Debatable deal gets Beathard's blessing...(Denver Post)

[2Fity@The303]

http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_12241376

Thought this was pretty good perspective from a former GM....

Debatable deal gets Beathard's blessing
By Mike Klis
The Denver Post
Posted: 04/28/2009 12:30:00 AM MDT


True to suspicions, the Broncos discussed finances before the NFL draft.

Broncos coach Josh McDaniels and general manager Brian Xanders huddled with chief operating officer Joe Ellis and owner Pat Bowlen. They talked about the draft budget. They went over their two first-round picks and how much they would cost. They talked about the two first-round picks in 2010 and how much they would cost. The result of that meeting of Broncos leaders and Bowlen's pocketbook?

"No restrictions," McDaniels said.

It wasn't finances that caused the Broncos to raise eyebrows by trading their first-round pick in 2010 to Seattle for a high second-round pick and the right to select cornerback Alphonso Smith on Saturday.

The deal was a blast from Bobby Beathard's past.

"It's really the philosophy of let's get better now," said Beathard, who built rosters in Miami, Washington and San Diego that went to seven Super Bowls and won four. In 1993, Beathard traded San Diego's No. 1 draft pick in 1994 for the right to select running back Natrone Means in the second round, right then and there. "If there's a player there you really like, it's not the gamble people think. You have to go by your evaluations, your convictions, and if the Broncos had (Smith) rated there, then, 'Don't let him go, we're going to go get another No. 1.' "

On the surface, trading the No. 1 of tomorrow for a No. 2 of today doesn't add up. And yes, the Broncos were facing the pricey commitment of paying approximately $12.5 million in guaranteed money to running back Know-shon Moreno and another $9.5 million to defensive end/linebacker Robert Ayers after selecting them in the first round.

But Bowlen did not issue an edict to McDaniels and Xanders that they must get rid of one of their first-round picks in 2010. As McDaniels said Saturday after drafting two players in the first round, "We did it this year. We would have done it next year."

That extra first-round pick, it should be noted, had been acquired 23 days earlier in the Jay Cutler trade.

The reason the Broncos dealt a first-round pick next year for a second-round pick this year was simply their desire to draft Smith. From the start of the second round, the Broncos started calling teams hoping to acquire the cornerback who some scouts compare to the late Darrent Williams because of his instincts and playmaking abilities.

Seattle, with the overall No. 37 pick in the second round, liked the idea of getting one of the Broncos' first-round draft picks next year. But no, the Seahawks would not agree to the condition the Broncos keep the better of the two picks. One pick would have been dependent on the Chicago Bears' record this season; the other pick would have been determined by the Broncos' finish.

The Seahawks insisted on taking the Broncos' pick. The Broncos didn't have time to argue, not with the clock running. To finish the deal for Smith, the Broncos agreed to surrender their own pick and kept the one connected to where the Bears finish.

"I don't think it was about finances," draft analyst Mel Kiper Jr. said. "Forget the second round. If he's the 20th-best player on your board, which Alphonso Smith could have been, then who cares? That's their argument and it's a just argument. I'm not an advocate of that. I think it's a risky proposition."

Here's the risk: If the Broncos finish, say, 5-11 this season, Seattle could have the No. 6 overall pick or so in the 2010 draft. No matter how it's explained, Broncoland will never understand how a No. 37 pick equals what turned out to be a No. 6.

But if the Broncos finish 10-6, then Seattle's extra pick would come in around No. 22 overall in 2010, or around where the Broncos may have rated Smith on their 2009 board. And if Smith has a big season and the Broncos win the AFC West, a No. 2 or a No. 1 will have been worth it.

"Maybe you don't hit it right sometimes, but I believe in that," Beathard said.

Mike Klis: 303-954-1055 or mklis@denverpost.com

[NightTrainLayne]

Just like a dollar a year from now is worth less than a dollar is today, a #1 a year from now is worth less than a #1 today.

If we have a terrible record this season, then there's no doubt that we "overpaid", but this is a guy that they really wanted, and they went and got him. I can't fault that one bit.

[Ravage!!!]

Just like a dollar a year from now is worth less than a dollar is today, a #1 a year from now is worth less than a #1 today.

If we have a terrible record this season, then there's no doubt that we "overpaid", but this is a guy that they really wanted, and they went and got him. I can't fault that one bit.

That depends if it works out. If it doesn't, then you absolutely have to fault them for simply paying high for a guy because they wanted him.

Again... i don't think its THE player that is the complaint.

I think we allllll know that we have had pretty damn decent defensive backs over the last 3-4-5 years... but that hasn't helped our DL stop the run or get to the passer.

BUT... the hope I hold out for is the DL we drafted last year.. powel? I know McD wants to get rid of every shanahan draft choice, but this guy might be the DT that we are hoping for.

[CoachChaz]

That depends if it works out. If it doesn't, then you absolutely have to fault them for simply paying high for a guy because they wanted him.

Again... i don't think its THE player that is the complaint.

I think we allllll know that we have had pretty damn decent defensive backs over the last 3-4-5 years... but that hasn't helped our DL stop the run or get to the passer.

BUT... the hope I hold out for is the DL we drafted last year.. powel? I know McD wants to get rid of every shanahan draft choice, but this guy might be the DT that we are hoping for.

None of which are getting any younger. Again, I'll refer to the Eagles drafting Sheppard and Brown when they already had 2 pro-bowl CB's.

All they accomplished is getting 2 MORE pro-bowl CB's.

[NorthernLights]

Don't take too much solace in Beathard's blessing. The Bolts had one first round pick from 1994 to 2001, and that was to take Leaf in 1998. Bobby destroyed the team with his strategy for over a decade.

His drafting methods had household names showing up like Rogers Beckett, Jermaine Fazande, Bryan Still, and Terrance Shaw. All second round picks because they didn't have a first round pick because it was traded away the year before. It still hurts to look back to the 90's drafts. From 1990 to 1999, the Bolts drafted 104 players and here are the only one's worth mentioning:

1990 Junior Seau-HOF
1993 Trent Green (never played for the Bolts)
1993 Natrone Means-not bad
1994 Rodney Harrison-HOF?

That's it. Impressed?

[TXBRONC]

Don't take too much solace in Beathard's blessing. The Bolts had one first round pick from 1994 to 2001, and that was to take Leaf in 1998. Bobby destroyed the team with his strategy for over a decade.

His drafting methods had household names showing up like Rogers Beckett, Jermaine Fazande, Bryan Still, and Terrance Shaw. All second round picks because they didn't have a first round pick because it was traded away the year before. It still hurts to look back to the 90's drafts. From 1990 to 1999, the Bolts drafted 104 players and here are the only one's worth mentioning:

1990 Junior Seau-HOF
1993 Trent Green (never played for the Bolts)
1993 Natrone Means-not bad
1994 Rodney Harrison-HOF?

That's it. Impressed?

I know it didn't work out great for the Chargers but Beathard's model did work in Washington FWIW.

[NorthernLights]

I know it didn't work out great for the Chargers but Beathard's model did work in Washington FWIW.

Ran out of magic and spent too much time riding the local waves instead of scouting the talent. Maybe too much skin to see on the coast and was distracted.:beer:

[Ravage!!!]

None of which are getting any younger. Again, I'll refer to the Eagles drafting Sheppard and Brown when they already had 2 pro-bowl CB's.

All they accomplished is getting 2 MORE pro-bowl CB's.

Thats great... but what position made the biggest impact for the Eagles? The QB and their DL. We've HAD good DBs over the last number of yars. Its great to have good DBs.. always... but if I had to choose between a GOOD DL or a good DBs.....I would pick a good DL.

[Northman]

None of which are getting any younger. Again, I'll refer to the Eagles drafting Sheppard and Brown when they already had 2 pro-bowl CB's.

All they accomplished is getting 2 MORE pro-bowl CB's.

But they also had a defensive line, and a damn good one.

[CoachChaz]

But they also had a defensive line, and a damn good one.

True, but like I said...who was there that was a better DL option to draft when we took Smith and Mcbath? Would a lazy Jarron Gilbert or overrated Ron Brace have been a better pick just for the pure fact of drafting a DL?

[Northman]

True, but like I said...who was there that was a better DL option to draft when we took Smith and Mcbath? Would a lazy Jarron Gilbert or overrated Ron Brace have been a better pick just for the pure fact of drafting a DL?

And i guess that will be our difference of agreement. I dont think Brace is overrated and evidently neither did McD's mentor. :coffee::D

[TXBRONC]

And i guess that will be our difference of agreement. I dont think Brace is overrated and evidently neither did McD's mentor. :coffee::D

You beat me to the punch, I was just about to post something very similar to this.

[CoachChaz]

And i guess that will be our difference of agreement. I dont think Brace is overrated and evidently neither did McD's mentor. :coffee::D

His mentor also thought Kareem Brown was a worthy 2nd round DT 2 years ago, as did alot of fans who wanted Denver to draft him. He's totalled all of ZERO career tackles so far.

Belichik isnt always right and Brace will be a depth player behind Wilfork

[Northman]

His mentor also thought Kareem Brown was a worthy 2nd round DT 2 years ago, as did alot of fans who wanted Denver to draft him. He's totalled all of ZERO career tackles so far.

Belichik isnt always right and Brace will be a depth player behind Wilfork

Uh, for starters man Kareem Brown was a 4th round choice. And although i know its your opinion that Brace will fail i just dont see it. I guess we will find out soon enough as the year progresses.

http://www.patriots.com/team/index.cfm?ac=playerbio&bio=32508

[omac]

Just like a dollar a year from now is worth less than a dollar is today, a #1 a year from now is worth less than a #1 today.

Sorry, but I think this statement is not necessarily true. It may be true when using the draft position scale they use during the draft, because of uncertainty in the following year, but practically, it's not.

The value of a 1st rounder next season may even be much higher than the value of a 1st rounder this season, and it's not just because of the position within the round. If the talent coming out of college next season is greater than the talent coming out of college this season, then a 1st rounder next season can garner better talent than a 1st rounder this season.

