PDA

View Full Version : How will our new HC affect our draft?



underrated29
01-03-2009, 09:24 PM
Move it if you want to the draft, but i figured this topic will work on both levels.

So how will our new Head Coach change our draft. We still will have the goodmans scouting out the talent for us. But they do not say which player we will get if our top 2 are still on the board.

A new coach will see that Saftey is a huge need, but what about DT and DE. They will also see RB as a need. But what they might not know is that at DT we also have Powell who might be pretty good. And at RB we have torain, hillis, pittman, young etc.

Point is they wont be as familiar with our team and do you think they might put a different position as a top need instead?

Most of us agree that no rb in the first unless its wells or moreno- but will the new HC see it that way too.

What kind of descisions will the coach be able to make and how do you think they will change our draft.

Watchthemiddle
01-03-2009, 09:27 PM
I am sure that the new HC will have their own people/scouts that will know our talent and can help assess it. Not too mention, Bowlen knows what we lack and in what areas.

If he watched the last game of the season, he will know that the D needs an overhaul.

DenBronx
01-03-2009, 09:28 PM
i'll be shocked if our new coach doesnt go defense in the first 2 rounds.

Fan in Exile
01-03-2009, 09:33 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if our new Head Coach drafts a running back. It takes a lot of confidence to go with a 5th rounder or a converted FB. I could easily see a new headcoach wanting someone he thought was more reliable.

skycoyote
01-03-2009, 09:34 PM
I don't think its any secret that the broncos have needs at all positions on defense. I'm speculating that the new HC will take the best available LB, DT, DE, S. I'm willing to bet that there won't be any Maurice Clarett suprises.

honz
01-03-2009, 09:35 PM
I'm sure the first thing our new coach/GM does is get to know all of our players and watch film on them. It doesn't take a genius to realize that our offense is by far superior to our pathetic defense.

PatricktheDookie
01-03-2009, 09:35 PM
I think we'll be getting 1 offensive lineman, 1 running back, and everyone else will be defense.

And we have 9-10 picks.

jlarsiii
01-03-2009, 09:35 PM
i'll be shocked if our new coach doesnt go defense in the first 2 rounds.

I agree. This talk about drafting a RB in the first round is a complete mistake. The offense was top 5 in yards gained. They just need to learn how to finish.

Our D needs all the attention we can give it. This drafting only offensive skill players in the first round talk needs to stop. I don't want to hear about how long it takes a defensive player to develop if we draft them now. If we don't we are only putting off the inevitable and this defense is horrid already. Our draft needs to be defense, defense, defense.

underrated29
01-03-2009, 09:35 PM
Do you think that the new HC might draft a CB early, or another 2nd rd DE. Obviously, we need S,LB,DT,DE so it would be hard to screw that up, but whats the possiblity that a new face goes differently.

Or maybe he wants to move us to a 3-4?


I know nothing of these interviewies by the way, so i cant say that they will or wont do think about that.

honz
01-03-2009, 09:39 PM
Do you think that the new HC might draft a CB early, or another 2nd rd DE. Obviously, we need S,LB,DT,DE so it would be hard to screw that up, but whats the possiblity that a new face goes differently.

Or maybe he wants to move us to a 3-4?


I know nothing of these interviewies by the way, so i cant say that they will or wont do think about that.

I think it is to early to speculate whether a new coach will drastically alter our schemes like switching to a 3-4. Who knows who our next coach will be.

jlarsiii
01-03-2009, 09:41 PM
Do you think that the new HC might draft a CB early, or another 2nd rd DE. Obviously, we need S,LB,DT,DE so it would be hard to screw that up, but whats the possiblity that a new face goes differently.

Or maybe he wants to move us to a 3-4?


I know nothing of these interviewies by the way, so i cant say that they will or wont do think about that.

What is this fascination with the 3-4? If our new HC decides to go that route then add a couple extra years to this teams development before they will be in a position to compete for the playoffs. We have Zero personnel to run that scheme. To get them would mean to cut or trade all of our current players and spend the next several years drafting those players we need and hoping that they all pan out. Oh by the way, there are several other teams who run a 3-4 so they would be drafting the same players at the same time.

The 3-4 is a pipe dream unless you are content to suck for possibly the next decade on defense.

Edit: nothing personal against you underrated, but I get aggrevated by the whole talk of switching to a 3-4. Maybe if we had some pieces to that puzzle but we have none. We don't have the d-line or any LBs that meet the requirements.

underrated29
01-03-2009, 09:44 PM
I think it is to early to speculate whether a new coach will drastically alter our schemes like switching to a 3-4. Who knows who our next coach will be.

Right. But we saw what bates did. So of the possible candidates (or a surprise guy) who knows what their philosophy might be. Who knows if they think that they can use our talent we have on defense and go Rb and CB in the first 2. I doubt it, but hey they might evaluate talent differently and draft 2 dts early and want to dump thomas or drob (which would probably be a mistake because we havent used them all that well).

And what if our top guys are off the board, do you think the new HC would drop back or reach for a guy. Before we kinda knew what shanny would do, but now we have no idea.....especially since we dont have any clue who our HC is

Rick
01-03-2009, 09:48 PM
As shitty as this Defense is we have 0 personal for any scheme.

Dean
01-03-2009, 09:49 PM
What worries me is that the new coach is not a fan of the zone blocking scheme. In that event, he is going to have to come up with linemen that are big and powerful enought to block man on man. We don't have but 1 or maybe two of those at present.

honz
01-03-2009, 09:58 PM
What worries me is that the new coach is not a fan of the zone blocking scheme. In that event, he is going to have to come up with linemen that are big and powerful enought to block man on man. We don't have but 1 or maybe two of those at present.
I'm hoping that Bowlen looks for a coach that is willing to let Bates and some offensive assistants stick around. There is no need to totally rebuild the offense when we have a good thing going.

underrated29
01-03-2009, 09:59 PM
What is this fascination with the 3-4? If our new HC decides to go that route then add a couple extra years to this teams development before they will be in a position to compete for the playoffs. We have Zero personnel to run that scheme. To get them would mean to cut or trade all of our current players and spend the next several years drafting those players we need and hoping that they all pan out. Oh by the way, there are several other teams who run a 3-4 so they would be drafting the same players at the same time.

The 3-4 is a pipe dream unless you are content to suck for possibly the next decade on defense.

Edit: nothing personal against you underrated, but I get aggrevated by the whole talk of switching to a 3-4. Maybe if we had some pieces to that puzzle but we have none. We don't have the d-line or any LBs that meet the requirements.



I havent heard anything about the 3-4 anywhere, but i personally dont like it. As with you, i also dont think we have the personal and it would take a long time for us to develop it....But a new HC who likes it and wants to move into it concerns me. however doubtful it is...

Mike
01-03-2009, 10:40 PM
i'll be shocked if our new coach doesnt go defense in the first 2 rounds.

I agree...but if it comes between drafting the best player available and reaching (see Moss)....I hope they take the BPA even if he is an offensive player.

Tned
01-03-2009, 10:47 PM
Unless a GM is hired, it is safe to assume the Goodmans will be the primary factor in the draft. I have no doubt the new coach will have input, especially if there are specific schemes (on offense or defense) that he needs specific talent for, but Bowlen made it clear that the 'personnel staff' were remaining in place.

Bowlen was specifically asked if the head coach would also be in charge of personnel moves and he said that he wouldn't be, that the GM responsibilities would not be handled by the new coach.

Shazam!
01-03-2009, 10:50 PM
I don't think the new HC will affect Drafting much. Denver's weaknesses are well known by analysts, other teams and us. Barring a deal trading Champ or something, I don't think it will change much.

TXBRONC
01-03-2009, 11:19 PM
I agree...but if it comes between drafting the best player available and reaching (see Moss)....I hope they take the BPA even if he is an offensive player.

I think could be especially true if its a running back.

xzn
01-04-2009, 12:46 AM
Assuming we stay at 12 we should have our choice of several of the following players:

Rey Maualuga
James Laurenitis
Taylor Mays
Aaron Curry
Vontae Davis

Would we take Knowshon or Beanie with ANY of those players still on the board?

I want Rey or James L. in the first and Javon Ringer in the second. Or Patrick Chung.

If we do get a defensive minded coach I think it may not mean that we totally load up on defense, it could mean that he wants a bit better balance on offense for ball control and would want a feature back to pair with Torain. I'm assuming Hillis is FB.

No matter who the coach is we must draft a starter in the first round, preferably on defense. If we could get another starter in the second (Ringer or Chung) it'd be gravy.

Anyone see Clay Matthews in the Rose Bowl? He was everywhere! He's projected mid-late third right now. I think he'll move up during the draft process and his Trojan pedigree will probably inflate his stock on draft day, but I am hoping to get him with our 78 pick. He would probably also start or at least provide insurance for Boss being injured again.

Requiem / The Dagda
01-04-2009, 01:10 AM
It is pretty simple. Head Coach thinks our defense sucks. Well, if the person is sane he will. We'll place a priority there. Not a hard dart to toss at the board. I'm sure we've been scouting defense heavily already. I'm sure the coach will have input. I'm also sure he'll let Goodman & Goodman do their thang. Much ado about nuffin'.

