Bleacher Report: Broncos Have NFLs #3 Corner—and Champ Bailey!

[Joel]

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1444334-br-nfl-1000-2013-top-100-cornerbacks/page/81

Not that they trash Champ or anything; they still rank him 7th, claiming, "While the league's best will beat him over the top, he’s instinctive and athletic enough to keep pace with most NFL talent," and concluding that, "Bailey has lost a step, but his 2012 film showed that he’s still a top-level NFL cornerback. There’s still quality play left in his game." I don't know and thus can't speak to their metrics, but they actually rank Champ higher than last year, when they listed him as the NFLs 11th best. Yet in his prime no one said Champ needed help with ANYONE, over the top or otherwise."

Again, I can't speak to metrics, but if Champ moving from 11th to 7th is good, Chris Harris moving from 81st to 3rd is astounding http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1118304-br-nfl-1000-top-100-cornerbacks/page/21. After starting for the last half of 2012 so solidly Porter couldn't regain his job even once healthy, it's hard to imagine Harris reverting to third down nickelback, especially when he's an RFA next year and just earned our biggest roster bonus. His career's only begun, but he'd already start on most teams, and surely knows it. I've been dreading the same mistake we made with Dominique Foxworth; hopefully Bly and Goodman taught us that lesson.

Bleacher Report notes two things I've liked about Harris the past couple years:

"Harris doesn’t make a ton of interceptions or ​break on the ball particularly well, but he also doesn’t gamble by jumping routes and guessing on the play. He’s disciplined to sit and make the tackle if a catch is made. That means he won’t be leading the league in interceptions, but he also won’t lead the league in touchdowns allowed."

I often think the reason I think so highly of Harris is also why many people disparage him: He cares more about winning games than making highlight reels, so he isn't so obsessed with picks he constantly goes for the ball and gets burned for easy catches. In other words, he plays NFL CB, not Madden NFL CB. ;) And, like Champ, whom he has no doubt watched closely the last two years, he's a sure tackler; he flows to the ball and wraps up like a LB (or Champ,) enthusiastically plays the run, and guys feel it when he hits them. Either of these guys would be great safeties, but one's on the up and other the downslope of his career.

Meanwhile, we just shelled out a fair amount for two years of a certain OTHER Dominique, so it's just as hard to imagine HIM skipping first and second down. Three fine starting CBs, one of whom's noticeably slowing; what do we do? We COULD play a base nickel D, rushing Miller, Wolfe, Ayers and our DTs while Harris and Woodyard play coverage (given our questions at MLB, that even has some twisted appeal:rolleyes:) but that's not realistic. Moving Champ to safety is, and the appropriate contract restructuring would make re-signing Clady (not to mention all the other guys on short contracts) much easier.

That recurring debate always meets two big objections: 1) Champ's not slower and 2) Chris Harris sucks. I frankly find both claims absurd and, at the ever-present risk of confirmation bias, this article supports that (though without publicizing its methodology.) I'm especially perplexed the debate always leads to claims Harris is slower than Flacco, despite running a 4.48 40, nearly a third of second faster than Flaccos 4.84.

Yet if we're going there, the final arbiter of whether Joe Flacco fears Champ more than Harris is properly Joe Flacco, who faced them twice in the span of a month.

Round 1: Ravens #1 WR Anquan Boldin, a three time Pro Bowler, was targeted 6 times for NO catches and a 98 yd pick-six. #2 WR Torrey Smith, a second year sprinter, was targeted 3 times for a 14 yd catch.

Round 2: Boldin was targeted 11 times for 6 catches and 71 yds; Smith was targeted 6 times for 3 catches, 98 yds and 2 TDs.

The stats suggest Flacco fears Champ more, but SHOULD fear Harris more; throwing at each produces TDs, but for different TEAMS, and he completes more throwing at Champ. ;)

In fairness, the Ravens are a poor standard of comparison; Flacco throws a great deep ball but a lousy short one, which helps Harris defending 10 yd passes to Boldin and hurts Champ defending bombs to Smith.

Maybe Champ doesn't yet NEED to become a safety; he's still a fine CB even if he can't run downfield with track stars anymore. However, our other lesson from the Ravens rematch was that we have NO safeties on par with Champ, Cromartie or Harris; the best is Mike Adams, who's 32 and a FA next year (Leonhard was next, but is a FA NOW.) It's not just whether Champs days at CB are over, it's that they soon will be, we have guys who can take over and we're in dire straits at both FS and SS. An experienced sure-tackling ball hawker who reads and reacts like Champ could play either in his sleep, his slight slowing wouldn't be a liability, and he wouldn't leave a hole behind him. Why wait during one of the last title runs he AND Manning have left?

[MOtorboat]

Bleacher Report?

Really?