Many analysts have mentioned that this draft is a particularly weak one, talent wise. Bellichick found it more business worthy to trade out of the first round, and keep trading down and collecting picks for next season, and analysts have mentioned that since they don't see a lot of value in the 1st round this year, it was a smart thing to do. Someone mentioned that this season is one of the rare times the Colts did not take a LB, because they felt none were all that great.

Compare last season's draft to this season's draft and the talent disparity is very evident.

If next season's draft turns out to be filled with much more talent than this season's draft, then next season's 1st rounder is worth more than this season's 1st rounder.

[TXBRONC]

His mentor also thought Kareem Brown was a worthy 2nd round DT 2 years ago, as did alot of fans who wanted Denver to draft him. He's totalled all of ZERO career tackles so far.

Belichik isnt always right and Brace will be a depth player behind Wilfork

Ok but he didn't miss on Warren, Wilfolk, and Seymour.

[turftoad]

True, but like I said...who was there that was a better DL option to draft when we took Smith and Mcbath? Would a lazy Jarron Gilbert or overrated Ron Brace have been a better pick just for the pure fact of drafting a DL?

Probably not but Rey, Rey was still there when we took Smith. In all seriousness, I thought we moved up to get Rey, then we took Smith uhg..... the dissapointment.

[Northman]

Ok but he didn't miss on Warren, Wilfolk, and Seymour.


Lets be clear here. Brown was a 4th round selection not a 2nd rounder.

[CoachChaz]

Uh, for starters man Kareem Brown was a 4th round choice. And although i know its your opinion that Brace will fail i just dont see it. I guess we will find out soon enough as the year progresses.

http://www.patriots.com/team/index.cfm?ac=playerbio&bio=32508

2nd pick of round 4...my mistake.

I just see Smith as first round talent and Brace as 3rd round talent. He has the measurables and he definitely benefitted from playing next to Raji. But...you're right...we can only wait and watch and see if he pans out at his value or not.

[TXBRONC]

Lets be clear here. Brown was a 4th round selection not a 2nd rounder.

I understand there is big difference between 2nd rounder and 4th rounder.

[CoachChaz]

Ok but he didn't miss on Warren, Wilfolk, and Seymour.

All first round picks taken no later than 21. The odds are a little better they will pan out than a 2nd rounder, simply based on history.

Look at just NE's history of DL taken after the 2nd round and help me find any successes.

Kareem Brown, LeKevin Smith, Jeremy Mincey, Dan Klecko, Ethan Kelly.

...and I guess if they are so convinced he's the real deal...why draft 2 more DT's later on? Just curious

[topscribe]

Just like a dollar a year from now is worth less than a dollar is today, a #1 a year from now is worth less than a #1 today.

If we have a terrible record this season, then there's no doubt that we "overpaid", but this is a guy that they really wanted, and they went and got him. I can't fault that one bit.

Seven-come-eleven or snake eyes. The results are how the dice fell, not
whether you rolled them. But you still have to roll them . . .

-----

[CoachChaz]

I understand there is big difference between 2nd rounder and 4th rounder.

And Belichik knows that. He once took Eugene Wilson in the 2nd round and Asante Samuel in the 4th round of the same draft. BIG difference between the 2nd and 4th

[Northman]

All first round picks taken no later than 21. The odds are a little better they will pan out than a 2nd rounder, simply based on history.

Look at just NE's history of DL taken after the 2nd round and help me find any successes.

Kareem Brown, LeKevin Smith, Jeremy Mincey, Dan Klecko, Ethan Kelly.

...and I guess if they are so convinced he's the real deal...why draft 2 more DT's later on? Just curious

Added depth would be my guess. Didnt they lose Seymour this year? Anyhow, even though they took 2 more DT's they still stayed away from Baker. I hope he works out but i think there's a good reason why people didnt take him. Especially since he was projected as the 7th best DT in the draft.

[CoachChaz]

Added depth would be my guess. Didnt they lose Seymour this year? Anyhow, even though they took 2 more DT's they still stayed away from Baker. I hope he works out but i think there's a good reason why people didnt take him. Especially since he was projected as the 7th best DT in the draft.

Always some reason or another why a guy doesnt get drafted, but we seem to see more and more of them become gems every year

[Ravage!!!]

Added depth would be my guess. Didnt they lose Seymour this year? Anyhow, even though they took 2 more DT's they still stayed away from Baker. I hope he works out but i think there's a good reason why people didnt take him. Especially since he was projected as the 7th best DT in the draft.

Yeah.. I'm HOPING it was all his off-field problems that scared people away and not his play on the field. But...since we didn't really 'draft' him.. I think the grab was exceptional.

[CoachChaz]

Yeah.. I'm HOPING it was all his off-field problems that scared people away and not his play on the field. But...since we didn't really 'draft' him.. I think the grab was exceptional.

I think his biggest drawback talent-wise was his school. other than that, I cant imagine what was so "scary".

[TXBRONC]

All first round picks taken no later than 21. The odds are a little better they will pan out than a 2nd rounder, simply based on history.

Look at just NE's history of DL taken after the 2nd round and help me find any successes.

Kareem Brown, LeKevin Smith, Jeremy Mincey, Dan Klecko, Ethan Kelly.

...and I guess if they are so convinced he's the real deal...why draft 2 more DT's later on? Just curious

True the odds better but still far from being sure fire hit.

If the Patriots didn't think he was worth a second round pick I doubt they would taken him.

[CoachChaz]

True the odds better but still far from being sure fire hit.

If the Patriots didn't think he was worth a second round pick I doubt they would taken him.

I agree...just like McD wouldnt have done the deal for Smith if he didnt think he was equal to the value. Goes both ways

[TXBRONC]

I agree...just like McD wouldnt have done the deal for Smith if he didnt think he was equal to the value. Goes both ways

Obviously it does go both ways, but my point is I think he made a mistake.

[NameUsedBefore]

If we have a terrible record this season, then there's no doubt that we "overpaid", but this is a guy that they really wanted, and they went and got him. I can't fault that one bit.

How about them Raiders? Mitchell was an excellent choice.

[Ravage!!!]

How about them Raiders? Mitchell was an excellent choice.

but.... the Raiders really wanted him.

I was going to use this example for the same thing.

[NightTrainLayne]

How about them Raiders? Mitchell was an excellent choice.


but.... the Raiders really wanted him.

I was going to use this example for the same thing.

Because Al Davis puts a huge premium on super-fast WR's. That is his track record since. .. .. .forever.

Forgive me for not conceeding my point just because you all have a vested interest in comparing McDaniel's moves to Al Davis'.

McDaniels made a good case for why they wanted him. Our turnovers last year were atrocious. Our special teams has played horribly for years. This guy is good at generating turnovers, and turns into an offensive player with the ball in his hands. He can also help on special teams.

This was not an Al Davis one-dimensional analysis of a player. This pick helps on potentially three fronts that our team was sorely lacking in last season, and in season's previous to that.

McDaniels is trying to build up a TEAM around a good offense. Something that Shanny hasn't gotten done for at least a few years now. Our defense and special teams needed a LOT of work. If this guy has the talent and produces like McDaniels expects then I have no problem using next year's first to get him.

You do have a problem with it. Cool. I think we've both illustrated the opposing sides of the argument well. Neither one of us is going to change the other's mind.

[Ravage!!!]

absolutely. I'm not really comparing McDaniels to Al Davis at all. I'm just saying that anyone can justify their picks by saying "its who we wanted."

[NameUsedBefore]

How about Maurice Clarett.

Ricky Williams.

Shanahan and Ditka may be closer to McDaniels for you.

I understand completely getting the player you want. That's very understandable and literally every team will pay something extra to get that player in every draft... But there's a limit. A first for a 2nd is inherently excessive and the lack of compensation alone is just bonkers, but when you add in that the Broncos aren't like, say, the Panthers who did the same thing (that is, a probable Superbowl team) then for what damn reason are you -- a team you just admitted is in fact building -- doing tossing away first round picks for? We're obviously rebuilding, but here, have some firsts. We only traded away our franchise QB for 'em. No price is too much...

[Nomad]

Is Ditka the one who gave up the rest of his draft picks for Williams, I could be wrong??

[SBboundBRONCOS]

absolutely. I'm not really comparing McDaniels to Al Davis at all. I'm just saying that anyone can justify their picks by saying "its who we wanted."

isnt that the point of drafting who you do . . . . its because you want them

McD felt that he was a first round talent so he gave up a first for him . . . i dont see the big deal

if smith turns out to be a solid contributor for years id say hes worth the pick . . . because no matter who we would have drafted there is a possibility that they may be a bust

i dont get why people are putting so much into this because we will never know what could have been

[Lonestar]

That depends if it works out. If it doesn't, then you absolutely have to fault them for simply paying high for a guy because they wanted him.

Again... i don't think its THE player that is the complaint.

I think we allllll know that we have had pretty damn decent defensive backs over the last 3-4-5 years... but that hasn't helped our DL stop the run or get to the passer.

BUT... the hope I hold out for is the DL we drafted last year.. powel? I know McD wants to get rid of every shanahan draft choice, but this guy might be the DT that we are hoping for.

Frankly this is one of the least intelligent comments you have made in a long time.. It really shows a bias because he did not do what YOU thought he should..

Not every post do you have to take a shot at the new HC.. You might want till Sept before gathering the tar and plucking the chickens.

While he may not like what he sees in players left over and frankly very few fans do either to make a blanket statement like that is beyond .............

[Lonestar]

True, but like I said...who was there that was a better DL option to draft when we took Smith and Mcbath? Would a lazy Jarron Gilbert or overrated Ron Brace have been a better pick just for the pure fact of drafting a DL?

Good post let me add..:salute:
Josh made it clear in his Presser that they did not think some of the players left on the board would work in their scheme.. and he was not going to draft someone just to cut him later on...

Just because they re what we want does not mean they fit into their plans..

They want fast smart good attitude folks that are versatile.. Do those you mentioned fit into those category Josh thinks not..

[NightTrainLayne]

How about Maurice Clarett.

Ricky Williams.

Shanahan and Ditka may be closer to McDaniels for you.