Tned
01-04-2009, 03:21 AM
It is pretty simple. Head Coach thinks our defense sucks. Well, if the person is sane he will. We'll place a priority there. Not a hard dart to toss at the board. I'm sure we've been scouting defense heavily already. I'm sure the coach will have input. I'm also sure he'll let Goodman & Goodman do their thang. Much ado about nuffin'.

Yea, I would imagine the HC will lay out where he feels the deficiencies in the defense (and elsewhere) are, and what he is looking for in terms of his scheme(s), and then work with the Goodmans (or GM if hired) in the draft.

JKcatch724
01-04-2009, 04:42 AM
I like Taylor Mays, but I think he'll be gone by #10 to SF. So if Rey Maualuga isn't there either, I think we should go for Beanie or Moreno. Because outside of those two, I don't see a whole lot of defensive players I'd like at 12. Maybe Curry. It all depends, really. If we do happen to go RB in the first round, I'd love to have George Selvie if he lasts to our pick in the second round.

tomjonesrocks
01-04-2009, 04:48 AM
Is there any way I can say that I hate this topic without being disrespectful to the OP/people who reply? I hope there is, because that is my intent.

IMO this is so far ahead of the game it's not even worth discussing in any form or fashion. I don't even see how this can be speculated on right now. :confused:

muse
01-04-2009, 08:23 AM
What worries me is that the new coach is not a fan of the zone blocking scheme. In that event, he is going to have to come up with linemen that are big and powerful enought to block man on man. We don't have but 1 or maybe two of those at present.

My top concern too. An HC who'd want us to get out of zone blocking would be foolish because a) it works, b) its supposed weakness (pass protection) was definitely our strength last year - and not because Jay was bailing them out the whole time as in Plummer's day. I don't think anyone on the offence would be happy with us ditching it.

elsid13
01-04-2009, 08:38 AM
I like Taylor Mays, but I think he'll be gone by #10 to SF. So if Rey Maualuga isn't there either, I think we should go for Beanie or Moreno. Because outside of those two, I don't see a whole lot of defensive players I'd like at 12. Maybe Curry. It all depends, really. If we do happen to go RB in the first round, I'd love to have George Selvie if he lasts to our pick in the second round.

Don't sound disappointed. Curry is by far the best LB in this draft. Rey-Rey and Little Animal get the press because of where they play, Curry is by far the better prospect then they are. He has ability to be effective at any LB postion.

People need to look at were we are short now and in future

I expect it to be balance draft with C,CB, TE/FB and WR addressed at some point.

Den21vsBal19
01-04-2009, 08:51 AM
To be honest, rather than reaching, if the BOA looks like being an offensive player, I'd like to see us trade down if possible.

Offensive players, even RB, just aren't a priority for us this year.......except maybe some additional depth along the OL, epecially if Weigman decides to hang it up.

Traveler
01-04-2009, 09:08 AM
Our lack of talent on defense is a known problem. Offensively, what I'd like to see addressed is the physicality while still using the ZBS. Not sure what can be done to teach it or if it's even possible with the guys we have.

Sure, there is a hole at RB, but I'd would like to see our linemen become more physical to match up better with the more physical defenses like the Ravens, Jags and Titans.

If somehow, the new coach can add this to our offense, we would be one of the best in the league.

lex
01-04-2009, 10:25 AM
What worries me is that the new coach is not a fan of the zone blocking scheme. In that event, he is going to have to come up with linemen that are big and powerful enought to block man on man. We don't have but 1 or maybe two of those at present.

The ZBS shouldnt be a problem for whoever is becoming the coach. Its not like whoever is coming in wont have their hands full with improving the defense. Plus, Pat has invested resources into scheme specific players and to tear that up when the defense is a far greater concern is kind of crazy. And I think that might be why Pat has kept coaches with the offense.

Dean
01-04-2009, 10:34 AM
And I think that might be why Pat has kept coaches with the offense.


Lex, I haven't read anything other than by posters on Broncos Forums that stated that Bowlen was retaining his offensive coaches. Could you please give me a link that states that. I hope that it is true but as I have said I haven't seen it from a reputable source.
:confused:

Requiem / The Dagda
01-04-2009, 10:37 AM
Denver isn't going to change from the ZBS. Why worry about it?

lex
01-04-2009, 10:41 AM
Lex, I haven't read anything other than by posters on Broncos Forums that stated that Bowlen was retaining his offensive coaches. Could you please give me a link that states that. I hope that it is true but as I have said I haven't seen it from a reputable source.
:confused:

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_11345375

Dean
01-04-2009, 10:52 AM
I still don't see that Bowlen said he would retain the offensive coaching staff.



Sunday, January 04, 2009


Bowlen: "Tough as it gets"
By Jim Armstrong
The Denver Post

Posted: 12/31/2008 02:33:01 PM MST
Updated: 12/31/2008 05:57:06 PM MST


Broncos owner Pat Bowlen, above, discusses the firing of head coach Mike Shanahan on Wednesday. (John Leyba, The Denver Post)Related
Jan 2:

Vowing that "I run the show," Broncos owner Pat Bowlen today said good bye to Mike Shanahan as his head coach.

Bowlen wouldn't specify why he fired Shanahan after 14 seasons, saying simply that "It was time for the organization to move on and for Mike to move on."

Bowlen said he came to the decision to dump the winningest coach in franchise history after considerable soul searching. He wouldn't speculate whether the move would have gone down if Shanahan had been able to get the Broncos into the playoffs instead of missing the postseason for a third consecutive year.

"In 25 years, this is as tough as it gets," he said. "This is a very difficult day for me."

Bowlen denied that the decision came after Shanahan's refusal to
fire defensive coordinator Bob Slowik. He said he didn't anticipate any members of the coaching staff staying in Shanahan's absence, but later acknowledged

that some could stay, with quarterbacks coach Jeremy Bates all but assured to be retained.

As for Shanahan's replacement, Bowlen said he hadn't contacted any candidates. But any notion that Bowlen would pursue such big names as Bill Cowher or Bill Parcells to be coach or general manager was doused when Bowlen said he anticipated keeping intact the Broncos' personnel department.

That would be vice president of football operations Jim Goodman and assistant general managers Jeff Goodman and Brian Xanders. Those three will run the Broncos' 2009 draft, during which the team will have nine picks.

Bowlen made it very clear that his emphasis was on hiring a new coach, not a GM. He said he would consider "the whole panacea of coaches," but all indications are that he wouldn't hire a coach from the college ranks.

As for whether he might become the next Jerry Jones, an owner who dabbles in personnel decisions, Bowlen was adamant: "Hell, no."

Jim Armstrong: 303-954-1269 or jmarmstrong@denverpost.com

To me that just means that Bates will be kept in some capacity and the new coach might or might not rehire some of the staff.

lex
01-04-2009, 10:54 AM
I still don't see that Bowlen said he would retain the offensive coaching staff.

OK, well, you know how to google.

topscribe
01-04-2009, 10:57 AM
Don't sound disappointed. Curry is by far the best LB in this draft. Rey-Rey and Little Animal get the press because of where they play, Curry is by far the better prospect then they are. He has ability to be effective at any LB postion.

People need to look at were we are short now and in future

I expect it to be balance draft with C,CB, TE/FB and WR addressed at some point.

Which is why Curry is more likely to be gone by #12 than Maualuga is . . .

-----

Dean
01-04-2009, 10:59 AM
OK, well, you know how to google.

I guess I don't know because I have tried and nowhere did I find a statement that the offensive staff would be retained. That is why I asked for a link- not to be a butt but rather because I think the article you posted has been misconstrued and I want to believe that we will retain them.

topscribe
01-04-2009, 11:00 AM
I still don't see that Bowlen said he would retain the offensive coaching staff.



To me that just means that Bates will be kept in some capacity and the new coach might or might not rehire some of the staff.

That is my impression from everything Bowlen has said. He likely will retain
Bates, mostly because of Cutler wishes. Regarding the rest, he indicated that
some of them might be kept. I believe Bowlen does not wish to impose that
upon the new coach, which is your impression, as I infer?

-----

lex
01-04-2009, 11:01 AM
Which is why Curry is more likely to be gone by #12 than Maualuga is . . .

-----

Maualuga is good for spectacular collisions. He's very physical and can get through blockers but I worry his weaknesses will hurt more at the next level when they are used against him. He's a good player and I wouldnt be horribly upset if we drafted him but he comes with some bad plays to go along with the highlight collisions. Id rather have him than Laurinaitis though.

topscribe
01-04-2009, 11:03 AM
I guess I don't know because I have tried and nowhere did I find a statement that the offensive staff would be retained. That is why I asked for a link- not to be a butt but rather because I think the article you posted has been misconstrued and I want to believe that we will retain them.

Keep working at it, Coach. Someday, you will get yourself to "our" level. http://i258.photobucket.com/albums/hh256/AZDynamics/Smilies/thwink.gif

-----

lex
01-04-2009, 11:06 AM
Keep working at it, Coach. Someday, you will get yourself to "our" level. http://i258.photobucket.com/albums/hh256/AZDynamics/Smilies/thwink.gif

-----

Speak for yourself, sunshine.

