PDA

View Full Version : Q&A: Dumervil's return changes the Broncos' draft strategy



TXBRONC
04-16-2011, 09:12 AM
Q&A: Dumervil's return changes the Broncos' draft strategy
By Jeff Legwold
The Denver Post
Posted: 04/16/2011 01:00:00 AM MDT


Q: There is a lot of talk about Denver taking a defensive lineman with the No. 2 pick, but with the return of Elvis (Dumervil), I would like to see them take with their first three picks — cornerback, linebacker and linebacker. And hopefully find a safety in the third round. Thoughts?

A: David, before the concern over Da'Quan Bowers' knee threatened to push him out of the draft's top 10, I never believed he would be the best player on the board when they picked at No. 2.

And the reason for that is exactly what you have pointed out — Dumervil's return. Dumervil said even as last season drew to a close that he was approaching 100 percent. His return is the top reason Broncos coach John Fox has given when asked about the state of the defense.

http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_17858950

I disagree getting Dumervil back changes the draft strategy. He has been expected be back all along. I also disagree that getting a cornerback and two linebackers with our first three picks is good idea. The moves like that wont do crapola for the defensive line. I believe we have 2/3rds of starting linebacking corp in Woodyard and Williams. Middle linebacke I can see but not outside linebacker.

HORSEPOWER 56
04-16-2011, 09:23 AM
Let's see... The guy wants to draft CB, LB, LB while we have 7 CBs already under contract on the roster, no less than 6 LBs, and 1 true DT (Vickerson).

This guy is a retard...

TXBRONC
04-16-2011, 09:31 AM
Let's see... The guy wants to draft CB, LB, LB while we have 7 CBs already under contract on the roster, no less than 6 LBs, and 1 true DT (Vickerson).

This guy is a retard...

I don't know if he is a retard but what he suggests is foolish to say the least.

Northman
04-16-2011, 09:35 AM
I disagree getting Dumervil back changes the draft strategy. He has been expected be back all along. I also disagree that getting a cornerback and two linebackers with our first three picks is good idea. The moves like that wont do crapola for the defensive line. I believe we have 2/3rds of starting linebacking corp in Woodyard and Williams. Middle linebacke I can see but not outside linebacker.

I agree 100%.

While having Doom back will help it isnt the final answer there. Especially in terms of run stoppage. Getting push from the outside is not the final answer and Denver will need power on the inside along to make guys like Doom more effective. That is one reason why in 09' we failed to stay strong down the stretch. Once teams figured they could just run it down our throat it made Doom ineffective for most of the game. Although i agree we will need a serious playmaker at MLB there is no LB worth taking at #2. Take Fairley or Dareus and then worry about the rest of the defensive spots.

TXBRONC
04-16-2011, 09:44 AM
I agree 100%.

While having Doom back will help it isnt the final answer there. Especially in terms of run stoppage. Getting push from the outside is not the final answer and Denver will need power on the inside along to make guys like Doom more effective. That is one reason why in 09' we failed to stay strong down the stretch. Once teams figured they could just run it down our throat it made Doom ineffective for most of the game. Although i agree we will need a serious playmaker at MLB there is no LB worth taking at #2. Take Fairley or Dareus and then worry about the rest of the defensive spots.

Another reason the defense failed down the stretch is because we were way to small up front. I just don't understand how people can come to that kind of conclusion knowing that our defensive tackles have been second tier guys regardless of scheme.

Juriga72
04-16-2011, 09:48 AM
[QUOTE=HORSEPOWER 56;1242689This guy is a retard...[/QUOTE]

I think he spells it re-tard..."like Rainman"

topscribe
04-16-2011, 10:02 AM
I disagree getting Dumervil back changes the draft strategy. He has been expected be back all along. I also disagree that getting a cornerback and two linebackers with our first three picks is good idea. The moves like that wont do crapola for the defensive line. I believe we have 2/3rds of starting linebacking corp in Woodyard and Williams. Middle linebacke I can see but not outside linebacker.

I agree. Adding linebackers and cornerbacks does not solve the pressing
problem at DT, where it all should begin on defense, IMO . . .

-----

dogfish
04-16-2011, 10:31 AM
Let's see... The guy wants to draft CB, LB, LB while we have 7 CBs already under contract on the roster, no less than 6 LBs, and 1 true DT (Vickerson).

This guy is a retard...

dumbest shit i've ever heard. . . that boy's momma oughta slap some sense into him. . .

:tsk:


besides which, people need to just accept that this is a shit draft for linebackers. . .

Juriga72
04-16-2011, 10:38 AM
dumbest shit i've ever heard. . . that boy's momma oughta slap some sense into him. . .

:tsk:


besides which, people need to just accept that this is a shit draft for linebackers. . .

So we draft a running back right?lol

dogfish
04-16-2011, 11:45 AM
So we draft a running back right?lol

we REALLY, desperately need to, but i wouldn't unless we can get some extra picks. . . i would take multiple DLs-- it's our biggest need, and it's where all the value is in this draft. . . i just don't want to waste a high pick on some chump like martez wilson-- especially not if we can get marvin austin, stephen paea or adrian clayborne with that pick. . .

arapaho2
04-16-2011, 02:56 PM
I don't know if he is a retard but what he suggests is foolish to say the least.

I'm pretty sure I can confirm his retardation ...yes...I have confirmation ...he's a retard

TXBRONC
04-16-2011, 05:02 PM
I agree. Adding linebackers and cornerbacks does not solve the pressing
problem at DT, where it all should begin on defense, IMO . . .

-----

I thought you were ok with drafting Peterson?

topscribe
04-16-2011, 05:25 PM
I thought you were ok with drafting Peterson?

I admit: I shifted back and forth on the idea. But my final thought is that,
regardless of some people's concept of a team "full of holes," there is only one
great big, glaring, gaping hole, and that is at DT. And there is only one position
on the defense that can be considered significantly strong, and that is CB. So
we are going to skip on the biggest hole to fortify the strongest area? Well, if
that's the case, I hope Peterson can tackle like a linebacker because the CBs
are going to do an awful lot of the tackling . . . downfield.

Nope, with Fairley and Dareus there, I can't see taking a flyer on Peterson; I
don't care if Peterson is a HOFer. We already have a HOFer at the position: So
how did that work out?

I'm with you on this, TX: We need DTs.

-----

dogfish
04-16-2011, 06:42 PM
stay strong, tops!

TXBRONC
04-16-2011, 06:49 PM
I admit: I shifted back and forth on the idea. But my final thought is that,
regardless of some people's concept of a team "full of holes," there is only one
great big, glaring, gaping hole, and that is at DT. And there is only one position
on the defense that can be considered significantly strong, and that is CB. So
we are going to skip on the biggest hole to fortify the strongest area? Well, if
that's the case, I hope Peterson can tackle like a linebacker because the CBs
are going to do an awful lot of the tackling . . . downfield.

Nope, with Fairley and Dareus there, I can't see taking a flyer on Peterson; I
don't care if Peterson is a HOFer. We already have a HOFer at the position: So
how did that work out?

I'm with you on this, TX: We need DTs.

-----

If we were better set at defensive tackle I wouldn't think twice about taking Peterson. Even if our biggest need was linebacker I would take Peterson if defensive tackle solidified.