PDA

View Full Version : Lombardi on the Broncos



broncofaninfla
04-30-2009, 02:58 PM
From the National Football Post....

IF I WORKED FOR THE BRONCOS…
I would call GM Ted Thompson of the Packers and find out what he’s going to do with back-up nose tackle Ryan Pickett. Now, I fully expect him to tell me that he’s not trading Pickett, but it’s still worth the call.
I would also call the Raiders and find out if they’re going to dump either of their well-paid defensive tackles, Tommy Kelly or Terdell Sands. Neither is a pure nose tackle, but if they’re in shape, both would help the front seven of the Broncos.
I would call Seattle to see if I could pry defensive tackle Red Bryant from them (yes, I know I love his game) and use him as my new nose. I doubt they would move him, but you never know.
I would call Cleveland to see if they want to dump some of the high-priced defensive linemen who were signed by the previous regime. Thinking they might want to move Shaun Smith now that they’ve acquired Kenyon Coleman.
The Broncos were not able to add beef to their defensive line and must find creative ways to fix this problem.
Next week, we’ll do a few more — and I’m sure you guys will have a few ideas.

topscribe
04-30-2009, 03:02 PM
The Raiders might let both tackles go if the Broncos offered them Chad Jackson (4.2 40--you know, speed?).
That is, if The Corpse didn't have such a seething hatred of the Broncos . . .

-----

Lonestar
04-30-2009, 03:09 PM
Guessing that Lombardi either has not paid attention to the UDFA's or is less than impressed with them..

Probably still pissed he was not hired as the GM..

I wonder if his report to PAT and mike might have been A nail in mikes coffin..

Lonestar
04-30-2009, 03:10 PM
:laugh:
The Raiders might let both tackles go if the Broncos offered them Chad Jackson (4.2 40--you know, speed?).
That is, if The Corpse didn't have such a seething hatred of the Broncos . . .

-----

I suspect his concern for the Broncos is less now than it was 5 months ago..

Wonder if mikey will now get the money he is owed by al..

TXBRONC
04-30-2009, 03:10 PM
I guess nothing ventured nothing gained.

Nomad
04-30-2009, 03:15 PM
I'm sure the Packers are going to wait and see how Raji adapts to the NFL. It's not going to be as easy as college for sure...Raji may need a year to develop, but it doesn't hurt to call around! Stink made some good points on NFL Live a moment ago about Raji.

Lonestar
04-30-2009, 03:21 PM
I'm sure the Packers are going to wait and see how Raji adapts to the NFL. It's not going to be as easy as college for sure...Raji may need a year to develop, but it doesn't hurt to call around! Stink made some good points on NFL Live a moment ago about Raji.


gonna keep them to yourself..:tsk:

LRtagger
04-30-2009, 03:33 PM
Why stop at those teams? Since he suggests calling teams that he thinks probably wont give up those guys, why not call every team in the league and ask?

topscribe
04-30-2009, 03:33 PM
I'm sure the Packers are going to wait and see how Raji adapts to the NFL. It's not going to be as easy as college for sure...Raji may need a year to develop, but it doesn't hurt to call around! Stink made some good points on NFL Live a moment ago about Raji.


gonna keep them to yourself..:tsk:

That's what I was wondering . . . :confused:

-----

nevcraw
04-30-2009, 03:45 PM
Guessing that Lombardi either has not paid attention to the UDFA's or is less than impressed with them..

Probably still pissed he was not hired as the GM..

I wonder if his report to PAT and mike might have been A nail in mikes coffin..

because usually UDFA's do not make any impact at all..

TXBRONC
04-30-2009, 03:49 PM
because usually UDFA's do not make any impact at all..

Generally speaking those are the guys that end up on the practice squad.

Dirk
04-30-2009, 03:52 PM
The Raiders might let both tackles go if the Broncos offered them Chad Jackson (4.2 40--you know, speed?).
That is, if The Corpse didn't have such a seething hatred of the Broncos . . .

-----

OMG! I needed that laugh! Funny stuff right there! :laugh:

OrangeHoof
04-30-2009, 03:56 PM
I'd call the Patriots and ask what they are doing with Tom Brady. I'd also ask them what they are doing with Vince Wilfolk. I mean, if it doesn't hurt to ask...

LoyalSoldier
04-30-2009, 04:38 PM
I'd call the Patriots and ask what they are doing with Tom Brady. I'd also ask them what they are doing with Vince Wilfolk. I mean, if it doesn't hurt to ask...

Yep and maybe you can get their QB pissed at their head coach in the process. ;)

Lonestar
04-30-2009, 04:42 PM
I'd call the Patriots and ask what they are doing with Tom Brady. I'd also ask them what they are doing with Vince Wilfolk. I mean, if it doesn't hurt to ask...

well they could get ppissed off at their HC and ask to be traded to the bares..

LoyalSoldier
04-30-2009, 04:44 PM
well they could get ppissed off at their HC and ask to be traded to the bares..

Beat you to it. :)

Lonestar
04-30-2009, 04:50 PM
Beat you to it. :)

great minds think alike..