Dean
01-04-2009, 11:06 AM
Which is why Curry is more likely to be gone by #12 than Maualuga is . . .

-----


I am starting to look at Taylo Mays as a great first round pick. Did you see the hit he delivered in the bowl game? He is 230 pounds on a 6'4" frame. His 4.28 fourty yard time coupled with his coaches comment that teams don't even try to throw over the top with him back there looks good to me.

I did not used to believe that a safety was of that high an importance to waste a first round pick on one. Troy Palamalu has changed my thinking.

MOtorboat
01-04-2009, 11:09 AM
I am starting to look at Taylo Mays as a great first round pick. Did you see the hit he delivered in the bowl game? He is 230 pounds on a 6'4" frame. His 4.28 fourty yard time coupled with his coaches comment that teams don't even try to throw over the top with him back there looks good to me.

I did not used to believe that a safety was of that high an importance to waste a first round pick on one. Troy Palamalu has changed my thinking.

You didn't learn it from Atwater and Smith?

I like Mays a lot too. If he performs that well at the combine, he might shoot into the Top 5.

topscribe
01-04-2009, 11:10 AM
I am starting to look at Taylo Mays as a great first round pick. Did you see the hit he delivered in the bowl game? He is 230 pounds on a 6'4" frame. His 4.28 fourty yard time coupled with his coaches comment that teams don't even try to throw over the top with him back there looks good to me.

I did not used to believe that a safety was of that high an importance to waste a first round pick on one. Troy Palamalu has changed my thinking.

Madden last night was talking about how Troy was so adept at filling gaps the
people up front missed. We have already seen the difference in that defense
between when he was playing and when he was out injured.

I personally believe that MLB is the number one need, but I would not shed
too many tears if they went after Mays, that's for sure.

-----

Requiem / The Dagda
01-04-2009, 11:14 AM
Yeah, draft Taylor Mays. You know, I'm sure he'll put pressure on the quarterback and solve our deficiencies in our front seven. Good idea. I like the build from the back to the front mentality. Seems to have worked for the Broncos lately. Oh. . . wait?

lex
01-04-2009, 11:17 AM
Yeah, draft Taylor Mays. You know, I'm sure he'll put pressure on the quarterback and solve our deficiencies in our front seven. Good idea. I like the build from the back to the front mentality. Seems to have worked for the Broncos lately. Oh. . . wait?

Yeah, plus we're 31 under the cap...thats more for Champ and Dre.

Requiem / The Dagda
01-04-2009, 11:18 AM
Yeah, plus we're 31 under the cap...thats more for Champ and Dre.

You know Lex, I think we should extend Karl Paymah. Four years, 20 million sound good to you dude? I like his pass rushing abilities when he's in press-man.

muse
01-04-2009, 11:19 AM
I personally believe that MLB is the number one need, but I would not shed
too many tears if they went after Mays, that's for sure.

-----

Whilst MLB is big need, I wrote a post on MHR weighing up how Spencer Larsen would do as a starting MLB. The more I watch him, the more I think we need him on the field. Also from a leadership point of view, our LB corps needs all the leadership it can get. After all, the Goodmans marked him as a guy who would definitely make it in the league...and whilst we need a beast at MLB, there's a good chance that Larsen may be that guy. I wouldn't be opposed to getting an MLB in the top two rounds, or getting someone like Dansby (and give Larsen a look at SLB). In any case, we need strength in the middle, and a first rounder on the DL (although it'll be a couple of years before we reap the rewards), at LB or at S would get my approval. I don't know enough about college football to start throwing names around though.

http://www.milehighreport.com/2009/1/3/708216/spencer-larsen-s-futur

Taylor Mays sounds intriguing actually...him and Barrett at safeties could be a fearsome tandem down the road although I would expect a bunch of rookie errors.

Requiem / The Dagda
01-04-2009, 11:21 AM
Spencer Larsen isn't a long-term viable option at MIKE. Next.

lex
01-04-2009, 11:22 AM
Whilst MLB is big need, I wrote a post on MHR weighing up how Spencer Larsen would do as a starting MLB. The more I watch him, the more I think we need him on the field. Also from a leadership point of view, our LB corps needs all the leadership it can get. After all, the Goodmans marked him as a guy who would definitely make it in the league...and whilst we need a beast at MLB, there's a good chance that Larsen may be that guy. I wouldn't be opposed to getting an MLB in the top two rounds, or getting someone like Dansby (and give Larsen a look at SLB). In any case, we need strength in the middle, and a first rounder on the DL (although it'll be a couple of years before we reap the rewards), at LB or at S would get my approval. I don't know enough about college football to start throwing names around though.

http://www.milehighreport.com/2009/1/3/708216/spencer-larsen-s-futur

Taylor Mays sounds intriguing actually...him and Barrett at safeties could be a fearsome tandem down the road although I would expect a bunch of rookie errors.


Actually, MLB is one of the deeper positions when it comes to MLB.

Dean
01-04-2009, 11:24 AM
It takes time for the development of defensive ends. Since we (for a change) are out of cap hell, get a proven DE in free agency and use the draft for positions that don't have the high risk factor.

lex
01-04-2009, 11:25 AM
It takes time for the development of defensive ends. Since we (for a change) are out of cap hell, get a proven DE on free agency and use the draft for positions that don't have the high risk factor.

Who should we get at DE in FA?

Dean
01-04-2009, 11:27 AM
Who should we get at DE in FA?

I would, of coarse, love Peppers however I am not sure that is going to be a possibility.

muse
01-04-2009, 11:29 AM
Actually, MLB is one of the deeper positions when it comes to MLB.
Eh? I'm a little confused...


Spencer Larsen isn't a long-term viable option at MIKE. Next.

To be honest, I've not seen enough of him to decide either way. I think it's too early to discount him entirely.

Fan in Exile
01-04-2009, 11:32 AM
Yeah, draft Taylor Mays. You know, I'm sure he'll put pressure on the quarterback and solve our deficiencies in our front seven. Good idea. I like the build from the back to the front mentality. Seems to have worked for the Broncos lately. Oh. . . wait?

The problem with describing building projects as back to front or front to back, is that it implies that you are only working on one spot at a time. This is complete crap they are working on all the spots, whether it's by teaching the guys that we've got or by getting a new scheme or by FA, or by the draft.

Drafting Taylor Mays doesn't mean that the rest of the problems are being ignored.

Really this is a question that has to be answered on the merits of the players available at our draft position. There is no way that we should take a crappy DE just because we want to build front to back.

The question is more of do we take a great but flawed LB and a lesser safety in the second because that gives us a better defense. Or do we take a great Safety and a lesser LB so we can get better value.

To some extent the question is fairly premature. We won't be able to answer it until we know the new defensive scheme and were it can tolerate weaknesses.

topscribe
01-04-2009, 11:33 AM
Whilst MLB is big need, I wrote a post on MHR weighing up how Spencer Larsen would do as a starting MLB. The more I watch him, the more I think we need him on the field. Also from a leadership point of view, our LB corps needs all the leadership it can get. After all, the Goodmans marked him as a guy who would definitely make it in the league...and whilst we need a beast at MLB, there's a good chance that Larsen may be that guy. I wouldn't be opposed to getting an MLB in the top two rounds, or getting someone like Dansby (and give Larsen a look at SLB). In any case, we need strength in the middle, and a first rounder on the DL (although it'll be a couple of years before we reap the rewards), at LB or at S would get my approval. I don't know enough about college football to start throwing names around though.

http://www.milehighreport.com/2009/1/3/708216/spencer-larsen-s-futur

Taylor Mays sounds intriguing actually...him and Barrett at safeties could be a fearsome tandem down the road although I would expect a bunch of rookie errors.

Larsen was considered by many as the second-best linebacker in the PAC-10
in his senior year (after Maualuga). How that translates to the pros, we can't
be sure. But he put on a very good display the limited time he was in there . . .
certainly better than Webster.

While I would have to see more of Spence to be sure, I would not count him
out at MLB if they were to give him the chance. He has a nose for the ball
that I saw in few others, at least on the college level.

-----

lex
01-04-2009, 11:33 AM
Eh? I'm a little confused...



To be honest, I've not seen enough of him to decide either way. I think it's too early to discount him entirely.


FWIW, I like Larsen but if they decide they need to upgrade there, there are some decent FAs out there.

http://profootball.scout.com/a.z?s=127&p=9&c=12&yr=2009&nid=83&lnid=83&rc=16&pid=65

DE is not close to as strong

http://profootball.scout.com/a.z?s=127&p=9&c=12&yr=2009&nid=83&lnid=83&rc=16&pid=23

muse
01-04-2009, 11:38 AM
FWIW, I like Larsen but if they decide they need to upgrade there, there are some decent FAs out there.

http://profootball.scout.com/a.z?s=127&p=9&c=12&yr=2009&nid=83&lnid=83&rc=16&pid=65

DE is not close to as strong

http://profootball.scout.com/a.z?s=127&p=9&c=12&yr=2009&nid=83&lnid=83&rc=16&pid=23

I think if we do pick up an MLB, Larsen at SLB could be an option...his coverage isn't too bad and he's good at shedding blocks.