[spikerman]

This sounds like a good time to move him to safety. :behindsofa:




That wasn't at you Joel. That was a good find. While Bailey is certainly not what he once was, I don't see how they can rate Harris above him at this point.

[Nomad]

Just curious.....What's a credible news source and who's a credible reporter?

[MOtorboat]

Just curious.....What's a credible news source and who's a credible reporter?

Well, this is an opinion piece, so neither of those two aspects really apply.

Bleacher Report has become more credible than it was before Turner Sports (I think) bought it, but I still wouldn't go to it for in depth analysis.

[Denver Native (Carol)]

Bleacher Report?

Really?

In the past, I had read comments on here in regards to articles on Bleacher Report, and since then, I have heard the NBA guys on TNT mention Bleacher Report quite a bit, and they refer to articles on Bleacher Report.

[Joel]

This sounds like a good time to move him to safety. :behindsofa:


That wasn't at you Joel. That was a good find. While Bailey is certainly not what he once was, I don't see how they can rate Harris above him at this point.
Well, again, the argument isn't "he sucks; let's move him to safety." If he sucked we should cut him. It's more about whether he'd be a better safety than CB at this stage, having two other very good CB options (one of whom will start regardless) plus a serviceable third one in Tony Carter and NOTHING but Mike Adams at EITHER safety spot. Safetey is all about seeing the whole field, anticipating, quickly and accurately reading plays, closing fast and tackling well; it's practically got "Champ Bailey" written all over it. It just didn't make sense when he was equally exceptional at CB, but it's questionable whether that's still true.

As to their basis of evaluation, again, I don't know it so I can't comment on it. They say they looked at film, not just stat lines, but last year the latter was:

Champ 15 starts, 9 passes defended, 2 Ints, 61 solo and 5 assisted tackles
Harris 12 starts, 12 passes defended, 3 Ints, 2 TDs, 2.5 sacks, 1 fumble recovered, 51 solo and 10 assisted tackles

That's at least comparable production in 3 less starts, though, as always, there's far more to football than stats.

[MOtorboat]

Well, again, the argument isn't "he sucks; let's move him to safety." If he sucked we should cut him. It's more about whether he'd be a better safety than CB at this stage, having two other very good CB options (one of whom will start regardless) plus a serviceable third one in Tony Carter and NOTHING but Mike Adams at EITHER safety spot. Safetey is all about seeing the whole field, anticipating, quickly and accurately reading plays, closing fast and tackling well; it's practically got "Champ Bailey" written all over it. It just didn't make sense when he was equally exceptional at CB, but it's questionable whether that's still true.

As to their basis of evaluation, again, I don't know it so I can't comment on it. They say they looked at film, not just stat lines, but last year the latter was:

Champ 15 starts, 9 passes defended, 2 Ints, 61 solo and 5 assisted tackles
Harris 12 starts, 12 passes defended, 3 Ints, 2 TDs, 2.5 sacks, 1 fumble recovered, 51 solo and 10 assisted tackles

That's at least comparable production in 3 less starts, though, as always, there's far more to football than stats.

Outside of three plays in two games, he was still a shutdown corner. The options at cornerback, a MUCH more important position than safety, aren't as good as Bailey.

I'd entertain moving Harris or Tony Carter to safety over Bailey. Watch the games, don't look at stats. Harris' opportunities came BECAUSE Champ Bailey was locking up other receivers. The stats are not mutually exclusive.

[Simple Jaded]

Nobody ever said Harris sucks or that Flacco is faster.

[Jsteve01]

Nobody ever said Harris sucks or that Flacco is faster.

bwahahahaha. i thought your post was from Joel. I was going to say that you said that. meh nvm.

[Joel]

Nobody ever said Harris sucks or that Flacco is faster.
Um... OK; I seem to remember something about him being run down by a big slow white guy though.

For what it's worth, Harris played some safety in college, so that alternative's not completely unreasonable, especially considering what we have at safety. Champ IS slowing down though, so if moving him is unthinkable, what does that mean? Pay him his $20 million for the next two years, then say, "thanks for the memories"? I think I'd rather have him at safety for 4 more years than CB for 2.

[Poet]

Joel, I enjoy you as a poster. Please stop with these terrible threads. Please, please stop.

[Davii]

Here we go again... I trust Fox, JDR, Elway, and Champ know what they're doing and will put Champ in the best position for success.

[Joel]

Here we go again... I trust Fox, JDR, Elway, and Champ know what they're doing and will put Champ in the best position for success.
Everytime someone says that I wonder whether they'd repeat it if Fox and Elway moved Champ to safety. But it's not just about Champ: If you had NO FBs but three Pro Bowl HBs, one of whom was also a great FB, what would you do? Bench your other Pro Bowlers because he was the best in the League three years ago? What if you had four great WRs and NO TEs, but one of the WRs weighed 240 lbs. and liked hitting LBs?