The measure of judging someones intelligence is seeing how much they agree with you..:salute:

omac
04-30-2009, 05:40 PM
From the National Football Post....

IF I WORKED FOR THE BRONCOS…
I would call GM Ted Thompson of the Packers and find out what he’s going to do with back-up nose tackle Ryan Pickett. Now, I fully expect him to tell me that he’s not trading Pickett, but it’s still worth the call.
I would also call the Raiders and find out if they’re going to dump either of their well-paid defensive tackles, Tommy Kelly or Terdell Sands. Neither is a pure nose tackle, but if they’re in shape, both would help the front seven of the Broncos.
I would call Seattle to see if I could pry defensive tackle Red Bryant from them (yes, I know I love his game) and use him as my new nose. I doubt they would move him, but you never know.
I would call Cleveland to see if they want to dump some of the high-priced defensive linemen who were signed by the previous regime. Thinking they might want to move Shaun Smith now that they’ve acquired Kenyon Coleman.
The Broncos were not able to add beef to their defensive line and must find creative ways to fix this problem.
Next week, we’ll do a few more — and I’m sure you guys will have a few ideas.

LOL, he wasn't serious. You guys do know what he means, right? :D

Magnificent Seven
04-30-2009, 06:15 PM
From the National Football Post....

IF I WORKED FOR THE BRONCOS…
I would call GM Ted Thompson of the Packers and find out what he’s going to do with back-up nose tackle Ryan Pickett. Now, I fully expect him to tell me that he’s not trading Pickett, but it’s still worth the call.
I would also call the Raiders and find out if they’re going to dump either of their well-paid defensive tackles, Tommy Kelly or Terdell Sands. Neither is a pure nose tackle, but if they’re in shape, both would help the front seven of the Broncos.
I would call Seattle to see if I could pry defensive tackle Red Bryant from them (yes, I know I love his game) and use him as my new nose. I doubt they would move him, but you never know.
I would call Cleveland to see if they want to dump some of the high-priced defensive linemen who were signed by the previous regime. Thinking they might want to move Shaun Smith now that they’ve acquired Kenyon Coleman.
The Broncos were not able to add beef to their defensive line and must find creative ways to fix this problem.
Next week, we’ll do a few more — and I’m sure you guys will have a few ideas.

I would talk to Pat Bowlen and fire McDaniels. Get Cutler back and we would be on the right track. Use good judgment in Broncos Organization.

Dean
04-30-2009, 07:37 PM
Should have picked up Gabe Watson for a second round pick when we had the chance.:confused:

Superchop 7
04-30-2009, 09:37 PM
Nolan has got to be loving it, kid falls flat on his face, everybody knows that the kid didn't do squat to help the defense.

Foots already in the door for head coach.

BroncosRockdaRockies
05-01-2009, 06:40 AM
You are right Dawkins, Renaldo Hill, Andra Davis, Askew, Ayers,Baker, Reid,Nic Clemons,Fields? Majority of the lineman at the tackle spot are 320 plus which all last year everyone was saying that was the mold for a 3-4 NT so I am starting to believe that the majority of the fans who are complaining befoore they see anyof these guys in action are just mad because it isn't some scrub like Haynesworth starting?

Elevation inc
05-01-2009, 06:48 AM
the funny thing is people said they were tired of seeing our DL under 300, i doubt that will be the case and i doubt we will see our lineman get physically run over becasue they are to small, which was a common theme the past few years. talent is obviously key, but egtting bigger, tougher and stronger is a improvement in itself if its a collective group and not a individual on the DL...

omac
05-01-2009, 09:39 AM
the funny thing is people said they were tired of seeing our DL under 300, i doubt that will be the case and i doubt we will see our lineman get physically run over becasue they are to small, which was a common theme the past few years. talent is obviously key, but egtting bigger, tougher and stronger is a improvement in itself its a collective gropu and not a individual on the DL...

In 2007, we were getting the new, highly thought of DC in Jim Bates, and there was a move by the FO to make the DL bigger. Remember Pat's statement to the press regarding getting bigger linemen for Bates' system? We released Warren, who wasn't great, but usually pretty solid (supposedly one of our better run stuffers at the time), and we acquired ... Alvin McKinley(310), Amon Gordon(305), Sam Adams(295, DT-DE); we also had on our roster Antwon Burton(315), and Kenny Peterson(295, DT-DE).

It's not that we didn't have some heavy DTs. It's that they weren't very good. :D

For our defense, our DL, specifically our NT, has to be very good. If teams run on us at will, corners and safeties won't be much help. I think we all learned that the last 2 seasons. I was really hoping that with this new regime, we'd attack that in the draft. It is what everyone's been complaining about way before McDaniels even got here.

For this draft, because of our defensive woes, I would've rather we bet on DL prospects, and traded up (or down) or even reached for them, instead of some of the gambles we took on a nickel cb and a te.

I would rather burn next year's 1st rounder to move one of our picks up to snag Raji or Jackson, than burn it for a 2nd round nickel cb.

