PDA

View Full Version : Q&A: Moving down might not be in Broncos' best interest



TXBRONC
03-04-2011, 11:50 AM
Q&A: Moving down might not be in Broncos' best interest
By Jeff Legwold
The Denver Post
Posted: 03/04/2011 01:00:00 AM MST

Q: Do you think there will be teams (maybe Washington) looking to move up into the No. 2 spot to get Cam Newton ahead of Buffalo? How far back can the Broncos move and still get a player they want?

A: Certainly the Broncos would like more draft picks than the six they have, but trades will be difficult if the draft is held during a lockout because then picks can only be traded for picks — no current players could be involved.

And all of that being said, the teams that succeed in the draft long-term rarely trade down in the first round. The Steelers, for example, have done it just twice in the last 41 drafts, and one of those was to move down to take Ben Roethlisberger.Teams win with blue-chip players, who are usually found in the upper tier of the first round.

http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_17533148

The excerpt is taken from the end of the Q&A.

I have never understood the fascination of some of fans always wanting to move done in the draft. The Steelers are the perfect example of why should do that sparingly. So my advice, screw moving down, stay the hell put where you are and take Dareus or Fairley. I'm not picky. However if both are available I would take Dareus first.


That is all.

PAINTERDAVE
03-04-2011, 11:52 AM
I agree... use that #2 pick.

I expect to see them move around with the 2nd round picks, however.

SOCALORADO.
03-04-2011, 11:56 AM
I agree... use that #2 pick.

I expect to see them move around with the 2nd round picks, however.

What about this? Posted in another thread.
The 2nd round picks equal the #16 (JAX) pick of the 1st round i think.
Is that what you mean?
DEN could hypothetically (of course) draft,
1. Dareus
16. Watt
I think Watt is a late 1st rounder, with Clayborn, Jordan and Kerrigan all going ahead of him, or also late 1st round picks.
JAX would then have the 36th,46th and 49th picks of the 2nd round.
I am not really for this idea, simply beacuse of the value in the 2nd, but it is food for thought. It would only work if DEN got exactly who they wanted.
GB did this to get Raji/Matthews a while back ago. I cant remember exactly how it worked out though

TXBRONC
03-04-2011, 12:03 PM
What about this? Posted in another thread.
The 2nd round picks equal the #16 (JAX) pick of the 1st round i think.
Is that what you mean?
DEN could hypothetically (of course) draft,
1. Dareus
16. Watt
I think Watt is a late 1st rounder, with Clayborn, Jordan and Kerrigan all going ahead of him, or also late 1st round picks.
JAX would then have the 36th,46th and 49th picks of the 2nd round.
I am not really for this idea, simply beacuse of the value in the 2nd, but it is food for thought. It would only work if DEN got exactly who they wanted.
GB did this to get Raji/Matthews a while back ago. I cant remember exactly how it worked out though

If it's a straight up our highest second for a late 1st rounder I don't have to much of a problem with this because we still would have six picks in all with at least one in the second.

SOCALORADO.
03-04-2011, 12:07 PM
If it's a straight up our highest second for a late 1st rounder I don't have to much of a problem with this because we still would have six picks in all with at least one in the second.

Tex, what team would do that? Just trade away their 1st and then accept a
2nd in return? I think DEN would need to give up a bit more than that.
I would love it if DEN could use the low 2nd and Eddie Royal as trade bait to get back into the mid teens of the 1st, while keeping #36, but since D.Thomas is literally made of glass, that does not seem like a good idea anymore.

TXBRONC
03-04-2011, 12:10 PM
Tex, what team would do that? Just trade away their 1st and then accept a
2nd in return? I think DEN would need to give up a bit more than that.
I would love it if DEN could use the low 2nd and Eddie Royal as trade bait to get back into the mid teens of the 1st, while keeping #36, but since D.Thomas is literally made of glass, that does not seem like a good idea anymore.

I understand that but that's only way I would do it. :cool:

SOCALORADO.
03-04-2011, 12:13 PM
I understand that but that's only way I would do it. :cool:

Were gonna need alot of Alcohol, and Ol' Jerry Jones then.
:beer:

Dean
03-04-2011, 12:23 PM
Were gonna need alot of Alcohol, and Ol' Jerry Jones then.
:beer:

If it is Jerry Jones, along with lots of alcohol some female companionship might turn the tide your way. . . . then again maybe not? :D

Buff
03-04-2011, 12:26 PM
The next time Jeff Legwold introduces new or insightful information in one of his articles will be the first time.

I feel like he is constantly restating the obvious in these Q&A's.

Didn't he just have a Q&A about how they ought to trade back for more picks?

rcsodak
03-04-2011, 12:33 PM
The next time Jeff Legwold introduces new or insightful information in one of his articles will be the first time.

I feel like he is constantly restating the obvious in these Q&A's.

Didn't he just have a Q&A about how they ought to trade back for more picks?

Legwold=Lazy Journalist
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

TXBRONC
03-04-2011, 12:34 PM
The next time Jeff Legwold introduces new or insightful information in one of his articles will be the first time.

I feel like he is constantly restating the obvious in these Q&A's.

Didn't he just have a Q&A about how they ought to trade back for more picks?

I'm not a big defender of Legwold but I'm not sure how else he should answer the a question that we the fans ask ad nauseum.

Buff
03-04-2011, 12:38 PM
I'm not a big defender of Legwold but I'm not sure how else he should answer the a question that we the fans ask ad nauseum.

Woody Paige and Mike Klis find ways to bring new or different takes into their mailbags/Q&A's, IMO.

Jeff Legwold and Jim Armstrong write lazy three paragraph pieces that add nothing.

And then I find myself disagreeing with Mark Kiszla and Dave Krieger on about 95% of their columns.

Paige, Klis and to a lesser extent Jones are the only three worth reading in terms of DP Broncos coverage.

Montana Battlin Bear
03-04-2011, 12:39 PM
while I agree that we shouldn't trade down unless its just a few spots.

There is more than one way to win, just because the steelers don't trade down doesn't mean we shouldn't

rcsodak
03-04-2011, 12:54 PM
I'm not a big defender of Legwold but I'm not sure how else he should answer the a question that we the fans ask ad nauseum.

He gets more than 3/day. He chooses which to answer. A silk said, didn't he play the other side of this record, recently?
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

TXBRONC
03-04-2011, 12:57 PM
while I agree that we shouldn't trade down unless its just a few spots.

There is more than one way to win, just because the steelers don't trade down doesn't mean we shouldn't

True there is always more than one way to do things. But the Steelers formula seems to be more dependable way of doing business.

rcsodak
03-04-2011, 12:59 PM
while I agree that we shouldn't trade down unless its just a few spots.

There is more than one way to win, just because the steelers don't trade down doesn't mean we shouldn't

True. NEPats.
But I think until you are at a certain level, everything needs to be done with baby steps. A down in the dumps team simply can't afford to go all-in and miss....as was reflected in an elway statement.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums