PDA

View Full Version : Which would you prefer, to finish 7-9 or to have the #1 pick?



lex
10-08-2007, 12:47 AM
As the thread asks. Rather than finish 7-9, would you prefer to have the #1 draft pick?

DenBronx
10-08-2007, 12:59 AM
i said 7-9...i dont want to see our team quit. even if they dont get to the playoffs its still a learning curve for a revised team. next year we will be better.


i think the #1 pick is sometimes overated.

lex
10-08-2007, 01:03 AM
i said 7-9...i dont want to see our team quit. even if they dont get to the playoffs its still a learning curve for a revised team. next year we will be better.


i think the #1 pick is sometimes overated.

Not me. McFadden would be amazing in our offense. Weve been getting by on scheme more than talent. Just think of how great it would be to insert a top shelf running back into our running scheme. And then with a high 2nd we could also address DT with Okam/Bryan/Moore since all are slotted to go 1-2.

DenBronx
10-08-2007, 01:06 AM
Not me. McFadden would be amazing in our offense. Weve been getting by on scheme more than talent. Just think of how great it would be to insert a top shelf running back into our running scheme. And then with a high 2nd we could also address DT with Okam/Bryan/Moore since all are slotted to go 1-2.

we will win many more games this year. i dont think were even close to being the worse team in the nfl. mcfadden will be gone.

last year i was hoping we could have landed peterson or lynch. they are both looking really good as rookies. if you could go back would you rather us climb up to get AD or lynch?

broncosfanscott
10-08-2007, 01:09 AM
I chose the #1 pick, yet I don't think I don't think we will be that bad (I hope) because 7-9 will not get you to the playoffs so a good pick would help.

lex
10-08-2007, 01:10 AM
we will win many more games this year. i dont think were even close to being the worse team in the nfl. mcfadden will be gone.

last year i was hoping we could have landed peterson or lynch. they are both looking really good as rookies. if you could go back would you rather us climb up to get AD or lynch?

Thats a tough one. Im actually pleased with our draft last year although I had reservations about Harris. I would say that Id rather have McFadden though. I think he is a little faster and has a better background when it comes to injuries (knock on wood).

sneakers
10-08-2007, 01:11 AM
I would rather have the team try to win as many games as possible versus tanking the season NBA-style so that we get a high draft pick.

lex
10-08-2007, 01:19 AM
I would rather have the team try to win as many games as possible versus tanking the season NBA-style so that we get a high draft pick.

Who said anything about tanking?

DenBronx
10-08-2007, 01:19 AM
no doubt mcfadden is a beast. if henry would have kept his nose clean them im sure mcfadden would not be even considered. i think cutler needs some protection...the online is pretty weak. so is the dline. our safties are older than dirt....ughhh dont even get me going on the linebackers and special teams.

running back might not be a priority. id rather see henry get banned now and at least come back for week 5 next year.

lex
10-08-2007, 01:22 AM
no doubt mcfadden is a beast. if henry would have kept his nose clean them im sure mcfadden would not be even considered. i think cutler needs some protection...the online is pretty weak. so is the dline. our safties are older than dirt....ughhh dont even get me going on the linebackers and special teams.

running back might not be a priority. id rather see henry get banned now and at least come back for week 5 next year.

Honestly, I kind of think we should go back to targeting veteran offensive linemen that fit our system. Since we see value in Olinemen that others dont, its not as competitive for us to get quality Olinemen. Plus it allows us to save draft picks.

Rick
10-08-2007, 01:23 AM
I don't think RB is the answer...our RB is 2nd in the NFL in rushing.

When Walker comes back and the way Marshall has been progressing the O will be fine.

What we need to do is freaking stop somebody. Teams walk through us like there is no tomorrow. I would rather 7-9 as i don't think they need a top pick to get some D.

lex
10-08-2007, 01:27 AM
I don't think RB is the answer...our RB is 2nd in the NFL in rushing.

When Walker comes back and the way Marshall has been progressing the O will be fine.

What we need to do is freaking stop somebody. Teams walk through us like there is no tomorrow. I would rather 7-9 as i don't think they need a top pick to get some D.

If we were to be in a position to draft McFadden, we would also be in a position to address the biggest need by drafting 1 of 3 comparable DTs with our high 2nd Rd pick.

DenBronx
10-08-2007, 01:31 AM
Honestly, I kind of think we should go back to targeting veteran offensive linemen that fit our system. Since we see value in Olinemen that others dont, its not as competitive for us to get quality Olinemen. Plus it allows us to save draft picks.

well, we could always go after alen faneca. he will be a free agent next year. i say if henry gets released then he needs to be a priority.

DenBronx
10-08-2007, 01:33 AM
If we were to be in a position to draft McFadden, we would also be in a position to address the biggest need by drafting 1 of 3 comparable DTs with our high 2nd Rd pick.


shanny did burn a few valuable picks this year though. one to get moss and one to get thomas.

lex
10-08-2007, 01:38 AM
shanny did burn a few valuable picks this year though. one to get moss and one to get thomas.

I think they were justified. Of all the DEs Moss has the highest upside. If not for his infection, he would not have been available to us but once he turns the corner on that, I think making the move to get him could pay huge dividends...the upside was worth the risk at the very least.

And likewise with Thomas, he would have otherwise would have been a Rd 1 talent that we were able to get for points that fell well short of a Rd 1 pick. I think both need to get stronger and if they do, watch out.

broncosinindy
10-08-2007, 02:26 AM
I think they were justified. Of all the DEs Moss has the highest upside. If not for his infection, he would not have been available to us but once he turns the corner on that, I think making the move to get him could pay huge dividends...the upside was worth the risk at the very least.

And likewise with Thomas, he would have otherwise would have been a Rd 1 talent that we were able to get for points that fell well short of a Rd 1 pick. I think both need to get stronger and if they do, watch out.

Thomas is not playing like a first rounder. he is invisible out there.

BroncoWave
10-08-2007, 08:43 AM
I would easily rather have a top 5 pick or so than go 7-9. I am sick of Denver always winning somewhere from 7-10 games and not being good enough to go to the SB but always winding up with a low first round pick. I don't think it would be a bad thing for this franchise to have a really horrible season and get some really good players in the draft. We couldn't keep having winning seasons forever. A season like this was bound to come along eventually.

omac
10-08-2007, 08:58 AM
i said 7-9...i dont want to see our team quit. even if they dont get to the playoffs its still a learning curve for a revised team. next year we will be better.


i think the #1 pick is sometimes overated.

Yep, pretty much feel the same way. I'd rather our team keep fighting, than get the number one pick the cheap way.

I'm excited to see if the defense improves after the bye week. :cool:

Requiem / The Dagda
10-08-2007, 09:31 AM
Was there even a doubt? #1 pick all the way, trade down several spots - get an impact player like Glenn Dorsey or a future All-Pro tackle like Jake Long. Hell, maybe even DeSean Jackson if he comes out to give us an explosive receiver and returner. Any way you slice it, those records are failures. Why not fail all the way?

underrated29
10-08-2007, 12:18 PM
yup i like the idea of the number 1 pick too. i dont think we will end up that way, but thats what i would rather have.

and dream i agree with you 100%. get the #1, trade back to maybe 10 or so, and get a great player + another good player and then that teams #1 next year. plus having our own 2nd rdr and possibly package up our like 2 4ths, 2 5ths and 3 7ths and move back into the 3rd or 4th.

the way i see it, we need as many top tier talents as we can get, so go something like LT,LB,DT, with our first 3 picks, and use our last ones on OL that we usually can get in the late rounds or undrafted.

but we need a new LT if nalen is gone, we need LB (pick your spot) we need DT. and imo these guys need to be top talent. and we will need more than one of each i think. so we should get as many as we can as early as we can.

Medford Bronco
10-08-2007, 12:22 PM
Not me. McFadden would be amazing in our offense. Weve been getting by on scheme more than talent. Just think of how great it would be to insert a top shelf running back into our running scheme. And then with a high 2nd we could also address DT with Okam/Bryan/Moore since all are slotted to go 1-2.

can McFadden stop the run:confused:

our defense sucks and needs more help IMO than the offense.

at least Shanny has a track record on offense.

on defense he has been less than stellar for the most part, except for the Super Bowl teams and it was easy for Greg Robinson to coach the d always up 34-7 or thereabouts in 96 thru 98. (yes we did not win in 96 but were still a very good team at 13-3)

underrated29
10-08-2007, 12:27 PM
you know i have heard a lot about mccfadden, and i have seen some highlights, but i also thought i heard that he was a little small, or injury, or not enough power to push the pile, or bulldoze some guys like henry?

if we do get the number 1 do you think mcfadden is really the guy for us?

lex
10-08-2007, 12:29 PM
can McFadden stop the run:confused:

our defense sucks and needs more help IMO than the offense.

at least Shanny has a track record on offense.

on defense he has been less than stellar for the most part, except for the Super Bowl teams and it was easy for Greg Robinson to coach the d always up 34-7 or thereabouts in 96 thru 98. (yes we did not win in 96 but were still a very good team at 13-3)

How many times have I said, we could still get either Okam, Bryant or Moore with our high Rd 2 pick? How many times have I said we could get Jason Shirley later? I am of the school of thought that you take what you do well and be the best at it you can. Weve been taking the opposite approach of relying on that strength to be good enough. The problem is that its good enough most of the time but its one thing to run on teams during the season and its quite another to do it in the playoffs. We havent had that kind of a running game for a while.

lex
10-08-2007, 12:33 PM
you know i have heard a lot about mccfadden, and i have seen some highlights, but i also thought i heard that he was a little small, or injury, or not enough power to push the pile, or bulldoze some guys like henry?

if we do get the number 1 do you think mcfadden is really the guy for us?

Yes, the guy weighs in the 210-220 range and is about 6'1 plus he is virtually as fast as Reggie Bush. The guy also sees the field and can actually lower his shoulder. He doesnt move piles like Henry because he has more speed than Henry. And actually, he is less injury prone than Adrian Peterson.

lex
10-08-2007, 12:47 PM
Thomas is not playing like a first rounder. he is invisible out there.

I dont expect him to make a lot of plays at this point. Really what you hope for is that he holds up his blocker at the LOS and not get shoved around like Gordon. Thats where we're at because of Gordons shortcomings. If he can do that its the better alternative.

lex
10-08-2007, 10:22 PM
Bump.

Has anyone changed their mind on this? Its one of those things that might appeal to people the more they think about it.

Nick
10-08-2007, 10:24 PM
As the thread asks. Rather than finish 7-9, would you prefer to have the #1 draft pick?

That is a one sided question making people lean towards a #1 pick.

How about would you like to see the broncos win out or would you like them to lose out?

:rolleyes:

- Theres your answer for your Bump. I do also like to add RB is not the big need for our team. We have a few holes. I am also a big draft guy but why don;t you support the team rather then want them to lose.

TXBRONC
10-08-2007, 10:29 PM
Thomas is not playing like a first rounder. he is invisible out there.

I wouldn't go quite that far, he has had some flash of what kind of DT he might develop into. Like wide receivers DT take time to develop .

Medford Bronco
10-08-2007, 10:30 PM
I wouldn't go quite that far, he has had some flash of what kind of DT he might develop into. Like wide receivers DT take time to develop .

he also needs some help beside him and not getting it so far.

also the whole defense is so undiciplined. they overrun plays way too much being over aggressive and good teams like SD exploited that a lot yesterday and Indy did as well

TXBRONC
10-08-2007, 10:34 PM
he also needs some help beside him and not getting it so far.

also the whole defense is so undiciplined. they overrun plays way too much being over aggressive and good teams like SD exploited that a lot yesterday and Indy did as well


I agree. Adams is showing his age and Gordon is a depth player that is starting.

lex
10-09-2007, 12:25 PM
That is a one sided question making people lean towards a #1 pick.

How about would you like to see the broncos win out or would you like them to lose out?

:rolleyes:

- Theres your answer for your Bump. I do also like to add RB is not the big need for our team. We have a few holes. I am also a big draft guy but why don;t you support the team rather then want them to lose.


Dont judge me. Actually, Id like it if they win out.

Crush05
10-09-2007, 12:32 PM
7-9 because with a 1st round pick comes more money to try and figure out where it will come from and what to do with players/ salaries.

lex
10-09-2007, 12:37 PM
http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_7120077


Jim on demand: Broncos crash back to reality
By Jim Armstrong The Denver Post
Article Last Updated: 10/08/2007 06:46:31 PM MDT


Dejection line: Brandon Marshall, Tom Nalen, Jay Cutler and Chris Kuper during the Chargers debacle. (The Denver Post | John Leyba)
Related Articles
Oct 8:
Jim on demand: Is Shanny losing control?Jim on demand: Broncos stuffed on humble pieOct 5:
Jim on demand: Broncos' draft prowess on upturnJim on demand: Señor Sunshine invokes RoxOct 4:
Jim on demand: Desperately seeking kick returnerJim on demand: Jobs are on the lineOct 3:
Jim on demand: For Bronx, change needs to comeJim on demand: Chargers game early but crucialOct 2:
Jim on demand: Cutler comments clarifiedOct 1:
Jim on demand: Here we go againJim on demand: "I run what's called," Cutler saysJim on demand: Run defense a lost cause?If ever it were time for a reality check, 2-3 is that time. As in two wins, three losses and a whole lotta issues.

They don't count moral wins, close encounters and ones that got away in the NFL. This is big-boy, bottom-line football. But the truth is, the Broncos are lucky not to be 0-5.

They haven't dominated anyone, solidly defeated anyone, or even outplayed anyone. They beat the Bills on a last-second field goal and had to rally to escape with an overtime win over the Raiders.

Home-field advantage? That's ancient history for the Broncos. They aren't to be trusted to play well on the road or at Invesco Field at Mile High, where they have dropped six of their past eight games.

They've been outscored by 65 points in their past three games. So much for the notion that their problems are a blown assignment here and a missed tackle there. The question now becomes not whether the Broncos are a good team — they aren't — but whether they can become one.

There's no magic in that logo. Not anymore. The Broncos, including injured lists and the practice squad, have added 40-plus players in the past two years, and it remains to be seen if more than a few will make an impact.

Then there's the coaching. Mike Shanahan has to be questioning himself more today, after the 41-3 humiliation against the Chargers, than at any point in his 13 seasons as the keeper of the Broncos' flame. That was no bad day at the office. It was a clear reflection of all the issues this team has.

Shanahan's red-zone play-calling hasn't gotten it done, and his past draft-day mistakes are apparent every Sunday, when the Broncos have either too much inexperience or too much age filling key spots on the field. They have holes at linebacker and on the defensive line, and their special teams continue to cost them yardage, if not touchdowns.

The only way out, of course, is hard work. But sweat and effort offer no guarantee the Broncos will find their way out of this mess, especially with Travis Henry facing a possible year-long suspension.

Maybe, to put it in football terms, they will have to punt this season.

OB
10-09-2007, 12:42 PM
Who wouldnt love having the number one pick but how bad would it suck to suck so bad that you get it - wait lets ask a raiders fan :laugh:

I dont think we will be THAT bad this year :pray: but I would rather see us try our best and end up with a record that doesnt shame us

The Glue Factory
10-09-2007, 12:49 PM
running back might not be a priority. id rather see henry get banned now and at least come back for week 5 next year.

Think again. If Henry is suspended, he's done as a Bronco. I'm sure Shanahan discussed Henry's poor choices and made it perfectly clear that Henry had exactly 1 chance (and no more) with Denver. Get suspended and he's done.

HORSEPOWER 56
10-09-2007, 03:48 PM
#1 pick for sure! going 7-9 leaves us in the same situation as we have been for years - in the middle of the draft or lower. Why do all of you think that teams like Denver and KC can't seem to get over the hump? Because they're always between 7-9 and 10-6. Too well to really get the premium draft picks, but well enough to be "close, but no cigar".

How do you think the friggin' Chargers got such a good roster? TEN YEARS OF CRAP TEAMS AND TOP 10 PICKS! With the #1 overall pick, the sky is the limit. Let's say we don't want to pick up McFadden at #1 overall, we can easily do what SD did and either draft him and trade him for a ton of picks or just trade out of #1 and pick up a ton of picks.

Hell yeah, I'd take a #1 overall pick... we haven't had one since we dealt one for Elway! The only thing that bothers me is that The obvious choice would be to take McFadden, BUT I don't think we need McFadden because DT/LB/Safety are such obvious needs right now.

If I had the pick, I'd trade it to Atlanta (you know Petrino has his eye on Brohm) and use the picks we get in return to load up on defense.

Seeing as how we'll probably end up 7-9 or worse this season anyway and miss the playoffs, I'd much rather have the #1 overall pick. I can swallow my pride for the present to have a better team in the future. It's obvious the present team is sub-par.

lex
10-09-2007, 04:08 PM
#1 pick for sure! going 7-9 leaves us in the same situation as we have been for years - in the middle of the draft or lower. Why do all of you think that teams like Denver and KC can't seem to get over the hump? Because they're always between 7-9 and 10-6. Too well to really get the premium draft picks, but well enough to be "close, but no cigar".

How do you think the friggin' Chargers got such a good roster? TEN YEARS OF CRAP TEAMS AND TOP 10 PICKS! With the #1 overall pick, the sky is the limit. Let's say we don't want to pick up McFadden at #1 overall, we can easily do what SD did and either draft him and trade him for a ton of picks or just trade out of #1 and pick up a ton of picks.

Hell yeah, I'd take a #1 overall pick... we haven't had one since we dealt one for Elway! The only thing that bothers me is that The obvious choice would be to take McFadden, BUT I don't think we need McFadden because DT/LB/Safety are such obvious needs right now.

If I had the pick, I'd trade it to Atlanta (you know Petrino has his eye on Brohm) and use the picks we get in return to load up on defense.

Seeing as how we'll probably end up 7-9 or worse this season anyway and miss the playoffs, I'd much rather have the #1 overall pick. I can swallow my pride for the present to have a better team in the future. It's obvious the present team is sub-par.

Yeah, depending on who picks 2-5, you might be able to trade down and still get McFadden. For example, someone like Miami or Buffalo, who have recently drafted Ronnie Brown and Marshawn Lynch, would far less likely to draft McFadden. If they were at 2 and 3, we might be able to trade down.

HORSEPOWER 56
10-09-2007, 04:14 PM
Yeah, depending on who picks 2-5, you might be able to trade down and still get McFadden. For example, someone like Miami or Buffalo, who have recently drafted Ronnie Brown and Marshawn Lynch, would far less likely to draft McFadden. If they were at 2 and 3, we might be able to trade down.