I think getting two new DL, one in FA and one in the draft would be the way to go. I'd love a big name, every down DE. I think we should also try to get a 2-gap DT as all our DTs right now with the exception of Powell (who is an unknown quantity as it is) are 1-gappers.

lex
01-04-2009, 11:38 AM
The problem with describing building projects as back to front or front to back, is that it implies that you are only working on one spot at a time. This is complete crap they are working on all the spots, whether it's by teaching the guys that we've got or by getting a new scheme or by FA, or by the draft.

Drafting Taylor Mays doesn't mean that the rest of the problems are being ignored.

Really this is a question that has to be answered on the merits of the players available at our draft position. There is no way that we should take a crappy DE just because we want to build front to back.

The question is more of do we take a great but flawed LB and a lesser safety in the second because that gives us a better defense. Or do we take a great Safety and a lesser LB so we can get better value.

To some extent the question is fairly premature. We won't be able to answer it until we know the new defensive scheme and were it can tolerate weaknesses.

You make fair points but Cicero is right when you look at our past. They trade Portis for Champ. Then they use the first three draft picks in the 2005 draft to take CBs. Then a couple of years later, we trade two players for Dre Bly.

lex
01-04-2009, 11:38 AM
I think getting two new DL, one in FA and one in the draft would be the way to go. I'd love a big name, every down DE. I think we should also try to get a 2-gap DT as all our DTs right now with the exception of Powell (who is an unknown quantity as it is) are 1-gappers.


OK, who?

Requiem / The Dagda
01-04-2009, 11:39 AM
I know what the question is F.I.E, my post was tongue and cheek. I wouldn't draft a safety at #12 if there was a gun to my head. Lets put it that way.

muse
01-04-2009, 11:42 AM
OK, who?

To be honest, I couldn't really tell you as I don't know who's available apart from Haynesworth, Suggs and Peppers. And they could all be franchised anyway...

lex
01-04-2009, 11:43 AM
To be honest, I couldn't really tell you as I don't know who's available apart from Haynesworth, Suggs and Peppers. And they could all be franchised anyway...

I just gave you a link for who's available.

topscribe
01-04-2009, 11:43 AM
You make fair points but Cicero is right when you look at our past. They trade Portis for Champ. Then they use the first three draft picks in the 2005 draft to take CBs. Then a couple of years later, we trade two players for Dre Bly.

Sundquist is gone, Shanny is gone, Goodman is now in charge of personnel.

I think we can pretty much throw history out the window, can't we?

-----

Dean
01-04-2009, 11:48 AM
Here is what rotoworld has to say about keeping the offensive coaches.



Broncos Offense-TM- Broncos Jan. 4 - 9:52 am et

NFL Network's Adam Schefter says that many around the league believe Josh McDaniels is going to be the front-runner to land the Denver coaching search.

McDaniels has a similar profile to Dan Reeves and Mike Shanahan when they were hired by Broncos owner Pat Bowlen. Hiring McDaniels would mean that Denver's young offensive coaches would likely lose their jobs, but his hiring would keep Jay Cutler on the right track.
Related: Lions, Patriots

lex
01-04-2009, 11:48 AM
Sundquist is gone, Shanny is gone, Goodman is now in charge of personnel.

I think we can pretty much throw history out the window, can't we?

-----

Did you honestly think I wasnt aware that Sundquist and Shanahan are gone?

lex
01-04-2009, 11:50 AM
Here is what rotoworld has to say about keeping the offensive coaches.


Oy vay!!! Why even bother replacing Shanahan. Id be extremely disappointed in Pat if that happened.

topscribe
01-04-2009, 11:50 AM
Did you honestly think I wasnt aware that Sundquist and Shanahan are gone?


Oy vay!!! Why even bother replacing Shanahan. Id be extremely disappointed in Pat if that happened.

I'm trying to maintain a civil conversation here.

Would you like to join in?

-----

lex
01-04-2009, 11:51 AM
I'm trying to maintain a civil conversation here.

Would you like to join in?

-----

Inane rhetorical questions = civil?

Den21vsBal19
01-04-2009, 11:53 AM
To be honest, I couldn't really tell you as I don't know who's available apart from Haynesworth, Suggs and Peppers. And they could all be franchised anyway...
Wasn't there some clause in Haynesworth's contract that he wouldn't be franchised if he went to the ProBowl? :confused:

topscribe
01-04-2009, 11:54 AM
Here is what rotoworld has to say about keeping the offensive coaches.

Well, :focus:

My hopes are toward a defensive coach.

But there is a reason they are up in the FO and I am not . . .

-----

muse
01-04-2009, 11:55 AM
I just gave you a link for who's available.

Oh yeah, nurrrr :lol:

Suggs or Peppers look like they're the only ones worth having. They'd both be expensive. Udeze's has spent the last season out with leukaemia so he's not really an option (although I hear he's been recovering well).

At DT, probably Haynesworth but getting him will be a mission. Haye and Bernard are both 1-gappers AFAIK, so probably not.

lex
01-04-2009, 11:55 AM
Wasn't there some clause in Haynesworth's contract that he wouldn't be franchised if he went to the ProBowl? :confused:


Yeah, there were something like 3 conditions that made the franchise tag off limits. I think he fulfilled at least 2 of the 3 conditions.

topscribe
01-04-2009, 11:55 AM
Wasn't there some clause in Haynesworth's contract that he wouldn't be franchised if he went to the ProBowl? :confused:

That is my understanding. In which case I would be tempted to throw the bank at him.

-----

muse
01-04-2009, 11:57 AM
Here is what rotoworld has to say about keeping the offensive coaches.

It's perfectly possible, and I'd hate to lose at lot of the guys (Dennison/Turner/Bates/Fisch/McPherson). That said, there could be a lifeline for Dennison and Turner in that McDaniels is a ZBS guy - he tried to install it in the Patriots O with varying degrees of success. So there's a good chance those two would be kept around.

Fan in Exile
01-04-2009, 11:58 AM
You make fair points but Cicero is right when you look at our past. They trade Portis for Champ. Then they use the first three draft picks in the 2005 draft to take CBs. Then a couple of years later, we trade two players for Dre Bly.

No he's not right, and you're also ignoring all of the other things that we did. We drafted and brought in a bunch of FA's. We also brought in a bunch of coaches. We worked as teams always do on all the problems. Inexplicably we didn't get the blitzing that we thought we would with the coaches we brought which really killed us.

When we brought in Champ we also had Pryce and Heyward we brought in Raylee Johnson and Marco Coleman and Luther Ellis.

In 2005 when we brought in the three DB we also brought in Warren and Courtney Brown. Two guys with a lot of talent who certainly built up the front.

I'm not defending these as the right choices, although 13-3 in 2005 was pretty nice. But I am saying that building front to back is a popular phrase in the media that doesn't really reflect how teams actually work, and shouldn't be used to knock someones draft pick.

I don't want to talk about picking some scrub just because of the position he plays. So let's please get beyond some buzz words and actually put some thought into. This board is better than that.

Northman
01-04-2009, 11:59 AM
At this point there is really no way of knowing what the new HC will do. If its a guy who hasnt been in the position before he may rely on the Goodman's direction until he gets the hang of it.

lex
01-04-2009, 12:00 PM
Oh yeah, nurrrr :lol:

Suggs or Peppers look like they're the only ones worth having. They'd both be expensive. Udeze's has spent the last season out with leukaemia so he's not really an option (although I hear he's been recovering well).

At DT, probably Haynesworth but getting him will be a mission. Haye and Bernard are both 1-gappers AFAIK, so probably not.

Yeah, its not that great. We could maybe trade for Peppers or sign Suggs but after Suggs, Peppers and Haynesworth, there is a real drop off. Unless its Everette Brown, theres not really anyone who brings a terribly fierce pass rush. Basically, its seeming more and more important that we sign a coach who can maximize the talent we currently have and someone who can scheme pressure...someone like Spagnuolo and not Josh McDaniel. I really hope that bit from Adam is not true. Id really be bitter that Cutler its a peace offering to Cutler and that Cutler is running the team.

topscribe
01-04-2009, 12:03 PM
At this point there is really no way of knowing what the new HC will do. If its a guy who hasnt been in the position before he may rely on the Goodman's direction until he gets the hang of it.

Good point.

-----

muse
01-04-2009, 12:07 PM
Yeah, its not that great. We could maybe trade for Peppers or sign Suggs but after Suggs, Peppers and Haynesworth, there is a real drop off. Unless its Everette Brown, theres not really anyone who brings a terribly fierce pass rush. Basically, its seeming more and more important that we sign a coach who can maximize the talent we currently have and someone who can scheme pressure...someone like Spagnuolo and not Josh McDaniel. I really hope that bit from Adam is not true. Id really be bitter that Cutler its a peace offering to Cutler and that Cutler is running the team.

Well that's the thing, I'm confident that if anyone could make someone out of Moss, Doom and Crowder, Spags is the guy. I'm pretty sure we drafted Crowder with a view to making him an every down guy, ditto with Moss. I also think that using Thomas and Robertson as 2-gappers last season was a complete waste because they are most definitely 1-gap guys. But I recognise we need some more talent on the DL, whether through the draft or FA or both. FA is definitely more desirable, especially in the short term and helping the younger guys develop.