I understand completely getting the player you want. That's very understandable and literally every team will pay something extra to get that player in every draft... But there's a limit. A first for a 2nd is inherently excessive and the lack of compensation alone is just bonkers, but when you add in that the Broncos aren't like, say, the Panthers who did the same thing (that is, a probable Superbowl team) then for what damn reason are you -- a team you just admitted is in fact building -- doing tossing away first round picks for? We're obviously rebuilding, but here, have some firsts. We only traded away our franchise QB for 'em. No price is too much...

I am sincerely constantly surprised at how you and I are completely at odds with each other over a whole spectrum of different topics that would conceivably allow for some agreement somewhere.

But. . .that type of disagreement is what helps create markets. Markets for products, markets for companies, and markets for draft picks. If everyone agreed 100% on the value of an item there would be no room for trades. McDaniels et al valued Smith now more than a 1st round pick next season.

That's really all there is to it. If he succeeds at the level that McDaniels estimates, then there will be little argument to me that McDaniels made the right decision. McDaniels thinks we can win right now. You don't.

I'm one of the few here, but I think we can win right now too. If Smith is an important piece to help us win this upcoming season, and we still have another 1st rounder next season? Then I don't have a problem with the move at all. It's a risk, but waiting to see what unknown player is possible with that pick next year is a risk too. An opportunity risk. Smith is a known quantity. Next years potential pick is an unknown quanitity.

Terrible special teams and horrid defense under Slowik killed our spectacular offense last year. Our offense loses some from Cutler to Orton, but gains a lot from Moreno and McD's scheme. Our defense is already looking better than last seasons by leaps and bounds imo, and it looks like special teams will be much improved as well.

This team can win now, and I think we will. I have a bet with a friend that I win if we win 9 games or more, and he wins if we win less than 5.

I'll take the same bet on with any of you. For sigs, or bragging rights or whatever.

We're going to win next season. We won't be in the cellar. Maybe we just go 8-8 with that seemingly tough schedule, but I'm banking on some of those teams not being so tough next season becuase that happens every year.

[Ravage!!!]

isnt that the point of drafting who you do . . . . its because you want them

McD felt that he was a first round talent so he gave up a first for him . . . i dont see the big deal

if smith turns out to be a solid contributor for years id say hes worth the pick . . . because no matter who we would have drafted there is a possibility that they may be a bust

i dont get why people are putting so much into this because we will never know what could have been

yes.... and no.

You MUST consider value. You have to.

[Lonestar]

Is Ditka the one who gave up the rest of his draft picks for Williams, I could be wrong??


yes and IIRC the #1 and #2 the next year..

[Ravage!!!]

Good post let me add..:salute:
Josh made it clear in his Presser that they did not think some of the players left on the board would work in their scheme.. and he was not going to draft someone just to cut him later on...

Just because they re what we want does not mean they fit into their plans..

They want fast smart good attitude folks that are versatile.. Do those you mentioned fit into those category Josh thinks not..

I can't help point out the irony of seeing you post this, JR. People tried to make this same point to you for years. So I think its obvious that the like/dislike for a coach certainly comes into play with your response as to what position has or hasn't been drafted... CONSIDERING your past problems with positions not taken.

[Ravage!!!]

Frankly this is one of the least intelligent comments you have made in a long time.. It really shows a bias because he did not do what YOU thought he should..

Not every post do you have to take a shot at the new HC.. You might want till Sept before gathering the tar and plucking the chickens.

While he may not like what he sees in players left over and frankly very few fans do either to make a blanket statement like that is beyond .............

Oh please..... don't jump on me about this observational comment considering some of the nicknames and comments you have made over past administrations and FO decisions. Come on, JR.

I KNOW it is VERY VERY common for new HCs to come in and change out players that are NOT theres. He used the first pick in FA to REPLACE A LONG SNAPPER for crying out loud. To me, he made it clear he didn't want Cutler and wanted HIS guy. Say what you want, but to jump down my throat for his is just absurd.

[silkamilkamonico]

McDaniels is looking for a player to be receptive top their scheme, and excel in player development.

Something the defense in Denver hasn't seen in roughly 10+ years.

[NightTrainLayne]

yes.... and no.

You MUST consider value. You have to.

I'm quite sure they did consider value. They just valued it differently than you.

I've used this example before, but you see this kind of thing all the time. Suppose you go into an ice cream shop and buy a cone for $3. The ice cream vendor says "Thank you" and you say "Thank you" as well.

Why?

He says "Thank you" because he valued the $3 in your pocket more than he valued the ice-cream in his freezer.

You say "Thank you" because you valued the ice cream in his freezer more than the $3 in your pocket.

Taking this analogy further, you're telling us that you think there's a place down the block where you can get that ice cream for $2. .. . but we don't know if we'll like that ice cream down the block because we haven't sampled it. This ice cream we know we like. You yourself might go down the block for that ice cream, while McD might not. Both make an estimation of value, but value those competing options differently. .. and both I might say rationally.

[turftoad]

I'm quite sure they did consider value. They just valued it differently than you.

I've used this example before, but you see this kind of thing all the time. Suppose you go into an ice cream shop and buy a cone for $3. The ice cream vendor says "Thank you" and you say "Thank you" as well.

Why?

He says "Thank you" because he valued the $3 in your pocket more than he valued the ice-cream in his freezer.

You say "Thank you" because you valued the ice cream in his freezer more than the $3 in your pocket.

Taking this analogy further, you're telling us that you think there's a place down the block where you can get that ice cream for $2. .. . but we don't know if we'll like that ice cream down the block because we haven't sampled it. This ice cream we know we like. You yourself might go down the block for that ice cream, while McD might not. Both make an estimation of value, but value those competing options differently. .. and both I might say rationally.

I like ice cream!

Concidering our new coach's, schemes and schedule, it's not out of line to say the Broncos could very well finish 5-11.

That would put our next years pick at about #6 or so.

I'd say that the ice cream at the #6 overall pick would be better than the ice cream at #37 overall.

That's value. Just sayin. :D

[NightTrainLayne]

I like ice cream!

Concidering our new coach's, schemes and schedule, it's not out of line to say the Broncos could very well finish 5-11.

That would put our next years pick at about #6 or so.

I'd say that the ice cream at the #6 overall pick would be better than the ice cream at #37 overall.

That's value. Just sayin. :D

Yes, that was where I talked about the ice cream for $2 down the street (better potential value).

#6 this year is certainly better than #37 this year.

But, even if we had a guarantee that #6 next season was where we were picking at, that pick would not be worth #6 THIS season. Nobody will ever trade this years #6 for next years #6 straight across because of the time/value considerations.

Trying to make that comparison has two HUGE flaws in it.

1. We don't know at all where next years pick will fall.

2. Even if we did, it's still less valuable today than an equivalent pick this season.

Certainly we can debate what those values are, but at least make it a fair argument. #6 > #37 or #1-32 > #37 doesn't really add much to the discussion and ignores the reasoning that just about anyone uses when valuing anything dealing with future unknowns.

[Ravage!!!]

I'm quite sure they did consider value. They just valued it differently than you.

I've used this example before, but you see this kind of thing all the time. Suppose you go into an ice cream shop and buy a cone for $3. The ice cream vendor says "Thank you" and you say "Thank you" as well.

Why?

He says "Thank you" because he valued the $3 in your pocket more than he valued the ice-cream in his freezer.

You say "Thank you" because you valued the ice cream in his freezer more than the $3 in your pocket.

Taking this analogy further, you're telling us that you think there's a place down the block where you can get that ice cream for $2. .. . but we don't know if we'll like that ice cream down the block because we haven't sampled it. This ice cream we know we like. You yourself might go down the block for that ice cream, while McD might not. Both make an estimation of value, but value those competing options differently. .. and both I might say rationally.


Of course. I've never denied that the value is the question here. But I think thats the BIG question if/whe people or commentators, or analyst or anyone talks and disguesses trades up like this...the value.

IF.. IF... the trade up wasn't a questionable one considering its value, then there would never have been any question to it. But there obviously is question to the value. We didn't JUST spend a first round pick on this guy, we spent a 1st and a second. We traded for the pick and not the player. So he's said to be worth a 1st and a 2nd round selection. Thats HARD not to question.

I understand that some/many believe that because the coach valued the player to be worth that much, then we accept it because its the player the coach wanted. But if that were the case, no one would question the Raiders for them taking Bey in the first and whomever they selected in the second.

So yeah... I believe that considering we spent a first and second for him, the pick was over-valued.

As I've said, Train. Its really not the player. I don't know enough about him to say he's not a good player. I'm just saying its hard to justify a 1st and second for a DB when in the past few years we've had good DBs...but that didn't help our defense.

[NameUsedBefore]

I am sincerely constantly surprised at how you and I are completely at odds with each other over a whole spectrum of different topics that would conceivably allow for some agreement somewhere.

But. . .that type of disagreement is what helps create markets. Markets for products, markets for companies, and markets for draft picks. If everyone agreed 100% on the value of an item there would be no room for trades. McDaniels et al valued Smith now more than a 1st round pick next season.

That's really all there is to it. If he succeeds at the level that McDaniels estimates, then there will be little argument to me that McDaniels made the right decision. McDaniels thinks we can win right now. You don't.

I'm one of the few here, but I think we can win right now too. If Smith is an important piece to help us win this upcoming season, and we still have another 1st rounder next season? Then I don't have a problem with the move at all. It's a risk, but waiting to see what unknown player is possible with that pick next year is a risk too. An opportunity risk. Smith is a known quantity. Next years potential pick is an unknown quanitity.

Terrible special teams and horrid defense under Slowik killed our spectacular offense last year. Our offense loses some from Cutler to Orton, but gains a lot from Moreno and McD's scheme. Our defense is already looking better than last seasons by leaps and bounds imo, and it looks like special teams will be much improved as well.

This team can win now, and I think we will. I have a bet with a friend that I win if we win 9 games or more, and he wins if we win less than 5.

I'll take the same bet on with any of you. For sigs, or bragging rights or whatever.

We're going to win next season. We won't be in the cellar. Maybe we just go 8-8 with that seemingly tough schedule, but I'm banking on some of those teams not being so tough next season becuase that happens every year.

I can't say I like the idea of betting on my teams losing. What Hawkins did with black holes would be apt, but that is only win-win for one us, not both.