Though the RB pick was not bad at all (although a bit luxurious, considering the RBs we picked up during the offseason, and the state of our defense), I'd have rather we used it on Orapko who supposedly can project into a 3-4 OLB like Ayers, and was a pretty good pass rusher.

We could've also decided to trade down and get Matthews, Maualuga, or Brace. Maybe we wouldn't even have to burn a 1st rounder for Smith or the 3rds for Quinn. But since we did, why not take a chance on Brace or Maualuga, and maybe even Gilbert at the end of the 2nd?

We got some pretty solid players from the draft, but I'd rather we took chances on building the DL, than taking big chances with a nickel cb and a blocking te who'll most likely be 3rd on the depth chart.

Fan in Exile
05-01-2009, 10:27 AM
If teams run on us at will, corners and safeties won't be much help.

I think this line deserves a little more thought and attention. I think it should be self evident that this isn't true, but I've heard it so many times, or variations of it that I had to stop and think about it, before I saw the problem with it.

First let me start with a disclaimer I think it's easier for one player to make an impact on defense from the front than from the back. So if you were to give me a choice between say Reggie White and Champ Bailey, I would go with White. However on a less theoretical basis the secondary can play a pivotal role in stopping the run, and building back to front can make sense.

I think if your secondary has four good to great players in it that's going to be a huge help when it comes to stopping the run, and can upgrade the play of the front seven. I think most obviously if the CBs don't need safety help it can let a team play with an 8 man front.

It can also allow you to play different LBs than you might otherwise have to. If the secondary can take care of the coverage responsibilities that let's you play bigger probably slower LB who can do a better job when they have to fight off or engage o-linemen the d-line can't handle. I think this is something for us to consider as we are looking at 4 starting LBs apart from probably DJ who haven't really ever been asked to cover before. This helps both the running game and the pass rush.

It can also limit the use of the nickle and dime which make you even more vulnerable to the run especially if you have a weaker front seven. Say it's 3rd and five. If you've got a good secondary you can leave them in to defend the pass and still be able stop a run instead of having to sell out against the pass and have no one in the stop the run.

It also helps the pass rush because it allows for a safety/corner blitz. This has two results. The first, assuming it works, is that you get sacks/pressure. The second is that it adds a wrinkle that helps even when you aren't sending someone off the corner. If it's done right it adds confusion and can leave a LB or d-linemen unblocked to get a shot at the QB, even when you aren't sending a safety or CB.

With that being said I think you improve wherever you can get guys who are better than the ones you would be playing. I think that's what Josh has done.

Notice that most of the complaints aren't, "The Bronco's should have gotten _______ player." They're more along the lines of the Bronco's should have drafted front seven. People think we should have addressed the position but they can't think of people we should have addressed the position with. Even the article is only holding out a very slim hope that maybe someone out there would want to trade for what we need.

omac
05-01-2009, 03:06 PM
First of all, I do appreciate the thought you put into your post. It's definitely much more refreshing to see more thought provoking posts in the forum. And you make a lot of good points. :salute:


I think this line deserves a little more thought and attention. I think it should be self evident that this isn't true, but I've heard it so many times, or variations of it that I had to stop and think about it, before I saw the problem with it.

First let me start with a disclaimer I think it's easier for one player to make an impact on defense from the front than from the back. So if you were to give me a choice between say Reggie White and Champ Bailey, I would go with White. However on a less theoretical basis the secondary can play a pivotal role in stopping the run, and building back to front can make sense.

I think if your secondary has four good to great players in it that's going to be a huge help when it comes to stopping the run, and can upgrade the play of the front seven. I think most obviously if the CBs don't need safety help it can let a team play with an 8 man front.

It can also allow you to play different LBs than you might otherwise have to. If the secondary can take care of the coverage responsibilities that let's you play bigger probably slower LB who can do a better job when they have to fight off or engage o-linemen the d-line can't handle. I think this is something for us to consider as we are looking at 4 starting LBs apart from probably DJ who haven't really ever been asked to cover before. This helps both the running game and the pass rush.

It can also limit the use of the nickle and dime which make you even more vulnerable to the run especially if you have a weaker front seven. Say it's 3rd and five. If you've got a good secondary you can leave them in to defend the pass and still be able stop a run instead of having to sell out against the pass and have no one in the stop the run.

It also helps the pass rush because it allows for a safety/corner blitz. This has two results. The first, assuming it works, is that you get sacks/pressure. The second is that it adds a wrinkle that helps even when you aren't sending someone off the corner. If it's done right it adds confusion and can leave a LB or d-linemen unblocked to get a shot at the QB, even when you aren't sending a safety or CB.

With that being said I think you improve wherever you can get guys who are better than the ones you would be playing. I think that's what Josh has done.

Notice that most of the complaints aren't, "The Bronco's should have gotten _______ player." They're more along the lines of the Bronco's should have drafted front seven. People think we should have addressed the position but they can't think of people we should have addressed the position with. Even the article is only holding out a very slim hope that maybe someone out there would want to trade for what we need.

It can be done, and Shanahan has been criticized for taking such an approach. To make up for a weak pass rush, he tried to solidify the back end with guys like Champ and Lynch. He later on got Bly, and we were all talking about how no one could pass against us. Thing is, without pressure from the DL, our DBs didn't look too good. Without pressure from the DL, forget our corners holding their own. Lynch was a pretty good player, but his hits seemed like they were after the player got some good gains. Champ, one of the best cbs in the league, looked pretty ordinary.

You also mention different linebacker formations; that reminds me a lot of last season, where we tried to give the opponent different "looks", occasionally going on some kind of a 3-4, getting those LBers to drop into coverage.

Corners attacking, we've done that too, although they've been more effective at attacking the RB than they were the QB.

The last time we had a DL that was decent enough to contain the run, we had the much maligned Browncos and Al Wilson quarterbacking the defense.

The DL these past 2 seasons have forced our CBs to help support the run, and it's gotten them burned on occasion. We also hung them out to dry by not getting enough pressure on the QB.

Weak DT play had us losing the LOS battle, and not giving our LBs the space to make much of a difference, or at least that's what people have been saying on the boards, again and again.

The DL, and the DT specifically, was one problem area we all agreed needed fixing, because it affected too many aspects of our defense. Now that we're switching to a 3-4, a NT becomes even more important.

I just think we've gone down this road before, and we've seen the results.

Loading on DBs to try to make up for a weak DL, whether for the rush or the pass .... I think of it like focusing on getting a solid RB before fixing a terrible OL; the RB may do some good, but the better way to fix it is to work on the trenches instead. Build the defensive line ... invest in the trenches ... that's what everyone here kept saying for a long time, and it makes a lot of sense.

But now, we're gonna try the backend first approach again, and just try to get serviceable, non-starter linemen. We have tons of question marks on the DL that could have been addressed more aggressively either in the draft or FA.

I can understand enthusiasm, but the DL approach was what we all believed was needed, even during Shanahan's tenure. Why is building from the back end suddenly the right approach, when it apparently wasn't before?

On getting players to make your team better ... no disagreement there. Moreno should make our rushing offense much more potent, just like Royal made our receiving corps more explosive. As a team, the Broncos did improve, but the weakness in the DL was still there.

On which specific player to draft in the front 7, a lot have made a lot of suggestions. The majority consensus for NT was either Raji or Brace, and at least one of them, we had an opportunity to take. Some like Tyson Jackson for DE. Others wanted Maualuga for LB. Others mentioned Orapko. The truth is, anyone can bust, but why not make an attempt at the positions that will directly affect the weakest aspect of our defense first, so that players can do what Bellichick says ... "their jobs", instead of covering up for players who can't.

OrangeHoof
05-01-2009, 03:34 PM
My complaint wasn't about Moreno, per se, but about what the whole draft said. The Moreno pick meant fixing the defense wasn't as important as re-tooling the offense. If we pass on Moreno, could we have gotten a player like Orakpo with the 12th pick and then turned around and taken Brace with the 18th pick? Now, you've upgraded the front seven in two places in the first round, rather than just one. Of course, who knows if either Orakpo or Brace was on that magic list of 100 that was on the Broncos' draft board?

One could argue, I suppose, that Moreno will mean the offense can run the ball better which will keep the defense off the field more but with all the backs we already had is Moreno enough of an upgrade to justify not helping the defense more? It's not like the cupboard was bare before Moreno.

I still feel like McDaniels thinks the offense is a bigger priority than the defense when the offense wasn't our problem. And the resources spent to "fix" the offense are stealing away from fixing legitimate needs on defense.

Fan in Exile
05-01-2009, 03:59 PM
First of all, I do appreciate the thought you put into your post. It's definitely much more refreshing to see more thought provoking posts in the forum. And you make a lot of good points. :salute:



It can be done, and Shanahan has been criticized for taking such an approach. To make up for a weak pass rush, he tried to solidify the back end with guys like Champ and Lynch. He later on got Bly, and we were all talking about how no one could pass against us. Thing is, without pressure from the DL, our DBs didn't look too good. Without pressure from the DL, forget our corners holding their own. Lynch was a pretty good player, but his hits seemed like they were after the player got some good gains. Champ, one of the best cbs in the league, looked pretty ordinary.

You also mention different linebacker formations; that reminds me a lot of last season, where we tried to give the opponent different "looks", occasionally going on some kind of a 3-4, getting those LBers to drop into coverage.

Corners attacking, we've done that too, although they've been more effective at attacking the RB than they were the QB.

The last time we had a DL that was decent enough to contain the run, we had the much maligned Browncos and Al Wilson quarterbacking the defense.

The DL these past 2 seasons have forced our CBs to help support the run, and it's gotten them burned on occasion. We also hung them out to dry by not getting enough pressure on the QB.

Weak DT play had us losing the LOS battle, and not giving our LBs the space to make much of a difference, or at least that's what people have been saying on the boards, again and again.

The DL, and the DT specifically, was one problem area we all agreed needed fixing, because it affected too many aspects of our defense. Now that we're switching to a 3-4, a NT becomes even more important.

I just think we've gone down this road before, and we've seen the results.

Loading on DBs to try to make up for a weak DL, whether for the rush or the pass .... I think of it like focusing on getting a solid RB before fixing a terrible OL; the RB may do some good, but the better way to fix it is to work on the trenches instead. Build the defensive line ... invest in the trenches ... that's what everyone here kept saying for a long time, and it makes a lot of sense.

But now, we're gonna try the backend first approach again, and just try to get serviceable, non-starter linemen. We have tons of question marks on the DL that could have been addressed more aggressively either in the draft or FA.

I can understand enthusiasm, but the DL approach was what we all believed was needed, even during Shanahan's tenure. Why is building from the back end suddenly the right approach, when it apparently wasn't before?

On getting players to make your team better ... no disagreement there. Moreno should make our rushing offense much more potent, just like Royal made our receiving corps more explosive. As a team, the Broncos did improve, but the weakness in the DL was still there.

On which specific player to draft in the front 7, a lot have made a lot of suggestions. The majority consensus for NT was either Raji or Brace, and at least one of them, we had an opportunity to take. Some like Tyson Jackson for DE. Others wanted Maualuga for LB. Others mentioned Orapko. The truth is, anyone can bust, but why not make an attempt at the positions that will directly affect the weakest aspect of our defense first, so that players can do what Bellichick says ... "their jobs", instead of covering up for players who can't.

The last time we had the type of secondary that could do the kind of things that I was talking about was 2005. Then I'm pretty sure that a top notch secondary helped cover for a sub-par front line. I would be happy with those results again. It certainly isn't my preference to have that happen, but if that's what you can get...

When we lost Brandon and Lynch and Ferguson got old fast our D really went down hill. Of course there were other factors like losing Al, that would really sink us, but I think the drop from 05 to 06 is pretty telling.

I get that you want a different approach but the players just weren't there. There was no NT candidate in FA. Gabe Watson is just not worth a second round pick, which is why none of the teams including us gave the cards one for him. I'm also glad that we didn't overpay for Canty or Olshansky.

However aggressive we might have been Fields was really the best choice out there. We never had a shot at Jackson or Raji.

The number 3 would just have been we to expensive, not to mention that the Chiefs wouldn't have traded with us anyway. The Jags got a gift with Monroe falling to them they weren't going to trade that away.

Orakpo is maybe a better pass rusher than Ayers, but Ayers is more versatile. There were a lot of DE/OLB guys that had good value when we picked and the one they wanted was Ayers.

Maualuga dropped into the second for good reason, he's most likely a two down player who wouldn't really have upgraded Davis or Larsen. There's also the concern about him wanting to free lance, which really isn't an option for our defensive players right now.

We should also get used to the fact that on passing downs and other probably some other situational packages as well they're going to pull the SILB for a safety to run a big nickle package. This also helps explain the secondary help that they picked up. So it's a question of getting a marginal upgrade for two thirds of the snaps or getting a big upgrade for a third of the snaps.

I think Brace is the only guy that we can really have questions about should we have picked him. The Pats clearly thought he was worth a high second rounder, but there are also questions about both his role in a 3-4 and whether he can succeed at it. Ultimately if it comes down to why didn't we pick this one guy I don't think we should be as whiny as some guys are being.

The drop off at both NT and DE after Brace and Jackson was huge. There simply wasn't a three hundred pound guy that was much of an upgrade over the bevy of three hundred pounders that we already got.

I also think that the Baker pick up is going to be what ultimately saves Josh's bacon from this draft. He's one of the top NT picks from the draft and would have gone higher if it weren't for character concerns.

The guys simply weren't there for us to get apart from Brace.

weazel
05-01-2009, 04:56 PM
I think he should phone the manager of the Cleveland Cavaliers and ask if Lebron James is available!! probably not, but why not try?

Never Trust a Snake
05-01-2009, 05:47 PM
From the National Football Post....
I would also call the Raiders and find out if they’re going to dump either of their well-paid defensive tackles, Tommy Kelly or Terdell Sands. Neither is a pure nose tackle, but if they’re in shape, both would help the front seven of the Broncos.

Outside of Willie Brown, Rich Jackson, and Gerard Warren, talking shop to the Raiders isn't exactly standard operating procedure at Dove Valley.

Den21vsBal19
05-01-2009, 07:05 PM
I would call Cleveland to see if they want to dump some of the high-priced defensive linemen who were signed by the previous regime.

Haven't we tried that once? :eek:

topscribe
05-01-2009, 07:12 PM
I would talk to Pat Bowlen and fire McDaniels. Get Cutler back and we would be on the right track. Use good judgment in Broncos Organization.

We would never get Cutler back. He's gone. Forever.

No NFL team is stupid enough to let Cutler go.



Oh wait . . .



------

Lonestar
05-01-2009, 08:45 PM
First of all, I do appreciate the thought you put into your post. It's definitely much more refreshing to see more thought provoking posts in the forum. And you make a lot of good points. :salute:



It can be done, and Shanahan has been criticized for taking such an approach. To make up for a weak pass rush, he tried to solidify the back end with guys like Champ and Lynch. He later on got Bly, and we were all talking about how no one could pass against us. Thing is, without pressure from the DL, our DBs didn't look too good. Without pressure from the DL, forget our corners holding their own. Lynch was a pretty good player, but his hits seemed like they were after the player got some good gains. Champ, one of the best cbs in the league, looked pretty ordinary.

You also mention different linebacker formations; that reminds me a lot of last season, where we tried to give the opponent different "looks", occasionally going on some kind of a 3-4, getting those LBers to drop into coverage.

Corners attacking, we've done that too, although they've been more effective at attacking the RB than they were the QB.

The last time we had a DL that was decent enough to contain the run, we had the much maligned Browncos and Al Wilson quarterbacking the defense.

The DL these past 2 seasons have forced our CBs to help support the run, and it's gotten them burned on occasion. We also hung them out to dry by not getting enough pressure on the QB.

Weak DT play had us losing the LOS battle, and not giving our LBs the space to make much of a difference, or at least that's what people have been saying on the boards, again and again.

The DL, and the DT specifically, was one problem area we all agreed needed fixing, because it affected too many aspects of our defense. Now that we're switching to a 3-4, a NT becomes even more important.

I just think we've gone down this road before, and we've seen the results.

Loading on DBs to try to make up for a weak DL, whether for the rush or the pass .... I think of it like focusing on getting a solid RB before fixing a terrible OL; the RB may do some good, but the better way to fix it is to work on the trenches instead. Build the defensive line ... invest in the trenches ... that's what everyone here kept saying for a long time, and it makes a lot of sense.

But now, we're gonna try the backend first approach again, and just try to get serviceable, non-starter linemen. We have tons of question marks on the DL that could have been addressed more aggressively either in the draft or FA.

I can understand enthusiasm, but the DL approach was what we all believed was needed, even during Shanahan's tenure. Why is building from the back end suddenly the right approach, when it apparently wasn't before?

On getting players to make your team better ... no disagreement there. Moreno should make our rushing offense much more potent, just like Royal made our receiving corps more explosive. As a team, the Broncos did improve, but the weakness in the DL was still there.

On which specific player to draft in the front 7, a lot have made a lot of suggestions. The majority consensus for NT was either Raji or Brace, and at least one of them, we had an opportunity to take. Some like Tyson Jackson for DE. Others wanted Maualuga for LB. Others mentioned Orapko. The truth is, anyone can bust, but why not make an attempt at the positions that will directly affect the weakest aspect of our defense first, so that players can do what Bellichick says ... "their jobs", instead of covering up for players who can't.



Solid post as usual.. And if getting quality DL were the only answer in the draft then we should have..

God knows I've used the term you win at the LOS forever..

BUT if the coaches that know the/our system they plan to use did not see anyone in the draft or in FA for the matter that would not have been a HUGE improvement over what we have.. Why not go after those back field folks to fix that part first or perhaps UPGRADE in the best term here..

IF SMITH is the best CB in the draft and they like the ball hawking skills of the others and the safety and they can fulfill the OTHER critical need on ST.. Then go for the gusto..

Play those folks on the DL we have plug in Ayers and then watch the waiver wires between now and September.. If we find someone that is what we are looking for great if not we go with the folks we have and wait till next year when the picking are supposed to be better..

The Way I see it we are 1/3 of the way to having a solid DL via the draft for years to come..

Yes perhaps we could have blown all of our wad on getting peppers or someone, but that is stop gap at best for the next few years..

Lets build via the draft and win long term..

I also suspect they thought that some of those DL guys we picked up as UDFA might be there and they indeed may be long term backup/rotational guys we will need also..

LASTLY

We have to remember that not only has this team been devoid of starting talent for some time, there has been almost NO backups for most positions and last but not least the almost total lack of decent coaching, further killed our defense..

We went from having perhaps the best LB core in the NFL just before Al went down to the worst in a HEART BEAT.. because we have been running on fumes for so long..

Lonestar
05-01-2009, 08:49 PM
My complaint wasn't about Moreno, per se, but about what the whole draft said. The Moreno pick meant fixing the defense wasn't as important as re-tooling the offense. If we pass on Moreno, could we have gotten a player like Orakpo with the 12th pick and then turned around and taken Brace with the 18th pick? Now, you've upgraded the front seven in two places in the first round, rather than just one. Of course, who knows if either Orakpo or Brace was on that magic list of 100 that was on the Broncos' draft board?
One could argue, I suppose, that Moreno will mean the offense can run the ball better which will keep the defense off the field more but with all the backs we already had is Moreno enough of an upgrade to justify not helping the defense more? It's not like the cupboard was bare before Moreno.

I still feel like McDaniels thinks the offense is a bigger priority than the defense when the offense wasn't our problem. And the resources spent to "fix" the offense are stealing away from fixing legitimate needs on defense.


You see that is the heart of the issue if your driving a corvette and only mustang parts are available at the time you need to fix the car you just can't always fit a mustang engine in t the corvette mounting pads..


Why buy parts that ultimately your not going to use?

omac
05-01-2009, 08:59 PM
The last time we had the type of secondary that could do the kind of things that I was talking about was 2005. Then I'm pretty sure that a top notch secondary helped cover for a sub-par front line. I would be happy with those results again. It certainly isn't my preference to have that happen, but if that's what you can get...

When we lost Brandon and Lynch and Ferguson got old fast our D really went down hill. Of course there were other factors like losing Al, that would really sink us, but I think the drop from 05 to 06 is pretty telling.

I get that you want a different approach but the players just weren't there. There was no NT candidate in FA. Gabe Watson is just not worth a second round pick, which is why none of the teams including us gave the cards one for him. I'm also glad that we didn't overpay for Canty or Olshansky.

However aggressive we might have been Fields was really the best choice out there. We never had a shot at Jackson or Raji.

The number 3 would just have been we to expensive, not to mention that the Chiefs wouldn't have traded with us anyway. The Jags got a gift with Monroe falling to them they weren't going to trade that away.

Orakpo is maybe a better pass rusher than Ayers, but Ayers is more versatile. There were a lot of DE/OLB guys that had good value when we picked and the one they wanted was Ayers.

Maualuga dropped into the second for good reason, he's most likely a two down player who wouldn't really have upgraded Davis or Larsen. There's also the concern about him wanting to free lance, which really isn't an option for our defensive players right now.

We should also get used to the fact that on passing downs and other probably some other situational packages as well they're going to pull the SILB for a safety to run a big nickle package. This also helps explain the secondary help that they picked up. So it's a question of getting a marginal upgrade for two thirds of the snaps or getting a big upgrade for a third of the snaps.

I think Brace is the only guy that we can really have questions about should we have picked him. The Pats clearly thought he was worth a high second rounder, but there are also questions about both his role in a 3-4 and whether he can succeed at it. Ultimately if it comes down to why didn't we pick this one guy I don't think we should be as whiny as some guys are being.

The drop off at both NT and DE after Brace and Jackson was huge. There simply wasn't a three hundred pound guy that was much of an upgrade over the bevy of three hundred pounders that we already got.

I also think that the Baker pick up is going to be what ultimately saves Josh's bacon from this draft. He's one of the top NT picks from the draft and would have gone higher if it weren't for character concerns.

The guys simply weren't there for us to get apart from Brace.

I agree with practically all your points, specially about wanting our defense to be at least as good as it was in 2005, and that though the secondary was good enough to cover up some weaknesses in the DL, it would've been better if the DL itself had no weaknesses.

We also agree on Brace; since McDaniels did burn a first to get a high second rounder, we could've easily picked him, and Bellichick taking him adds even more credibility to the pick, because Bellichick does know how to build a 3-4 defense.

I'm not saying to take Orapko over Ayers; Ayers is a DL player, so if they thought he's that good, he's worth the attempt.

On Maualuga dropping on the boards for a reason, that holds merit. Still, this is a player thought to be one of the best in college for a lot of his career, and for some reason, he drops down the boards. I think the risk would be justified, as we'd be attacking the weakest point of our defense. An analyst, rightfully or not, has even compared him a bit to Ray Lewis. That's something we could definitely use.

On not having the ammo to move up to take Tyson or Raji, I disagree. We burned a 1st next year and two 3rds to pick up (edited)a defensive back and a te, one of them, though great in college, might be too short and too slow to have the same effectiveness in the NFL. The Jets only gave up a 2nd rounder and 3 backups to take the #5 pick. With Shanahan no longer the coach, who knows if Al Davis would've agreed to trade down and still pick up Hayward-Bey (then again, Al doesn't really care about draft positional value, hehehe). The Chiefs were rumored to want to trade down from their #3 spot, and that when they couldn't, they reached for Jackson, who some here were expecting to go past the 10th pick.

I'm not saying the probability of those things happening were high; but for me, I'd rather burn our 1st rounder next season to move up to take a DL player projected in the top 10, than on a nickel cb who was rated as a late 1st rounder, early 2nd rounder, specially given our weakness at DL, and the FA signings we did on our secondary.

Still, I agree with most of your points. :cheers: I just think we should've taken more chances with more DL players, than defensive backs or blocking TEs.

omac
05-01-2009, 09:18 PM
Solid post as usual.. And if getting quality DL were the only answer in the draft then we should have..

God knows I've used the term you win at the LOS forever..

BUT if the coaches that know the/our system they plan to use did not see anyone in the draft or in FA for the matter that would not have been a HUGE improvement over what we have.. Why not go after those back field folks to fix that part first or perhaps UPGRADE in the best term here..

IF SMITH is the best CB in the draft and they like the ball hawking skills of the others and the safety and they can fulfill the OTHER critical need on ST.. Then go for the gusto..

Play those folks on the DL we have plug in Ayers and then watch the waiver wires between now and September.. If we find someone that is what we are looking for great if not we go with the folks we have and wait till next year when the picking are supposed to be better..

The Way I see it we are 1/3 of the way to having a solid DL via the draft for years to come..

Yes perhaps we could have blown all of our wad on getting peppers or someone, but that is stop gap at best for the next few years..

Lets build via the draft and win long term..

I also suspect they thought that some of those DL guys we picked up as UDFA might be there and they indeed may be long term backup/rotational guys we will need also..

LASTLY

We have to remember that not only has this team been devoid of starting talent for some time, there has been almost NO backups for most positions and last but not least the almost total lack of decent coaching, further killed our defense..

We went from having perhaps the best LB core in the NFL just before Al went down to the worst in a HEART BEAT.. because we have been running on fumes for so long..

Great points! :salute: ... and also, you were one of the 1st posters I thought of when remembering about posters talking about building the trenches. :D

Also, very good observation on the LB depth. That definitely showed on our defense.

I guess I want to get this defense getting better much faster, but you're willing to take the bpa approach, which won't fix our most critical needs now, but gets us better assurance that the players we do get do stick with us. That's actually a similar approach that Shanahan and the Goodman's have been taking with the recent drafts, save for Bates' DL picks in Moss and Crowder. They've solidified a team weakness, OL, and made it a strength, by drafting 2 tackles and a guard. Our WR corps, including TEs, are thought to be among the best, with draft picks Marshall, Royal, and Scheffler, and even our FB is excellent. Just like McDaniels making low risk investments on defensive UDFAs, the Goodmans did the same with later round defensive picks like Larsen and Barret who immediately contributed as rookies. The approach right now is not too different from the approach we've been using the last few seasons, save for burning a first rounder for a nickel cb, and two 3rds for a blocking te.

The definite positive in the draft is that we might have gotten some of the best players in their positions with Moreno and (according to Mayock) Ayers.

And I agree on Nolan most likely proving to be a much better DC than Slowik, and probably Bates too. We should see just how good our defensive players can get. :cheers:

Fan in Exile
05-02-2009, 08:19 AM
I agree with practically all your points, specially about wanting our defense to be at least as good as it was in 2005, and that though the secondary was good enough to cover up some weaknesses in the DL, it would've been better if the DL itself had no weaknesses.

We also agree on Brace; since McDaniels did burn a first to get a high second rounder, we could've easily picked him, and Bellichick taking him adds even more credibility to the pick, because Bellichick does know how to build a 3-4 defense.

I'm not saying to take Orapko over Ayers; Ayers is a DL player, so if they thought he's that good, he's worth the attempt.

On Maualuga dropping on the boards for a reason, that holds merit. Still, this is a player thought to be one of the best in college for a lot of his career, and for some reason, he drops down the boards. I think the risk would be justified, as we'd be attacking the weakest point of our defense. An analyst, rightfully or not, has even compared him a bit to Ray Lewis. That's something we could definitely use.

On not having the ammo to move up to take Tyson or Raji, I disagree. We burned a 1st next year and two 3rds to pick up (edited)a defensive back and a te, one of them, though great in college, might be too short and too slow to have the same effectiveness in the NFL. The Jets only gave up a 2nd rounder and 3 backups to take the #5 pick. With Shanahan no longer the coach, who knows if Al Davis would've agreed to trade down and still pick up Hayward-Bey (then again, Al doesn't really care about draft positional value, hehehe). The Chiefs were rumored to want to trade down from their #3 spot, and that when they couldn't, they reached for Jackson, who some here were expecting to go past the 10th pick.

I'm not saying the probability of those things happening were high; but for me, I'd rather burn our 1st rounder next season to move up to take a DL player projected in the top 10, than on a nickel cb who was rated as a late 1st rounder, early 2nd rounder, specially given our weakness at DL, and the FA signings we did on our secondary.

Still, I agree with most of your points. :cheers: I just think we should've taken more chances with more DL players, than defensive backs or blocking TEs.

I think you've convinced me that we could have moved up to get Raji. Although Peter King did a story about the Browns-Jets trade and he said one of the reasons that it worked was because Mangini really wanted one of the players, because he'd brought him into New York, so I don't think we could have pulled off a trade there.

I think from my point of view, the one position I think he should have worked harder on upgrading really is the NT. Which is why watching Raji and Brace go was pretty hard. If those two guys pan out and Baker doesn't then I'm going to be really pissed. If all three guys pan out then I'll be happy we got the cheap guy. :D

I'm not going to be worried about the other guys from this draft because I think that would just be me complaining in 20/20 hindsight. But those two guys really were the best at our biggest position of need.

Nomad
05-02-2009, 08:46 AM
GB wanted Raji and I believe in order to get him the Packers would have wanted more than the BRONCOS could afford and were willing to give!

As far as Rey M., people are slamming Chris Baker with character issues, well Rey is just as much of a risk and he would have been a pricey risk....at least Baker is cheap.

broncfn90
05-02-2009, 09:59 AM
If i was GM i would of drafted Brain and Rey for our two picks but whatever