I'm all for Spags too. Whilst I like McDaniels (especially as he has background in D and would likely keep a lot of the offensive coaches), I think the O can run itself reasonably well although I do expect a little drop off in production next year. D should be the main focus, no question and I think Spags could turn around the D in a year. Not to mention that getting a defensive head coach now is much easier than getting a legitimate D coordinator.

topscribe
01-04-2009, 12:12 PM
Well that's the thing, I'm confident that if anyone could make someone out of Moss, Doom and Crowder, Spags is the guy. I'm pretty sure we drafted Crowder with a view to making him an every down guy, ditto with Moss. I also think that using Thomas and Robertson as 2-gappers last season was a complete waste because they are most definitely 1-gap guys. But I recognise we need some more talent on the DL, whether through the draft or FA or both. FA is definitely more desirable, especially in the short term and helping the younger guys develop.

I'm all for Spags too. Whilst I like McDaniels (especially as he has background in D and would likely keep a lot of the offensive coaches), I think the O can run itself reasonably well although I do expect a little drop off in production next year. D should be the main focus, no question and I think Spags could turn around the D in a year. Not to mention that getting a defensive head coach now is much easier than getting a legitimate D coordinator.

I would suppose they had the DTs play as many gaps as possible because the
LBs didn't know what gap they were in, let alone what they should be in. :lol:

-----

elsid13
01-04-2009, 12:12 PM
I am starting to look at Taylo Mays as a great first round pick. Did you see the hit he delivered in the bowl game? He is 230 pounds on a 6'4" frame. His 4.28 fourty yard time coupled with his coaches comment that teams don't even try to throw over the top with him back there looks good to me.

I did not used to believe that a safety was of that high an importance to waste a first round pick on one. Troy Palamalu has changed my thinking.


He not as big a hitter as that fight made him out to be. He more of center fielder that has the ability to cover the aggressiveness of his corners.

topscribe
01-04-2009, 12:17 PM
He not as big a hitter as that fight made him out to be. He more of center fielder that has the ability to cover the aggressiveness of his corners.

After the ineptitude of the Broncos' safeties in that area this year, that sounds pretty good to me . . .

-----

muse
01-04-2009, 12:21 PM
I would suppose they had the DTs play as many gaps as possible because the
LBs didn't know what gap they were in, let alone what they should be in. :lol:

-----

I would be surprised if Slowik ever explained to Nate what a gap was...he just had that uncanny knack for engaging with blockers :lol:


He not as big a hitter as that fight made him out to be. He more of center fielder that has the ability to cover the aggressiveness of his corners.

It's been a very long time since we had one of those...I think Barrett could develop into a very good SS although he is still very raw. And those two could make a good safety partnership.

turftoad
01-04-2009, 12:28 PM
I am starting to look at Taylo Mays as a great first round pick. Did you see the hit he delivered in the bowl game? He is 230 pounds on a 6'4" frame. His 4.28 fourty yard time coupled with his coaches comment that teams don't even try to throw over the top with him back there looks good to me.

I did not used to believe that a safety was of that high an importance to waste a first round pick on one. Troy Palamalu has changed my thinking.

My thoughts exactly.

An Atwater, Dennis Smith type player would be well worth a first rounder to me.

Sure you can get a saftey in the later rounds but with how much play making potential?

Bottom line, we need some defensive playmakers on this team.

lex
01-04-2009, 12:31 PM
My thoughts exactly.

An Atwater, Dennis Smith type player would be well worth a first rounder to me.

Sure you can get a saftey in the later rounds but with how much play making potential?

Bottom line, we need some defensive playmakers on this team.

A lot of playmaking is read and react. You dont need to be 230 and run a 4.3 to have that. 230 and 4.3 is what gives Mays his cache.

Requiem / The Dagda
01-04-2009, 02:40 PM
A lot of playmaking is read and react. You dont need to be 230 and run a 4.3 to have that. 230 and 4.3 is what gives Mays his cache.

Bingo. Anyone trying to justify Mays at #12 over a front seven player. . . well, no credibility.

Requiem / The Dagda
01-04-2009, 02:41 PM
No he's not right.

Yes, yes I am.

Tned
01-04-2009, 02:55 PM
The ZBS shouldnt be a problem for whoever is becoming the coach. Its not like whoever is coming in wont have their hands full with improving the defense. Plus, Pat has invested resources into scheme specific players and to tear that up when the defense is a far greater concern is kind of crazy. And I think that might be why Pat has kept coaches with the offense.

Yea, but if an offensive coach (an OC) is brought in, chances are he is going to have his playbook, his philosiphy that he will implement. I would doubt that an OC would come in and adopt the Broncos offensive philosiphy over his own. If a DC is brought in, then I think there is a real good chance that the offensive staff stays and the scheme stays.

Tned
01-04-2009, 02:57 PM
I'm all for Spags too. Whilst I like McDaniels (especially as he has background in D and would likely keep a lot of the offensive coaches), I think the O can run itself reasonably well although I do expect a little drop off in production next year. D should be the main focus, no question and I think Spags could turn around the D in a year. Not to mention that getting a defensive head coach now is much easier than getting a legitimate D coordinator.

Why do you think that McDaniels would keep a lot of the offensive coaches?

lex
01-04-2009, 02:58 PM
Yea, but if an offensive coach (an OC) is brought in, chances are he is going to have his playbook, his philosiphy that he will implement. I would doubt that an OC would come in and adopt the Broncos offensive philosiphy over his own. If a DC is brought in, then I think there is a real good chance that the offensive staff stays and the scheme stays.


I agree. Thats why it would be all kinds of dumb to bring in an offensive guy.

Requiem / The Dagda
01-04-2009, 03:01 PM
Heck yeah, let's get Spaghettio Man from Giants.

muse
01-04-2009, 03:07 PM
Why do you think that McDaniels would keep a lot of the offensive coaches?

Well, maybe not a lot of. But he did try to install the ZBS in NE (with varying success) which possibly gives Dennison and Turner a pass. It's just speculation really.

Oh, and Schefter reports that league insiders think McDaniels is in front:

http://blogs.nfl.com/2009/01/04/spagnuolo-impressive-but-denver-favors-mcdaniels/


Giants defensive coordinator Steve Spagnuolo comes with rave reviews. He greatly impressed the Broncos brass he had dinner with Saturday night in New Jersey. It would not be overly surprising to see him wind up with the Broncos job.

But most league insiders believe that Patriots offensive coordinator Josh McDaniels, the coach the Broncos are interviewing on Sunday morning, is the leader in the clubhouse for the Denver job.

For starters, McDaniels is at the stage in his career now that Dan Reeves was when the Broncos made him the youngest head coach back in 1981. Owner Pat Bowlen bought the team in 1984 and stayed with Reeves for nearly a decade.

When Bowlen later hired Shanahan in 1995 (after a two year stint with defensive-minded Wade Phillips), he once again was drawn to his youth and offensive imagination.

And now, at 32, McDaniels would bring Bowlen the same attributes his two primary coaching hires have brought. Plus, as the Patriots play caller and offensive mastermind with defensive-minded head coach Bill Belichick, McDaniels got the most out of Matt Cassel. Just imagine what he could do with Pro Bowl quarterback Jay Cutler.

Denver still will have to go through an exhaustive interview process. But league insiders believe that McDaniels is the coach to beat.


It's still just speculation really...there's absolutely nothing concrete apart from what people in the league expect us to do.

Requiem / The Dagda
01-04-2009, 03:09 PM
I swear to God if we get an offensive minded coach. . . oh God.

Ziggy
01-04-2009, 03:11 PM
If you're a top coaching candidate like Spags, then why go to a team where part of your coaching staff is being picked for you? That's why I think Bowlen was noncomittal on keeping the offensive coaches.

As far as the ZBS scheme goes, I've always been a fan of it. If we don't keep it though, I think Clady, Kuper and Harris will fit any scheme. Hamilton is and always has been highly overrated, and Wegeman has come out and stated that he might retire. If we are going to go away from the ZBS, this is probably the year to do it. Can anyone tell me the last time a team with a ZBS won the Super Bowl? It's been great for us, but it's not the beat all, end all.

Tned
01-04-2009, 03:12 PM
Denver isn't going to change from the ZBS. Why worry about it?

That all depends on the new coach.

yardog
01-04-2009, 03:14 PM
Bingo. Anyone trying to justify Mays at #12 over a front seven player. . . well, no credibility.

:tsk:

muse
01-04-2009, 03:17 PM
Can anyone tell me the last time a team with a ZBS won the Super Bowl? It's been great for us, but it's not the beat all, end all.

Indy.

The ZBS is an important part of this team. And now we've finally got a line which can run the scheme effectively and pass protect as well as any in the league, so in my mind dismantling it right now would be fairly counterproductive.

Northman
01-04-2009, 03:18 PM
Bingo. Anyone trying to justify Mays at #12 over a front seven player. . . well, no credibility.

Says who? You? :lol:

Requiem / The Dagda
01-04-2009, 03:20 PM
:tsk:

What, it is true. If anyone paid attention to the Broncos and their defensive philosophy over the past few years -- it's clear that you can get the best corners and defensive backfield players and it not mean shit if you can't put pressure on the quarterback.

