PDA

View Full Version : Elway Talks Draft, Free Agency, Welker and More



Denver Native (Carol)
04-02-2013, 06:03 PM
ENGLEWOOD, Colo. -- On Monday afternoon, Executive Vice President of Football Operations John Elway made an appearance on The Dave Logan show on partner station 850 KOA.

He discussed a wide-ranging set of topics from free agency to the draft, the loss of Elvis Dumervil and the addition of Wes Welker. Below is a transcript of Logan and Dave Krieger's interview with Elway.

On whether the team has moved on to draft preparation or if there are still options in free agency:
"We're still looking around, but we'll start delving into the draft. We'll start our draft meetings on Wednesday and start getting ready for the draft. It's an exciting time of year, especially on the personnel side. We'll start digging in on Wednesday and then hopefully come the end of the month I'm sure we'll find some good football players."

rest - http://www.denverbroncos.com/news-and-blogs/article-1/Elway-Talks-Draft-Free-Agency-Welker-and-More/289d5246-dcf3-4fad-9f04-e591caa83beb

Joel
04-02-2013, 06:47 PM
I wish Elway weren't committed to BPA no matter what, because it's a sucker bet without a top 20 pick. Drafting the best player at a position where we're stacked won't get us to Super Bowl XLVIII, because we have no deficiencies there to cost us a playoff game. However, lacking a MLB who can cover, a DE not weak against the run OR pass, a safety who can get within 10 yds of a Hail Mary that sends a playoff game to over time; those could be season-ending, so it makes sense to address one with a player who'll still be pretty good at #28, even if he (probably) won't be a Hall of Famer.

NO draft philosophy is ALWAYS right or wrong, and I wish more people got that. Teams full of Pro Bowlers CAN'T get the BEST player "available" without trading up, but are guaranteed several key players near the end of their contract/career (which might make trading up wise.) Conversely, dog teams have so few decent, let alone great, players that a top pick almost ANYWHERE will immediately and greatly improve their starting lineup, plus they usually have a top five pick with which to grab the years top talent, rather than getting the leftovers from twenty other teams. The right draft philosophy depends on the team.

The BPA commitments only saving grace is we actually AREN'T stacked many places. About the only ones that come to mind are WR and CB, but only Champ and Harris are under contract after this year (Harris is an RFA in 2014) and NONE after that. Same with receivers; Welker's no spring chicken, and Thomas and Decker are both in the last year of their contracts, leaving just Tamme and Dreessen signed through 2014.

So it sounds like we're doing the right thing for the wrong reasons; I hope that works out for us, because when Manning retires I fear the bottom will drop out like it did in 2010.

Simple Jaded
04-02-2013, 11:40 PM
Demaryius Thomas is under contract through the 2014 season.

Joel
04-03-2013, 10:17 AM
Demaryius Thomas is under contract through the 2014 season.
Right you are; my bad. So maybe we couldn't use the BPA at WR; otherwise pretty much anyone we take at #28 will probably be starting within a couple years unless he's a bust.

Lancane
04-03-2013, 12:19 PM
Joel, one thing to remember about drafting the BPA it's based on the team's ranking and not on the national graded system used by scouts and draftniks. Wolfe and Osweiler were both high on their boards but graded lower by that same said system, Miller is a perfect example as well because the analysts, draftniks and most scouts had him better suited for a 3-4 defense and he has become on of the more dominant defensive players in the National Football League in a 4-3 defense. Last year I told people on here that I would not be surprised if they took Osweiler at the tail end of the first round, they were able to trade down and still get two of the highest ranked players on their board. So don't take the term BPA to heart, of course if Werner landed in their laps and they go with the best player available then it's a win-win situation.

TXBRONC
04-03-2013, 02:55 PM
I wish Elway weren't committed to BPA no matter what, because it's a sucker bet without a top 20 pick. Drafting the best player at a position where we're stacked won't get us to Super Bowl XLVIII, because we have no deficiencies there to cost us a playoff game. However, lacking a MLB who can cover, a DE not weak against the run OR pass, a safety who can get within 10 yds of a Hail Mary that sends a playoff game to over time; those could be season-ending, so it makes sense to address one with a player who'll still be pretty good at #28, even if he (probably) won't be a Hall of Famer.