Exactly! Then we'd be cooking!:thrasher:

DenBronx
10-09-2007, 09:58 PM
Think again. If Henry is suspended, he's done as a Bronco. I'm sure Shanahan discussed Henry's poor choices and made it perfectly clear that Henry had exactly 1 chance (and no more) with Denver. Get suspended and he's done.



by me saying not a priority that means at least not early in the draft or in the draft at all. shanny could take a look at another free agent.

a running back with the first round pick isnt a priority. we are severely screwed at a couple of other positions.

Joel
10-10-2007, 12:01 AM
I don't think RB is the answer...our RB is 2nd in the NFL in rushing.

When Walker comes back and the way Marshall has been progressing the O will be fine.

What we need to do is freaking stop somebody. Teams walk through us like there is no tomorrow. I would rather 7-9 as i don't think they need a top pick to get some D.
Actually, our RB had led the League in rushing every week until SDs 38 point lead forced us to look for faster scores (he still got 66 yards IIRC, and is only 9 yards behind "Fast" Willie Parker, but given 1) his career may be over, 2) he's dinged, 3) we play Pitt in two weeks and 4) we're #32 against the run that lead is likely to grow.... ) So, in theory, no, our RB isn't the problem. In reality he's probably played his last NFL game, depending on how long the appeal process takes (and how it ends) and our big mistake in recent years has been assuming anyone who can make an NFL roster at RB has the speed to excel behind our line; fact is, an NFL back must do more: Pick up the blitz, move the pile on short/goalline yardage and make catches.

All of that said, what we really need now is the same thing I wanted us to draft this year: NTs and MLBs who can start there down the road and play S/WLB in the interim, since Webster is as much of a non-factor at SLB as he was at MLB against SF last year (and would be again if anything happened to D.J., heaven forbid). Everyone wanted ends, we got ends; congratulations on the success of that decision. Can we those NTs I wanted now? Please?

If we're going to have a losing season I'd just as soon we lose by as much as possible; the only difference between 7-9 vs. 2-14 is the latter drafts a whole lot better. Neither one makes the playoffs, and my primary goal is to win the Super Bowl; if we can't do that I'd just as soon we draft as well as possible so we can do that in a few years. I understand not wanting to give up, but consider last year: At 9-7 we were the best team that DIDN'T make the playoffs, which meant 1) no chance of a Lombardi Trophy and 2) the worst draft position of teams for whom #1 was true. What exactly did that "win" us? A mediocre draft position AND no post season, which meant, despite having extra picks from the Portis/Bailey trade, we wound up picking FOUR players in the seven rounds of the draft. Who knows, maybe one or two of them will actually be starters some day....

We're not a bad team, but we DO need some big help in a few critical areas. That, by the way, is the difference between a bubble playoff team and a Super Bowl contender. The two ways to solve those problems are to pay through the nose and get 2-3 free agents for 2-3 years, or get decent draft picks (which most bubble playoff teams can't) and cheaply acquire 2-3 good players we'll have for the next decade. Seems like a no brainer to me; unless the college talent at those positions is just awful this year, if we aren't in contention for the Super Bowl (and at 2-3 it's too early to say that for certain, though our run D doesn't support another view) I want us to get the top two NT and MLB prospects available (for one thing, Adams is probably gone, which means we'll have NOTHING at DT when we need three starter quality players). I don't think we'll lose anyone beside Nalen, Adams and (possibly) Hamilton next year (I'm pretty much writing Travis Henry off now, wrongly or not), and think we'll still be in good shape IF we go after talent in the middle of the defensive line and at MLB. Or we can go after a sexy pass rush position and make sure we don't jeopardize D.J.s fragile psyche by admitting he can't play all three LB spots at once, in which case we'll have another "choice" between 7-9 or 2-14 next year.

Nick
10-10-2007, 12:17 AM
As the thread asks. Rather than finish 7-9, would you prefer to have the #1 draft pick?

Then why are you wanting them to lose already. On the 5th game of the season you rather have them only win 5 games. It is a question that would lean towards the answer you want... which is a #1 pick... I am going to make my selection now.

From the out put of "fair weather" fans... like you and dream. Whom I think selected the #1 pick. For obvious reasons.

I like the draft as big as any one else that follows college as much as i do.

Why don't you put go to the playoffs or have a #1 pick? You want it only to a subject of "Bad"

You need to have confidence in your team... this team still has alot of potential and we are struggling right now in the run D because of the front 7. This is going to be based on experience playing with their teammates and team, different positions played, and different philosphy because of coaching.

They should have already rebounded because of the head coach are broncos have.

They have not.

They made a huge change at special teams towards the end of last game by putting young on kick off returns and with martinez at punt returns.

Clark might be nice as the lead runner on special teams with young and with a little more chemistry our special teams could be big.

My best friend is a skin fan and I told him how successful they will be now that they have the same front 7 on D... Alot of times it is not always changing personel but chemistry.

We will win against Steelers and Green Bay. Mark my word.

Give up hope we bomb the season... you are the best fans broncos fans can hope for.

Nick
10-10-2007, 12:25 AM
DT/LB/Safety are such obvious needs right now.


OLB Saftey and DT arre huge needs but also wide receiver and major dpeth at LB saftey and corner back position. That would help out a great deal on special teams.

There will not be any huge first round grade Safteys like Landry and mide round grade Safteys like Nelson this year.

There are some nice looking line backers and DT's but I do not know how you would pass on any of those top tier OL coming out with a high selection. It is just to good. Or tade down for jackson who is a huge need at returns and reciever and would act like a double wammy. Top five selection is not goint to be as huge as last year because of talent in the area of need.

If some how we had a top five selection I hope our team trys to have some one sell the farm because of the weak draft class this year. Not deep what so ever.

BigBroncLove
10-10-2007, 12:45 AM
I prefer to see Bronco wins any day over losses that lead to a high draft pick.

lex
10-10-2007, 01:49 AM
Then why are you wanting them to lose already. On the 5th game of the season you rather have them only win 5 games. It is a question that would lean towards the answer you want... which is a #1 pick... I am going to make my selection now.

From the out put of "fair weather" fans... like you and dream. Whom I think selected the #1 pick. For obvious reasons.

I like the draft as big as any one else that follows college as much as i do.

Why don't you put go to the playoffs or have a #1 pick? You want it only to a subject of "Bad"

You need to have confidence in your team... this team still has alot of potential and we are struggling right now in the run D because of the front 7. This is going to be based on experience playing with their teammates and team, different positions played, and different philosphy because of coaching.

They should have already rebounded because of the head coach are broncos have.

They have not.

They made a huge change at special teams towards the end of last game by putting young on kick off returns and with martinez at punt returns.

Clark might be nice as the lead runner on special teams with young and with a little more chemistry our special teams could be big.

My best friend is a skin fan and I told him how successful they will be now that they have the same front 7 on D... Alot of times it is not always changing personel but chemistry.

We will win against Steelers and Green Bay. Mark my word.

Give up hope we bomb the season... you are the best fans broncos fans can hope for.

Youre really off the mark and like I said, you shouldnt be so judgmental. You assume to know way too much. Not only that but this, "Im a better fan then you" crap is really getting old.

lex
10-10-2007, 02:01 AM
Actually, our RB had led the League in rushing every week until SDs 38 point lead forced us to look for faster scores (he still got 66 yards IIRC, and is only 9 yards behind "Fast" Willie Parker, but given 1) his career may be over, 2) he's dinged, 3) we play Pitt in two weeks and 4) we're #32 against the run that lead is likely to grow.... ) So, in theory, no, our RB isn't the problem. In reality he's probably played his last NFL game, depending on how long the appeal process takes (and how it ends) and our big mistake in recent years has been assuming anyone who can make an NFL roster at RB has the speed to excel behind our line; fact is, an NFL back must do more: Pick up the blitz, move the pile on short/goalline yardage and make catches.

All of that said, what we really need now is the same thing I wanted us to draft this year: NTs and MLBs who can start there down the road and play S/WLB in the interim, since Webster is as much of a non-factor at SLB as he was at MLB against SF last year (and would be again if anything happened to D.J., heaven forbid). Everyone wanted ends, we got ends; congratulations on the success of that decision. Can we those NTs I wanted now? Please?

If we're going to have a losing season I'd just as soon we lose by as much as possible; the only difference between 7-9 vs. 2-14 is the latter drafts a whole lot better. Neither one makes the playoffs, and my primary goal is to win the Super Bowl; if we can't do that I'd just as soon we draft as well as possible so we can do that in a few years. I understand not wanting to give up, but consider last year: At 9-7 we were the best team that DIDN'T make the playoffs, which meant 1) no chance of a Lombardi Trophy and 2) the worst draft position of teams for whom #1 was true. What exactly did that "win" us? A mediocre draft position AND no post season, which meant, despite having extra picks from the Portis/Bailey trade, we wound up picking FOUR players in the seven rounds of the draft. Who knows, maybe one or two of them will actually be starters some day....

We're not a bad team, but we DO need some big help in a few critical areas. That, by the way, is the difference between a bubble playoff team and a Super Bowl contender. The two ways to solve those problems are to pay through the nose and get 2-3 free agents for 2-3 years, or get decent draft picks (which most bubble playoff teams can't) and cheaply acquire 2-3 good players we'll have for the next decade. Seems like a no brainer to me; unless the college talent at those positions is just awful this year, if we aren't in contention for the Super Bowl (and at 2-3 it's too early to say that for certain, though our run D doesn't support another view) I want us to get the top two NT and MLB prospects available (for one thing, Adams is probably gone, which means we'll have NOTHING at DT when we need three starter quality players). I don't think we'll lose anyone beside Nalen, Adams and (possibly) Hamilton next year (I'm pretty much writing Travis Henry off now, wrongly or not), and think we'll still be in good shape IF we go after talent in the middle of the defensive line and at MLB. Or we can go after a sexy pass rush position and make sure we don't jeopardize D.J.s fragile psyche by admitting he can't play all three LB spots at once, in which case we'll have another "choice" between 7-9 or 2-14 next year.

You can say RB isnt the biggest area of "need", however, if you draft someone like McFadden, it could very well have the most positive impact. Our longest TD run is, what, 9 yards? Besides, our biggest position of need is DT and what we need from DT is a very specialize skill set which is stuff the run. We can get that with the high 2nd pick. This would be my proposed mock if we were to be in a position to draft McFadden:

1. Darren McFadden, RB
2. Frank Okam/Dre Moore/Red Bryant, DT
4. Jameel McClain, ILB
4. Jason Shirley, DT
5. Bryan Kehl, OLB
5. Jeremy Zuttah, OL
7. Joe Fields, S
7. Rudy Burgess, Ret

Without drafting in the third, drafting a safety is problematic as that is where Demps and DeCoud are being slotted to go. Besides we need to do more about the front 7 first. Jameel McClain has DE, OLB and ILB as his list of positions but he probably plays more DE in college, which, after watching DJ struggle with blockers would be helpful at ILB.

BaiLeY324
10-10-2007, 06:31 AM
If you don't win the superbowl, the season's a failure anyway so it doesn't matter. I'd probably rather have the #1 pick.

Nick
10-10-2007, 10:42 AM
Youre really off the mark and like I said, you shouldnt be so judgmental. You assume to know way too much. Not only that but this, "Im a better fan then you" crap is really getting old.

What is getting old is that you already want the Broncos to fail and hope they get the #1 pick 198-199 days untill the draft. What is really off the mark is the line up of players you want... We would be in the same situation. If the Broncos have a top ten pick they should look at Dorsey @ LSU, Conner at Penn, and of course depending on what they do still and if we draft from 10-15, you have Sedrick Ellis, Keith Rivers (almost a prototypicle Broncos line backer from recent years)...

We have plenty of holes and this draft is week.

You also have baker and long which looks nice in top ten.

I am not assuming to know way to much... but isnt a little early to hope the broncos flop to have a #1 and pay that kind of money to a running back where we already locked in a bunch of money on another back? Also the broncos will not get a back in first round... they just don't do it.

The needs for the team is depth alone, OLB (ILB if DJ moved out), Saftey, Wide Receiver, Deffensive tackle. Macfadden is just a sexy pick.

Nick
10-10-2007, 10:48 AM
You can say RB isnt the biggest area of "need", however, if you draft someone like McFadden, it could very well have the most positive impact. Our longest TD run is, what, 9 yards? Besides, our biggest position of need is DT and what we need from DT is a very specialize skill set which is stuff the run. We can get that with the high 2nd pick. This would be my proposed mock if we were to be in a position to draft McFadden:

1. Darren McFadden, RB
2. Frank Okam/Dre Moore/Red Bryant, DT
4. Jameel McClain, ILB
4. Jason Shirley, DT
5. Bryan Kehl, OLB
5. Jeremy Zuttah, OL
7. Joe Fields, S
7. Rudy Burgess, Ret

Without drafting in the third, drafting a safety is problematic as that is where Demps and DeCoud are being slotted to go. Besides we need to do more about the front 7 first. Jameel McClain has DE, OLB and ILB as his list of positions but he probably plays more DE in college, which, after watching DJ struggle with blockers would be helpful at ILB.

Dre Moore or Red Bryant would be way to high at the #33 pick and Okam is going to be gone mid 1st round if we went off of them right now. I know a lot can change at combine and how players pan out the rest of the season.... but way to early.

Shirly and Morton will fit into Bates system well and both are going to end up in either 3rd and 4th round... so there is a big possiblity there.... regardless it is way to earlly to even think of where players are going... specialy in a weak draft like this.

lex
10-10-2007, 12:22 PM
What is getting old is that you already want the Broncos to fail and hope they get the #1 pick 198-199 days untill the draft. What is really off the mark is the line up of players you want... We would be in the same situation. If the Broncos have a top ten pick they should look at Dorsey @ LSU, Conner at Penn, and of course depending on what they do still and if we draft from 10-15, you have Sedrick Ellis, Keith Rivers (almost a prototypicle Broncos line backer from recent years)...

Ive already responded to this notion of yours that I want Denver to fail. You can repeat it as often as you want, its a lie every time. It would be great to go 12-4. But between 7-9 and 2-14, 2-14 gives us a leg up on winning more over 4 years moreso than 7-9. All the guys you mentioned are ones that could be had at 7-9 save Dorsey, who is great, but what we really need is a run stuffing specialist. Dorsey is more of an all around DT. Im not so sure hes better than, say, Moore, Okam or Bryant at stopping the run. Its just that those other guys arent as disruptive or as relentless as Dorsey.


We have plenty of holes and this draft is week.

You also have baker and long which looks nice in top ten.

Long would be perfect for our system and I would definitely advocate selecting him if he is available and McFadden isnt. However, if McFadden is an option, you shouldnt pass him up. Our running game hasnt been great since Portis left. With McFadden it could be even better than it was then. In spite of the fact that I advocate selecting Long if he is there, I still say we should go back to how we used to acquire linemen which was to target vets who have value in our system.


I am not assuming to know way to much... but isnt a little early to hope the broncos flop to have a #1 and pay that kind of money to a running back where we already locked in a bunch of money on another back? Also the broncos will not get a back in first round... they just don't do it.

We may be off the hook with Henry before long. Well have to see how it plays out. Im actually kind of hoping he's gone. I can live with Young. Even if he is allowed to play on a technicality, Id like to see him move on just because he is too much of a knucklehead. If hes with the Broncos I hope he does well but Id still prefer to have someone besides Henry as our RB in the future.


The needs for the team is depth alone, OLB (ILB if DJ moved out), Saftey, Wide Receiver, Deffensive tackle. Macfadden is just a sexy pick.

We already have Marshall and Walker. Depth can be had through FA. Same with safety actually but even still Id be ok with Joe Fields.

lex
10-10-2007, 12:30 PM
Dre Moore or Red Bryant would be way to high at the #33 pick and Okam is going to be gone mid 1st round if we went off of them right now. I know a lot can change at combine and how players pan out the rest of the season.... but way to early.

Shirly and Morton will fit into Bates system well and both are going to end up in either 3rd and 4th round... so there is a big possiblity there.... regardless it is way to earlly to even think of where players are going... specialy in a weak draft like this.

It varies a lot where Moore, Bryant and Okam will go. And Moore is actually moving up and is expected to move even higher at the combine where he is expected to have a strong showing. He has some strength record at Maryland and you can actually see it when he takes on blockers. He has played really well against Steve Slaton, Ray Rice and Tashard Choice this year.

LoyalSoldier
10-10-2007, 03:42 PM
Frankly I think for our needs the #1 pick wouldn't be all that great. Our biggest problem is the line play on both offense and defense. So a pick in the middle would be a little better.

I know the drool factor of all these skill position players is tempting, but that is actually how teams end up losing by drafting only for the drool factor.

Lonestar
10-10-2007, 03:57 PM
i said 7-9...i dont want to see our team quit. even if they dont get to the playoffs its still a learning curve for a revised team. next year we will be better.


i think the #1 pick is sometimes overated.

I'm not so sure they will have to quit just show up and try their hardest just might do it!!! ;)


Personally I'd rather be top 5 or so that gives you alot of options in whether to trade down for more choices or get STUD DT.

Lonestar
10-10-2007, 04:02 PM
Yep, pretty much feel the same way. I'd rather our team keep fighting, than get the number one pick the cheap way.

I'm excited to see if the defense improves after the by week. :cool:

I think that should be BYE BYE week.

Lonestar
10-10-2007, 04:12 PM
I wouldn't go quite that far, he has had some flash of what kind of DT he might develop into. Like wide receivers DT take time to develop .

Not all of them and if they are good enough to get OJT having Adams, moss, dumerville, crowder and rice on the DL can make someone better than they are.

Seymor, stroud, simon, hovan, ngata, harris and wilfork were almost instant impact players.

But most of these were top ten to 15 choices.

Lonestar
10-10-2007, 04:23 PM
OLB Saftey and DT arre huge needs but also wide receiver and major dpeth at LB saftey and corner back position. That would help out a great deal on special teams.

There will not be any huge first round grade Safteys like Landry and mide round grade Safteys like Nelson this year.

There are some nice looking line backers and DT's but I do not know how you would pass on any of those top tier OL coming out with a high selection. It is just to good. Or tade down for jackson who is a huge need at returns and reciever and would act like a double wammy. Top five selection is not goint to be as huge as last year because of talent in the area of need.

If some how we had a top five selection I hope our team trys to have some one sell the farm because of the weak draft class this year. Not deep what so ever.

Pretty good post but think about it would a top line OLINe guy play next year probably not.


Most of those guys are not gonna pickup the ZBS so why waste a top ten pick on one?

Watchthemiddle
10-10-2007, 04:32 PM
At this point in the season and seeing all of the injuries and depleted vets on this team, you could pretty much close your eyes and draw from a bag of players and not go wrong.