Is Mays a good player? Yep. He's a great prospect. However, it isn't worth it for Denver to spend a #12 overall pick on a safety whose strengths are eliminated due to porous play up front. I'd much rather get a stud DL player at #12 and find a safety in rounds two or three.

Mays isn't going to be as head and shoulders above guys like Delmas and Chung like people would suspect. In fact, middle-round safeties (even second and third rounders) have a great pedigree for panning out. Later round defensive tackles and lineman don't.

Denver did things right by getting Harris and Clady early on, lets hope they have the brains to consider a guy like McCoy, Brown or any other good DL worthy of #12 if they have the chance.

Requiem / The Dagda
01-04-2009, 03:24 PM
And that is not to say you can't take Mays at #12 and get guys in two and three or wherever at the defensive line positions -- but we're in place for a pretty elite player at defensive tackle or defensive end -- the impact players who have a good shot of producing earlier will be gone if we wait on it. (Draft trend that repeats itself as well.) That isn't the case with safety.

And I'm banking on a lot of underclassmen coming out.

yardog
01-04-2009, 03:30 PM
What, it is true. If anyone paid attention to the Broncos and their defensive philosophy over the past few years -- it's clear that you can get the best corners and defensive backfield players and it not mean shit if you can't put pressure on the quarterback.

Is Mays a good player? Yep. He's a great prospect. However, it isn't worth it for Denver to spend a #12 overall pick on a safety whose strengths are eliminated due to porous play up front. I'd much rather get a stud DL player at #12 and find a safety in rounds two or three.

Mays isn't going to be as head and shoulders above guys like Delmas and Chung like people would suspect. In fact, middle-round safeties (even second and third rounders) have a great pedigree for panning out. Later round defensive tackles and lineman don't.

Denver did things right by getting Harris and Clady early on, lets hope they have the brains to consider a guy like McCoy, Brown or any other good DL worthy of #12 if they have the chance.

I paid attention. Scheme fixes the DL and 1 FA Vilma fixes the LB's but we have a real lack of talent at Safety. Time will tell but both roads could lead to the same place a respectable Defense. :coffee:

Ziggy
01-04-2009, 03:32 PM
How much difference can a great safety make to a defense? Ask the Colts. Without Bob Sanders coming back healty, they never get to the Super Bowl XLI let alone win it.

Tned
01-04-2009, 03:32 PM
And that is not to say you can't take Mays at #12 and get guys in two and three or wherever at the defensive line positions -- but we're in place for a pretty elite player at defensive tackle or defensive end -- the impact players who have a good shot of producing earlier will be gone if we wait on it. (Draft trend that repeats itself as well.) That isn't the case with safety.

And I'm banking on a lot of underclassmen coming out.

It's been a long time since we have had a D lineman that truely disrupted the offensive line. Caused double teams. Caused flurries of holding calls. Buried the QB with regularity, either sacks or right after release.

While we definately need an upgrade at S, our DBs will never be very good if we don't have the talent to get pressure with the front four.

Ziggy
01-04-2009, 03:34 PM
To give my 2 cents on this threads original question, I think that the head coach has a lot to do with the draft. The Goodmans will be making the picks, but we don't even know if we are going to run a 4-3 or a 3-4. Each scheme requires different personnel in some positions. The new coach will also decide if he wants a primarily running or passing offense, which may go a long way in deciding whether or not we chase a guy like Ward in FA, or perhaps draft one higher.

Requiem / The Dagda
01-04-2009, 03:37 PM
How much difference can a great safety make to a defense? Ask the Colts. Without Bob Sanders coming back healty, they never get to the Super Bowl XLI let alone win it.

The Colts also have a good defensive scheme and good defensive line players who buy into their system that allow Sanders to do some of the things he does. Mays wouldn't make a difference on this team with the current players we have and lack of identity this defense holds schematically.

Fan in Exile
01-04-2009, 03:37 PM
Yes, yes I am.

Building from the front to the back is still a cliche that over simplifies a complex process. It works for talking heads on Espin but we can do a lot better, so you are wrong.

Northman
01-04-2009, 03:37 PM
How much difference can a great safety make to a defense? Ask the Colts. Without Bob Sanders coming back healty, they never get to the Super Bowl XLI let alone win it.


Ask Ed Reed. Even though Cicero has a point about the line you can address that in FA or in the first round. But taking a Safety in the first this year would not be the end of the world and would solidify that position right away.

Northman
01-04-2009, 03:38 PM
The Colts also have a good defensive scheme and good defensive line players who buy into their system that allow Sanders to do some of the things he does. Mays wouldn't make a difference on this team with the current players we have and lack of identity this defense holds schematically.


Maybe, maybe not. If it was a scheme problem than whose to say what a quality safety would bring? If its a talent problem than you would be correct.

Fan in Exile
01-04-2009, 03:38 PM
The Colts also have a good defensive scheme and good defensive line players who buy into their system that allow Sanders to do some of the things he does. Mays wouldn't make a difference on this team with the current players we have and lack of identity this defense holds schematically.

Mays certainly wouldn't be the only change made to this defense. So if there is a new scheme and the other positions are addressed as well. Mays could make all the difference in the world.

Requiem / The Dagda
01-04-2009, 03:38 PM
Maybe, maybe not. If it was a scheme problem than whose to say what a quality safety would bring? If its a talent problem than you would be correct.

Our team has problems schematically and talent wise. It is a no brainer.

Requiem / The Dagda
01-04-2009, 03:40 PM
Mays certainly wouldn't be the only change made to this defense. So if there is a new scheme and the other positions are addressed as well. Mays could make all the difference in the world.

Anything is possible, but I'd much rather get a guy like McCoy at #12 than Mays. Better idea, IMHO.

Fan in Exile
01-04-2009, 03:40 PM
And I'm sure it's a complex process that you're qualified to explain in depth with your broad football acumen. Lets hear it.

If you had been paying attention I've already made several points about a new scheme, teaching the players we've got, as well as free agency.

Northman
01-04-2009, 03:41 PM
Our team has problems schematically and talent wise. It is a no brainer.


So then drafting Mays at #12 and signing a guy like Suggs would be ideal yes?

Requiem / The Dagda
01-04-2009, 03:41 PM
If you had been paying attention I've already made several points about a new scheme, teaching the players we've got, as well as free agency.

You didn't do a very good job if it didn't catch my attention. I guess you don't pass.

muse
01-04-2009, 03:45 PM
Maybe, maybe not. If it was a scheme problem than whose to say what a quality safety would bring? If its a talent problem than you would be correct.

In my eyes, people who say that last year's defensive woes were due to talent and talent alone are a little blind. It's pretty clear that Slowik cannot make a good defensive scheme to save his life. I think a lot of last year was down to poor coaching and lack of leadership as well as Slowik not exploiting his players to the best of their abilities. There are glaring talent deficiencies, especially at safety (outside of Barrett) and at MLB. On the DL, there's a lot of potential there in Thomas, Crowder, Dumervil and Moss. But how do you explain the decline in the play of Crowder and Dumervil from 2007 despite the fact that the DTs in 08 were much better than the ones in 07? It doesn't make sense.

Fan in Exile
01-04-2009, 03:45 PM
You didn't do a very good job if it didn't catch my attention. I guess you don't pass.

Or perhaps you don't really listen well. I know which explanation I'm going with.

Ziggy
01-04-2009, 03:47 PM
The Colts also have a good defensive scheme and good defensive line players who buy into their system that allow Sanders to do some of the things he does. Mays wouldn't make a difference on this team with the current players we have and lack of identity this defense holds schematically.

They were 21st in total defense that year and dead last against the run. Sanders was hurt in all but 4 games which is why they were so bad. When he came back, they were a different D. He made that D good in the playoffs and Super Bowl. It wasn't the other way around.

I'm not saying we should take Mays over a front 7 guy (depending on who is there), I just don't buy into your argument that it's stupid to spend a 1st round pick on a possible franchise safety.

Northman
01-04-2009, 03:49 PM
In my eyes, people who say that last year's defensive woes were due to talent and talent alone are a little blind. It's pretty clear that Slowik cannot make a good defensive scheme to save his life. I think a lot of last year was down to poor coaching and lack of leadership as well as Slowik not exploiting his players to the best of their abilities. There are glaring talent deficiencies, especially at safety (outside of Barrett) and at MLB. On the DL, there's a lot of potential there in Thomas, Crowder, Dumervil and Moss. But how do you explain the decline in the play of Crowder and Dumervil from 2007 despite the fact that the DTs in 08 were much better than the ones in 07? It doesn't make sense.


Sure, it could be a mixture of both. The way i look at it we really cant go that wrong this year in the draft so as long as the pick themselves are of quality value. Add in any possibility of a nice impact FA can only benefit this club. But, it will be all for not if we dont get a coach who can change the mentality of this club to boot.

lex
01-04-2009, 03:52 PM
In my eyes, people who say that last year's defensive woes were due to talent and talent alone are a little blind. It's pretty clear that Slowik cannot make a good defensive scheme to save his life. I think a lot of last year was down to poor coaching and lack of leadership as well as Slowik not exploiting his players to the best of their abilities. There are glaring talent deficiencies, especially at safety (outside of Barrett) and at MLB. On the DL, there's a lot of potential there in Thomas, Crowder, Dumervil and Moss. But how do you explain the decline in the play of Crowder and Dumervil from 2007 despite the fact that the DTs in 08 were much better than the ones in 07? It doesn't make sense.