NO draft philosophy is ALWAYS right or wrong, and I wish more people got that. Teams full of Pro Bowlers CAN'T get the BEST player "available" without trading up, but are guaranteed several key players near the end of their contract/career (which might make trading up wise.) Conversely, dog teams have so few decent, let alone great, players that a top pick almost ANYWHERE will immediately and greatly improve their starting lineup, plus they usually have a top five pick with which to grab the years top talent, rather than getting the leftovers from twenty other teams. The right draft philosophy depends on the team.

The BPA commitments only saving grace is we actually AREN'T stacked many places. About the only ones that come to mind are WR and CB, but only Champ and Harris are under contract after this year (Harris is an RFA in 2014) and NONE after that. Same with receivers; Welker's no spring chicken, and Thomas and Decker are both in the last year of their contracts, leaving just Tamme and Dreessen signed through 2014.

So it sounds like we're doing the right thing for the wrong reasons; I hope that works out for us, because when Manning retires I fear the bottom will drop out like it did in 2010.

From what I read it doesn't sound like Elway agrees with your assesment about middle lineback. I've always said you listen to what Elway and Fox to say and then watch what they do. I'm pretty sure Elway and Fox have a much better idea of what Irving, Johnson, and Bradley and most especially Irving since they had him on the team for the last two years. As far as I know there are only two mike linebackers that really standout Teo and that kid out of Georgia whose name is escaping me at the moment. Kid from UGA can't stay out of trouble and Teo has had poor showing at the Combine and IIRC he also had a poor showing in the National Championship Game.

They're not perfect but they do have a much better grasp of what they need and how fill those need than any of us on this board do.

Joel
04-03-2013, 05:13 PM
Joel, one thing to remember about drafting the BPA it's based on the team's ranking and not on the national graded system used by scouts and draftniks. Wolfe and Osweiler were both high on their boards but graded lower by that same said system, Miller is a perfect example as well because the analysts, draftniks and most scouts had him better suited for a 3-4 defense and he has become on of the more dominant defensive players in the National Football League in a 4-3 defense. Last year I told people on here that I would not be surprised if they took Osweiler at the tail end of the first round, they were able to trade down and still get two of the highest ranked players on their board. So don't take the term BPA to heart, of course if Werner landed in their laps and they go with the best player available then it's a win-win situation.
That's not reassuring since it just splits the difference. Ever since the NFL made unlimited substitution permanent it's been a min/max game; trying to get the BPA AND fill the greatest need often does neither.

Miller is a good example of what I meant though: The 2010 Broncos were 4-12 partly because of poor coaching but also because they had gaping holes EVERYWHERE. They would've run out of draft picks long before filling all of them, but had the #2 overall pick, so they used it on a freakish athlete knowing he'd be an indispensable star on any team, even if better suited to others. Unless we trade up we're unlikely to have access to that kind of talent after 28 other teams comb over this years draft class, so it's pointless to draft the best REMAINING athlete to backup, say, Thomas, Decker and Welker.


From what I read it doesn't sound like Elway agrees with your assesment about middle lineback. I've always said you listen to what Elway and Fox to say and then watch what they do. I'm pretty sure Elway and Fox have a much better idea of what Irving, Johnson, and Bradley and most especially Irving since they had him on the team for the last two years. As far as I know there are only two mike linebackers that really standout Teo and that kid out of Georgia whose name is escaping me at the moment. Kid from UGA can't stay out of trouble and Teo has had poor showing at the Combine and IIRC he also had a poor showing in the National Championship Game.

They're not perfect but they do have a much better grasp of what they need and how fill those need than any of us on this board do.
I don't follow college ball at all, but from what those who do have said it sounds like you're right about this years Mike crop. I referenced Mike solely as an example of need (and if the front office were really sold on Irving they wouldn't have signed a different FA to start three years running, injury or not.) Drafting to fill a hole only works if it actually FILLS the hole with anything but more empty space, and none of this years rookie Mikes seem likely to do that. Unfortunately, we have many other current/imminent positions of need, so unless the whole draft class is a bust we'll have both good talent and utility "available" at #29.