Whether its the #1 overall pick , or 3 2nd rounders...we need them all.

O-line, D-line, LB's, Safety, maybe another WR, a every down RB to replace Henry...and the list goes on.

If we don't address our O-line then CUtler could be the next Carr. Have good talent, but it gets wasted because he isn't being protected. Luckly, CUtler is more mobile.

If we don't address the D-line..mainly DT's, then its still going to be the same ol same ol for a 5th straight year.

I think we are good at DE's, they just need some time to develop. We used an awful lot of picks in the past draft on DE's. Now its time to focus on DT's, safety, LB's, and O-line.

Whatever gives us the best chance to get the most picks is good with me.

Nick
10-10-2007, 04:35 PM
Pretty good post but think about it would a top line OLINe guy play next year probably not.


Most of those guys are not gonna pickup the ZBS so why waste a top ten pick on one?

DT is by far the biggest need but if you go after best player available rather then reach for someone. I agree with the zone blocking system and think that OL is not the biggest need for us because of the depth we currently have or at least hope we currently have with Harris, Kuper, and eslinger (if myers goes in for Nalen).

Our pass protection has been looking ALOT better. The msot benifitial thing for the broncos to do in a top 5 slection and if dorsey in longer available is to trade down to fill multiple needs in a non-deep draft.

Getting a offensive lineman in round one is (specially after foster) is going to be very unlikly...

Were are just as likly to get a running back...

TXBRONC
10-10-2007, 04:49 PM
Frankly I think for our needs the #1 pick wouldn't be all that great. Our biggest problem is the line play on both offense and defense. So a pick in the middle would be a little better.

I know the drool factor of all these skill position players is tempting, but that is actually how teams end up losing by drafting only for the drool factor.

That's a great point, but LS if we're talking about a runningback like McFadden then he could have an immediate impact where other skill position will not.

Nick
10-10-2007, 05:01 PM
That's a great point, but LS if we're talking about a runningback like McFadden then he could have an immediate impact where other skill position will not.

Then we will be in the exact same situation we are at now unless the focus on much needed areas in free agency.

Only good thing is we would have the same players playing with eachother which helps for them being on the same page.

I think we would by far be able to obtain a good runningback in free agency then a DT...

Also LB position could be nice in free agency.

Saftey will be awful in free agency and draft.

In addition I think Broncos will have better success getting a solid Running back in later rounds rather then getting a gem DT

TXBRONC
10-10-2007, 05:09 PM
Then we will be in the exact same situation we are at now unless the focus on much needed areas in free agency.

Only good thing is we would have the same players playing with each other which helps for them being on the same page.

I think we would by far be able to obtain a good runningback in free agency then a DT...

Also LB position could be nice in free agency.

Safety will be awful in free agency and draft.

In addition I think Broncos will have better success getting a solid Running back in later rounds rather then getting a gem DT


I think that depends on what happens with Henry and Young. If Henry is gone and Young is unable to do the job in Henry's sted then I think runningback becomes a need.

Watchthemiddle
10-10-2007, 05:23 PM
That's a great point, but LS if we're talking about a runningback like McFadden then he could have an immediate impact where other skill position will not.

If we had a chance to pick up McFadden, there is not chance in Hades that SHanny would not draft him.

Shanahan loves offense. If we could find a franchinse RB to go with our Franchise QB and WR and TE...in a few years we could be the franchise of the future. THink Cowboys of the 90's with their 3 headed monster, only we will have a TE to add to the mix with Sheff.

That said, is why we have the defense we have now. SHanahan has not put an emphasis on D up until the draft of 2005 with the three CB's. This year he tried to duplicate that by taking 3 DE's. In the end it might all work out once they develop, but it will take time.

We have enough young talent on this team that if we keep building to it over the next 2 years or so as key/much needed positions we might be looking very pretty for years to come.

By 2009, Cutler, Marshall, SHeffler will only be about 26 or so years old. Add another RB this draft and more young talented defensive players and we might be watching something special down the road.

TXBRONC
10-10-2007, 05:31 PM
If we had a chance to pick up McFadden, there is not chance in Hades that SHanny would not draft him.

Shanahan loves offense. If we could find a franchinse RB to go with our Franchise QB and WR and TE...in a few years we could be the franchise of the future. THink Cowboys of the 90's with their 3 headed monster, only we will have a TE to add to the mix with Sheff.

That said, is why we have the defense we have now. SHanahan has not put an emphasis on D up until the draft of 2005 with the three CB's. This year he tried to duplicate that by taking 3 DE's. In the end it might all work out once they develop, but it will take time.

We have enough young talent on this team that if we keep building to it over the next 2 years or so as key/much needed positions we might be looking very pretty for years to come.

By 2009, Cutler, Marshall, SHeffler will only be about 26 or so years old. Add another RB this draft and more young talented defensive players and we might be watching something special down the road.

If Shanahan gets the opportunity to draft McFadden it several things.

1.) We had te worst record in the League.

2.) Henry was suspended and then released by Shanahan.

Joel
10-14-2007, 05:29 AM
You can say RB isnt the biggest area of "need", however, if you draft someone like McFadden, it could very well have the most positive impact. Our longest TD run is, what, 9 yards? Besides, our biggest position of need is DT and what we need from DT is a very specialize skill set which is stuff the run. We can get that with the high 2nd pick. This would be my proposed mock if we were to be in a position to draft McFadden:

1. Darren McFadden, RB
2. Frank Okam/Dre Moore/Red Bryant, DT
4. Jameel McClain, ILB
4. Jason Shirley, DT
5. Bryan Kehl, OLB
5. Jeremy Zuttah, OL
7. Joe Fields, S
7. Rudy Burgess, Ret

Without drafting in the third, drafting a safety is problematic as that is where Demps and DeCoud are being slotted to go. Besides we need to do more about the front 7 first. Jameel McClain has DE, OLB and ILB as his list of positions but he probably plays more DE in college, which, after watching DJ struggle with blockers would be helpful at ILB.
Dre Moore or Red Bryant would be way to high at the #33 pick and Okam is going to be gone mid 1st round if we went off of them right now. I know a lot can change at combine and how players pan out the rest of the season.... but way to early.

Shirly and Morton will fit into Bates system well and both are going to end up in either 3rd and 4th round... so there is a big possiblity there.... regardless it is way to earlly to even think of where players are going... specialy in a weak draft like this.
That is a LOT of why I don't want to spend the first pick on a back; a lot of it is also the fact that what we need in a back isn't game breaking speed (Tater had that, when he held onto the ball... ) but all the "little things" that almost NO rookie back can do from Opening Day: move the pile against 350 lb. NTs in short/goalline yardage, catch quick outs out of the backfield and, perhaps most importantly, PICK UP THE BLITZ. Ironically, Selvin Youngs scouting report actually lists that as one of his positives, so I'd much rather try to develop him this year than try to draft this years installment of the Heismann Heir Apparent who fizzles in the NFL when he doesn't get to play 2/3 games against Miami of Ohio or Vandy. We could flash this discussion back a few years and the same people drooling over McFadden now would be desperately hoping we finish 2-14 so we could draft Vince Young or Reggie Bush, or maybe Ricky Williams (who we kinda got anyway... ) to come in and "rescue" our team. In the real world of the NFL it very rarely works that way, because teams that are just one HoFer away from a SB don't finish 2-14.

So, yeah, if we can get Okam, by all accounts he sounds like an ideal choice; a big quality NT for a team that desperately needs one, but only if we get him in the first round. What's more, the kind of straight up NT play Bates has historically demanded from his DTs isn't exactly rocket science; it's far more conceivable a talented rookie with the physical ability can come in and deliver that right away than it is a talented rookie back can make an immediate adjustment to the NFL (which is much the same logic I'm applying when I say I want to draft a guy to start at SLB who has the ability to start at MLB DOWN THE ROAD once he's adjusted, not because I want to bench D.J. but because I want someone better than Webster behind him as well as at SLB).

Meanwhile, yes, if Henry has screwed the pooch of his NFL career we do need to find that do it all back--but we're not going to find him right out of college, which is why I hoped we'd bite the bullet, cough up the dough and find a journeyman free agent who'd already learned all the many NFL skills we need last year. It's just too bad he wants bong hits more than a Super Bowl Ring, but the logic in of itself is sound, as testified by the fact he led the League in rushing through the first four games (and is only 9 yards behind Willie Parker despite the fact we went into passing only mode early last week and he finished with 66 yards). To be an NFL starting back you need versatility; if you can't pick up the blitz we can't use you, because when you come out on third and seven the DC goes from thinking "probably a pass" to "blitz nine guys". Conversely, if you can't pick up the blitz that also pretty much tells them when you ARE in it's a run, or we wouldn't be risking it. That's why the proverbial "every down back" is such a big deal, and has less to do with his game breaking ability than his versatility; it's also why very few rookies can come in and immediately perform that role. Joseph Addai's a good back, but the Colts didn't start him as a rookie because for all his natural talent he wasn't ready, and I have more confidence Mike Bell will be a better pass blocker next year than the horrible one he was last year than I do that a rookie will out perform him.

So, NT, MLB, NT would be my first day draft. 'Course, that would've been my first day in 2007, too, but if Ekuban hadn't had his career ended in his return to Dallas I think I would've been vindicated, too. We do need to have more than one LT prospect ready when Lepsis retires, but I'm confident in our depth at guard even with the possibility Hamilton and Nalen are done, and while I wouldn't mind a little first day insurance at LT and/or SS, IMHO we have too many gaping holes in our front seven to make that commitment in 2008. Hopefully Abdullah continues to come along, we resign Foxworth and Lynch has one more year left in him, because we only get so many picks in the next draft (one of them was released in the form of Kennedy before the season began) and it seems clear to me where we should spend them, both because of our need in the front seven and the minimal short term return we can expect from a running back. I'd rather start Selvin Young or Mike Bell at HB next year than Amon Gordon and [whoever replaces retiring Sam Adams].

Joel
10-14-2007, 05:41 AM
If we had a chance to pick up McFadden, there is not chance in Hades that SHanny would not draft him.

Shanahan loves offense. If we could find a franchinse RB to go with our Franchise QB and WR and TE...in a few years we could be the franchise of the future. THink Cowboys of the 90's with their 3 headed monster, only we will have a TE to add to the mix with Sheff.

That said, is why we have the defense we have now. SHanahan has not put an emphasis on D up until the draft of 2005 with the three CB's. This year he tried to duplicate that by taking 3 DE's. In the end it might all work out once they develop, but it will take time.

We have enough young talent on this team that if we keep building to it over the next 2 years or so as key/much needed positions we might be looking very pretty for years to come.

By 2009, Cutler, Marshall, SHeffler will only be about 26 or so years old. Add another RB this draft and more young talented defensive players and we might be watching something special down the road.
The Cowboys model is a good one, but it was a wakeup call for fans (coaches already knew): the game is won or lost at the line, and I see us drafting another guard to replace our two best ones, or possibly another LT in case NFL athletes or no more willing to roll over for someone solely on the basis of their Notre Dame credentials than Notre Dames opponents have been this year. Personally, I've always felt and continue to feel selling out on ends was a mistake; I liked our ends last year, but the only DT for whom I had any use was Warren when he was healthy, and it seems Shanny and Co. had no use for him even then. That was my biggest concern in December of 2006; how do you think I feel about it NOW...?

Heck, I might even be willing to accept a running back in the first round if you could guarantee me he'd be an every down back almost immediately (though once again, I feel a lot more comfortable starting Mike Bell or Selvin Young next year than Alvin McKinley, Marcus Thomas and/or Amon Gordon) but the fact is you can't make that guarantee; no one can.

But I think I'll let it go at that, since I've copiously stated my opinion and the NCAA always leaves a bad taste in my mouth, especially coming off a season where the only 13-0 team in the country was voted #5 over all and out of contention for a Championship before the season ever started. It's one of the reasons I don't like getting into draft conversations, because I always have to wade through the opinions of ESPN, coaches of schools people think are good (which is so circular it makes me nauseous to watch... ) and players from those same schools that spend the whole season in the Top 25 for the eminently logical reason that they start every season there. That may work fine in the NCAA (though I think a playoff system would change that mighty fast; if the NCAA ran the NFL the Pats would have three less SB Rings and Denver would have played Indy for the 2005 AFCC) but I'm not willing to stake my PROFESSIONAL teams future on the fact that so-and-so was the leading rusher/passer/tackler in the SEC/Big 10/Notre Dame.

lex
10-14-2007, 11:38 AM
That is a LOT of why I don't want to spend the first pick on a back; a lot of it is also the fact that what we need in a back isn't game breaking speed (Tater had that, when he held onto the ball... ) but all the "little things" that almost NO rookie back can do from Opening Day: move the pile against 350 lb. NTs in short/goalline yardage, catch quick outs out of the backfield and, perhaps most importantly, PICK UP THE BLITZ. Ironically, Selvin Youngs scouting report actually lists that as one of his positives, so I'd much rather try to develop him this year than try to draft this years installment of the Heismann Heir Apparent who fizzles in the NFL when he doesn't get to play 2/3 games against Miami of Ohio or Vandy. We could flash this discussion back a few years and the same people drooling over McFadden now would be desperately hoping we finish 2-14 so we could draft Vince Young or Reggie Bush, or maybe Ricky Williams (who we kinda got anyway... ) to come in and "rescue" our team. In the real world of the NFL it very rarely works that way, because teams that are just one HoFer away from a SB don't finish 2-14.

OK, what running back is expected to truck 350 lb defensive tackles? No, thats the OLines job. Also, if you knew what you were talking about youd know that a lot of McFaddens appeal is what he has done against good teams in the SEC. Check out the LSU or Auburn game from last year. And no, I was never one in that camp who was all for drafting Reggie Bush. That dudes biggest games was Fresno State and he had another against Notre Dame both of which werent exactly stellar on defense. Plus Reggie Bush rarely had 20 carries in a game. In every game his team had more talent than the opposition at practically every position. Thats not the case with McFadden. If you take away McFadden and Jones, Arkansas is probably in the middle of the SEC in terms of talent. Theres a huge difference in level of assurance between McFadden and Bush. The only thing that would hold back McFadden is injuries but one of his pluses is that hes more durable than Adrian Peterson was. Not only that but depending on how the season plays out, its not a certainty that we'd have to go 2-14 to get McFadden. There are a lot of teams who arent doing well that recently drafted a RB with a high choice making it less likely theyd take McFadden.

So, yeah, if we can get Okam, by all accounts he sounds like an ideal choice; a big quality NT for a team that desperately needs one, but only if we get him in the first round. What's more, the kind of straight up NT play Bates has historically demanded from his DTs isn't exactly rocket science; it's far more conceivable a talented rookie with the physical ability can come in and deliver that right away than it is a talented rookie back can make an immediate adjustment to the NFL (which is much the same logic I'm applying when I say I want to draft a guy to start at SLB who has the ability to start at MLB DOWN THE ROAD once he's adjusted, not because I want to bench D.J. but because I want someone better than Webster behind him as well as at SLB).

Yeah, there are three similar options in Dre Moore, Frank Okam and Red Bryant. Chances are one of them would be available if we had an early second. Some actually have Okam going in Rd 3 though. It all depends on who is drafting where. But we most definitely need to select a DT if we had a late 1st or a high 2nd.

Meanwhile, yes, if Henry has screwed the pooch of his NFL career we do need to find that do it all back--but we're not going to find him right out of college, which is why I hoped we'd bite the bullet, cough up the dough and find a journeyman free agent who'd already learned all the many NFL skills we need last year. It's just too bad he wants bong hits more than a Super Bowl Ring, but the logic in of itself is sound, as testified by the fact he led the League in rushing through the first four games (and is only 9 yards behind Willie Parker despite the fact we went into passing only mode early last week and he finished with 66 yards). To be an NFL starting back you need versatility; if you can't pick up the blitz we can't use you, because when you come out on third and seven the DC goes from thinking "probably a pass" to "blitz nine guys". Conversely, if you can't pick up the blitz that also pretty much tells them when you ARE in it's a run, or we wouldn't be risking it. That's why the proverbial "every down back" is such a big deal, and has less to do with his game breaking ability than his versatility; it's also why very few rookies can come in and immediately perform that role. Joseph Addai's a good back, but the Colts didn't start him as a rookie because for all his natural talent he wasn't ready, and I have more confidence Mike Bell will be a better pass blocker next year than the horrible one he was last year than I do that a rookie will out perform him.

So, NT, MLB, NT would be my first day draft. 'Course, that would've been my first day in 2007, too, but if Ekuban hadn't had his career ended in his return to Dallas I think I would've been vindicated, too. We do need to have more than one LT prospect ready when Lepsis retires, but I'm confident in our depth at guard even with the possibility Hamilton and Nalen are done, and while I wouldn't mind a little first day insurance at LT and/or SS, IMHO we have too many gaping holes in our front seven to make that commitment in 2008. Hopefully Abdullah continues to come along, we resign Foxworth and Lynch has one more year left in him, because we only get so many picks in the next draft (one of them was released in the form of Kennedy before the season began) and it seems clear to me where we should spend them, both because of our need in the front seven and the minimal short term return we can expect from a running back. I'd rather start Selvin Young or Mike Bell at HB next year than Amon Gordon and [whoever replaces retiring Sam Adams.]

We only have 2 draft picks on the first day. We do, however, have 6 picks on the second day.

lex
10-14-2007, 11:43 AM
If Shanahan gets the opportunity to draft McFadden it several things.

1.) We had te worst record in the League.

2.) Henry was suspended and then released by Shanahan.

Actually, when you look at a lot of the teams struggling there are a lot who might not or even probably wouldnt draft McFadden with a high pick. Miami, for example, selected Ronnie Brown with a top 5 pick not that long ago. Minnesota is another team that is on their way to a high draft pick this year who wouldnt take McFadden since they took Adrian Peterson last year. I posted a run down somewhere of teams with 1 or fewer wins. Another team is St Louis. They already have Steven Jackson. Basically the teams that I wouldnt want in front of us are NYJ, ATL, or CLE/DAL.

silkamilkamonico
10-14-2007, 04:47 PM
I see the worst happening with both scenarios.


Denver's defense will continue to struggle, and Denver will lose their next 5 games to be at 2-8. Then when all hope is lost, and people want the high draft pick, Denver's defense will figure it out, get on a roll, make a push for the playoffs, and finish just short at 8-8.

Due to the parity of the NFL and the weak NFC, they will get around the 20th pick in the draft.

Tned
10-14-2007, 04:59 PM
I see the worst happening with both scenarios.