Yeah, the fact that Denver thought the Giants might take Moss, should offer some credence to the notion that he has talent. I really hope we sign Spagnuolo and he can start putting guys in a position to be successful unlike the the last dud we had. I dont think we're in a very good spot actually to take a DT at 12. If Everette Brown is available there, I can see that but other than him, not much.

Requiem / The Dagda
01-04-2009, 03:52 PM
Or perhaps you don't really listen well. I know which explanation I'm going with.

Want the real one? I don't care what you have to say to be honest. I pick and choose whose posts I mull over. You don't make the list bro. Sorry.

lex
01-04-2009, 03:54 PM
They were 21st in total defense that year and dead last against the run. Sanders was hurt in all but 4 games which is why they were so bad. When he came back, they were a different D. He made that D good in the playoffs and Super Bowl. It wasn't the other way around.

I'm not saying we should take Mays over a front 7 guy (depending on who is there), I just don't buy into your argument that it's stupid to spend a 1st round pick on a possible franchise safety.

Bob Sanders also didnt run a 4.30 40, nor is he 6'3" and 230. Actually, he was drafted in the 2nd round.

muse
01-04-2009, 03:56 PM
Sure, it could be a mixture of both. The way i look at it we really cant go that wrong this year in the draft so as long as the pick themselves are of quality value. Add in any possibility of a nice impact FA can only benefit this club. But, it will be all for not if we dont get a coach who can change the mentality of this club to boot.

I truly believe that with good coaching, we have enough draft picks and enough cap room to turn this thing around next year. We probably need an impact FA in the front 7, either at MLB (possibly shift Larsen to SAM in the process) or DL and if we can get 1 or 2 impact rookies on top of that (1 at safety) then we could surprise people. I'm forever an optimist, but I don't think we're that far off. Considering the fact that in GB Slowik turned a passable defence under Donatell into a horrible one (followed by Bates coming along, installing a difficult scheme and turning it back into a passable and then a good defence) tells me that Slowik is a serious liability as a DC.

Fan in Exile
01-04-2009, 04:04 PM
Want the real one? I don't care what you have to say to be honest. I pick and choose whose posts I mull over. You don't make the list bro. Sorry.

That's exactly what I said, you don't listen well. No need to apologize for not reading my posts it's your loss not mine.

MOtorboat
01-04-2009, 04:05 PM
Dennis Smith. 1981, 15th pick.
Steve Atwater. 1989. 20th pick.

Yup, sure is insane to draft safeties in the first round. :rolleyes:

Requiem / The Dagda
01-04-2009, 04:10 PM
Comparing Taylor Mays to Dennis Smith and Steve Atwater is asinine.

Northman
01-04-2009, 04:12 PM
Comparing Taylor Mays to Dennis Smith and Steve Atwater is asinine.


Why is that?

MOtorboat
01-04-2009, 04:14 PM
Comparing Taylor Mays to Dennis Smith and Steve Atwater is asinine.

I didn't compare them.

I said that its not insane to draft a safety in the first round, and I proved my point.

Mays does remind me of Atwater at Arkansas. But there are lots of players that remind me of others, that never pan out. I'm not old enough to ever see Smith at USC, and you're not old enough to remember Atwater at Arkansas, either.

Fan in Exile
01-04-2009, 04:16 PM
I truly believe that with good coaching, we have enough draft picks and enough cap room to turn this thing around next year. We probably need an impact FA in the front 7, either at MLB (possibly shift Larsen to SAM in the process) or DL and if we can get 1 or 2 impact rookies on top of that (1 at safety) then we could surprise people. I'm forever an optimist, but I don't think we're that far off. Considering the fact that in GB Slowik turned a passable defence under Donatell into a horrible one (followed by Bates coming along, installing a difficult scheme and turning it back into a passable and then a good defence) tells me that Slowik is a serious liability as a DC.

I really agree with this post. I think if we get a good teacher to come in and work with Robertson, Thomas, Powell, Moss, Crowder, and Ekuban we could have a good rotation going. Throw in a nice free agent pass rusher as well. We could have a good line going.

On paper at least we've got some good building blocks for getting pressure from our d-line we just need somebody who can do that.

Of course they don't play the games on paper so maybe it needs to be blown up. I think however that getting a good coach in here means that we won't have to draft as much d-line as a lot of people seem to think.

Requiem / The Dagda
01-04-2009, 04:19 PM
You didn't really make a point at all. I could go through draft after draft and point out safties who were drafted high and stunk balls too. There is a reason why safeties aren't placed in high priority (first round) in the draft. People need to realize those trends.

If we drafted Mays at #12, whatever. He's a great prospect, but I'd much rather get a Gerald McCoy at #12 and a Louis Delmas in the second round as opposed to a Taylor Mays at #12 and a Fili Moala in the second. If you catch my drift.

Getting a defensive lineman who can produce and be a stalwart for the team is much harder than finding a safety. That is why I believe it is in our interest to look for those guys as opposed to a safety early.

yardog
01-04-2009, 04:22 PM
Comparing Taylor Mays to Dennis Smith and Steve Atwater is asinine.

Man why do even waist your time on us. After today it has become apparent that none of us are worthy of you great mind and knowledge.

:tsk:

To be young and so full of yourself must be a bliss existence.

Requiem / The Dagda
01-04-2009, 04:26 PM
To be young and so full of yourself must be a bliss existence.

When it comes to the draft, I think I have a pretty good grasp on what I'm talking about. It is my opinion that Denver would be best served to not use #12 on a safety. You guys can want Mays all you want. Heck, I'll be happy if we get him [because he is good] -- but I like other players more for us at #12.

I just don't feel it is in Denver's interest to lock up a top pick in a safety when we don't have the defensive lineman up front to really help out our backfield. I think that's a pretty sensible thought process.

Doesn't matter how good Taylor Mays is when running backs get 10 yards down field every time, now does it?

MOtorboat
01-04-2009, 04:31 PM
You didn't really make a point at all. I could go through draft after draft and point out safties who were drafted high and stunk balls too. There is a reason why safeties aren't placed in high priority (first round) in the draft. People need to realize those trends.

If we drafted Mays at #12, whatever. He's a great prospect, but I'd much rather get a Gerald McCoy at #12 and a Louis Delmas in the second round as opposed to a Taylor Mays at #12 and a Fili Moala in the second. If you catch my drift.

Getting a defensive lineman who can produce and be a stalwart for the team is much harder than finding a safety. That is why I believe it is in our interest to look for those guys as opposed to a safety early.

I will agree with the defensive lineman statement. Getting a can't-miss guy, say, like a Mario Williams, or Dwight Freeney or Julius Peppers is paramount to building a defense, I personally don't see that in this draft, unless, maybe, we can get Maybin. I don't see that ability in Orakpo.

I made a quick look-see through the last 10 years of safeties drafted in the first round, and you're right there aren't a lot, because safety isn't a big priority, but the ones that have been drafted that high have been pretty good. There are a few busts. Michael Huff being the most recent glaring mistake, but there have been some very, very excellent safeties drafted in the first round.

P.S. FYI...Glazer just reported on Fox that Leslie Frazier, DC of Minnesota has been contacted by Bowlen for an interview.

Requiem / The Dagda
01-04-2009, 04:35 PM
Leslie Frazier is a very good defensive coordinator. I'd prefer him over any of the offensive coaches. Spags, Frazier and Morris would be my guys in that order. Nice. Thanks for the news.

Northman
01-04-2009, 04:39 PM
When it comes to the draft, I think I have a pretty good grasp on what I'm talking about. It is my opinion that Denver would be best served to not use #12 on a safety. You guys can want Mays all you want. Heck, I'll be happy if we get him [because he is good] -- but I like other players more for us at #12.

I just don't feel it is in Denver's interest to lock up a top pick in a safety when we don't have the defensive lineman up front to really help out our backfield. I think that's a pretty sensible thought process.

Doesn't matter how good Taylor Mays is when running backs get 10 yards down field every time, now does it?


I think everyone agrees with you Cicero but your somehow under the impression that if Denver drafts Mays they wont fix the DLine which i seriously doubt the HC will ignore.

Fan in Exile
01-04-2009, 04:45 PM
When it comes to the draft, I think I have a pretty good grasp on what I'm talking about. It is my opinion that Denver would be best served to not use #12 on a safety. You guys can want Mays all you want. Heck, I'll be happy if we get him [because he is good] -- but I like other players more for us at #12.

I just don't feel it is in Denver's interest to lock up a top pick in a safety when we don't have the defensive lineman up front to really help out our backfield. I think that's a pretty sensible thought process.

Doesn't matter how good Taylor Mays is when running backs get 10 yards down field every time, now does it?

It depends on what we do in FA, and who the new head coach is.

I think this is were having a new guy makes getting a first round d-linemen questionable. A new guy will probably want an immediate impact which means that D-line would probably be addressed in free agency.