Ravage!!!
04-03-2013, 06:06 PM
I think when teams list the BPA, its a list that starts with the best in college, and then that matches with the teams most needs. Sometimes, you can't pass on a player purely because of his unbelievable athletic attributes, but RARELY does a team JUST draft on BPA alone... unless you are the Detroit Lions and draft 1st round WRs three years in a row.

I always wonder why people take everything so literally from newspaper articles or quotes?

TXBRONC
04-04-2013, 06:54 AM
That's not reassuring since it just splits the difference. Ever since the NFL made unlimited substitution permanent it's been a min/max game; trying to get the BPA AND fill the greatest need often does neither.

Miller is a good example of what I meant though: The 2010 Broncos were 4-12 partly because of poor coaching but also because they had gaping holes EVERYWHERE. They would've run out of draft picks long before filling all of them, but had the #2 overall pick, so they used it on a freakish athlete knowing he'd be an indispensable star on any team, even if better suited to others. Unless we trade up we're unlikely to have access to that kind of talent after 28 other teams comb over this years draft class, so it's pointless to draft the best REMAINING athlete to backup, say, Thomas, Decker and Welker.

They didn't choose Miller purely because he was freakish athlete. He also filled a need for more team speed. Drafting Marcel Darius like probably the majority of "experts" predicted wouldn't have gotten that accomplished.

Lancane
04-04-2013, 12:15 PM
That's not reassuring since it just splits the difference. Ever since the NFL made unlimited substitution permanent it's been a min/max game; trying to get the BPA AND fill the greatest need often does neither.

Completely opinionative, and I will tell you who revolutionized the Need vs Best Player Available, that is the late great Bill Walsh. He didn't follow the grading system either, and it led to some solid latter half additions, such as Joe Montana, Dwight Clark, Keena Turner, Carlton Williamson, Eric Wright, Jesse Sapolu, Guy McIntyre, Michael Carter, John Taylor, Charles Haley, Steve Wallace, Pierce Holt and Bill Romanowski, all draft picks who he was higher on then how they were being graded, all of whom went on to be Pro-Bowlers, not only that, we're also talking about the man who traded for Steve Young who eventually would become another HOF quarterback.

If a front office simply took the BPA in accordance to how scouts and draftniks grade these athletes, rosters would be full of kids who don't fit the scheme, granted a good coach will build his scheme around the talent he has, but not when the talent would force him to alter his scheme and philosophy on a continuous basis, it could totally alter the effectiveness of the unit. So, what teams generally tend to do is to mark those players that grade out well but fit their scheme and philosophy or at least have the ability and smart enough to adapt to it. You think Denver simply went after Manning because who he is or because he actually fit what the Broncos' wanted to do on offense? The same with their pursuit of Osweiler in the draft. Even when a team states they will go with BPA, it's not as simple as it sounds, that is why each team has a board, there would be no need otherwise...

topscribe
04-04-2013, 03:05 PM
They didn't choose Miller purely because he was freakish athlete. He also filled a need for more team speed. Drafting Marcel Darius like probably the majority of "experts" predicted wouldn't have gotten that accomplished.
But he was, and is, a better player . . .
.

Chef Zambini
04-05-2013, 11:44 AM
I wish Elway weren't committed to BPA no matter what, because it's a sucker bet without a top 20 pick. Drafting the best player at a position where we're stacked won't get us to Super Bowl XLVIII, because we have no deficiencies there to cost us a playoff game. However, lacking a MLB who can cover, a DE not weak against the run OR pass, a safety who can get within 10 yds of a Hail Mary that sends a playoff game to over time; those could be season-ending, so it makes sense to address one with a player who'll still be pretty good at #28, even if he (probably) won't be a Hall of Famer.

NO draft philosophy is ALWAYS right or wrong, and I wish more people got that. Teams full of Pro Bowlers CAN'T get the BEST player "available" without trading up, but are guaranteed several key players near the end of their contract/career (which might make trading up wise.) Conversely, dog teams have so few decent, let alone great, players that a top pick almost ANYWHERE will immediately and greatly improve their starting lineup, plus they usually have a top five pick with which to grab the years top talent, rather than getting the leftovers from twenty other teams. The right draft philosophy depends on the team.