Denver's defense will continue to struggle, and Denver will lose their next 5 games to be at 2-8. Then when all hope is lost, and people want the high draft pick, Denver's defense will figure it out, get on a roll, make a push for the playoffs, and finish just short at 8-8.

Due to the parity of the NFL and the weak NFC, they will get around the 20th pick in the draft.

LOL, I don't see the Denver losing their next 5, but I do think 8-8 is far more likely than the number one pick. If I were to guess right now, I would put from 8-8 to 10-6 as most likely with 11-5 being possible.

Tned
10-14-2007, 05:03 PM
P.S. I still haven't voted in the poll, because I honestly can't figure out which I would rather see (7-9 or #1 pick). On the one hand, I think the #1 pick, and then 33rd or so pick, could allow the Broncos to pickup one or two impact players. On the other hand I am not sure I want to see the Broncos go 1-10 or so, which it would probably take (if not 0-11), considering Miami's and NO's start, and that there are 8 teams currently with worse records than Denver.

Simple Jaded
10-14-2007, 05:06 PM
I'd rather have the second pick in the draft than go 9-7 or get the 1st pick....

lex
10-14-2007, 05:12 PM
P.S. I still haven't voted in the poll, because I honestly can't figure out which I would rather see (7-9 or #1 pick). On the one hand, I think the #1 pick, and then 33rd or so pick, could allow the Broncos to pickup one or two impact players. On the other hand I am not sure I want to see the Broncos go 1-10 or so, which it would probably take (if not 0-11), considering Miami's and NO's start, and that there are 8 teams currently with worse records than Denver.

Actually wouldnt it be the 32nd pick if New England makes the playoffs since they are to forfeit their #1 in that scenario?

lex
10-14-2007, 05:17 PM
BTW, did anyone see the Adrian Peterson go off today? When you see that and you realize that Darren McFadden is thought of by many as an upgraded version of Adrian Peterson, you see why he would look good in a Denver uniform. I know there are people who would rather have Ron Dayne, but seriously, its hard not to take notice of what it means to have a talent like that.

lex
10-15-2007, 10:41 AM
Has anyone who doesnt want to draft McFadden changed their tune after watching Adrian Peterson? Again, McFadden is ragarded by many to be a better prospect than Peterson.

Requiem / The Dagda
10-15-2007, 10:58 AM
If we had a top pick, I wouldn't care if it was an offensive or defensive player because it's likely if we're in the top fifteen, we're getting a top prospect on either side of the ball which would be a welcomed addition. If we had a shot at McFadden and he was available, I'd go for him - but if there were other nice players on board, you'd still have to consider it.

Denver right now Denver has a top fifteen selection so we have a shot to get a great player. There is probably no way we're picking in the top five though. The Rams and Dolphins are terrible, and the Jets are 1-5 - along with some other 1 and 4 teams who probably won't turn it around.

I share the same concerns that Denver will go 7-9 or 8-8 and end up in at around 20 due to how crazy the records are this year. It just really depends at what the Broncos are looking for. When the juniors start declaring, we'll get a lot better picture of who will be available and where. . . regarding value.

Tned
10-15-2007, 11:57 AM
When the juniors start declaring, we'll get a lot better picture of who will be available and where. . . regarding value.

Speaking of which, there is no guarantee that McFadden will even come out, but I would be surprised if he didn't.

Also, Felix Jones, also on Arkansas, is having another very good year. Prior to Saturday, he was at 10+ YPC, and is a dynamic return man. He wouldn't go as high as McFadden, but could help DEnver in both the run and return games. What's your thought on where Jones will go if he comes out as a Junion.

Requiem / The Dagda
10-15-2007, 12:07 PM
Speaking of which, there is no guarantee that McFadden will even come out, but I would be surprised if he didn't.

Also, Felix Jones, also on Arkansas, is having another very good year. Prior to Saturday, he was at 10+ YPC, and is a dynamic return man. He wouldn't go as high as McFadden, but could help DEnver in both the run and return games. What's your thought on where Jones will go if he comes out as a Junion.

McFadden's mom came out before the season started and said he was as good as gone. McFadden and Jones are in the same position that James Davis and C.J. Spiller are in at Clemson. Davis is a junior, and Spiller is a sophomore and splitting carries with him while he is a senior isn't going to help his stock anymore than it'd hurt it.

Personally, I can't see Arkansas having both Jones and McFadden go. I think if Jones came out he'd be a first-round player, but I think he's going to stay. McFadden has all the hype right now, he's going to win the Heisman and he's a top five pick (more than likely, depends on who is picking) if he comes out. Jones doesn't have that publicity, and I think another year in the spotlight in the SEC would really help him. How does Arkansas look for backs behind those guys? I can guarantee the coaches are going to press really hard for Jones to stay since it's almost a given that McFadden wants to come out.

At least McFadden wants to play for the Broncos. :cool:

At any case, McFadden is a pipe dream. I'm just excited for April already. Actually, I'm excited for the date when juniors declare, then Mobile, then Indianapolis en route to New York in April. It cannot come soon enough.

TXBRONC
10-15-2007, 12:54 PM
Speaking of which, there is no guarantee that McFadden will even come out, but I would be surprised if he didn't.

Also, Felix Jones, also on Arkansas, is having another very good year. Prior to Saturday, he was at 10+ YPC, and is a dynamic return man. He wouldn't go as high as McFadden, but could help DEnver in both the run and return games. What's your thought on where Jones will go if he comes out as a Junion.

Granted, McFadden hasn't declared yet, but with all the talk of him being the top pick in the draft, it's probably pretty safe guess that he will. However, there is always the chance that something comes up that keeps him from coming out.

Tned
10-15-2007, 12:55 PM
Granted, McFadden hasn't declared yet, but with all the talk of him being the top pick in the draft, it's probably pretty safe guess that he will. However, there is always the chance that something comes up that keeps him from coming out.

Plus, it isn't like USC and Leinart, where USC had a chance to be national champs in his senior year.

TXBRONC
10-15-2007, 01:39 PM
Plus, it isn't like USC and Leinart, where USC had a chance to be national champs in his senior year.

You know far more about the Razorbacks than I do, but from what I have been hearing it doesn't sound like there is much to him there. This year it looks like he could be the overall number one pick in the draft, that awful lot money to leave on the table.

Tned
10-15-2007, 01:57 PM
You know far more about the Razorbacks than I do, but from what I have been hearing it doesn't sound like there is much to him there. This year it looks like he could be the overall number one pick in the draft, that awful lot money to leave on the table.

Agreed. That's what I meant. Unlike Leinart (who I thnk was stupid and cost himself being the number one pick), there is really no good reason for McFadden to stay at Arkansas another year.

TXBRONC
10-15-2007, 05:20 PM
Agreed. That's what I meant. Unlike Leinart (who I thnk was stupid and cost himself being the number one pick), there is really no good reason for McFadden to stay at Arkansas another year.

At any rate if we by some chance Jr is correct and we 3-13 I wouldn't have a problem with us drafting McFadden if the opportunity presented itself. How about you?

Tned
10-15-2007, 05:41 PM
At any rate if we by some chance Jr is correct and we 3-13 I wouldn't have a problem with us drafting McFadden if the opportunity presented itself. How about you?

Based on what I have seen of him last year, and a couple games this year, the guys is a beast. He is big and fast. You never know how anyone will do in the NFL, but he certainly has talent to burn.

TXBRONC
10-15-2007, 07:11 PM
Based on what I have seen of him last year, and a couple games this year, the guys is a beast. He is big and fast. You never know how anyone will do in the NFL, but he certainly has talent to burn.

I have seen a couple of highlights but have yet see him in an entire game.

Stargazer
10-15-2007, 07:21 PM
I would rather have the #1 pick then go 7-9. But, that would just burn meaning Denver would only win 1 to 3 more games the rest of the season.

There's a lot you can do with the #1 pick. My instant thoughts would be to trade down and acquire more picks. I feel the team has a lot of holes on both sides of the ball. Obviously more on defense than offense. The more picks the more better.

Tned
10-15-2007, 07:23 PM
I would rather have the #1 pick then go 7-9. But, that would just burn meaning Denver would only win 1 to 3 more games the rest of the season.

There's a lot you can do with the #1 pick. My instant thoughts would be to trade down and acquire more picks. I feel the team has a lot of holes on both sides of the ball. Obviously more on defense than offense. The more picks the more better.

That's where I am at. The #1 pick would be awesome, but going 1-10 or 2 and 9 the rest of the way would really suck.

Stargazer
10-15-2007, 07:27 PM
Based on what I have seen of him last year, and a couple games this year, the guys is a beast. He is big and fast. You never know how anyone will do in the NFL, but he certainly has talent to burn.

I am pro Mcfadden. He's a gamebreaker. Like you said he's big and fast, but can hit the home run and take off for 70 yards for the TD. He's very legit. And I like him more than AD coming out this year. The Broncos current tailback position does not have a homerun hitter in Travis Henry. I would like to see for once the Broncos draft a talent at the RB position instead of digging in dumpsters to find a gem. The more time has pass, the TD selection in the 6th round seems to be an anomaly.

stargazer out

lex
10-15-2007, 07:45 PM
I would rather have the #1 pick then go 7-9. But, that would just burn meaning Denver would only win 1 to 3 more games the rest of the season.

There's a lot you can do with the #1 pick. My instant thoughts would be to trade down and acquire more picks. I feel the team has a lot of holes on both sides of the ball. Obviously more on defense than offense. The more picks the more better.

Just so everyone knows, the reason I specifically made the #1 draft pick the poll choice was because it ensures that you can draft whoever you want. For me, that person would be Darren McFadden. Others it might be Jake Long or Glenn Dorsey. In any case, its possible we may get any of these guys without being #1 per se based on who would draft in front of us. But yeah, what I was going for was draft high enough to get the guy you want. But regarding the actual question posed, I would rather have the #1 pick than go 7-9.

BTW, welcome to the board Stargazer.

Melkor
10-15-2007, 07:49 PM
Actually, when you look at a lot of the teams struggling there are a lot who might not or even probably wouldnt draft McFadden with a high pick. Miami, for example, selected Ronnie Brown with a top 5 pick not that long ago. Minnesota is another team that is on their way to a high draft pick this year who wouldnt take McFadden since they took Adrian Peterson last year. I posted a run down somewhere of teams with 1 or fewer wins. Another team is St Louis. They already have Steven Jackson. Basically the teams that I wouldnt want in front of us are NYJ, ATL, or CLE/DAL.

If you look at the teams beneath us right now.

Rams would not draft McFadden.

Dolphins neither.

Jets just traded for Thomas Jones and already have Leon Washington. I think they would adress other needs.

Saints will probably have McAllister back by the time of the draft.

Bengals has Rudi Johnson.

Bills just took Lynch.

Falcons might take McFadden, both personally I think Petrino wants Brohm.

Bears has Cedric Benson and badly need a quarterback.

49ers has Frank Gore.

Eagles has Brian Westbrook.

Raiders needs everything so yes, they could draft McFadden.

Vikings took Peterson.

Then some team above us who might finish beneath us.

Chiefs has Larry Johnson, but let us see what happens with him. They could be targeting McFadden.

Texans would take McFadden, I think.

Browns, or Cowboys, could take McFadden depending on what they decide about Julius Jones and Marion Barber.

My point being that it a team could get McFadden without the first overall pick. I think he is too talented not to be taken in the top five, but you have to wonder if teams are more desperate to fill needs. As you have to think about us, by the way.

I would take McFadden though. He is a fantastic playmaker, who we do not have that many of on offense.

Melkor
10-15-2007, 07:52 PM
There will not be any huge first round grade Safteys like Landry and mide round grade Safteys like Nelson this year.

That is simply wrong.

Kenny Phillips out of Miami has a lot of upsides. In my opinion even more than Landry.

TXBRONC
10-15-2007, 07:54 PM
If you look at the teams beneath us right now.

Rams would not draft McFadden.

Dolphins neither.

Jets just traded for Thomas Jones and already have Leon Washington. I think they would adress other needs.

Saints will probably have McAllister back by the time of the draft.

Bengals has Rudi Johnson.

Bills just took Lynch.

Falcons might take McFadden, both personally I think Petrino wants Brohm.

Bears has Cedric Benson and badly need a quarterback.

49ers has Frank Gore.

Eagles has Brian Westbrook.

Raiders needs everything so yes, they could draft McFadden.

Vikings took Peterson.

Then some team above us who might finish beneath us.

Chiefs has Larry Johnson, but let us see what happens with him. They could be targeting McFadden.

Texans would take McFadden, I think.

Browns, or Cowboys, could take McFadden depending on what they decide about Julius Jones and Marion Barber.

My point being that it a team could get McFadden without the first overall pick. I think he is too talented not to be taken in the top five, but you have to wonder if teams are more desperate to fill needs. As you have to think about us, by the way.

I would take McFadden though. He is a fantastic playmaker, who we do not have that many of on offense.

The Cowboys are going to make the playoffs so they wont even come within sniffing distance of McFadden also I think they will try and make Barber their workhorse..

lex
10-15-2007, 07:57 PM
If you look at the teams beneath us right now.

Rams would not draft McFadden.

Dolphins neither.

Jets just traded for Thomas Jones and already have Leon Washington. I think they would adress other needs.

Saints will probably have McAllister back by the time of the draft. Plus they recently used a top 5 pick on a RB and need defense.
Bengals has Rudi Johnson. And desperately need defense

Bills just took Lynch.

Falcons might take McFadden, both personally I think Petrino wants Brohm.-- Depends on how the season plays out but QB is a distinct possibility especially to turn the page on Vick if nothing else.

Bears has Cedric Benson and badly need a quarterback.

49ers has Frank Gore.

Eagles has Brian Westbrook. Also need WR

Raiders needs everything so yes, they could draft McFadden.

Vikings took Peterson.

Then some team above us who might finish beneath us.

Chiefs has Larry Johnson, but let us see what happens with him. They could be targeting McFadden.

Texans would take McFadden, I think.

Browns, or Cowboys, could take McFadden depending on what they decide about Julius Jones and Marion Barber.

My point being that it a team could get McFadden without the first overall pick. I think he is too talented not to be taken in the top five, but you have to wonder if teams are more desperate to fill needs. As you have to think about us, by the way.

I would take McFadden though. He is a fantastic playmaker, who we do not have that many of on offense.

Ive added to some of what you said and I agree with the vast majority of it. As a matter of fact, Ive made a sililar post elsewhere. As a matter of fact, the only thing I disagree with is the idea that McFadden is a lock to go top 5. He might but I dont think its a lock if the teams you cited that already have RBs who were taken with high picks are the teams in the top 5.

Melkor
10-15-2007, 08:03 PM
The Cowboys are going to make the playoffs so they wont even come within sniffing distance of McFadden also I think they will try and make Barber their workhorse..

They traded with the Browns. They will have both the Browns pick and their own.

Stargazer
10-15-2007, 08:05 PM
If you look at the teams beneath us right now.

Rams would not draft McFadden.
Too many holes and Stephen Jackson is not the problem

Dolphins neither.
Ronnie Brown, after dropping weight, is the real deal.

Jets just traded for Thomas Jones and already have Leon Washington. I think they would adress other needs.
A possibility, but they have holes to fill

Saints will probably have McAllister back by the time of the draft.
Pickle juice will be cut after this year, and the Saints will not draft another high #1
Bengals has Rudi Johnson.
They need Defense
Bills just took Lynch.
No RB needed
Falcons might take McFadden, both personally I think Petrino wants Brohm.
They obviously need a QB, but could go RB
Bears has Cedric Benson and badly need a quarterback.
QB or other position will be drafted
49ers has Frank Gore.
Niners go another way instead of Mcfadden
Eagles has Brian Westbrook.
They could use Mcfadden IMO
Raiders needs everything so yes, they could draft McFadden.
Jordan/Fargas combo could get dropped with an elite RB available to pair with their new QB
Vikings took Peterson.
No RB here
Then some team above us who might finish beneath us.

Chiefs has Larry Johnson, but let us see what happens with him. They could be targeting McFadden.
Big contract to Larry, then draft a highly tout RB. Makes no sense, but we're talking about Crazy King Carl.
Texans would take McFadden, I think.
They definately, and possibly would
Browns, or Cowboys, could take McFadden depending on what they decide about Julius Jones and Marion Barber.
Browns definately could. Cowboys should fill other holes

My point being that it a team could get McFadden without the first overall pick. I think he is too talented not to be taken in the top five, but you have to wonder if teams are more desperate to fill needs. As you have to think about us, by the way.

I would take McFadden though. He is a fantastic playmaker, who we do not have that many of on offense.

Broncos should go McFadden if given the chance. Will they? Who knows, but it wouldn't take the #1 overall pick to get him. Depending where the Broncos finish, Top 5 should land him. There's obviously wiggle room to trade up/trade down to select him.

All and all, it would require a bad season to have a chance to sniff at McFadden.

Melkor
10-15-2007, 08:07 PM
As a matter of fact, the only thing I disagree with is the idea that McFadden is a lock to go top 5. He might but I dont think its a lock if the teams you cited that already have RBs who were taken with high picks are the teams in the top 5.

I agree. Though I do think it has to be the team with elite runningbacks that draft in top five if McFadden should not be a lock.
He is so talented that I cannot imagine no one will take best player available, if they not have a premium runningback on their roster.

lex
10-15-2007, 08:11 PM
I agree. Though I do think it has to be the team with elite runningbacks that draft in top five if McFadden should not be a lock.
He is so talented that I cannot imagine no one will take best player available, if they not have a premium runningback on their roster.

I dont think the Dolphins, Bills, Saints, Rams, or Vikings would take them even if in the top 5.

Melkor
10-15-2007, 08:21 PM
I dont think the Dolphins, Bills, Saints, Rams, or Vikings would take them even if in the top 5.

Neither do I.

In fact I also do believe you can add Falcons, Bengals, Jets and Chiefs to that list.

Maybe some of them could really use McFadden, but I just think they have other and bigger needs.

Melkor
10-15-2007, 08:24 PM
I just realized I made a mistake before. 49ers have no first neither. My bad.

Not that they, right now, looks like a threat to us if we really wants McFadden.

Simple Jaded
10-15-2007, 09:10 PM
The Cowboys are going to make the playoffs so they wont even come within sniffing distance of McFadden also I think they will try and make Barber their workhorse..


The Cowbows have Clevelands No1 pick in next years draft, TX, and there were rumors (the second the trade between the two teams was made) that Jerry Jones has a Jones in his pocket for McFadden.

So much so that he's willing to trade both No1 picks to get into position to get him...

Melkor
10-15-2007, 09:20 PM
I forgot about that, nevertheless I'm don't think they would draft him given their runningback situation.

Their runningback situation is that Julius Jones will be a free agent after the season and Marion Barber will be a restricted free agent.