I will say this: I don't think we get over 7-9. I have a hard time looking at our schedule and picking seven times we'll be beating.

I think our defense is gonna end up crushing us. Drafting a 1st round DE and getting a valuable DB sounds an awful lot like drafting Jarvis Moss and signing Dre Bly to me. The addition of Moreno is nice, but Denver didn't lack ability at the running-back position -- it lacked durability. Tatum Bell chipping 80 yards on 8 carries look awfully nice until you realize it's totally irrelevant as the other team racks up 52 points.



I'm quite sure they did consider value. They just valued it differently than you.

I've used this example before, but you see this kind of thing all the time. Suppose you go into an ice cream shop and buy a cone for $3. The ice cream vendor says "Thank you" and you say "Thank you" as well.

Why?

He says "Thank you" because he valued the $3 in your pocket more than he valued the ice-cream in his freezer.

You say "Thank you" because you valued the ice cream in his freezer more than the $3 in your pocket.

Taking this analogy further, you're telling us that you think there's a place down the block where you can get that ice cream for $2. .. . but we don't know if we'll like that ice cream down the block because we haven't sampled it. This ice cream we know we like. You yourself might go down the block for that ice cream, while McD might not. Both make an estimation of value, but value those competing options differently. .. and both I might say rationally.

Except the vendor is completely aware of your anxiety; this appears to be the case with the article. Time was running out, Seattle sensed despair and pounced. Denver lost this trade absolutely big time at the moment; can Smith's play change that? Sure, but it's pretty clear who wins this trade just based on inherent values.

If this were a poker game I'd consider McDaniels the sort to go chasing flushes on the river. He's definitely a high-risk high-reward coach, that much is becoming apparent.

Those are my favorite players to play against btw. It's too bad I never see them at the final table, though.

[bcbronc]

How about them Raiders? Mitchell was an excellent choice.

interesting tidbit on Mitchell that is relevant to a degree...

I heard an interview with him on the radio. Mitchell himself said (this wasn't pundit speculation, but right out of Mitchell's mouth) that CHICAGO had already contacted him and were going to take him with their next pick (Oak picked him at 47, Chicago had 49--they then proceeded to trade 49 to SEA, so Seattle moved back one spot and picked up a 1st next year for a 3rd and 4th).

Chicago gets the benefit of the doubt when it comes to drafting defense.

so the moral of the story: arguing "value" is pointless because every team has a different board, and they're all much more encompassing than any draftniks--even Mayock (who rated Mitchell a 7th rounder).

[NightTrainLayne]

Of course. I've never denied that the value is the question here. But I think thats the BIG question if/whe people or commentators, or analyst or anyone talks and disguesses trades up like this...the value.

IF.. IF... the trade up wasn't a questionable one considering its value, then there would never have been any question to it. But there obviously is question to the value. We didn't JUST spend a first round pick on this guy, we spent a 1st and a second. We traded for the pick and not the player. So he's said to be worth a 1st and a 2nd round selection. Thats HARD not to question.

I understand that some/many believe that because the coach valued the player to be worth that much, then we accept it because its the player the coach wanted. But if that were the case, no one would question the Raiders for them taking Bey in the first and whomever they selected in the second.

So yeah... I believe that considering we spent a first and second for him, the pick was over-valued.

As I've said, Train. Its really not the player. I don't know enough about him to say he's not a good player. I'm just saying its hard to justify a 1st and second for a DB when in the past few years we've had good DBs...but that didn't help our defense.


I could be waaaayyyy off here, but I thought we just traded our #1 next season. . .we ended up taking three 2nd round picks what with the other trade. I think we still had our "natural" 2nd round pick.

[turftoad]

Yes, that was where I talked about the ice cream for $2 down the street (better potential value).

#6 this year is certainly better than #37 this year.

But, even if we had a guarantee that #6 next season was where we were picking at, that pick would not be worth #6 THIS season. Nobody will ever trade this years #6 for next years #6 straight across because of the time/value considerations.

Trying to make that comparison has two HUGE flaws in it.

1. We don't know at all where next years pick will fall.

2. Even if we did, it's still less valuable today than an equivalent pick this season.

Certainly we can debate what those values are, but at least make it a fair argument. #6 > #37 or #1-32 > #37 doesn't really add much to the discussion and ignores the reasoning that just about anyone uses when valuing anything dealing with future unknowns.

True, however, Seattle seemed to be pretty commfy with where they think the Broncos will finish this year. Thus them wanting our pick instead of Chicagos.
So............ they must think that they recieved good value in the trade. As it stands right now, I'm on thier side with this one.

[NightTrainLayne]

True, however, Seattle seemed to be pretty commfy with where they think the Broncos will finish this year. Thus them wanting our pick instead of Chicagos.
So............ they must think that they recieved good value in the trade. As it stands right now, I'm on thier side with this one.

And THAT'S why the trade happened. BOTH sides were happy with the value received. :elefant:

[turftoad]

And THAT'S why the trade happened. BOTH sides were happy with the value received. :elefant:

The Broncos value was skewed. McD showed his immaturity and no patience in making that trade and the two 3rds for a blocking TE.
I'm no draft guru or don't know what other teams were thinking but I'd go out on a limb and say that Smith would have been there with our own #2 and the blocking TE would have been there at either of our #3's.

Sorry but until they produce on the field you can't change my mind on those two. :D

[NightTrainLayne]

The Broncos value was skewed. McD showed his immaturity and no patience in making that trade and the two 3rds for a blocking TE.
I'm no draft guru or don't know what other teams were thinking but I'd go out on a limb and say that Smith would have been there with our own #2 and the blocking TE would have been there at either of our #3's.

Sorry but until they produce on the field you can't change my mind on those two. :D

Oh I know that I'm not changing your mind. .. ..but I'll just take a moment to point out that in my ice cream analogy all of us are the homeless guys outside arguing about how much McD paid for ice cream and we don't even have a nickel in our pockets.

[Ravage!!!]

I could be waaaayyyy off here, but I thought we just traded our #1 next season. . .we ended up taking three 2nd round picks what with the other trade. I think we still had our "natural" 2nd round pick.

well... let me explain. I was inaccurate..in a sense, but accurate in another. We traded our first for an additional second round pick. Thus before the actual pick was made we had an additional 2nd rounder. We didn't trade directly for the player. SO... we used a 1st round to gain another 2nd round pick, then used THat 2nd round pick to take the player. So in a sense, we used a first to gain the position, then used the gained position to pick him..both a 1st and second rounder.

Its like me giving you 4 tomorrow for three dollars today.... then giving the gained three dollars for the hamburger (trying to use a silly pop-eye reference with that)... a total of 7 dollars, not just the 4 dollars of tomorrow. See what I mean?

Either way.. the point being is yes.... they valued the trade differently..obviously. Obviously more than me and more than many people. Carolina traded away a first next year for a second this year, and still got a fourth in return.... and they were just a few picks behind us... so they obviously valued it differently as well.

[bcbronc]

We didn't JUST spend a first round pick on this guy, we spent a 1st and a second. We traded for the pick and not the player. So he's said to be worth a 1st and a 2nd round selection. Thats HARD not to question.

.

that's not accurate. we only used a 1st to acquire him. we never would have had the 37 if we kept the first. we handed in our draft card for our first next year this year, with Smith's name on it. one asset for one asset. don't worry Rav, I'm going to help you get through this! :D


McDaniels claims Smith was the top CB on their board. whether he was or not, we'll never really know. But he was top 3 or 4 in most draftnik rankings so it is conceivable. so what value does the top ranked CB have?

this year, the first CB came off the board at 14. 2nd 25, 3rd 33
2008: 11, 16, 20
2007: 14, 18, 19
2006: 15, 16, 19

In a couple of those years there was a pure S taken before the CB, which I didn't include. This year was an exception with only 2 CBs taken in the first. usually there's 4 or 5.

So if you take McDaniels claimed ranking, or Mayocks top 3 ranking, then "value" for Smith is somewhere between 15-20. if you want to penalize him for height, or consider him the 4th best corner in the draft, then that pushes you back into the 20s. But we all know next years picks depreciate in value compared to this years, so the 15-20 slot is about right.

McDaniels gambled that our pick next year will be in this range. that's not outlandish, if Orton or Simms is a fit. and adding a guy like Smith to the roster makes that gamble even safer.

[NightTrainLayne]

well... let me explain. I was inaccurate..in a sense, but accurate in another. We traded our first for an additional second round pick. Thus before the actual pick was made we had an additional 2nd rounder. We didn't trade directly for the player. SO... we used a 1st round to gain another 2nd round pick, then used THat 2nd round pick to take the player. So in a sense, we used a first to gain the position, then used the gained position to pick him..both a 1st and second rounder.

Its like me giving you 4 tomorrow for three dollars today.... then giving the gained three dollars for the hamburger (trying to use a silly pop-eye reference with that)... a total of 7 dollars, not just the 4 dollars of tomorrow. See what I mean?

Either way.. the point being is yes.... they valued the trade differently..obviously. Obviously more than me and more than many people. Carolina traded away a first next year for a second this year, and still got a fourth in return.... and they were just a few picks behind us... so they obviously valued it differently as well.

Well now THAT'S totally wrong. You can't add the 2nd rounder we gained as part of the math. The only thing this cost us was one 1st round pick next season. Don't try to exaggerate it beyond that.

No trade = we have another 1st rounder next season.

With Trade = we have Smith and only one 1st rounder next season.

There is no part of the decision tree where ANOTHER 2nd rounder magically appears for us.

[Ravage!!!]

McDaniels gambled that our pick next year will be in this range. that's not outlandish, if Orton or Simms is a fit. and adding a guy like Smith to the roster makes that gamble even safer.

of course he did. Thats the point of the debates and the criticisms... whether they be here ofr from someone outside the bronco message board... was whether or not he made the RIGHT gamble. No one is debating on whether it was a gamble or not.... all draft picks are gambles.

So it comes down to the interpretation as to how good of a gamble was made. Right now, as I lsee it...considering the position of need, I don't see it as a GOOD gamble.