The BPA commitments only saving grace is we actually AREN'T stacked many places. About the only ones that come to mind are WR and CB, but only Champ and Harris are under contract after this year (Harris is an RFA in 2014) and NONE after that. Same with receivers; Welker's no spring chicken, and Thomas and Decker are both in the last year of their contracts, leaving just Tamme and Dreessen signed through 2014.

So it sounds like we're doing the right thing for the wrong reasons; I hope that works out for us, because when Manning retires I fear the bottom will drop out like it did in 2010.joel, BPA is a myth. JFE says they drafted BPA over the last 2 drafts, total BS, sorry.
How can a team move down 2 times in a row, OUT of the first round and say they draft BPA???
what, there was nobody worth drafting in the first round?
NO BEST PLAYER AVAILABLE?
BPA is horseshit, teams must consider their NEEDS when drafting, to do otherwise, is as you suggested, ludicrous !

ask matt millen about BPA and selecting a WR with the first pick 3 years in a row.
BPA, Bullshit Pretence, Actually.

Joel
04-05-2013, 06:08 PM
I think when teams list the BPA, its a list that starts with the best in college, and then that matches with the teams most needs. Sometimes, you can't pass on a player purely because of his unbelievable athletic attributes, but RARELY does a team JUST draft on BPA alone... unless you are the Detroit Lions and draft 1st round WRs three years in a row.

I always wonder why people take everything so literally from newspaper articles or quotes?
Stating a preference for BPA over need (or vice versa) reflects just that, prioritizing one over the other, though never as an absolute. That's invariably wise, but WHICH to prioritize depends on the team.

The Lions are a good example of why dog teams have too many holes to draft for need. They decided they HAD to have a WR to win, so they took:

2003: Charles Rogers, 2nd overall (Andre Johnson was #3.) Could've had: Terence Newman, Jordan Gross, Kevin Williams, Suggs, Marcus Trufant, Polamalu, McGahee, Dallas Clark, Larry Johnson, Asomugha.
2004: Roy Williams, 7th overall (Lee Evans was #13.) Could've had: DeAngelo Hall, Roethlisberger, Vilma, Wilfork, Steven Jackson, Dansby, Olshansky.
2005: Mike Williams, 10th overall (Roddy White was #27.) Could've had: DeMarcus Ware, Derrick Johnson, Aaron Rodgers, Mankins.

Despite investing three straight Top 10s in WRs, the team wasn't much better, so two years later they had the #2 pick when Megatron was arguably the BPA. That's lose-lose: Either spend a FOURTH Top 10 pick in 5 years on a WR, or ignore a likely HoFer. Detroit did the former, to the delight of teams who drafted LaRon Landry, AP, Revis, Michael Griffin and Beason. Detroit put themselves in that bind by ignoring potential HoFers in previous drafts to spend Top 10s on just one of MANY needs. Even after drafting Megatron they had little more than a bad team with a good WR corps, and finished the year as historys only 0-16 NFL club.

Bottom line: Drafting need increases the risk of a bust while reducing the chance of a star. Dog teams who play with that stacked deck usually just spin their wheels and dig themselves deeper like the '07 Lions. That's the mathematical reality when you have FOUR TIMES as many starting roster spots as draft picks, and half the latter probably won't be around >2 years.

Drafting to fill holes only works when holes are 1) very large in key places and 2) few enough to fill quickly, without ignoring better players for holes as big or bigger.


Completely opinionative, and I will tell you who revolutionized the Need vs Best Player Available, that is the late great Bill Walsh. He didn't follow the grading system either, and it led to some solid latter half additions, such as Joe Montana, Dwight Clark, Keena Turner, Carlton Williamson, Eric Wright, Jesse Sapolu, Guy McIntyre, Michael Carter, John Taylor, Charles Haley, Steve Wallace, Pierce Holt and Bill Romanowski, all draft picks who he was higher on then how they were being graded, all of whom went on to be Pro-Bowlers, not only that, we're also talking about the man who traded for Steve Young who eventually would become another HOF quarterback.