I could see them drafting McFadden.

Skinny
10-15-2007, 09:23 PM
http://gamecocksportsforum.com/forum/images/smiles/SUCKS.gif

Melkor
10-15-2007, 09:29 PM
Actually I forgot to write that one of my reason for saying that we have to draft McFadden if we can is that I think, with a good offseason I believe we can have a really good team as soon as next year.

Karlos Dansby and Terrell Suggs are very interesting linebackers that might hit the free market. Besides Lance Briggs anyway, but his situation are impossible to figure out.

Max Starks, Jordan Gross and Alan Faneca would demand a lot of attention from several teams on the offensive line.

If we have a high draftpick, Lex has already explained that we could get a defensive tackle such as Frank Okam or Dre Moore who both might be projects, but if they pans out we would get really good players.

We do not really have that much really big needs, but there is always room for improvements, and I do believe we have an opportunity to upgrade our team to a conference contender with no more than one good offseason.

Stargazer
10-16-2007, 04:52 AM
I just realized I made a mistake before. 49ers have no first neither. My bad.



Niners own the Colts #1 pick.

Stargazer
10-16-2007, 04:54 AM
and there were rumors (the second the trade between the two teams was made) that Jerry Jones has a Jones in his pocket for McFadden.



Jones is an Arkansas alum. Whether that is where the rumors come from or he's watched a lot of Arkansas football. He might not have to trade up depending on where Cleveland's #1 pick lands.

ydave77
10-16-2007, 03:52 PM
To be honest, neither option as stated in the poll is extremely attractive to me. The #1 pick gets way too much guaranteed money, and a bust at #1 can seriously hinder a franchise, in terms of the salary cap. I think ideally I would like to pick in the 8 to 13 range. I will probably get flamed for saying this, but, if I had to choose between getting the wildcard and losing in the 1st round, vs going 6-10, I would choose the pick in a hearbeat. I see no glory in another playoff loss. We arent like Arizona, or Cleveland, or other teams that havent seen the playoffs in years.

A playoff loss doesnt excite me at all. At the end of the season, there is 1 Winner, and 31 Losers. Personally, I dont care where we rank compared to the other losers. I would rather have a better chance at getting an impact player, than have a few more wins. Again I think if I were a fan of some of the teams that never make the playoffs, than maybe that would be cause for celebration in itself. But playoff exits hold nothing special to me at this point.

I think this team is close, maybe a stud DT, another LB, and a safety away from being an elite team. I think Cutler needed another yr of seasoning anyways, and the offense will click better as he matures. I am fine with waiting another year, and hopefully picking up more top talent in the draft.

underrated29
10-16-2007, 04:39 PM
well the raiders wont pick up a rb, besides rhodes,jordan,fargas, they also drafted last year...crap i forgot his name. chris?? was a qb now a pimp rb, out of louisville, broke his leg and fell out of the 1st,2nd,3rd to the 4th i belive. He will be a stud, you watch.

as i said earlier, if we got a top3 pick i would like to see us trade it away for more picks. If dallas would trade both of theirs for our top3 thats the best possible scenario.

we need DLine x2, oline, lb (maybe x2), wr/rb/kr.

ydave77
10-16-2007, 05:16 PM
youre thinking of michael bush

lex
10-16-2007, 06:27 PM
Actually I forgot to write that one of my reason for saying that we have to draft McFadden if we can is that I think, with a good offseason I believe we can have a really good team as soon as next year.

Karlos Dansby and Terrell Suggs are very interesting linebackers that might hit the free market. Besides Lance Briggs anyway, but his situation are impossible to figure out.

Max Starks, Jordan Gross and Alan Faneca would demand a lot of attention from several teams on the offensive line.

If we have a high draftpick, Lex has already explained that we could get a defensive tackle such as Frank Okam or Dre Moore who both might be projects, but if they pans out we would get really good players.

We do not really have that much really big needs, but there is always room for improvements, and I do believe we have an opportunity to upgrade our team to a conference contender with no more than one good offseason.

FYI, here is a link with possible upcoming free agents.

http://www.footballsfuture.com/2008/nfl/freeagentsOL.html

Lonestar
10-16-2007, 10:37 PM
To be honest, neither option as stated in the poll is extremely attractive to me. The #1 pick gets way too much guaranteed money, and a bust at #1 can seriously hinder a franchise, in terms of the salary cap. I think ideally I would like to pick in the 8 to 13 range. I will probably get flamed for saying this, but, if I had to choose between getting the wildcard and losing in the 1st round, vs going 6-10, I would choose the pick in a hearbeat. I see no glory in another playoff loss. We arent like Arizona, or Cleveland, or other teams that havent seen the playoffs in years.

A playoff loss doesnt excite me at all. At the end of the season, there is 1 Winner, and 31 Losers. Personally, I dont care where we rank compared to the other losers. I would rather have a better chance at getting an impact player, than have a few more wins. Again I think if I were a fan of some of the teams that never make the playoffs, than maybe that would be cause for celebration in itself. But playoff exits hold nothing special to me at this point.

I think this team is close, maybe a stud DT, another LB, and a safety away from being an elite team. I think Cutler needed another yr of seasoning anyways, and the offense will click better as he matures. I am fine with waiting another year, and hopefully picking up more top talent in the draft.

I think your pretty much on the money about this. Stud DT are awfully hard to come by, almost all of them are gone by pick 15 or so. and one team in their right mind lets one get away from them once they have one. So FA is pretty much not going to happen.

LB are almost a dime a dozen, great safeties are also hard to come by most can be had in the latter part of the first round through pick number 50 or so.

RB's are also alot easier to come by because almost anyone can run behind DEN OLINE if they heal up.

ydave77
10-17-2007, 10:23 AM
I think your pretty much on the money about this. Stud DT are awfully hard to come by, almost all of them are gone by pick 15 or so. and one team in their right mind lets one get away from them once they have one. So FA is pretty much not going to happen.

LB are almost a dime a dozen, great safeties are also hard to come by most can be had in the latter part of the first round through pick number 50 or so.

RB's are also alot easier to come by because almost anyone can run behind DEN OLINE if they heal up.

I completely agree WIZ. Thats why I would rather go 5-11, or 6-10, than make the playoffs and lose. Honestly this team is not ready to beat the Colts or New England. The Colts have already beaten us, and I know we have history on our side against NE, but thats all it is.....history. This New England team is very different than previous incarnations. The old NE teams used to out hustle, and out smart other teams. They would end up winning alot of close games. This New England team demolishes other teams, its the best NE team I think we have seen. And the scary thing is, they have been without their best Dlineman Richard Seymour who was on the PUP, but is now ready to come off. Regardless, I really feel like this isnt our year.

If at the end of the yr we are going to be one of the 31 losers in the NFL, I dont feel any pride in ranking higher than some of the other losers. I would rather get a higher pick, and a better chance at helping this franchise in the future.

Melkor
10-17-2007, 11:05 AM
FYI, here is a link with possible upcoming free agents.

http://www.footballsfuture.com/2008/nfl/freeagentsOL.html

I take it you are talking about Jordan Gross.

Here is another link, saying he will be a free agent.

http://www.rotoworld.com/content/playerpages/player_main.aspx?sport=NFL&leaguenum=&id=2366

Your link do not include for example Lance Briggs or Asante Samuel either though they will in fact be free agents.

Melkor
10-17-2007, 11:09 AM
well the raiders wont pick up a rb, besides rhodes,jordan,fargas, they also drafted last year...crap i forgot his name. chris?? was a qb now a pimp rb, out of louisville, broke his leg and fell out of the 1st,2nd,3rd to the 4th i belive. He will be a stud, you watch.

I think we can be content with mention the big contracts of Rhodes and Jordan. There is no guarantee, Michael Bush will ever be as good as he was.

Lonestar
10-17-2007, 12:15 PM
I completely agree WIZ. Thats why I would rather go 5-11, or 6-10, than make the playoffs and lose. Honestly this team is not ready to beat the Colts or New England. The Colts have already beaten us, and I know we have history on our side against NE, but thats all it is.....history. This New England team is very different than previous incarnations. The old NE teams used to out hustle, and out smart other teams. They would end up winning alot of close games. This New England team demolishes other teams, its the best NE team I think we have seen. And the scary thing is, they have been without their best Dlineman Richard Seymour who was on the PUP, but is now ready to come off. Regardless, I really feel like this isnt our year.

If at the end of the yr we are going to be one of the 31 losers in the NFL, I dont feel any pride in ranking higher than some of the other losers. I would rather get a higher pick, and a better chance at helping this franchise in the future.

Everyone pride says it is a reloading year when in fact if they really think about it and take the emotions out of the deal it is indeed a rebuilding situation. Especially now with the total devastation of the OLINE.

We lost our starting:
MLB
DT x 1.5
DE x 2
SLB moved to middle
LCB
ORT
ORG
#2WR
RB
TE
OLG
Now our Center

Coming back from injuries from before the season or last year:
OLT
SS
TE

Replacement players at the start of the season:
pears
Graham
bly
Thenry
Adams
Stokely.

NEW coaching:
(NOT so) special teams
Bates
DL guy

NE reloaded bringing on Moss and the new WR.

Once you let the emotions go and really think about what happened in DEN it becomes OK to think about a lousy season on the horizon every 8 or nine years. The lousy drafting on day one of 1998 through 2005 is coming home to roost.

Where perhaps one quality player sticks with the team (fewer if you take LB's out of the equation) for more than 4 years.

2005 - Denver Broncos
Rd Sel # Player Position School
2 56 Darrent Williams CB Oklahoma State
3 76 Karl Paymah DB Washington State
3 97 Domonique Foxworth CB Maryland

2004 - Denver Broncos
Rd Sel # Player Position School
1 17 D.J. Williams OLB Miami (Fla.)
2 41 Tatum Bell RB Oklahoma State
2 54 Darius Watts WR Marshall
3 85 Jeremy LeSueur CB Michigan

2003 - Denver Broncos
Rd Sel # Player Position School
1 20 George Foster T Georgia
2 51 Terry Pierce LB Kansas State

2002 - Denver Broncos
Rd Sel # Player Position School
1 19 Ashley Lelie WR Hawaii
2 51 Clinton Portis RB Miami (Fla.)
3 96 Dorsett Davis DT Mississippi State

2001 - Denver Broncos
Rd Sel # Player Position School
1 24 Willie Middlebrooks CB Minnesota
2 51 Paul Toviessi DE Marshall
3 87 Reggie Hayward DE Iowa State

2000 - Denver Broncos
Rd Sel # Player Position School
1 15 Deltha O'Neal CB California
2 40 Ian Gold LB Michigan
2 45 Kenoy Kennedy SAF Arkansas
3 70 Chris Cole WR Texas A&M

1999 - Denver Broncos
Rd Sel # Player Position School
1 31 Al Wilson MLB Tennessee
2 58 Montae Reagor DE Texas Tech
2 61 Lennie Friedman C Duke
3 67 Chris Watson CB Eastern Illinois
3 93 Travis McGriff WR Florida

1998 - Denver Broncos
Rd Sel # Player Position School
1 30 Marcus Nash WR Tennessee
2 61 Eric Brown SS Mississippi State
3 91 Brian Griese QB Michigan

good starter
jury still out most likely a loser
starter for a awhile not earth shattering or problem child
total loss waste of a draft choice

I can only hope that the last two drafts are indicative of things to come on draft day. If we can get a top five pick along with two other in the top one hundred why would we wish to have a mediocre team this year that is going nowhere. Does anyone really think this team will contend for the division?

ydave77
10-17-2007, 03:26 PM
There are alot of fans, like that. Seems like most on broncomania, think it would be idiotic to trade a winning season for a losing season. I obviously disagree, I think havign the higher draft pick is key. As you pointed out though, its really what we do with those draft picks that matters. You can give a team all the top 5 picks in the world, and if they choose, Tim Couch, Courtney Brown, and Gerard Warren, in a row you arent improving much.

I like to think our last 3 drafts have gone rather well though. I would include the Darrent Williams, Foxworth draft as being a plus overall. Considering we didnt have many picks, and no 1st, I think it was solid. Last yr, was a great draft, of that there is no doubt. I am a fan of Cut, but even if you say wait and see on him. Dumerville, and Marshall both look great. Javon for a 2nd rder looked like a steal as well, though his current injury puts a damper on that. The jury still obviously out on this last draft, but hopefully these Dlineman come home to roost.

Regardless we went through a prety awful period of drafting prior to that as you pointed out. Personally unless we can get Dorsey, or another DT shows himself to be top 5 worthy, I am not sure I want to be in the top 5. I think 7-13 is a nice spot to be in. Not nearly as much guaranteed money as a top 5 pick will get, but still have a chance to get a real impact stud player. Who knows we'll see....

Lonestar
10-17-2007, 03:41 PM
There are alot of fans, like that. Seems like most on broncomania, think it would be idiotic to trade a winning season for a losing season. I obviously disagree, I think havign the higher draft pick is key. As you pointed out though, its really what we do with those draft picks that matters. You can give a team all the top 5 picks in the world, and if they choose, Tim Couch, Courtney Brown, and Gerard Warren, in a row you arent improving much.

I like to think our last 3 drafts have gone rather well though. I would include the Darrent Williams, Foxworth draft as being a plus overall. Considering we didnt have many picks, and no 1st, I think it was solid. Last yr, was a great draft, of that there is no doubt. I am a fan of Cut, but even if you say wait and see on him. Dumerville, and Marshall both look great. Javon for a 2nd rder looked like a steal as well, though his current injury puts a damper on that. The jury still obviously out on this last draft, but hopefully these Dlineman come home to roost.

Regardless we went through a prety awful period of drafting prior to that as you pointed out. Personally unless we can get Dorsey, or another DT shows himself to be top 5 worthy, I am not sure I want to be in the top 5. I think 7-13 is a nice spot to be in. Not nearly as much guaranteed money as a top 5 pick will get, but still have a chance to get a real impact stud player. Who knows we'll see....

Having the option to choose or trade is what I'm looking for.

To have the number 2 slot gives you an option of taking the best talent or trading down a few slots and getting a couple more great bodies to fill important slots.

So the top ten money is guaranteed if you have a Great GM it rarely matters.

Now then that could be come problem with mikey as the defacto GM could it not.

ydave77
10-17-2007, 03:48 PM
Having the option to choose or trade is what I'm looking for.

To have the number 2 slot gives you an option of taking the best talent or trading down a few slots and getting a couple more great bodies to fill important slots.

So the top ten money is guaranteed if you have a Great GM it rarely matters.

Now then that could be come problem with mikey as the defacto GM could it not.

Good point. Having #1 I suppose is always better than having #10. You could trade down to 10, and pick up more picks. I really think though, we are in a unique situation this yr. The massive amount of upheaval with our defensive starters, coupled with a new coach and scheme, pretty much foreshadowed a difficult yr.
To top it off with all the injuries we have had, we really look to be in trouble.

Alot of these problems wont follow us into next yr though. Our players should be healed from their injuries, our defense will have had a yr to play together and learn the scheme. Our rookie Dlineman will be more prepared to make an impact.
I really feel like we have the nucleus to see a 10-12 win future for us in the seasons to come. Having a 6 win blip of a season, and picking up a stud DT, and possibly a second round safety, could really help us get to the next level.

Lonestar
10-17-2007, 04:04 PM
Good point. Having #1 I suppose is always better than having #10. You could trade down to 10, and pick up more picks. I really think though, we are in a unique situation this yr. The massive amount of upheaval with our defensive starters, coupled with a new coach and scheme, pretty much foreshadowed a difficult yr.
To top it off with all the injuries we have had, we really look to be in trouble.

Alot of these problems wont follow us into next yr though. Our players should be healed from their injuries, our defense will have had a yr to play together and learn the scheme. Our rookie Dlineman will be more prepared to make an impact.
I really feel like we have the nucleus to see a 10-12 win future for us in the seasons to come. Having a 6 win blip of a season, and picking up a stud DT, and possibly a second round safety, could really help us get to the next level.

as long as mikey chooses wisely this team could be really strong next year and playing a last place schedule should be like crap through a goose.

I'm not looking for the number one choice but #2 or 3 they are much easier to trade down from.

This team if they stick together and use this year as a learning experiment could be scary next year.

IMHO they are one really good DT away from dominating. If they can learn to pass protect.

Requiem / The Dagda
10-17-2007, 06:50 PM
"Jury still out, most likely a loser." :rolleyes: I bet Elvis Dumervil fits under that category too, since uh. . . yeah wasn't he supposed to be cut along with Foxworth and Paymah?

TXBRONC
10-17-2007, 07:44 PM
as long as mikey chooses wisely this team could be really strong next year and playing a last place schedule should be like crap through a goose.

I'm not looking for the number one choice but #2 or 3 they are much easier to trade down from.

This team if they stick together and use this year as a learning experiment could be scary next year.

IMHO they are one really good DT away from dominating. If they can learn to pass protect.

The pass protection has good up to this point in the season.

Sorry Jr trading down from #2 or #3 for that matter isn't much easier than trading down from #1.

By the way I will keep mentioning this as I need too, if we are that high in the draft and Shanahan gets the opportunity to draft McFadden I have little doubt he will do so. And that would still be the right move to make.

lex
10-17-2007, 09:01 PM
I take it you are talking about Jordan Gross.

Here is another link, saying he will be a free agent.

http://www.rotoworld.com/content/playerpages/player_main.aspx?sport=NFL&leaguenum=&id=2366

Your link do not include for example Lance Briggs or Asante Samuel either though they will in fact be free agents.

No, I was just curious to kind of see whats available and found this so I posted it for GP.

Skywalker
10-17-2007, 09:57 PM
. i think cutler needs some protection...the online is pretty weak. .

this is why I picked 7-9. We could get a semi-high pick and maybe get Jake Long (if the pick is high enough), or trade up a couple spots to get him.

TXBRONC
10-17-2007, 10:13 PM
this is why I picked 7-9. We could get a semi-high pick and maybe get Jake Long (if the pick is high enough), or trade up a couple spots to get him.

Other than penalties the offensive line has played that badly from what I have seen. But of coarse that was with Nalen anchoring the line but with him lost for the remainder of the season things could get worse.

Lonestar
10-17-2007, 10:17 PM
The pass protection has good up to this point in the season.

Sorry Jr trading down from #2 or #3 for that matter isn't much easier than trading down from #1.

By the way I will keep mentioning this as I need too, if we are that high in the draft and Shanahan gets the opportunity to draft McFadden I have little doubt he will do so. And that would still be the right move to make.

I must have missed those games that the pass protection was good. The games I saw had a body in Jay face almost everytime he stayed in the pocket.

I wopuld only hope mikey would not be dumb enough to take a RB when he can havea DT taht will probably play 2 to 3 times longer in the league and have a bigger impact for said amount of time.

But your probably correct he would pull out the stupid card, so his precious offense could gain another 25-50 yards a game between the twenties.

RB are a dime a dozen great ones less so, but we have lead the league in rushing for almost a decade without needing a top round draft choice. Why start now.

TXBRONC
10-17-2007, 10:23 PM
I must have missed those games that the pass protection was good. The games I saw had a body in Jay face almost everytime he stayed in the pocket.

I wopuld only hope mikey would not be dumb enough to take a RB when he can havea DT taht will probably play 2 to 3 times longer in the league and have a bigger impact for said amount of time.

But your probably correct he would pull out the stupid card, so his precious offense could gain another 25-50 yards a game between the twenties.

RB are a dime a dozen great ones less so, but we have lead the league in rushing for almost a decade without needing a top round draft choice. Why start now.

No stupid thing would be to follow what you're suggesting. If we have the number one pick in the draft and Henry is gone McFadden is the right pick.

I guess you haven't been watching any of the games Jr. The line is giving one sack per game that's not bad.

Lonestar
10-17-2007, 10:42 PM
No stupid thing would be to follow what you're suggesting. If we have the number one pick in the draft and Henry is gone McFadden is the right pick.

I guess you haven't been watching any of the games Jr. The line is giving one sack per game that's not bad.


How many times has Jay had to pick himself off the turf after getting smacked after throwing sooner than he wanted to.

How many times did he run out of trouble or throw the ball short or a pick because the protection broke down.

I'm seeing that I do not understand why you are defending the play of this team when it clearly needs alot of improvement.

Perhaps Jay is happy to be behind this OLINE cause the one he played for was so much worse it is an improvement.

TX watch the games again this kid is gonna go to concussion heaven soon if they continue to play like they are.

I want to see them win but that is not gonna happen in the foreseeable future. IMHO

lex
10-18-2007, 12:03 AM
Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 5 Round 6 Round 7
1 3,000 33 580 65 265 97 112 129 43 161 27 193 14.2
2 2,600 34 560 66 260 98 108 130 42 162 26.6 194 13.8
3 2,200 35 550 67 255 99 104 131 41 163 26.2 195 13.4
4 1,800 36 540 68 250 100 100 132 40 164 25.8 196 13
5 1,700 37 530 69 245 101 96 133 39.5 165 25.4 197 12.6
6 1,600 38 520 70 240 102 92 134 39 166 25 198 12.2
7 1,500 39 510 71 235 103 88 135 38.5 167 24.6 199 11.8
8 1,400 40 500 72 230 104 86 136 38 168 24.2 200 11.4
9 1,350 41 490 73 225 105 84 137 37.5 169 23.8 201 11
10 1,300 42 480 74 220 106 82 138 37 170 23.4 202 10.6
11 1,250 43 470 75 215 107 80 139 36.5 171 23 203 10.2
12 1,200 44 460 76 210 108 78 140 36 172 22.6 204 9.8
13 1,150 45 450 77 205 109 76 141 35.5 173 22.2 205 9.4
14 1,100 46 440 78 200 110 74 142 35 174 21.8 206 9
15 1,050 47 430 79 195 111 72 143 34.5 175 21.4 207 8.6
16 1,000 48 420 80 190 112 70 144 34 176 21 208 8.2
17 950 49 410 81 185 113 68 145 33.5 177 20.6 209 7.8
18 900 50 400 82 180 114 66 146 33 178 20.2 210 7.4
19 875 51 390 83 175 115 64 147 32.6 179 19.8 211 7
20 850 52 380 84 170 116 62 148 32.2 180 19.4 212 6.6
21 800 53 370 85 165 117 60 149 31.8 181 19 213 6.2
22 780 54 360 86 160 118 58 150 31.4 182 18.6 214 5.8
23 760 55 350 87 155 119 56 151 31 183 18.2 215 5.4
24 740 56 340 88 150 120 54 152 30.6 184 17.8 216 5
25 720 57 330 89 145 121 52 153 30.2 185 17.4 217 4.6
26 700 58 320 90 140 122 50 154 29.8 186 17 218 4.2
27 680 59 310 91 136 123 49 155 29.4 187 16.6 219 3.8
28 660 60 300 92 132 124 48 156 29 188 16.2 220 3.4
29 640 61 292 93 128 125 47 157 28.6 189 15.8 221 3
30 620 62 284 94 124 126 46 158 28.2 190 15.4 222 2.6
31 600 63 276 95 120 127 45 159 27.8 191 15 223 2.3
32 590 64 270 96 116 128 44 160 27.4 192 14.6 224 2

http://walterfootball.com/draftchart.php

Just thought Id post this. Would anyone rather trade down with the Rd 2 pick than the first pick(or a pick well situated to get the guy you want)? If we had the #1 pick and traded down the 2nd round pick, the team picking 18s 2nd and 3rd round picks would be equivalent value.

Requiem / The Dagda
10-18-2007, 12:06 AM
If we were picking top five, I'd trade down regardless.

lex
10-18-2007, 12:12 AM
If we were picking top five, I'd trade down regardless.

Not me. Id take McFadden...or maybe even Long. Then Id try to trade down with the 2nd Rd pick in order to have a lower 2nd and 3rd pick. By that time there will be a better sense on where the run stuffing DTs would be drafted. This knowledge would dictate the flexibility you have with the 2nd and 3rd Rd picks. If it looks like Okam might go in Rd 3, I might take Goff in the 2nd. On the other hand, Im kind of starting to lean towards Dre Moore so if keeping the high second is the difference in him being available, I might keep the high 2nd. I dont know though. Either way, Id keep the top 5.

TXBRONC
10-18-2007, 12:53 PM
How many times has Jay had to pick himself off the turf after getting smacked after throwing sooner than he wanted to.

How many times did he run out of trouble or throw the ball short or a pick because the protection broke down.

I'm seeing that I do not understand why you are defending the play of this team when it clearly needs alot of improvement.

Perhaps Jay is happy to be behind this OLINE cause the one he played for was so much worse it is an improvement.

TX watch the games again this kid is gonna go to concussion heaven soon if they continue to play like they are.

I want to see them win but that is not gonna happen in the foreseeable future. IMHO

I think first you need to distinguish the difference between what I said and what you think I said. I said overall the protection has been good, not superb, fantastic, or excellent.

The fact is Jr you seem to never be happy unless you can demean some player or Shanahan or some other coach. You try to deal in absolutes that no if they will or will not happen. Could Jay get a career ending concussion? Yep it could. Is a certainty like the way usually put things? Nope.

You seem to be forgetting that our LT is coming off injury, our starting LG and now Center are gone for at least the year. Will things get worse? I admit there is strong possibility, but I want actually see it first not simply judge as fact something that isn't at the present time and may very well not be.

TXBRONC
10-18-2007, 12:57 PM
Not me. Id take McFadden...or maybe even Long. Then Id try to trade down with the 2nd Rd pick in order to have a lower 2nd and 3rd pick. By that time there will be a better sense on where the run stuffing DTs would be drafted. This knowledge would dictate the flexibility you have with the 2nd and 3rd Rd picks. If it looks like Okam might go in Rd 3, I might take Goff in the 2nd. On the other hand, Im kind of starting to lean towards Dre Moore so if keeping the high second is the difference in him being available, I might keep the high 2nd. I dont know though. Either way, Id keep the top 5.


If Denver finishes that bad I could see Shanahan staying put unless the right deal comes along.

From last April's draft I remember Kiper saying that its easier to trade up in the draft than it is to trade down.

Lonestar
10-18-2007, 01:11 PM
If Denver finishes that bad I could see Shanahan staying put unless the right deal comes along.

From last April's draft I remember Kiper saying that its easier to trade up in the draft than it is to trade down.

One needs someone on both sides to make the deal, so it stands to reason if we have a (not the) top choice, someone will want it. They may not want to spend what Mikey would like, but none the less it takes two to tango.

underrated29
10-18-2007, 01:13 PM
if we are top 3 pick we got ot trade down. think about it. the cowboys expresed interest in mcfaden, the packers, houston,falcons, are some others that might want to take him. Besides the falcons and texans, the other potential suiters will be picking in the teens probably. As lex stated for a team to move up that high, they would need to give up their first this year and next and i think their 2nd this year and maybe a 3rd.

If we took said trade (or close to the numebrs value.) we could then draft a top lb or dt, in the teens/20's, trade one of our 2nds, for jenkins/rogers whoever everyone wanted to trade for. and still have another mid/low 2nd as well as an a mid to low 3rd. plus all of our 4ths/5ths/6ths etc. And still get top tier talent at dt/lb/rb or even package all those picks and move back into whatever rd we have a targeted player. Thus, if we draft well we could possibly shore up almost all of our holes.

or we can take the remarkable mcfaden, and then either a lb/dt in rd 2. and then wait until rd 4 before we try to fill our gaping holes in the d. or even some holes in the oline. Which will most likely be ineffective. If we get a top pick we need to trade out of it. It makes the most sense.

Lonestar
10-18-2007, 01:23 PM
I think first you need to distinguish the difference between what I said and what you think I said. I said overall the protection has been good, not superb, fantastic, or excellent.

The fact is Jr you seem to never be happy unless you can demean some player or Shanahan or some other coach. You try to deal in absolutes that no if they will or will not happen. Could Jay get a career ending concussion? Yep it could. Is a certainty like the way usually put things? Nope.

You seem to be forgetting that our LT is coming off injury, our starting LG and now Center are gone for at least the year. Will things get worse? I admit there is strong possibility, but I want actually see it first not simply judge as fact something that isn't at the present time and may very well not be.

I did not forget any of those things when I commented.

Lepsis is getting shoved all over the field and is be pushed back almost into Jay face on more than one occasion. He clearly is not where he was last year before the injury.

I in fact used those factors as well as the RG and ORT are newbies in their positions and certainly what little continuity we had going into the season went out the window when Nalen went down.

What do we have now? Zero players that were starting at the end of last year in those positions.

Consistency is what make OLINES great look at all the great ones the latest being in KC a couple years ago many of those folks started next to each other for 5-10 years. Right now we are going on perhaps 5 games for two of them the rest all have someone new next to them on one or more side starting this week.

Look I fear for this potential franchise QB being lost forever, due to concussions. He may not be John, but he is all this team has, we spent a ton of money and draft choice to get him. He should be protected at all costs. Just because I liked Jake, does not mean I want Jay to be killed. He is the QB of my team. I do not like what is happening in front of him.. I hold mikey responsible for his safety...

Lonestar
10-18-2007, 01:31 PM
if we are top 3 pick we got ot trade down. think about it. the cowboys expresed interest in mcfaden, the packers, houston,falcons, are some others that might want to take him. Besides the falcons and texans, the other potential suiters will be picking in the teens probably. As lex stated for a team to move up that high, they would need to give up their first this year and next and i think their 2nd this year and maybe a 3rd.

If we took said trade (or close to the numebrs value.) we could then draft a top lb or dt, in the teens/20's, trade one of our 2nds, for jenkins/rogers whoever everyone wanted to trade for. and still have another mid/low 2nd as well as an a mid to low 3rd. plus all of our 4ths/5ths/6ths etc. And still get top tier talent at dt/lb/rb or even package all those picks and move back into whatever rd we have a targeted player. Thus, if we draft well we could possibly shore up almost all of our holes.

or we can take the remarkable mcfaden, and then either a lb/dt in rd 2. and then wait until rd 4 before we try to fill our gaping holes in the d. or even some holes in the oline.

Someone that the numbers say may make it through 3 maybe 5 years before going down to injury. The RB longevity average is in the league 2.5 years. Any more than that is tempting fate.

Whereas the DT can and in many cases last 10-16 years. Who do you really want long term someone that is great for a couple of years. Remember that we make normal RB great behind our OLINE just how much better does a great one get? Do you think one can carry the rock for 25-30 carries a game for 150-200 yards for how long before they are done.

We can get RB cheap and do almost as well as our history shows. We have lead the league in Running Yards for almost a decade how much more is enough considering we have a budding super star at QB. There is only one football in play on anyone given play.

underrated29
10-18-2007, 01:46 PM
Someone that the numbers say may make it through 3 maybe 5 years before going down to injury. The RB longevity average is in the league 2.5 years. Any more than that is tempting fate.

Whereas the DT can and in many cases last 10-16 years. Who do you really want long term someone that is great for a couple of years. Remember that we make normal RB great behind our OLINE just how much better does a great one get? Do you think one can carry the rock for 25-30 carries a game for 150-200 yards for how long before they are done.

We can get RB cheap and do almost as well as our history shows. We have lead the league in Running Yards for almost a decade how much more is enough considering we have a budding super star at QB. There is only one football in play on anyone given play.



i agree jr, i edited my post to make it a little more understandable to which i think is the best scenario for us if we get top pick

TXBRONC
10-18-2007, 01:56 PM
One needs someone on both sides to make the deal, so it stands to reason if we have a (not the) top choice, someone will want it. They may not want to spend what Mikey would like, but none the less it takes two to tango.

We all know it takes two to tango. Yes there may be plenty of teams wouldn't mind, however that doesn't mean they want spend what it would take to get that top pick even if it isn't the number one overall pick, 1-5 are very expensive.

Melkor
10-18-2007, 02:21 PM
Someone that the numbers say may make it through 3 maybe 5 years before going down to injury. The RB longevity average is in the league 2.5 years. Any more than that is tempting fate.

Whereas the DT can and in many cases last 10-16 years. Who do you really want long term someone that is great for a couple of years. Remember that we make normal RB great behind our OLINE just how much better does a great one get? Do you think one can carry the rock for 25-30 carries a game for 150-200 yards for how long before they are done.

We can get RB cheap and do almost as well as our history shows. We have lead the league in Running Yards for almost a decade how much more is enough considering we have a budding super star at QB. There is only one football in play on anyone given play.

The first part of your post makes plenty of sense.

If the draft was tomorrow Jake Long would be a franchise blindside tackle for some teams for several years.
At the same time, Dorsey would be a force at someones defense for many years.
McFadden would make a teams offense dreaded for maybe seven or eight years.

In fact that is why I do think you would be able to get McFadden later than the overall first pick, except if a team like Houston holds it.
No team, with a little bit of self respect, who misses a blindside tackle would turn Long down. Just like no one that really needs a defensive tackle would let Dorsey go.

It is a little bit different with McFadden as he is not really crucial to a team. He does not keeps a team in order and he does not allow someone else but himself doing something other than they are used to.

Actually I think that was a bit untelligible.

What I mean is, if you are a quarterback you need protection. Jake Long can give you that, making you able to upgrade your own play and your receivers play.

If you are a defensive back you are dependent on your interior linesmen. Glenn Dorsey can provide you time to do other things on the field.

Darren McFadden does not really gives another player better conditions and that is why I do not see him go first, unless someone who are covered at the other positions draft first overall. But then again, if a team are covered at those position, they would not be bad enough to hold the first overall pick.

Now to the other part of your post.

Yes, Denver has been able to move the ball for a long time and I have no doubt we would be able to do that again regardless of who our quarterback would be.
However it has been a very long time since we had a runningback who could create big plays, who could take it to the house and who could force the opponents defense to focus extremely on our running game.
McFadden could give us that, which would make room for Walker, Marshall, which would give Cutler time, which would give us an extra weapon and so on.

Melkor
10-18-2007, 02:28 PM
We all know it takes two to tango. Yes there may be plenty of teams wouldn't mind, however that doesn't mean they want spend what it would take to get that top pick even if it isn't the number one overall pick, 1-5 are very expensive.

It could be just me, but I do think I read something before this years draft relating the that exact topic.

It said something about that, even if Oakland would have wanted to trade down it was not sure they would be able to. Unless of course they had asked for a sitxh in return.

The first overall pick is extremely expensive. Not only as a trade, but teams who wants to have it also has to think about the deal they would have to give the player they choose.

As a matter of fact I would rather have one of the other picks in top five than the first. I am just not sure we would be able to trade it away and I would like McFadden just as much as I would like Jake Long. Meaning we could probably do with a lower pick.

Lonestar
10-18-2007, 02:55 PM
The first part of your post makes plenty of sense.

If the draft was tomorrow Jake Long would be a franchise blindside tackle for some teams for several years.
At the same time, Dorsey would be a force at someones defense for many years.
McFadden would make a teams offense dreaded for maybe seven or eight years.

In fact that is why I do think you would be able to get McFadden later than the overall first pick, except if a team like Houston holds it.
No team, with a little bit of self respect, who misses a blindside tackle would turn Long down. Just like no one that really needs a defensive tackle would let Dorsey go.

It is a little bit different with McFadden as he is not really crucial to a team. He does not keeps a team in order and he does not allow someone else but himself doing something other than they are used to.

Actually I think that was a bit untelligible.

What I mean is, if you are a quarterback you need protection. Jake Long can give you that, making you able to upgrade your own play and your receivers play.

If you are a defensive back you are dependent on your interior linesmen. Glenn Dorsey can provide you time to do other things on the field.

Darren McFadden does not really gives another player better conditions and that is why I do not see him go first, unless someone who are covered at the other positions draft first overall. But then again, if a team are covered at those position, they would not be bad enough to hold the first overall pick.

Now to the other part of your post.

Yes, Denver has been able to move the ball for a long time and I have no doubt we would be able to do that again regardless of who our quarterback would be.
However it has been a very long time since we had a runningback who could create big plays, who could take it to the house and who could force the opponents defense to focus extremely on our running game.
McFadden could give us that, which would make room for Walker, Marshall, which would give Cutler time, which would give us an extra weapon and so on.

disagree with the premise we need a take i tot eh house kinda RB. We had two no three of them.

TD that did not have outstanding speed but took it to the house more than any RB in Broncos history.

We had poorti$$$ that was a head case and still is he had a few great long runs and he was real good RB and the only thing that came good out of drafting Him with second round choice was we got Champ when he demanded to be the top paid RB in the league.
Or the other take to the house farce in tater. which was the total other end of the spectrum. a High draft choice that could not break a grandmother tackle. therefore was never a take it tot th house kinda guy.

Now is that what you think we should be doing expending 20% of the Cap for someone that may not make it past year 3 of his career before he either wants more money. more carries or traded to a team that has advertising appeal where he can get mega endorsement contracts.
I'd much rather have a great Wilfork Seymour type DT that will be on the team for a long time creating havoc @ the LOS so the De's LB's and DB's can shut down opposing offenses.

While having a great OLT is an idea would he be able to adapt to our cut back blocking scheme or would he be only good at protecting Jays blind side.

Unless we plan on changing the blocking scheme and go to a pure drop back pocket style like Manning plays behind it is IMHO that getting super stud OLT is a waste of really big money.

Better to P/U more draft choices and trade down and get more than one really good player.

lex
10-18-2007, 03:14 PM
disagree with the premise we need a take i tot eh house kinda RB. We had two no three of them.

TD that did not have outstanding speed but took it to the house more than any RB in Broncos history.

We had poorti$$$ that was a head case and still is he had a few great long runs and he was real good RB and the only thing that came good out of drafting Him with second round choice was we got Champ when he demanded to be the top paid RB in the league.
Or the other take to the house farce in tater. which was the total other end of the spectrum. a High draft choice that could not break a grandmother tackle. therefore was never a take it tot th house kinda guy.

Now is that what you think we should be doing expending 20% of the Cap for someone that may not make it past year 3 of his career before he either wants more money. more carries or traded to a team that has advertising appeal where he can get mega endorsement contracts.
I'd much rather have a great Wilfork Seymour type DT that will be on the team for a long time creating havoc @ the LOS so the De's LB's and DB's can shut down opposing offenses.

While having a great OLT is an idea would he be able to adapt to our cut back blocking scheme or would he be only good at protecting Jays blind side.

Unless we plan on changing the blocking scheme and go to a pure drop back pocket style like Manning plays behind it is IMHO that getting super stud OLT is a waste of really big money.

Better to P/U more draft choices and trade down and get more than one really good player.

I like how you essentially say McFadden and Bell are the same. McFadden has an unbelievable stiff arm. Hes not exactly Tatum Bell by a long stretch.

Melkor is right, weve had success with mediocre RBs. You can take that and interpret that as "we dont need an elite RB", or you can look at it like, "imagine how much more explosive our offense (not just running game) would be with an elite RB."

Also, regarding DT, why is it that we need a DT? Its to stop the run. In this defense a pass rush is secondary for the DTs...even moreso than most defenses. So we're really looking for a specialist...a run stuffer. Would you rather have a DT who on a scale of 100 is an 80 at stopping the run and an 80 at pass rush? Or would you rather have someone who is closer to 100 at stopping the rush and a 50 at pass rush? You have to look at whats expected in the defense.

Melkor
10-18-2007, 03:19 PM
Now is that what you think we should be doing expending 20% of the Cap for someone that may not make it past year 3 of his career before he either wants more money. more carries or traded to a team that has advertising appeal where he can get mega endorsement contracts.
I'd much rather have a great Wilfork Seymour type DT that will be on the team for a long time creating havoc @ the LOS so the De's LB's and DB's can shut down opposing offenses.

I think it is a dilemma.

With the chances of McFadden panning out, yes, I would rather have him. On the other hand there is the chance he will bust big time and then we have spend money on nothing.

That chance becomes a little lesser if we had lower picks. I think the pressure of being the number one overall draft pick affects these players a great deal.

I am just not sure. As of right now I would take McFadden. Come January I may have changed my mind.

Melkor
10-18-2007, 03:23 PM
Also, regarding DT, why is it that we need a DT? Its to stop the run. In this defense a pass rush is secondary for the DTs...even moreso than most defenses. So we're really looking for a specialist...a run stuffer. Would you rather have a DT who on a scale of 100 is an 80 at stopping the run and an 80 at pass rush? Or would you rather have someone who is closer to 100 at stopping the rush and a 50 at pass rush? You have to look at whats expected in the defense.

Actually, I do not see Jrwiz shouting for Dorsey.

Besides, even if we did trade a top five pick, we would not take a defensive tackle in the first round anyway.

Frank Okam, if he slides, or Dre Moore would be my guesses. The other top prospects is somewhat like you describe a defensive tackle. They are not that kind of specialist we are looking for.

Requiem / The Dagda
10-18-2007, 03:29 PM
I don't understand how JR could talk about any college prospect unless he watches them.

Requiem / The Dagda
10-18-2007, 03:32 PM
Secondly, I like Long - but I'm in the ball park that he may have to be a right tackle in the NFL. Even with our team struggling, it's hard to imagine that with 11 games left we'd only win two or three more of them. That's the only way any name like McFadden, Dorsey, Long - etc. would be able to be even mentioned near the Broncos. Denver will probably be around fifteen, still within distance of grabbing an impact player in this senior class, and as the juniors declare - there will be even more.

I'm more excited about what the Broncos can do on Day 2 with six selections, four of which are within the first two rounds. Denver has the draft ammo and the players for trade bait to make some serious splashes this coming year. It's going to be exciting.

Lonestar
10-18-2007, 03:33 PM
I like how you essentially say McFadden and Bell are the same. McFadden has an unbelievable stiff arm. Hes not exactly Tatum Bell by a long stretch.

Melkor is right, weve had success with mediocre RBs. You can take that and interpret that as "we dont need an elite RB", or you can look at it like, "imagine how much more explosive our offense (not just running game) would be with an elite RB."

Also, regarding DT, why is it that we need a DT? Its to stop the run. In this defense a pass rush is secondary for the DTs...even moreso than most defenses. So we're really looking for a specialist...a run stuffer. Would you rather have a DT who on a scale of 100 is an 80 at stopping the run and an 80 at pass rush? Or would you rather have someone who is closer to 100 at stopping the rush and a 50 at pass rush? You have to look at whats expected in the defense.


I think it is a dilemma.

With the chances of McFadden panning out, yes, I would rather have him. On the other hand there is the chance he will bust big time and then we have spend money on nothing.

That chance becomes a little lesser if we had lower picks. I think the pressure of being the number one overall draft pick affects these players a great deal.

I am just not sure. As of right now I would take McFadden. Come January I may have changed my mind.


Look taking McFadden, whom I would not know if he walked up to me, is not a risk other than the longevity of a RB is low.

I'm sure he is better than slice bread, but in DEN's offense how much more yardage are we gonna get out of elite vs DEN great. And extra 300 yards a year is that worth 20% of your salary cap?

there is only one ball to play with and having an Elite Rb is not gonna spread the ball around a bit to the Javon, Marshall, Scheffler, Grahams.
Not to mention having budding superstar in Jay, it makes IMHO NO sense to grab someone for a couple of years, spend ton of money on them to have them want to move on because Denver is a "hick town" or get injured and lose all that cap money. Those odds are almost guaranteed vs getting an elite DT that stuffs runs and reek havoc on th LOS for a decade or more.

Folks what is more logical. Flash or substance for a long time.

lex
10-18-2007, 03:35 PM
Actually, I do not see Jrwiz shouting for Dorsey.

Besides, even if we did trade a top five pick, we would not take a defensive tackle in the first round anyway.

Frank Okam, if he slides, or Dre Moore would be my guesses. The other top prospects is somewhat like you describe a defensive tackle. They are not that kind of specialist we are looking for.

Perhaps but when he was pointing out the average career expectancy by position DT was one of the positions he pointed to that has a longer career than RBs. Also, usually your front line RBs last well longer than 2.5 years. For that reason, something besides injury is baked into that career expectancy stat. Perhaps its because its more important for RBs to be fast than OLinemen and for that reason, back up RBs become more useless faster than Oline or DT.

lex
10-18-2007, 03:48 PM
Look taking McFadden, whom I would not know if he walked up to me, is not a risk other than the longevity of a RB is low.

Injury is a reality for every position. Like I said earlier, front line RBs arent always getting injured. So there must be something else baked into that #.


I'm sure he is better than slice bread, but in DEN's offense how much more yardage are we gonna get out of elite vs DEN great. And extra 300 yards a year is that worth 20% of your salary cap?

In Denvers offense, our 2 best RBs in Davis and Portis typically would have a legitimate shot at 1800 yards or more. And they would also have more explosive plays while being able to run inside. And I dont have a problem paying a lot for talent if its someone we drafted. I have a bigger problem with relying on FA for everything.


there is only one ball to play with and having an Elite Rb is not gonna spread the ball around a bit to the Javon, Marshall, Scheffler, Grahams.
And the RB carries the ball half the time. What percentage of the time does Marshall get the ball? What about Walker? Its no where close to the % of times that the starting RB gets it. It makes sense to have someone good at that position.


Not to mention having budding superstar in Jay, it makes IMHO NO sense to grab someone for a couple of years, spend ton of money on them to have them want to move on because Denver is a "hick town" or get injured and lose all that cap money. Those odds are almost guaranteed vs getting an elite DT that stuffs runs and reek havoc on th LOS for a decade or more.

Folks what is more logical. Flash or substance for a long time.

Again, look at whats expected from our DTs. And since Jay is young, it would only help him having an explosive runner. Plus, we can get a DT that fits what the system requires in Rd 2.

Lonestar
10-18-2007, 04:00 PM
Injury is a reality for every position. Like I said earlier, front line RBs arent always getting injured. So there must be something else baked into that #.



In Denvers offense, our 2 best RBs in Davis and Portis typically would have a legitimate shot at 1800 yards or more. And they would also have more explosive plays while being able to run inside. And I dont have a problem paying a lot for talent if its someone we drafted. I have a bigger problem with relying on FA for everything.


And the RB carries the ball half the time. What percentage of the time does Marshall get the ball? What about Walker? Its no where close to the % of times that the starting RB gets it. It makes sense to have someone good at that position.



Again, look at whats expected from our DTs. And since Jay is young, it would only help him having an explosive runner. Plus, we can get a DT that fits what the system requires in Rd 2.
I am saying we do not have to break the bank to get a good useful RB.

If the running back gets the ball gets half of the offensive plays then we have to many other offensive weapons lets get rid of them.

We have three really good WR as we speak not counting on Rod coming back we have two really good TE's as we speak not to mention Bell and Young we do not have to have a super stud to run the ball never have never will for the bang for the buck our normal RBs will suffice.

That 2.5 year number is a NFL average I saw not to long ago. It includes elite running backs it is not just injuries it is slowing down and head cases. which we have had our share of.

Being an elite RB does not exempt one from getting hurt or not making it in the NFL.

I'd rather have a really good DT for 10-15 years cogging up the middle and making the LOS a problem for another offense than someone that may or may not pan out LONGER than 3-5 years.

offense wins game DEFENSE wins Championships.

Melkor
10-18-2007, 04:04 PM
I'd rather have a really good DT for 10-15 years cogging up the middle and making the LOS a problem for another offense than someone that may or may not pan out LONGER than 3-5 years.

offense wins game DEFENSE wins Championships.

Not to point fingers or anything, but I think it has been said enough times now that Glenn Dorsey do not fit our defensive scheme.

If we were to draft in the top five, my guess is you could choose between McFadden, Long, a linebacker or a trade down.

I do not see Dorsey as a possibility.

Requiem / The Dagda
10-18-2007, 04:05 PM
Anyone who thinks Dorsey doesn't fit our system doesn't understand the defensive tackle position and doesn't realize how good of a player he is. If you think the Broncos wouldn't draft Dorsey if he were available and other options were exhausted just because he isn't 6'4 - 320 pounds, you're mistaken and are way, way off base.

Melkor
10-18-2007, 04:07 PM
I am saying we do not have to break the bank to get a good useful RB.

No we do not.

But we do to have an elite runningback that can drive every defense crazy.

Do not get me wrong. I actually think it is more important to keep the others from scoring then to score yourself. But, you cannot keep anyone from scoring. Therefore I would be ecstatic to see us having an offensive weapon who could make plays and points everytime he entered the field.

Travis Henry cannot do that. Clinton Portis could not do that. Mike Bell or Selvin Young are not even close to doing that.

McFadden might be able to do it.

lex
10-18-2007, 04:37 PM
Anyone who thinks Dorsey doesn't fit our system doesn't understand the defensive tackle position and doesn't realize how good of a player he is. If you think the Broncos wouldn't draft Dorsey if he were available and other options were exhausted just because he isn't 6'4 - 320 pounds, you're mistaken and are way, way off base.

Its not so much that. The desire for everyone to draft a DT is currently being driven by our inability to stop the run. It has nothing to do with the pass rush. We dont even know how good or bad our pass rush is due to the fact that teams are focusing on our horrid run defense.

Lonestar
10-18-2007, 06:35 PM
Its not so much that. The desire for everyone to draft a DT is currently being driven by our inability to stop the run. It has nothing to do with the pass rush. We dont even know how good or bad our pass rush is due to the fact that teams are focusing on our horrid run defense.


Your correct why pass when you can run.

If we were ever to stop the run then I suspect we would find a hole in the pass defense also..

Stargazer
10-18-2007, 09:44 PM
Javon Walker is out several more weeks and could possibly lead to a season ending injury. The top 5 pick has inched closer today.

TXBRONC
10-19-2007, 12:27 AM
My point is simply that if we are in a position to draft McFadden given the our circumstances he would be a great pick and it would be the right pick to make.

However, I don't think we will finish with that bad of a record. If we happen to be in the top five and end up getting a top flight defensive tackle I'm fine with that too.

Stargazer
10-19-2007, 01:38 AM
Right now the Broncos are currently slated to draft at between the #9 and 13th selection. There sure are a lot of bad teams this year.

omac
10-19-2007, 05:29 AM
Right now the Broncos are currently slated to draft at between the #9 and 13th selection. There sure are a lot of bad teams this year.

There also seems to be a lot more injuries this year, so that could be a major factor.

TXBRONC
10-19-2007, 07:09 AM
Right now the Broncos are currently slated to draft at between the #9 and 13th selection. There sure are a lot of bad teams this year.

I thinks its a little early to start slotting teams. Nevertheless if we end up only one more victory I couldn't see us being any lower than number two.

underrated29
10-19-2007, 11:06 AM
without looking at teams remaining schedules, id say we finish above only atlanta, miami,rams, and maybe the bills, and maybe the raiders. So that would make us pick 6. But the bills or faiders could easily pull out a couple of wins before the seaon ends. then we could en up at 4.

omac
10-19-2007, 06:35 PM
without looking at teams remaining schedules, id say we finish above only atlanta, miami,rams, and maybe the bills, and maybe the raiders. So that would make us pick 6. But the bills or faiders could easily pull out a couple of wins before the seaon ends. then we could en up at 4.

Speaking of Atlanta, there was speculation in one of the Yahoo articles that Petrino is trying to field a line-up that will lose games, so he can draft high and get Brohm.

Stargazer
10-19-2007, 09:06 PM
I thinks its a little early to start slotting teams. Nevertheless if we end up only one more victory I could see us being any lower than number two.

Oh it definately is. But, since this thread is a tank or mediocre season(finishing 7-9), thought I would mention it.

Stargazer
10-19-2007, 09:15 PM
There also seems to be a lot more injuries this year, so that could be a major factor.

Yes there is, and it's affecting the Broncos.

TE: Stephen Alexander-gone for the season
WR: Javon Walker-will miss the majority of the season
WR: Rod Smith- Currently on the PUP list
C: Tom Nalen-gone for the season
DE: Simeon Rice-missing games due to injury
S: John Lynch-missed games due to injury
TE: Schef-missed games due to injury

Other:
RB: Travis Henry. Facing a possible 1 year ban for violating the substance abuse policy

The team hasn't been healthy all year. I belive, along with a good team that injuries play a key role in determing who makes or miss the playoffs.

DenBronx
10-19-2007, 09:41 PM
ekuban is on ir too

Melkor
10-20-2007, 01:54 PM
I would rather have the #1 pick. A few years back when the Packers finished 4-12 i was actually rooting for them to lose and get a guy like Bush or Hawk. We got AJ and he has been a force on defense and has really helped turn our team around. And normally if you finish 7-9 you have somewhere between the mid to late first round which could be good, but i would rather have the #1 pick. With that said it alos matters who is in the draft, you guys have a young QB and a talented RB in Henry and Young so it may not be as necessary to have the #1 pick as a team who is in desprite need of a running back or a francise QB.

So for a team such as the Packers who need some more weapons and who struggled a few years ago i would prefur the #1 pick, but for a well rounded and good team like yourselves a mid first round pick may not be too bad.

Speaking of which.

I have sort of sold this season. But to be in the place Green Bay were in last year have to be worst case scenario.

Win the last four games, be very close to the playoff and end up with a mid round first pick.

That sucks.

I do think it has been a boost to their players, which I think is why they are doing good this season.

But what they got in the draft was exceptionally bad, though the a player in first round of course should be great.

I really hope Denver will not experience a season like Green Bay did.

TXBRONC
10-20-2007, 07:47 PM
Yes there is, and it's affecting the Broncos.

TE: Stephen Alexander-gone for the season
WR: Javon Walker-will miss the majority of the season
WR: Rod Smith- Currently on the PUP list
C: Tom Nalen-gone for the season
DE: Simeon Rice-missing games due to injury
S: John Lynch-missed games due to injury
TE: Schef-missed games due to injury

Other:
RB: Travis Henry. Facing a possible 1 year ban for violating the substance abuse policy

The team hasn't been healthy all year. I belive, along with a good team that injuries play a key role in determing who makes or miss the playoffs.

Injuries hurt the Steelers last seasn.

broncofanatic1987
10-20-2007, 08:11 PM
I would rather have the #1 pick than be 7-9.

7-9 might not even get you a top 15 pick depending on how many other bad teams there are this year.

Sadly though, we trail in the race for the top pick:sad:

Since we don't need a quarterback, we might be just as well off with a top 5 pick. We still have a shot at that.:beer:

Seeing how this year is pretty much a bust, I just hope they make smart choices in the draft regardless of their draft position.

lex
10-20-2007, 09:44 PM
I would rather have the #1 pick than be 7-9.

7-9 might not even get you a top 15 pick depending on how many other bad teams there are this year.

Sadly though, we trail in the race for the top pick:sad:

Since we don't need a quarterback, we might be just as well off with a top 5 pick. We still have a shot at that.:beer:

Seeing how this year is pretty much a bust, I just hope they make smart choices in the draft regardless of their draft position.

If we picked high enough for McFadden to be available to us, that would be just as good. Adrian Peterson went 8 last year and it seems like there are fewer teams this year who might take a RB. Maybe Atlanta, NYJ or Dallas might trade up. But even with Atlanta and NYJ, its no guarantee they would take McFadden. On the other hand, if Peterson keeps it up, someone may take McFadden based on that reason alone. Im actually hoping were that team though.

TXBRONC
10-20-2007, 10:56 PM
I would rather have the #1 pick than be 7-9.

7-9 might not even get you a top 15 pick depending on how many other bad teams there are this year.

Sadly though, we trail in the race for the top pick:sad:

Since we don't need a quarterback, we might be just as well off with a top 5 pick. We still have a shot at that.:beer:

Seeing how this year is pretty much a bust, I just hope they make smart choices in the draft regardless of their draft position.


A 7-9 record would put Denver in the top 15.

broncofanatic1987
10-20-2007, 11:17 PM
A 7-9 record would put Denver in the top 15.


I think there were a couple of 7-9 teams picking outside of the top 15 in the last draft. I could be wrong, but like I said before, it depends on how many other bad teams there are this year.

There are 12 teams that make the playoffs, usually with at least a 9-7 record. That leaves 20 other teams. Five of those 20 have to have at least an 8-8 record for every 7-9 team to be in the top 15 in the draft. In a really bad year, a 7-9 team can be picking outside of the top 15.

I'm really torn between hoping the Broncos show some promise and begin to win this year and accepting the more likely scenario that they will just continue to suck. If they continue to suck, they're better off sucking bad enough to be a top 5 pick. That means that they can't win more than 3 more games. Given how they play run defense and red zone offense, they might not win 2 more games.

Stargazer
10-20-2007, 11:26 PM
ekuban is on ir too

add another to the list. This could very well turn into a long season folks.

TXBRONC
10-20-2007, 11:34 PM
I think there were a couple of 7-9 teams picking outside of the top 15 in the last draft. I could be wrong, but like I said before, it depends on how many other bad teams there are this year.

There are 12 teams that make the playoffs, usually with at least a 9-7 record. That leaves 20 other teams. Five of those 20 have to have at least an 8-8 record for every 7-9 team to be in the top 15 in the draft. In a really bad year, a 7-9 team can be picking outside of the top 15.

I'm really torn between hoping the Broncos show some promise and begin to win this year and accepting the more likely scenario that they will just continue to suck. If they continue to suck, they're better off sucking bad enough to be a top 5 pick. That means that they can't win more than 3 more games. Given how they play run defense and red zone offense, they might not win 2 more games.

I found this on last year's draft order. According what I found the lowest draft position of 7-9 team was 12th.

http://www.profootballweekly.com/PFW/NFLDraft/Draft+Extras/2007/draftformula.htm

2007 draft selection order formula


April 16, 2007


The selection order in the first round of the draft is based on each team's 2006 regular-season record, with strength of schedule serving as the tiebreaker (the team with the weaker strength of schedule gets priority). Among the playoff clubs, each team in a group with the same win-loss record moves down within the group as it advances further in the playoffs. No team moves outside its group, except that the Super Bowl champion selects 32nd and the Super Bowl loser 31st, regardless of their records. In each round after the first, the teams within a tied group rotate, with each team moving up one slot and the team that was at the top of the group in the previous round moving to the bottom of the group.




'06 record
Strength of schedule

1.
Oakland
2-14
.555

2.
Detroit
3-13
.523

3.
Cleveland#
4-12
.535

4.
Tampa Bay#
4-12
.535

5.
Arizona
5-11
.500

6.
Washington
5-11
.512

7.
Minnesota
6-10
.488

8.
Houston (traded to Atlanta)
6-10
.504

9.
Miami
6-10
.543

10.
Atlanta (traded to Houston)
7-9
.457

11.
San Francisco
7-9
.500

12.
Buffalo
7-9
.574

13.
St. Louis
8-8
.465

14.
Carolina
8-8
.473

15.
Pittsburgh
8-8
.496

16.
Green Bay
8-8
.500

17.
Jacksonville
8-8
.531

18.
Cincinnati
8-8
.535

19.
Tennessee
8-8
.570

20.
N.Y. Giants
8-8
.520

21.
Denver
9-7
.531

22.
Dallas
9-7
.457

23.
Kansas City
9-7
.492

24. Seattle (traded to N.E.)
9-7 .453
25. N.Y. Jets 10-6 .469

26.
Philadelphia
10-6
.477

27.
New Orleans
10-6
.461

28.
New England
12-4
.500

29.
Baltimore
13-3
.461

30.
San Diego
14-2
.457

31.
Chicago
13-3
.430

32.
Indianapolis
12-4
.500


# — Tie broken by coin flip Feb. 23

Trades: Houston traded its first-round pick (No. 8) and second-round picks in 2007 and 2008 to Atlanta in exchange for the Falcons' first-round pick (No. 10) and QB Matt Schaub, March 21. Seattle traded its first-round pick (No. 24) to New England in exchange for WR Deion Branch, Sept. 11.

Lonestar
10-21-2007, 12:41 PM
I found this on last year's draft order. According what I found the lowest draft position of 7-9 team was 12th.

http://www.profootballweekly.com/PFW/NFLDraft/Draft+Extras/2007/draftformula.htm

2007 draft selection order formula


April 16, 2007


The selection order in the first round of the draft is based on each team's 2006 regular-season record, with strength of schedule serving as the tiebreaker (the team with the weaker strength of schedule gets priority). Among the playoff clubs, each team in a group with the same win-loss record moves down within the group as it advances further in the playoffs. No team moves outside its group, except that the Super Bowl champion selects 32nd and the Super Bowl loser 31st, regardless of their records. In each round after the first, the teams within a tied group rotate, with each team moving up one slot and the team that was at the top of the group in the previous round moving to the bottom of the group.




'06 record
Strength of schedule

1.
Oakland
2-14
.555

2.
Detroit
3-13
.523

3.
Cleveland#
4-12
.535

4.
Tampa Bay#
4-12
.535

5.
Arizona
5-11
.500

6.
Washington
5-11
.512

7.
Minnesota
6-10
.488

8.
Houston (traded to Atlanta)
6-10
.504

9.
Miami
6-10
.543

10.
Atlanta (traded to Houston)
7-9
.457

11.
San Francisco
7-9
.500

12.
Buffalo
7-9
.574

13.
St. Louis
8-8
.465

14.
Carolina
8-8
.473

15.
Pittsburgh
8-8
.496

16.
Green Bay
8-8
.500

17.
Jacksonville
8-8
.531

18.
Cincinnati
8-8
.535

19.
Tennessee
8-8
.570

20.
N.Y. Giants
8-8
.520

21.
Denver
9-7
.531

22.
Dallas
9-7
.457

23.
Kansas City
9-7
.492

24. Seattle (traded to N.E.)
9-7 .453
25. N.Y. Jets 10-6 .469

26.
Philadelphia
10-6
.477

27.
New Orleans
10-6
.461

28.
New England
12-4
.500

29.
Baltimore
13-3
.461

30.
San Diego
14-2
.457

31.
Chicago
13-3
.430

32.
Indianapolis
12-4
.500


# — Tie broken by coin flip Feb. 23

Trades: Houston traded its first-round pick (No. 8) and second-round picks in 2007 and 2008 to Atlanta in exchange for the Falcons' first-round pick (No. 10) and QB Matt Schaub, March 21. Seattle traded its first-round pick (No. 24) to New England in exchange for WR Deion Branch, Sept. 11.

good find thanks


THen one more win gets us the number 2or 3 spot. Looks good to me..

Requiem / The Dagda
10-21-2007, 02:14 PM
The draft changes every year, but I'd be in the boat saying that 7-9 would probably land us in the top fifteen this year. There's going to be quite a few 8-8 and 9-7 teams and there are already a handful of teams who are 5-1, 4-2, etc. that we'll probably never catch up with - not to mention the Patriots. Still, I'd go for the gold and get the #1. Trade down several picks, get someone's future first-rounder and an additional Day One selection or so and make it gravy.

Melkor
10-21-2007, 04:53 PM
Adrian Peterson went 8 last year

Not that it matter, but Minnesota picked him with the seventh overall pick.


On the other hand, if Peterson keeps it up, someone may take McFadden based on that reason alone. Im actually hoping were that team though.

If we took McFadden it would be nowhere near because of Adrian Peterson.

If we took him it would be because Travis Henry is suspended, Selvin Young, Cecil Sapp cannot carry the load and McFadden is an elite talent.

But I do think you are right about that Peterson could have an effect.

Look at Miami this year. They picked Ted Ginn ninth overall, after they have watched Devin Hester the previous season, though the logical choise would have been Brady Quinn.
At the following press conference Cam Cameron defended the choise by saying he would be amazing on returns. He did not mentions his skills at a receiver with one word.

It could be someone took McFadden the same way.

Melkor
10-21-2007, 05:05 PM
Still, I'd go for the gold and get the #1. Trade down several picks, get someone's future first-rounder and an additional Day One selection or so and make it gravy.

I am beginning to think there could be some trade partners. If teams like Miami, St. Louis, Cincinnati or Minnesota drafts before us, I could see teams like Atlanta or Dallas want to make a deal with us.

The reason I mentions Atlanta is by the way that Bobby Petrino seems very determined to use Warrick Dunn, besides Jerius Norwood has a better production. I am beginning to wonder if they would like to trade Norwood if they could get McFadden. A couple of days ago I was certain they would take Brian Brohm. They might still do that, but besides the thing I just wrote, Brohm is being passed on the boards by both Andre Woodson and Matt Ryan. In fact, if Brohm is not taken by Falcons I do not even think he will be a top ten pick.

Anyway, Atlanta would for sure looking to make a new start after this mess with Vick. They could do it by taking a quarterback, but they paid some money to Leftwich and they have Harrington. You can also start over be taking another great playmaker such as McFadden.
In other words I could see them offering next years first, maybe as much as two first day picks this year or one other first day pick and Norwood to move up to our spot.

Dallas would have to choose between Marion Barber and Julius Jones this offseason. That would make them one very good runningback short. Rumours are they are very high on McFadden, maybe even that high that they are willing to give up their two first rounders next draft in order to get him.

Other than those two teams their will probably be several more teams who wants McFadden.

I think we could strike a deal if we are in pole to get McFadden, which means teams who really needs Jake Long, Glenn Dorsey or one of the other blue chippers drafting in front of us.

Not sure if we should not take McFadden ourselves though, but I would be surprised if we could not trade out of a top spot if we want to.

Stargazer
10-29-2007, 11:28 PM
After watching this game it is evident it's going to be a long season. Need safety help. LB help. And DT help. When a nobody runs for 100 yards, this team clearly has major problems on defense. The Broncos are now 3-4 and will all the injuries and holes it's possibly time to look forward to next season.

Mcafadden will be long gone before Denver makes a selection. But, who in the top 15 could be there? I'm eying Kenny Phillips(safety) out of Miami.

topscribe
10-29-2007, 11:31 PM
What is there in a 7-9 record? :noidea:

-----

DenBronx
10-29-2007, 11:32 PM
After watching this game it is evident it's going to be a long season. Need safety help. LB help. And DT help. When a nobody runs for 100 yards, this team clearly has major problems on defense. The Broncos are now 3-4 and will all the injuries and holes it's possibly time to look forward to next season.

Mcafadden will be long gone before Denver makes a selection. But, who in the top 15 could be there? I'm eying Kenny Phillips(safety) out of Miami.


agreed. this team needs defensive help. be that a lb, safety or dt...i say draft the BPA (best player available) at whatever pick we get.

broncosinindy
10-29-2007, 11:34 PM
i would not like to take mcfadden if we drafted that high. i would rather have J stewart he is gonna be top fifteen come draft and we would not have to trade up. at this point we might have to trade down

Stargazer
10-30-2007, 12:19 AM
agreed. this team needs defensive help. be that a lb, safety or dt...i say draft the BPA (best player available) at whatever pick we get.

I hope it's Kenny Phillips. Need a true, young playmaker at the S position. I don't want here any more crap about Sam Brandon or Abdullah, and Ferguson and Lynch. If you like Ed Reed, S. Taylor. This guy is mentioned in the same breath. And that is really saying something about Phillips. 6'3, 195lbs and runs a 4.5. He will be coming out as a Junior. We need this guy on the team.

lex
10-30-2007, 12:21 AM
i would not like to take mcfadden if we drafted that high. i would rather have J stewart he is gonna be top fifteen come draft and we would not have to trade up. at this point we might have to trade down

I watched a segment on Stewart this weekend and how his RB coach has him do this exercise with lights to improve his peripheral vision. Why does he need this and what happens to him if he stops doing this exercise? Its great that he is improving his peripheral vision but Id rather have someone who is has it without a doubt and is also more fluid.

Requiem / The Dagda
10-30-2007, 08:13 AM
Even with Denver at 3-4, unless they really bomb out, we'll be picking outside the top then. There are too many horrible 0-8, 1-7 and 2 and whatever teams who will ruin our chances at a great selection. That is, unless we bomb out as mentioned.

Lonestar
10-30-2007, 10:00 AM
What is there in a 7-9 record? :noidea:

-----


total optimism. :salute:

OB
10-30-2007, 11:07 AM
total optimism. :salute:

Agreed :tsk::sad::Cry:

Melkor
10-30-2007, 04:13 PM
I hope it's Kenny Phillips. Need a true, young playmaker at the S position. I don't want here any more crap about Sam Brandon or Abdullah, and Ferguson and Lynch. If you like Ed Reed, S. Taylor. This guy is mentioned in the same breath. And that is really saying something about Phillips. 6'3, 195lbs and runs a 4.5. He will be coming out as a Junior. We need this guy on the team.

As much as I would like to see us having Kenny Phillips, I have no doubt we will draft a linebacker in the first round, probably James Laurinaitis or Rey Maualuga as I see it, as I think they are the most natural middle linebackers at the top of the draft.

No matter where we will draft I think we would go for these guys. Either trade up, trade down or stay put to take them.

Tned
12-21-2007, 12:36 PM
I thought it was time to bump this thread, as we are cruising to a 7-9 record.

BOSSHOGG30
12-21-2007, 01:10 PM
I don't know if I can handle a season that would result in us having the 1st overall pick of the NFL draft. I can't even stand going below .500.

Give me 7-9 any day. Heck, maybe one of these days the AFC will be like the NFC is now and 7-9 can get you in the playoffs.

Lonestar
12-21-2007, 01:11 PM
I thought it was time to bump this thread, as we are cruising to a 7-9 record.

Actually more like 6-10.. The chances of beating either SAN or MIN are as we speak slim and not so good..

We would have to figure out how to score in the redzone or get a bunch of turnovers.. Not to mention stop four of the best RB's in the league..

I also think we are gonna see alot of inspired play from back up players in a lot of spots auditioning for next years roster spots.

BroncoJoe
12-21-2007, 01:12 PM
I'd hate having a #1 pick for a couple reasons. 1. We stunk that year & 2. The huge hit to our cap.

Lonestar
12-21-2007, 01:15 PM
I'd hate having a #1 pick for a couple reasons. 1. We stunk that year & 2. The huge hit to our cap.


Well you can rest assured that we can do no better than #9 on the draft list..

I think I'd rather have a couple or three top five picks or at least chances at them (can always trade down), instead of being mediocre like we have been the past 9 years or so..


Welcome to the forum..:welcome:


BTW we stunk this year.. Had it not been for 3 FG's late in games early this year we would be 3-10. Right now..

BOSSHOGG30
12-21-2007, 01:17 PM
Well you can rest assured that we can do no better than #9 on the draft list..

I think I'd rather have a couple or three top five picks or at least chances at them (can always trade down), instead of being mediocre like we have been the past 9 years or so..


Welcome to the forum..:welcome:

If I had the #1 pick... I would trade back and get two or three more picks every time.... If you are picking #1 overall, you obviously have more than one position problem on your team and adding the extra picks would be the best way to improve your team.

Tned
12-21-2007, 01:24 PM
I don't know if I can handle a season that would result in us having the 1st overall pick of the NFL draft. I can't even stand going below .500.

Give me 7-9 any day. Heck, maybe one of these days the AFC will be like the NFC is now and 7-9 can get you in the playoffs.

That's the way I feel. As much as I would love to have the the #1 pick, I would hate to endure that season. This one was bad enough, but at least the Broncos had enough good wins that there was reason to believe that they could go on a run, or that they might have a good nucleus for next year. When you have a one, two or three win season, it would make for a VERY long season.

Tned
12-21-2007, 01:28 PM
Actually more like 6-10.. The chances of beating either SAN or MIN are as we speak slim and not so good..

We would have to figure out how to score in the redzone or get a bunch of turnovers.. Not to mention stop four of the best RB's in the league..

I also think we are gonna see alot of inspired play from back up players in a lot of spots auditioning for next years roster spots.

I wasn't indicating we would win one of the last two. That, in large part, comes down to who Shanny plays. If he isn't putting the best team on the field (vs. auditioning for next year), it is very unlikely we will win either.

Regardless, whether 6-10 or 7-9, it is the same in terms of the original question that started this thread. Would you rather have the #1 pick, which often goes with a 2 or 3 win season, or would you rather have a 6 or 7 win season that results in a middle of the pack, or just slightly better, draft pick?

Lonestar
12-21-2007, 01:45 PM
If I had the #1 pick... I would trade back and get two or three more picks every time.... If you are picking #1 overall, you obviously have more than one position problem on your team and adding the extra picks would be the best way to improve your team.

One that pick is rarely traded down for because the price is just two high(draft choices/players), not to mention the amount they would have to pay the clown..

BOSSHOGG30
12-21-2007, 01:48 PM
7-9 isn't bad consider all the change, injuries, and of course the horrible deaths of Nash and D-will. This very young team over came a lot.

Lonestar
12-21-2007, 01:53 PM
I wasn't indicating we would win one of the last two. That, in large part, comes down to who Shanny plays. If he isn't putting the best team on the field (vs. auditioning for next year), it is very unlikely we will win either.

Regardless, whether 6-10 or 7-9, it is the same in terms of the original question that started this thread. Would you rather have the #1 pick, which often goes with a 2 or 3 win season, or would you rather have a 6 or 7 win season that results in a middle of the pack, or just slightly better, draft pick?

I think Mikey will start the normal guys but will substitute a lot of newbies in to see how they fare with veterans around them..

I was not stating that he would play nothing but scrubs. But I would think it is time to see what they have..

Where he would like to end on a positive note, he is not going to go all out to do so.. He just flat has to see who are and who are NOT players, IN GAME DAY situations..

If he loses or is losing at he has the magic I needed to play folks to evaluate players routine, he has already told the world he is looking for who has heart and who does not.. He has set the END of Year Press Conference stage already so he can proclaim we are a few players away from a super bowl that he has used ad nauseam the last 6-7 years..

Joel
12-23-2007, 10:35 AM
Look, guys, the same logic applies here as applied to the decision to pull Jake after Turkey Day last year; the only difference is 1) the added experience can benefit the whole team instead of just one position, 2) it has no impact on a non-existent playoff run, 3) the subs would be getting "playoff experience" against teams likely to make the playoffs who need to do well at the end to lock it up and 4) it stands to put us in a better draft position than 9-7 did last year ( "we're the best NON-PLAYOFF team in the League! Go us!" )

claymore
12-23-2007, 10:47 AM
I say play the guys who will be depth, or replacing starting Broncos next year.