I know we've had good DBs, and VERY good DBs in the last number of years.. yet that hasn't made our defense good. Our defense continues to fail because of our continued lack of DL. So again, its not the player. The player could turn out to be a good player. But is he really a position of such need that we give the GAMBLE for which we did? ..THAT is the question, and that is the question that will continue to follow Smith.

The reason that gamble bothers me, is because I feel our defense will still need some BIG help after next season. We have a lot of players that are just 'gap fillers' for now, and may be servicable, but aren't the kind of players we would consider to be long-term players at the DL. So the question comes down to, do we need more long-term DBs or more long-term (attempts, tries, gambles) at the DL?? I believe we need more long term players at the DL.

[bcbronc]

The Broncos value was skewed. McD showed his immaturity and no patience in making that trade and the two 3rds for a blocking TE.
I'm no draft guru or don't know what other teams were thinking but I'd go out on a limb and say that Smith would have been there with our own #2 and the blocking TE would have been there at either of our #3's.

Sorry but until they produce on the field you can't change my mind on those two. :D

I've pointed this out a couple of times, so excuse the repeat....but no way Smith would have been there at 48. Two more CBs were taken BETWEEN 37 and 48. the top 5 CBs on pretty much all drafnik boards were ALL gone BEFORE 48. if we wanted Smith we had to get up to about where we did.

and we didn't trade the two 3rds for a blocking TE. we traded two 3rds for a 2nd and a 4th. two assets for two assets, one up one down. we didn't really give up anything, we just shuffled around what we had. I don't know it's accurate, but there have been reports posted here that say Pitt would have taken him at that spot.

regardless, he's the guy that the front office wanted. we're going to have bookend Grahams--or Quinn replaces Graham to free up cap space. whichever, I much prefer an aggressive front office that targets the players they want rather than slop up the left overs in the eternal search for "value".

[Ravage!!!]

Well now THAT'S totally wrong. You can't add the 2nd rounder we gained as part of the math. The only thing this cost us was one 1st round pick next season. Don't try to exaggerate it beyond that.

No trade = we have another 1st rounder next season.

With Trade = we have Smith and only one 1st rounder next season.

There is no part of the decision tree where ANOTHER 2nd rounder magically appears for us.

Ok.... if you don't want to see it that way. Fine. But we didn't trade the first round choice for th epayer... we traded it for the pick to take the player.

Either way, train. My opinion on the value of the trade hasn't changed. ITs still the same no matter how I look at it.

If I don't give you the 4 dollars of tomorrow, I don't gain the three dollars of today. Now granted, no matter WHO I pick with that 2nd round pick, I've spent the entire 7 dollars for.

[CoachChaz]

Anyone really think Vontae Davis was better than Smith? I dont think it was even close.

[bcbronc]

of course he did. Thats the point of the debates and the criticisms... whether they be here ofr from someone outside the bronco message board... was whether or not he made the RIGHT gamble. No one is debating on whether it was a gamble or not.... all draft picks are gambles.

So it comes down to the interpretation as to how good of a gamble was made. Right now, as I lsee it...considering the position of need, I don't see it as a GOOD gamble.

I know we've had good DBs, and VERY good DBs in the last number of years.. yet that hasn't made our defense good. Our defense continues to fail because of our continued lack of DL. So again, its not the player. The player could turn out to be a good player. But is he really a position of such need that we give the GAMBLE for which we did? ..THAT is the question, and that is the question that will continue to follow Smith.

The reason that gamble bothers me, is because I feel our defense will still need some BIG help after next season. We have a lot of players that are just 'gap fillers' for now, and may be servicable, but aren't the kind of players we would consider to be long-term players at the DL. So the question comes down to, do we need more long-term DBs or more long-term (attempts, tries, gambles) at the DL?? I believe we need more long term players at the DL.

really, it just comes down to how risk adverse you are.

you'd rather sit back and play it conservative just in case we suck. self fulfulling prophecy imo.

I'd rather make moves that make hitting the modest goal of a 15-20 draft slot more likely. adding Smith now does that.

I laid out a list of the DL we have on our roster. MOST of them are in their 3rd year or less. on the other hand, our starting CBs are ALL over 30 and there's no one behind them that looks to become a probable starter. Maybe guys like Bell or JMFW can, but I definitely see CB depth and long term potential as a major need.

the foundation behind the gamble is that the new, COMPETENT defensive coaches can fit the DL already on the roster into the new scheme. if the new scheme and the addition of a top 20 talent can create any pressure, we've added a player that turns hurried throws into turnovers. Shanny is gone. McDaniels deserves the benefit of at least a training camp to see what he's done to get pressure on the qb.

[Lonestar]

I can't help point out the irony of seeing you post this, JR. People tried to make this same point to you for years. So I think its obvious that the like/dislike for a coach certainly comes into play with your response as to what position has or hasn't been drafted... CONSIDERING your past problems with positions not taken.

You see the real irony here is Igave mikey kudos up to and including the ashley pick.

After getting beat up by so many folks because I expect #1 choices to be immediate starters. Not a project for 3 years down the line.

No one had my expections of quality.


While i gave mikey those 4-5 years after the HOF departures, I see no reasons to NOT give Josh 2-3. To try and clean up the almost total loss this franchise has gotten to.

While did not understand some of the moves on draft day or some of the others, I beleive after listening closely to him speak he is on the correct road to revamping almost everything NOT WR and OLINE.

Therfore I'm not ready to warm up the TAR and start plucking chickens like so many on here are.

I gave mikey the benefit of 4-5 seasons of what I thought was sub par play.

I see no reason to NOT give the Guy PAT wants to lead the club. Considering he has brought in some real coaches to evaluate talent amd coach.

It stunns me to see haters jumping on Josh at this point in the season without even having a clue what he has in mind.

[NightTrainLayne]

Ok.... if you don't want to see it that way. Fine. But we didn't trade the first round choice for th epayer... we traded it for the pick to take the player.

Either way, train. My opinion on the value of the trade hasn't changed. ITs still the same no matter how I look at it.

If I don't give you the 4 dollars of tomorrow, I don't gain the three dollars of today. Now granted, no matter WHO I pick with that 2nd round pick, I've spent the entire 7 dollars for.

Well, you're analogy is wrong. Trading 4 dollars tomorrow for 3 dollars today won't ever give you 7 dollars total to work with.

[turftoad]

Oh I know that I'm not changing your mind. .. ..but I'll just take a moment to point out that in my ice cream analogy all of us are the homeless guys outside arguing about how much McD paid for ice cream and we don't even have a nickel in our pockets.

Sorry, I had to leave for a while. All this talk about ice cream, I needed to go to the Dailry Queen. :D

[LoyalSoldier]

Funny isn't giving up a high future cost for an item today how this country got into debt? :D

[NightTrainLayne]

Sorry, I had to leave for a while. All this talk about ice cream, I needed to go to the Dailry Queen. :D

I wish we had Dairy Queen's in Oklahoma. . . .

Talking about "valuation". My brother worked at Dairy Queen one summer when he was in junior college. They could charge food and ice cream against their pay-check.

One pay-period, he had literally eaten so much, and bought enough ice cream for friends that came in, that he didn't get a paycheck! :laugh:

[Simple Jaded]

I'm convinced that they traded that No1 because of the possibility that it will cost Pat Monfort too much money, there is no other explanation.

This is pure bullshit, he asked for a new stadium so he could compete with the Jerry Jones' and Daniel Snyders, hell, he threatened to move the team to get that new stadium, he's a ****ing lier.

Btw, Booby Beathard, this is the shit that got you "retired" from the NFL and they didn't trade a No1 for a No1, they traded a No1 for a No2, big difference.......

[NameUsedBefore]

Didn't Beathard's philosophy blow up in his face in San Diego?

That's the only thing I remember of his name.

[Simple Jaded]

None of which are getting any younger. Again, I'll refer to the Eagles drafting Sheppard and Brown when they already had 2 pro-bowl CB's.

All they accomplished is getting 2 MORE pro-bowl CB's.
The Eagles actually had a competent Front Seven back then, though.

They have two ProBowl CB's now and traded two 5th rounders for depth, all that accomplished is providing the depth they needed while they significantly improving their biggest weaknesses (OL and WR).

The Eagles are a shining example of how to use two No1 draft picks, they get it, the Eagles are a bad comparison for Denver, imo.

Alphonso Smith the player, is fine, trading a No1 to get him is a joke.......

[Simple Jaded]

Didn't Beathard's philosophy blow up in his face in San Diego?

That's the only thing I remember of his name.

Absolutely, it worked a few times in Washington, that's about it.

Of course he's going to endorse the trade, he's basically the one who invented the move, that's why they called to get his opinion.......

[hotcarl]

Alphonso Smith the player, is fine, trading a No1 to get him is a joke.......

if he sucks its a joke.

if hes #1 talent who gives a ****?

time will tell on all of these players, maybe we should assume the management knows what they are doing until they prove otherwise. (likely very soon)

all most of you idiots have to go on is internet mock drafts and mancrushes on your favorite college teams. at this point lets at least watch a preseason game before we all start sucking tailpipes or claiming superbowl victories.

i will give the broncos the benefit of the doubt until they prove to be idiots (likely very soon) when that happens i will still watch every ******* game just like the rest of you. shit, just make the best of it, what else are you going to do? stop being a fan? suck it up wipe your nose and take the beating like a battered wife and say "it will be different this time"

lets roll!!
:welcome:

[NorthernLights]

Didn't Beathard's philosophy blow up in his face in San Diego?

That's the only thing I remember of his name.

Here is what I posted on page 1


Don't take too much solace in Beathard's blessing. The Bolts had one first round pick from 1994 to 2001, and that was to take Leaf in 1998. Bobby destroyed the team with his strategy for over a decade.

His drafting methods had household names showing up like Rogers Beckett, Jermaine Fazande, Bryan Still, and Terrance Shaw. All second round picks because they didn't have a first round pick because it was traded away the year before. It still hurts to look back to the 90's drafts. From 1990 to 1999, the Bolts drafted 104 players and here are the only one's worth mentioning:

1990 Junior Seau-HOF
1993 Trent Green (never played for the Bolts)
1993 Natrone Means-not bad
1994 Rodney Harrison-HOF?

That's it. Impressed?

[Simple Jaded]

if he sucks its a joke.

if hes #1 talent who gives a ****?

time will tell on all of these players, maybe we should assume the management knows what they are doing until they prove otherwise. (likely very soon)

all most of you idiots have to go on is internet mock drafts and mancrushes on your favorite college teams. at this point lets at least watch a preseason game before we all start sucking tailpipes or claiming superbowl victories.

i will give the broncos the benefit of the doubt until they prove to be idiots (likely very soon) when that happens i will still watch every ******* game just like the rest of you. shit, just make the best of it, what else are you going to do? stop being a fan? suck it up wipe your nose and take the beating like a battered wife and say "it will be different this time"

lets roll!!
:welcome:

He's not a 1st round pick, that's the point, he's a 2nd round pick in a thoroughly pathetic draft class such as this one, that's a fact. So the Broncos gave him a 1st round grade, in this draft that's not saying much, forget that the fact that Denver traded a 1st round pick in next years draft.......Smith wasn't even a 1st round pick in this draft, that's not good value.

Personally, this idiot doesn't pay much attention to mock drafts, they're just a gauge, but there are credible resources out there that give grades (not just mocks), former Pro Scouts and GM's, that use the same process to evaluate talent as Doogie and Xanahan do, and with DB's you don't have much choice but to take their word for it, since you don't get to see much of them on TV.

Smith sounds like a fine player maker, but the risk is not worth it, he can't justify this trade.......

[hotcarl]

Smith sounds like a fine player maker, but the risk is not worth it, he can't justify this trade.......


like i said ... who knows

how many whiffs will there be on first round picks this year? my point was, if he turns out to be a first round talent then great, if not, we blew it. just like im sure we blew a bunch of other picks this year and every other year.

YOU DONT KNOW so stop acting like there are any "facts" where picks are rated its a crap shoot

[Tempus Fugit]

Ok.... if you don't want to see it that way. Fine. But we didn't trade the first round choice for th epayer... we traded it for the pick to take the player.

Either way, train. My opinion on the value of the trade hasn't changed. ITs still the same no matter how I look at it.

If I don't give you the 4 dollars of tomorrow, I don't gain the three dollars of today. Now granted, no matter WHO I pick with that 2nd round pick, I've spent the entire 7 dollars for.

4 1st round picks for 4 players
- 2 1st round picks in this draft
- 2 1st round picks in next draft

2 first round picks used to get 2 players in this draft
1 first round pick changed in for a second round pick in this draft which yielded 1 player
1 first round pick still left for next draft. It will still be 4 picks for 4 players.

Furthermore, when it comes to trades, you devalue the picks made a year out by one round as a general rule. It's not quite exactly that with first rounders, but the concept still stands. Furthermore, as this year (and recent years as well) should have shown people, top 5-7 picks are NOT wanted by teams unless elite players can be taken because the price tag is too high.

If the Broncos suck so badly this year that the pick is a top 7 pick, Broncos fans should be happy about the money saved which will be able to be applied to getting veteran help. The trade got the player at a premium, but it's nowhere near as bad a trade as people are trying to make it appear and, If the kid works out, it's an excellent move.

[LoyalSoldier]

4 1st round picks for 4 players
- 2 1st round picks in this draft
- 2 1st round picks in next draft

2 first round picks used to get 2 players in this draft
1 first round pick changed in for a second round pick in this draft which yielded 1 player
1 first round pick still left for next draft. It will still be 4 picks for 4 players.

Furthermore, when it comes to trades, you devalue the picks made a year out by one round as a general rule. It's not quite exactly that with first rounders, but the concept still stands. Furthermore, as this year (and recent years as well) should have shown people, top 5-7 picks are NOT wanted by teams unless elite players can be taken because the price tag is too high.

If the Broncos suck so badly this year that the pick is a top 7 pick, Broncos fans should be happy about the money saved which will be able to be applied to getting veteran help. The trade got the player at a premium, but it's nowhere near as bad a trade as people are trying to make it appear and, If the kid works out, it's an excellent move.

Let's say that Orton/Simms has a miserable season and a position of need happens to be QB. That top 7 pick could be the difference between getting a great QB prospect or having to wait another year. Trying to patch the QB position with FA QBs rarely works.

The only way this trade works out is if Smith becomes an amazing corner or we win enough games the difference between the picks isn't that much. Out of those two scenarios I see #1 more likely and even then we have no idea how it will turn out.

[rcsodak]

Just like a dollar a year from now is worth less than a dollar is today, a #1 a year from now is worth less than a #1 today.

If we have a terrible record this season, then there's no doubt that we "overpaid", but this is a guy that they really wanted, and they went and got him. I can't fault that one bit.

I agree.

The anal'ysts all say that future picks should always be viewed, value wise, as a mid round pick.

Regardless, if they need to move up next year, they're already saying they will.

Looks like a good draft for DT's, QB's.

[rcsodak]

Sorry, but I think this statement is not necessarily true. It may be true when using the draft position scale they use during the draft, because of uncertainty in the following year, but practically, it's not.

The value of a 1st rounder next season may even be much higher than the value of a 1st rounder this season, and it's not just because of the position within the round. If the talent coming out of college next season is greater than the talent coming out of college this season, then a 1st rounder next season can garner better talent than a 1st rounder this season.

Many analysts have mentioned that this draft is a particularly weak one, talent wise. Bellichick found it more business worthy to trade out of the first round, and keep trading down and collecting picks for next season, and analysts have mentioned that since they don't see a lot of value in the 1st round this year, it was a smart thing to do. Someone mentioned that this season is one of the rare times the Colts did not take a LB, because they felt none were all that great.

Compare last season's draft to this season's draft and the talent disparity is very evident.

If next season's draft turns out to be filled with much more talent than this season's draft, then next season's 1st rounder is worth more than this season's 1st rounder.

A bird in the hand is worth 2 in the bush :D

[rcsodak]

Ok but he didn't miss on Warren, Wilfolk, and Seymour.

I read somewhere last week, that NE has one of the lowest successful draft percentages in the league.

Don't let a few big names overwhelm you.

Namely, at the WR position!

Notice how they're always bringing in FA's?

[rcsodak]

absolutely. I'm not really comparing McDaniels to Al Davis at all. I'm just saying that anyone can justify their picks by saying "its who we wanted."

And then there are fans who put their OWN opinions and "expertise" above that of the HC/FO/OWNER, when it comes to personnel moves, drafts, etc.



Gotta love this game. :elefant:

[shank]

4 1st round picks for 4 players
- 2 1st round picks in this draft
- 2 1st round picks in next draft

2 first round picks used to get 2 players in this draft
1 first round pick changed in for a second round pick in this draft which yielded 1 player
1 first round pick still left for next draft. It will still be 4 picks for 4 players.

Furthermore, when it comes to trades, you devalue the picks made a year out by one round as a general rule. It's not quite exactly that with first rounders, but the concept still stands. Furthermore, as this year (and recent years as well) should have shown people, top 5-7 picks are NOT wanted by teams unless elite players can be taken because the price tag is too high.

If the Broncos suck so badly this year that the pick is a top 7 pick, Broncos fans should be happy about the money saved which will be able to be applied to getting veteran help. The trade got the player at a premium, but it's nowhere near as bad a trade as people are trying to make it appear and, If the kid works out, it's an excellent move.
good post. also, our FO had smith rated as a 1st rounder. whether you agree or not, in our FO's eyes our 4 first round picks in 09 and 10 will yield 4 first round players.

[rcsodak]

I can't help point out the irony of seeing you post this, JR. People tried to make this same point to you for years. So I think its obvious that the like/dislike for a coach certainly comes into play with your response as to what position has or hasn't been drafted... CONSIDERING your past problems with positions not taken.

I think there is a itty bitty little tiny thing called "past experiences" that MIGHT come into play here.

Shanny had how many bad drafts?

While this is McD's FIRST! And a game hasn't even been played!

It's beyond ridiculous that 'fans' know better than HC's/FO's/OWNERS/SCOUTS, etc.

Utterly!

[TXBRONC]

Didn't Beathard's philosophy blow up in his face in San Diego?

That's the only thing I remember of his name.

Yes, but FWIW it did work in Washington to the tune of three Super Bowl titles.

[rcsodak]

I'm quite sure they did consider value. They just valued it differently than you.

I've used this example before, but you see this kind of thing all the time. Suppose you go into an ice cream shop and buy a cone for $3. The ice cream vendor says "Thank you" and you say "Thank you" as well.

Why?

He says "Thank you" because he valued the $3 in your pocket more than he valued the ice-cream in his freezer.

You say "Thank you" because you valued the ice cream in his freezer more than the $3 in your pocket.

Taking this analogy further, you're telling us that you think there's a place down the block where you can get that ice cream for $2. .. . but we don't know if we'll like that ice cream down the block because we haven't sampled it. This ice cream we know we like. You yourself might go down the block for that ice cream, while McD might not. Both make an estimation of value, but value those competing options differently. .. and both I might say rationally.

What if you're too fat to walk down the block?

If you pay some little kid $1 to go get it, you just end up even. And then when you find that it sucks, you've just gambled away a GREAT cone on a flyer.

[rcsodak]

I like ice cream!

Concidering our new coach's, schemes and schedule, it's not out of line to say the Broncos could very well finish 5-11.

That would put our next years pick at about #6 or so.

I'd say that the ice cream at the #6 overall pick would be better than the ice cream at #37 overall.

That's value. Just sayin. :D

After he turns Orton into a "franchise qb", he can then trade him for someone's #1 and then pickup Bradford.

All's well that ends well.

[rcsodak]

The Eagles actually had a competent Front Seven back then, though.

They have two ProBowl CB's now and traded two 5th rounders for depth, all that accomplished is providing the depth they needed while they significantly improving their biggest weaknesses (OL and WR).

The Eagles are a shining example of how to use two No1 draft picks, they get it, the Eagles are a bad comparison for Denver, imo.

Alphonso Smith the player, is fine, trading a No1 to get him is a joke.......

:confused:
Who are their two PB cb's?

And how many SB's have the Eagles been in and/or won in the last 40 yrs?

[rcsodak]

He's not a 1st round pick, that's the point, he's a 2nd round pick in a thoroughly pathetic draft class such as this one, that's a fact. So the Broncos gave him a 1st round grade, in this draft that's not saying much, forget that the fact that Denver traded a 1st round pick in next years draft.......Smith wasn't even a 1st round pick in this draft, that's not good value.

Personally, this idiot doesn't pay much attention to mock drafts, they're just a gauge, but there are credible resources out there that give grades (not just mocks), former Pro Scouts and GM's, that use the same process to evaluate talent as Doogie and Xanahan do, and with DB's you don't have much choice but to take their word for it, since you don't get to see much of them on TV.

Smith sounds like a fine player maker, but the risk is not worth it, he can't justify this trade.......

So given your statement that this year's draft is a "thoroughly pathetic draft class", then wouldn't the Jets' move up to get Sanchez, a 16 game qb, also be bad? And Detroit's for using their #1 on a QB that wouldn't be considered a top pick in other years? And how about Freeman? #17?? He was being projected as a 2nd rounder!!!!!!

It's all in the eyes of the beholder.

What I don't get, is what DIFFERENCE does it make WHERE a player is taken, once he's taken? Other than his contract $$, who cares? Would TD have been a better rb had he been picked in the first rd? Would that have kept him from being injured? Would Rod Smith have been a harder working Bronco if he'd have been drafted at all?

Putting SO much weight into a player's draft status is futile. I think this point was also made by Pat K on Sirius during the draft.

[MOtorboat]

He's not a 1st round pick, that's the point, he's a 2nd round pick in a thoroughly pathetic draft class such as this one, that's a fact. So the Broncos gave him a 1st round grade, in this draft that's not saying much, forget that the fact that Denver traded a 1st round pick in next years draft.......Smith wasn't even a 1st round pick in this draft, that's not good value.

Personally, this idiot doesn't pay much attention to mock drafts, they're just a gauge, but there are credible resources out there that give grades (not just mocks), former Pro Scouts and GM's, that use the same process to evaluate talent as Doogie and Xanahan do, and with DB's you don't have much choice but to take their word for it, since you don't get to see much of them on TV.

Smith sounds like a fine player maker, but the risk is not worth it, he can't justify this trade.......

This a joke, right?

[rcsodak]

This a joke, right?

As far as I know, MB, Link doesn't joke.:shocked:

[Requiem / The Dagda]

RC, I'd rather get your homeboy from Oklahoma -- Gerald McCoy. Another "Mc****in' Awesome" player!

[Tempus Fugit]

Let's say that Orton/Simms has a miserable season and a position of need happens to be QB. That top 7 pick could be the difference between getting a great QB prospect or having to wait another year. Trying to patch the QB position with FA QBs rarely works.

The only way this trade works out is if Smith becomes an amazing corner or we win enough games the difference between the picks isn't that much. Out of those two scenarios I see #1 more likely and even then we have no idea how it will turn out.

1.) Name the "great QB prospect" that will be missed by the Broncos under your scenario for next year. Is it Bradford, Tebow, McCoy? Who is this player? I ask this because there isn't for next year as far as I can see, so it's likely that the point you're trying to make is moot. Maybe you've seen something/someone I've missed, though.


2.) A "great QB prospect" is generally going to go #1. If the Broncos end up with the #1 pick and have to give it away, you may have a point, IF there's that elite QB prospect.

3.) If Smith goes Dolly Parton, it doesn't make the trade a bad one. It makes the evaluation of Smith bad. There's a difference.

[LoyalSoldier]

1.) Name the "great QB prospect" that will be missed by the Broncos under your scenario for next year. Is it Bradford, Tebow, McCoy? Who is this player? I ask this because there isn't for next year as far as I can see, so it's likely that the point you're trying to make is moot. Maybe you've seen something/someone I've missed, though.

I am not naming one because they still have a year in college and we will see how each of them progresses. Hopefully we won't need any of them, but it still doesn't change the fact that if Orton and Simms don't pan out then we will need to draft a QB.


2.) A "great QB prospect" is generally going to go #1. If the Broncos end up with the #1 pick and have to give it away, you may have a point, IF there's that elite QB prospect.

Not exactly. It all depends on the team's needs that are ahead of the Broncos. In fact many great QBs have been taken as far as the 11 spot. Though rarely do they make past the mid point of the first round.


3.) If Smith goes Dolly Parton, it doesn't make the trade a bad one. It makes the evaluation of Smith bad. There's a difference.

That is like saying if I buy a new car and it doesn't work then it was only a bad evaluation and not a bad purchase. The evaluation is part of the purchase.

If Smith turns out to be a bust, then the trade happened because of a bad evaluation and as a result it was a bad trade.

[TXBRONC]

I am not naming one because they still have a year in college and we will see how each of them progresses. Hopefully we won't need any of them, but it still doesn't change the fact that if Orton and Simms don't pan out then we will need to draft a QB.



Not exactly. It all depends on the team's needs that are ahead of the Broncos. In fact many great QBs have been taken as far as the 11 spot. Though rarely do they make past the mid point of the first round.


That is like saying if I buy a new car and it doesn't work then it was only a bad evaluation and not a bad purchase. The evaluation is part of the purchase.

If Smith turns out to be a bust, then the trade happened because of a bad evaluation and as a result it was a bad trade.


I think Stafford is the only quarterback in the last five years to be drafted with number one overall pick in the draft.

[getlynched47]

Alphonso Smith is an amazing corner. The dude can play.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ED9C6JWaoPg

We can argue all day long whether it was worth it or not, whether the price was too high, or whether it was the right choice.

It makes no difference.

It's done. Alphonso Smith was drafted by giving up a 1st next year.

I'm sure McDaniels is fully aware that his ass is on the line, because he did it to himself. If he's confident that we can win this year, then good. If he fails...he has nobody to put the blame on but himself.

[LoyalSoldier]

I think Stafford is the only quarterback in the last five years to be drafted with number one overall pick in the draft.

Well not entirely true.

JaMarcus russel
Alex Smith
Eli Manning
Carson Palmer
David carr
Michael Vick


That is all except for two since 2001.

[Tempus Fugit]

I am not naming one because they still have a year in college and we will see how each of them progresses. Hopefully we won't need any of them, but it still doesn't change the fact that if Orton and Simms don't pan out then we will need to draft a QB.

As of right now, do you see a single QB that's expected to be in next year's draft as being an elite prospect?


Not exactly. It all depends on the team's needs that are ahead of the Broncos. In fact many great QBs have been taken as far as the 11 spot. Though rarely do they make past the mid point of the first round.

Who was this "great" prospect that went #11? Heck, who was the last "great" prospect that made it past #5? Remember, we're talking prospect, not eventual player. The last "great" prospect was Peyton Manning, although you could stretch the term and go with Carson Palmer. Both of them went #1.


That is like saying if I buy a new car and it doesn't work then it was only a bad evaluation and not a bad purchase. The evaluation is part of the purchase.

If Smith turns out to be a bust, then the trade happened because of a bad evaluation and as a result it was a bad trade.

No, it's like saying that you bought a Mercedes and you paid a little bit extra because you wanted the first one off the lot. If that particular model has to be recalled six months down the road because the brakes don't work, the purchase itself still isn't a bad one, it's the choice of model.

Just as an aside, take a look at every quarterback drafted in the first 3 rounds this decade. Count the number of Super Bowl winning QBs in that bunch. I believe you'll find that it's only 2, and they were both picked in the same year. It's not about drafting a quarterback, it's about drafting the right quarterback or finding some other way to get him. Trent Dilfer has more Super Bowl wins than Dan Marino not because he was a better QB than Marino, but because he went to a talented team that suited his skill set and was able to take advantage of that.

[DenBronx]

if we chose smith because he is just like darrent williams then i'll be pissed. i understand the sentimental value bronco fans put on darrent but really he wasnt all that great for us. he got beat time and time again and really blew a couple of games for us. if thats what we want then im speechless.

we need to target shut down corner types like bailey and namdi if were giving up 1st round draft picks.

[MOtorboat]

if we chose smith because he is just like darrent williams then i'll be pissed. i understand the sentimental value bronco fans put on darrent but really he wasnt all that great for us. he got beat time and time again and really blew a couple of games for us. if thats what we want then im speechless.

we need to target shut down corner types like bailey and namdi if were giving up 1st round draft picks.

Considering that no people actually in the organization at this time were directly related to that pick, other than Bowlen, I would say that it's, frankly, an irrelevant theory.

[Tempus Fugit]

if we chose smith because he is just like darrent williams then i'll be pissed. i understand the sentimental value bronco fans put on darrent but really he wasnt all that great for us. he got beat time and time again and really blew a couple of games for us. if thats what we want then im speechless.

we need to target shut down corner types like bailey and namdi if were giving up 1st round draft picks.

There has been a grand total of ONE 'shutdown' corner drafted this decade. Using your argument, he's the only cornerback that should have been a first round pick since 2000. I guess I'll just have to disagree there.

[LoyalSoldier]

As of right now, do you see a single QB that's expected to be in next year's draft as being an elite prospect?

It doesn't matter what I see now because draft stocks change.



Who was this "great" prospect that went #11? Heck, who was the last "great" prospect that made it past #5? Remember, we're talking prospect, not eventual player. The last "great" prospect was Peyton Manning, although you could stretch the term and go with Carson Palmer. Both of them went #1.

Ben Roethilsberger. Taken 11th and has two superbowl rings. Joe Flacco last season was taken 18th overall. The former Denver QB that shall not be named was taken 11th as well. Aaron Rogers was selected at 24th overall. So yea you can find quite a few good QBs taken at 11th or later.

As I also said before, it is easier to trade from 7 up to 5 than from 21 up to 5.




Just as an aside, take a look at every quarterback drafted in the first 3 rounds this decade. Count the number of Super Bowl winning QBs in that bunch. I believe you'll find that it's only 2, and they were both picked in the same year. It's not about drafting a quarterback, it's about drafting the right quarterback or finding some other way to get him. Trent Dilfer has more Super Bowl wins than Dan Marino not because he was a better QB than Marino, but because he went to a talented team that suited his skill set and was able to take advantage of that.

Hell count the number of superbowl winning QBs in the last 50 years. Since the first superbowl there have been 43 and several QB have won it more than once.

Elway 2
Big Ben 2
Bradshaw 4
Brady 3
Aikman 3
Montana 4

I know I am missing a few. So roughly 18 of the 43 superbowls had repeat QBs so that leaves about 25 other QBs who won superbowls. No duh only a few of the QBs in the last 10 years have won the superbowl when only about 31 out of hundreds in the history of the NFL have done so.

You do need a team for a superbowl, but at the same time you can't have a QB who does nothing but hurt your team.

[getlynched47]

if we chose smith because he is just like darrent williams then i'll be pissed. i understand the sentimental value bronco fans put on darrent but really he wasnt all that great for us. he got beat time and time again and really blew a couple of games for us. if thats what we want then im speechless.

we need to target shut down corner types like bailey and namdi if were giving up 1st round draft picks.

Players that play opposite Champ Bailey usually look bad :coffee:

DWill was playing pretty good...and increasing his interception totals..

[Tempus Fugit]

It doesn't matter what I see now because draft stocks change.

It does matter what you see now, because you're griping NOW about the pick for next year. So, as of now, do you see any 'great' QB prospects that you expect will be in next year's draft? After all, that's got to be a factor in making trades like this, right?


Ben Roethilsberger. Taken 11th and has two superbowl rings. Joe Flacco last season was taken 18th overall. The former Denver QB that shall not be named was taken 11th as well. Aaron Rogers was selected at 24th overall. So yea you can find quite a few good QBs taken at 11th or later.

As I also said before, it is easier to trade from 7 up to 5 than from 21 up to 5.

Not a single one of these quarterbacks was considered a 'great' prospect. You're now arguing about prospects who weren't 'great' prospects but panned out, and that's different. Those players can be found in any round, not just in the top 5-10 picks.


Hell count the number of superbowl winning QBs in the last 50 years. Since the first superbowl there have been 43 and several QB have won it more than once.

Elway 2
Big Ben 2
Bradshaw 4
Brady 3
Aikman 3
Montana 4

So 18 of the 43 superbowls had repeat QBs so that leaves 25 other QBs who won superbowls. No duh only a few of the QBs in the last 10 years have won the superbowl when only about 31 out of hundreds in the history of the NFL have done so.

You do need a team for a superbowl, but at the same time you can't have a QB who does nothing but hurt your team.

Well, naturally, but such quarterbacks don't have to be gotten in the top 5-7 picks of the draft.

Look, about 1/3 of the top QB picks actually pan out as advertised to any real degree. It's a risky position to draft, even at the very top. Heck, just look at this decade:

Ryan
Flacco
Russell
Quinn
Young
Leinhart
Cutler
Smith
Rodgers
Campbell
Manning
Rivers
Roethlisberger
Losman
Palmer
Leftwich
Boller
Grossman
Carr
Harrington
Ramsey
Vick

That's the list of 1st round QBs this decade. Not having a top pick for a QB would have been a blessing for a lot of teams taking those quarterbacks.

[LoyalSoldier]

It does matter what you see now, because you're griping NOW about the pick for next year. So, as of now, do you see any 'great' QB prospects that you expect will be in next year's draft? After all, that's got to be a factor in making trades like this, right?

Once again it doesn't. Because my evaluation now isn't going to account for the senior year of all of these QBs where they may make their mark. We won't know what QBs will make huge strides, we won't know what QBs will come out after their junior season, and we don't even know all of the QBs that will be NFL prospects since some of them may come from smaller schools.

A lot can happen between now and the next draft and we still have to see if Orton can play.


Not a single one of these quarterbacks was considered a 'great' prospect. You're now arguing about prospects who weren't 'great' prospects but panned out, and that's different. Those players can be found in any round, not just in the top 5-10 picks.

They were great prospects. The problem is the teams picking in between did not need a quarterback or had a more pressing need. Again draft position also depends on what the teams needs are not just how good you are.

However for QBs outside of the first round, they largely turn out to be no more than backups. There are exceptions, but the fact that the last successful QB to be drafted in the third round was Joe Montana does tell you how often this actually happens. If you want a good QB it will most likely be in the first round.

Only about 1 out of 60 actually pan out in later rounds. I'll call 33% >> 1.7%

[Tempus Fugit]

Once again it doesn't. Because my evaluation now isn't going to account for the senior year of all of these QBs where they may make their mark. We won't know what QBs will make huge strides, we won't know what QBs will come out after their junior season, and we don't even know all of the QBs that will be NFL prospects since some of them may come from smaller schools.

A lot can happen between now and the next draft and we still have to see if Orton can play.

You're complaining about a move impacting possible moves next year, but you won't even tell us who this great QB prospect that might be missed is. How is that possibly anything but a cop out when you're pounding on a guy for something you won't even begin to touch? You've got to be fair enough to provide examples of those "great prospects" that might be missed.


They were great prospects. The problem is the teams picking in between did not need a quarterback or had a more pressing need. Again draft position also depends on what the teams needs not just how good you are.

They weren't great prospects. Come on now, you know this. You're using hindsight to improve their standing. I mean, you're pointing to Flacco, who was looked at as a second rounder by many analysts. How they turn out is NOT the same as what sort of prospect they were. Cutler was not a "great" prospect either. If he was, he'd have gone ahead of Leinhart.


However for QBs outside of the first round, they largely turn out to be no more than backups. There are exceptions, but the fact that the last successful QB to be drafted in the third round was Joe Montana. If you want a good QB it will most likely be in the first round.

Only about 1 out of 60 actually pan out in later rounds. I'll call 33% >> 1.7%

You can call it what you want. The percentage of first rounders compared to non-first rounders who succeed is meaningless to your side of the argument, because your argument was about first round "great prospect" QBs and the team's potential inability to get one next year. It's applicable to my side because I was pointing out that such "great prospect" QBs aren't necessary to winning. Brady, Johnson and Warner are all the examples I need to make my point.

[LoyalSoldier]

You're complaining about a move impacting possible moves next year, but you won't even tell us who this great QB prospect that might be missed is. How is that possibly anything but a cop out when you're pounding on a guy for something you won't even begin to touch? You've got to be fair enough to provide examples of those "great prospects" that might be missed.

You have serious flaws in your logic. Just because I don't have a specific guy in mind doesn't mean I don't see there couldn't potentially be a problem. If a CEO of a company sees that he might need to hire a new manager of operations in a year that doesn't mean he needs to have one in mind to realize he could have a problem with his current manager.

Also I was not saying specifically this would happen or that Orton will fail as a QB. You are not getting it at all. I was giving a potential situation that could occur in which case having a 7th pick would be far more valuable than the 21st pick. I don't see the Bears completely sucking this year.

In all honesty I hope Orton is the guy McD wants and can run the system, but I have my doubts about Orton. If he proves me wrong I will love admitting those doubts were wrong.


They weren't great prospects. Come on now, you know this. You're using hindsight to improve their standing. I mean, you're pointing to Flacco, who was looked at as a second rounder by many analysts. How they turn out is NOT the same as what sort of prospect they were. Cutler was not a "great" prospect either. If he was, he'd have gone ahead of Leinhart.

If Cutler was not a great prospect he wouldn't have even been in the first round coming out of a school like Vanderbilt. In fact Fisher wanted the Titans to take Cutler at #3 and not Young, but the GM ignored him. After that the next several picks didn't need a QB. Once again, it is not how skilled a player is, but which teams needs what and who they want.


You can call it what you want. The percentage of first rounders compared to non-first rounders who succeed is meaningless to your side of the argument, because your argument was about first round "great prospect" QBs and the team's potential inability to get one next year. It's applicable to my side because I was pointing out that such "great prospect" QBs aren't necessary to winning. Brady, Johnson and Warner are all the examples I need to make my point.

Man you are so tied up on the term "great prospect" that you can't see the forest through the trees. The odds of getting a good QUARTERBACK (not prospect) in the later rounds are so low it is nearly pure luck when someone finds one.

So often good prospects are more likely to become good quarterbacks. There are exceptions, but they are rare.

[NightTrainLayne]

You have serious flaws in your logic. Just because I don't have a specific guy in mind doesn't mean I don't see there couldn't potentially be a problem. If a CEO of a company sees that he might need to hire a new manager of operations in a year that doesn't mean he needs to have one in mind to realize he could have a problem with his current manager.

Also I was not saying specifically this would happen or that Orton will fail as a QB. You are not getting it at all. I was giving a potential situation that could occur in which case having a 7th pick would be far more valuable than the 21st pick. I don't see the Bears completely sucking this year.

In all honesty I hope Orton is the guy McD wants and can run the system, but I have my doubts about Orton. If he proves me wrong I will love admitting those doubts were wrong.



If a CEO of a company thought that he might need to make a hire in a year, and saw that someone was available right now that he liked, he might pay a little extra now just to make sure that he got someone he liked, rather than gambling that someone he liked would be available in a year.

Comparing a known factor to an unknown future risk is something that businesses do every day, and this trade of our first next year works exactly the same way. That is the argument Tempus is making and you are helping him make it by saying that you don't know what great player would be available in the 1st next year.

[LoyalSoldier]

If a CEO of a company thought that he might need to make a hire in a year, and saw that someone was available right now that he liked, he might pay a little extra now just to make sure that he got someone he liked, rather than gambling that someone he liked would be available in a year.

Comparing a known factor to an unknown future risk is something that businesses do every day, and this trade of our first next year works exactly the same way. That is the argument Tempus is making and you are helping him make it by saying that you don't know what great player would be available in the 1st next year.

No I don't know, but at the same time we don't know that Smith is going to be a great player. The fact of the matter is none of us know anything and can only talk in "Ifs" "Ands" or "Buts"

Frankly you have just as much of an insurance that a good QB will be available next year as you do that Smith will pan out. It's all a gamble one way or another. I just don't think that CB was a position that warranted us spending that much on.

[Broncolingus]

I've always respected Beathard...

TWT

[Simple Jaded]

This a joke, right?

If I didn't call anybody by a stupid nickname, I guess I have to be taken seriously.......