After that I would say that it depends on what he thinks of Larsen. If he thinks Larsen is good enough at MLB, then he would probably want to get a Mays at safety to help out Bly and Champ who are getting older.

Since it's all pointless speculation now I would say that our most likely picks in round one are MLB, RB, S in that order. But of course that really depends on who the HC actually is and what they do in FA.

PatricktheDookie
01-04-2009, 05:10 PM
I don't care who we draft.

So long as they aren't a bust.

broncohead
01-04-2009, 05:15 PM
It depends on what we do in FA, and who the new head coach is.

I think this is were having a new guy makes getting a first round d-linemen questionable. A new guy will probably want an immediate impact which means that D-line would probably be addressed in free agency.

After that I would say that it depends on what he thinks of Larsen. If he thinks Larsen is good enough at MLB, then he would probably want to get a Mays at safety to help out Bly and Champ who are getting older.

Since it's all pointless speculation now I would say that our most likely picks in round one are MLB, RB, S in that order. But of course that really depends on who the HC actually is and what they do in FA.

I totally disagree with that statement. The arguement that we need an immediate impact doens't make sense. If we where going to be a top contender next year then yes but in our current situation we can get a DL with our first rounder knowing he'll probably take 2-3 years to become effective. How else are we supposed to get quality DL if we keep ignoring the position. I know we drafted Moss, Crowder, and Thomas but we still haven't found decent starters (Thomas is average). So we keep trying. I'm all for a DT or DE in the first and 3 DL in the draft.

Slick
01-04-2009, 05:43 PM
I'd have no problem with us drafting Mays. Safeties can start and play well as rookies, the same can not be said for defensive lineman. I think if we hope for immediate results, we'll need a free agent on the line along with a coach who can maximize the potential of our young defensive lineman. We invested the money in them, and we can't cut them all. I think Moss, Crowder and Dumervil would benefit greatly from an experienced, savvy coach.

Fan in Exile
01-04-2009, 05:58 PM
I totally disagree with that statement. The arguement that we need an immediate impact doens't make sense. If we where going to be a top contender next year then yes but in our current situation we can get a DL with our first rounder knowing he'll probably take 2-3 years to become effective. How else are we supposed to get quality DL if we keep ignoring the position. I know we drafted Moss, Crowder, and Thomas but we still haven't found decent starters (Thomas is average). So we keep trying. I'm all for a DT or DE in the first and 3 DL in the draft.

New head coaches always want to make an immediate impact. Although to be fair with Bowlen he will have a lot of time with the team. Right now it's all speculation, we'll see who's right when we get a new head coach.

A lot here also depends on why the HC thinks Moss and Crowder have failed. If he blames the talent we'll get a new guy, if he blames the coaches he'll work with what we've got. Chances are it will be somewhere in between and he'll bring in some competition, and see what shakes out.

horsepig
01-04-2009, 06:07 PM
There were a few games this year, Atlanta and the Jets, where the D-line played very well. I think a lot of it has to do with the schemes and game plans.

Slow never seemed able to maintain any progress from game to game.

The LBs suck as a whole. We've got to get a guy in the middle. Man, I wish Shanny had went after Vilma instead of Niko.

G_Money
01-04-2009, 08:44 PM
I totally disagree with that statement. The arguement that we need an immediate impact doens't make sense. If we where going to be a top contender next year then yes but in our current situation we can get a DL with our first rounder knowing he'll probably take 2-3 years to become effective. How else are we supposed to get quality DL if we keep ignoring the position. I know we drafted Moss, Crowder, and Thomas but we still haven't found decent starters (Thomas is average). So we keep trying. I'm all for a DT or DE in the first and 3 DL in the draft.

DTs and DEs fail as badly as WRs and QBs as 1st round picks. They're not safe. Unfortunately, it's also hard to get a great DL with a 4th round pick - at that point they're usually rotational bodies.

The point about immediate impact, though, is that not only is a S or LB a safe pick but they can be immediately helpful, unlike a DL which will normally take 2 years to mature into anything beyond "Just a Guy" status.

It's not just a matter of "being a star 2-3 years from now for a high price vs. being a star now" it's also the percentage chance of them EVER being a star.

We have so many needs I'd rather make sure we get as close to "guaranteed stars" as we can get with our 1st two picks.

I don't want a DL in the first. If our new coach feels we HAVE to have one - like say we NEED BJ Raji so we can switch to a 3-4 or something - they I can deal, but I'd rather go with Spikes or somebody.

It's hard to say what the new coach will do, though. Shanahan never believed in a 1st round RB, but maybe the new coach will.

If we get a head coach and/or defensive coordinator in here who have a great scheme and know EXACTLY what types of players will fit that scheme, then I'm not averse to drafting early DL. But I'd rather draft early LB/S/RB and then go DL over the 2nd day with scheme-players on the DL instead of stars. If we can add a MLB or a DL in free agency that helps us make those choices, but without knowing who we get as HC/DC nor what our FA additions will look like that's a pretty tough call.

~G

elsid13
01-04-2009, 09:00 PM
The wild card in this is how healthy is Carlton Powell and will he be able to become the NT, Denver needs to occupy the C/G and hold the POA.

broncohead
01-04-2009, 09:36 PM
DTs and DEs fail as badly as WRs and QBs as 1st round picks. They're not safe. Unfortunately, it's also hard to get a great DL with a 4th round pick - at that point they're usually rotational bodies.

The point about immediate impact, though, is that not only is a S or LB a safe pick but they can be immediately helpful, unlike a DL which will normally take 2 years to mature into anything beyond "Just a Guy" status.

It's not just a matter of "being a star 2-3 years from now for a high price vs. being a star now" it's also the percentage chance of them EVER being a star.

We have so many needs I'd rather make sure we get as close to "guaranteed stars" as we can get with our 1st two picks.

I don't want a DL in the first. If our new coach feels we HAVE to have one - like say we NEED BJ Raji so we can switch to a 3-4 or something - they I can deal, but I'd rather go with Spikes or somebody.

It's hard to say what the new coach will do, though. Shanahan never believed in a 1st round RB, but maybe the new coach will.

If we get a head coach and/or defensive coordinator in here who have a great scheme and know EXACTLY what types of players will fit that scheme, then I'm not averse to drafting early DL. But I'd rather draft early LB/S/RB and then go DL over the 2nd day with scheme-players on the DL instead of stars. If we can add a MLB or a DL in free agency that helps us make those choices, but without knowing who we get as HC/DC nor what our FA additions will look like that's a pretty tough call.

~G

Thats why I'm hoping we get Spag as the HC. He created a solid front 4 in NY. I only want a DL in the 1st if we can get some one who has a history of creating good to great DL. Right now all this talk about draft and FA is moot because we don't know who will be the HC or DC. But it is fun to talk about.

CrazyHorse
01-05-2009, 12:03 AM
I don't care who we draft.

So long as they aren't a bust.

Sam Bradford?:laugh::D

lex
01-05-2009, 12:12 AM
Thats why I'm hoping we get Spag as the HC. He created a solid front 4 in NY. I only want a DL in the 1st if we can get some one who has a history of creating good to great DL. Right now all this talk about draft and FA is moot because we don't know who will be the HC or DC. But it is fun to talk about.

Well it looks like we're getting McDaniels. ***EDIT*** I guess, well probably be drafting 7 WRs since we'll probably be passing 70% of the time. I cant wait to watch that WR screen 15 times a game.

Magnificent Seven
01-05-2009, 12:23 AM
Broncos need to draft neither a stud CB or a stud LB in first round draft pick.

Magnificent Seven
01-05-2009, 12:24 AM
No more runningbacks for this season. Just draft some good defensive players and they will be fine.

xzn
01-05-2009, 03:04 AM
I've seen every game in Taylor Mays' career and strongly dispute that he is not a big hitter. He absolutely destroys opponents with his speed and strength. Force = Mass x Acceleration.


He not as big a hitter as that fight made him out to be. He more of center fielder that has the ability to cover the aggressiveness of his corners.

xzn
01-05-2009, 03:09 AM
Taylor Mays is comparable in any way you want to mention to DS49 and SA27
Maybe they don't televise USC games in North Dakota? :confused:


Comparing Taylor Mays to Dennis Smith and Steve Atwater is asinine.

xzn
01-05-2009, 03:10 AM
Everrette Brown is a DE not a DT.


Yeah, the fact that Denver thought the Giants might take Moss, should offer some credence to the notion that he has talent. I really hope we sign Spagnuolo and he can start putting guys in a position to be successful unlike the the last dud we had. I dont think we're in a very good spot actually to take a DT at 12. If Everette Brown is available there, I can see that but other than him, not much.

lex
01-05-2009, 08:40 AM
Everrette Brown is a DE not a DT.

I know that. I was saying that I dont see any DTs worth taking at 12 and Everette Brown is the only defensive lineman worth taking who might be there. Go check out my four scenario mock, Brown is clearly labeled as a DE. Sorry for the confusion.

broncofaninfla
01-05-2009, 09:31 AM
It's a no brianer, we need defensive help and that should be the primary focus of the draft and free agency. I'm all for adding some new talent on offense as well but the focus needs to be defense.