
02-23-2011, 11:40 PM
he gave up two picks and got two picks in return. two thirds for one second, one fourth. no big whup, really.

Yeah it is big whup when you have nothing to show for trading higher picks for lower picks.

claymore
02-23-2011, 11:42 PM
McDaniels is gone, lets just be thankful for that.

bcbronc
02-23-2011, 11:43 PM
Yeah it is big whup when you have nothing to show for trading higher picks for lower picks.

explain please. We have Quinn.

dogfish
02-23-2011, 11:56 PM
explain please. We have Quinn.

i think that's his point. . . :lol:

bcbronc
02-24-2011, 12:04 AM
i think that's his point. . . :lol:

I think so too. Why can't he see that Quinn is being groomed as the heir apparent to the best blocking TE in the game. In 1-2 years, it will be Quinn dropping all those check downs...but for a fraction of the cost. :yo:

Lonestar
02-24-2011, 12:24 AM
explain please. We have Quinn.

Who seems to be developing into a devastating blocker who is getting a few catches.

But then he is not Shannon sharpe so is not worth diddly.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

shank
02-24-2011, 12:35 AM
Who seems to be developing into a devastating blocker who is getting a few catches.

But then he is not Shannon sharpe so is not worth diddly.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

You guys remember that time jr called dick quinn a devastating blocker? Sometimes I think of that when I'm feeling a little blue, for a chuckle.

dogfish
02-24-2011, 01:36 AM
somebody find me a video of quinn making a devestating block, stat!