If a front office simply took the BPA in accordance to how scouts and draftniks grade these athletes, rosters would be full of kids who don't fit the scheme, granted a good coach will build his scheme around the talent he has, but not when the talent would force him to alter his scheme and philosophy on a continuous basis, it could totally alter the effectiveness of the unit. So, what teams generally tend to do is to mark those players that grade out well but fit their scheme and philosophy or at least have the ability and smart enough to adapt to it. You think Denver simply went after Manning because who he is or because he actually fit what the Broncos' wanted to do on offense? The same with their pursuit of Osweiler in the draft. Even when a team states they will go with BPA, it's not as simple as it sounds, that is why each team has a board, there would be no need otherwise...
"Completely opinionative" is how I'd describe how people fawn over Bill Walsh; unlimited substitutions effects are well documented fact. Sammy Baugh set the standing record for most Ints caught (i.e. NOT thrown) (NOT throwing) in a game, but you'll never see a starting QB doubling as starting DB today. Unlimited substitution led to specialists, and a jack-of-all-trades is master of none, hence Thorpe and Tebow similar abilities produced radically different careers.

Some of those picks are dubious examples of zen drafting; Wright, Turner and Holt were second round picks, and Montana, Taylor, Williamson, McIntyre and Romanowski went in the third, neither of which were terribly late, especially then. Conversely, if Walsh knew so much better than anyone else what kind of players Haley and Sapolu were, why did he give 27 other teams 9+ chances to beat him to them? Sometimes luck is "the residue of design" but sometimes it's just luck, like we had with Terrell Davis and Rod Smith. In todays NFL Walsh would've gotten Haley the same way we got Rod: As an UDFA, not a pick.

Trading isn't drafting either; the Bucs won just 4 games in two seasons starting Young. So they drafted Testaverde #1 overall, Young was expendable and Montana needed a backup; off he went for a 2nd and 4th.

That lists best examples are Steve Wallace and Michael Carter: Midround selections no one took sooner, but Walsh didn't wait too long and risk losing. Yet two Pro Bowl zen picks in ten years isn't game-changing.

The BPA usually has enough diverse exceptional talent and skill to fit or adapt to most schemes, else he wouldn't be the BPA. 3-4 OLBs are the obvious example; guys like Doom and Miller can make the Pro Bowl as 4-3 OLBs or even 4-3 RDEs despite being better suited to a 3-4. Coaches must adapt their scheme to their players abilities (as Walsh famously did when developing the West Coast offense for weak-armed but brilliant Virgil Carter,) but a team full of HoFers doesn't need much tinkering; they do many things well.


joel, BPA is a myth. JFE says they drafted BPA over the last 2 drafts, total BS, sorry.
How can a team move down 2 times in a row, OUT of the first round and say they draft BPA???
what, there was nobody worth drafting in the first round?
NO BEST PLAYER AVAILABLE?
BPA is horseshit, teams must consider their NEEDS when drafting, to do otherwise, is as you suggested, ludicrous !

ask matt millen about BPA and selecting a WR with the first pick 3 years in a row.
BPA, Bullshit Pretence, Actually.
Your point about trading down to get the BPA is valid and revealing, but it's not as simple as "always draft for need/ability." For one thing, a player with no ability obviously fills no need. It's "always" a balance, but each team should "always" prioritize one or the other based on its "needs" in the broadest deepest sense.

Since you're here though, I can just synopsize my whole argument by saying, "re-read The Hidden Game of Footballs chapter on 'The Draft Dodge.'" For that matter, I wish everyone would do that, especially in the Broncos, Texans, Cowboys and Vikings front offices. ;)

Chef Zambini
04-08-2013, 11:54 AM
BPA, is a farce !
the broncos TARGET players in each round.
they would be RETARDED, not to consider NEED.
PBFU, best player for us (in this round)
this is the REAL mentality of most draft rooms.
our broncos TARGET players they think will help our team, players tyhey have RESEARCHED and are FAMILIAR with !
not numbers on a list, or the next guy on somebodys value board.

TXBRONC
04-08-2013, 12:33 PM
But he was, and is, a better player . . .
.

I didn't say he wasn't. Dareus would have been a good pick and that's according to both Elway and Fox but he wasn't the right pick because he wouldn't have improved team speed. Improving team speed was a much bigger concern than adding a defensive tackle.

broncohead
04-09-2013, 01:43 PM
BPA is all relative to each team.