It's about the team, not any one player. Sometimes the best position for a player isn't the best place the team can put him; we had this discussion with Trevor Pryce, remember? ;) I concede never bothering to get a TRUE NT was a colossal blunder, but Pryce was the closest we had, and maybe if he'd been willing to play the same spot as on our last two SB teams he and we would've had a couple more. We can only wonder what might have been. Right now we have three great CBs plus another decent one, but only ONE decent safety. You tell me how they best cover all those bases.

[TXBRONC]

Everytime someone says that I wonder whether they'd repeat it if Fox and Elway moved Champ to safety. But it's not just about Champ: If you had NO FBs but three Pro Bowl HBs, one of whom was also a great FB, what would you do? Bench your other Pro Bowlers because he was the best in the League three years ago? What if you had four great WRs and NO TEs, but one of the WRs weighed 240 lbs. and liked hitting LBs?

It's about the team, not any one player. Sometimes the best position for a player isn't the best place the team can put him; we had this discussion with Trevor Pryce, remember? ;) I concede never bothering to get a TRUE NT was a colossal blunder, but Pryce was the closest we had, and maybe if he'd been willing to play the same spot as on our last two SB teams he and we would've had a couple more. We can only wonder what might have been. Right now we have three great CBs plus another decent one, but only ONE decent safety. You tell me how they best cover all those bases.

Why would we need a true nose tackle in a 4-3 defense? The simple answer is you don't. Pryce was drafted as a defensive end out of Clemson and moved defensive tackle so that we could get him on the field and eventually he was moved back to defensive end. So his natural position was defensive end not defensive tackle nor was he ever asked to do such.

Maybe you should get clue. You need at least three good corners in League where teams have three wide receivers as part of their base offense. Moving one of them to safety we be the proverbial cutting off your nose to spite your face.

[smith49]

As far as I know champ has never played safety. Do we even know he would be good at it? Maybe he would be, maybe not. Who's to say??

[Thnikkaman]

Bleacher Report?

Really?

This is what I hear every time I see Bleacher Report.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uLe2VcUCJw

[Davii]

As far as I know champ has never played safety. Do we even know he would be good at it? Maybe he would be, maybe not. Who's to say??

Joel. Oh, and Zam.

[Chef Zambini]

I think champ, playing the role of ed reed, would dominate the game!
I think champ, as a one on one corner, can easily be ignored.


... and now some are starting to admit that champ can get burned deep, more QBs will try it, and he will need safety help over the top.
good-by lock down corner !

[Chef Zambini]

As far as I know champ has never played safety. Do we even know he would be good at it? Maybe he would be, maybe not. Who's to say??
mike Nolan

[smith49]

As far as I know champ has never played safety. Do we even know he would be good at it? Maybe he would be, maybe not. Who's to say??
mike Nolan



Just for the record I'm not saying he'd be good or bad as a safety. Just a thought really. IMO I'm ok with him at corner again this year. Maybe I'm wrong, but it wouldn't be the first time.

[MOtorboat]

mike Nolan

Which you have never, ever proven.

[MOtorboat]

As far as I know champ has never played safety. Do we even know he would be good at it? Maybe he would be, maybe not. Who's to say??

We don't have any clue. So not only would be losing our best cornerback, we don't even know if the perceived problem at safety would be fixed.

[smith49]

As far as I know champ has never played safety. Do we even know he would be good at it? Maybe he would be, maybe not. Who's to say??

We don't have any clue. So not only would be losing our best cornerback, we don't even know if the perceived problem at safety would be fixed.



Well that's kinda what I was thinking. Besides, I'm ok with our current backfield on D. I'm more concerned about our MLB and our DE on passing downs.

[Joel]

Why would we need a true nose tackle in a 4-3 defense? The simple answer is you don't. Pryce was drafted as a defensive end out of Clemson and moved defensive tackle so that we could get him on the field and eventually he was moved back to defensive end. So his natural position was defensive end not defensive tackle nor was he ever asked to do such.
For a guy who cited facts in another thread you sure are ignoring them in this one. Pryce played DE for 6 of his 9 years in Denver. That includes 2004, two years before he left the team at least as much because he was tired of being pressed into the DT role as because of money.

As to why a 4-3 needs a true NT, for much the same reason a 3-4 does: To clog the middle, stop runs up the gut, draw double teams and collapse the pocket. The need isn't as GREAT as in a 3-4, because 4-3s aren't confined to a single DT who must consequently DOMINATE the middle. However, 4-3s still need a big strong clogger to CONTROL the middle, so starting "nimble" multi-technique 280-pounders as twin UTs is a recipe for disaster, as Denver's demonstrated for a decade. Starting quality Cs and Gs can usually handle UTs one-on-one; what they can't do is double team a NT AND prevent UTs adroitly slipping past them.


Maybe you should get clue. You need at least three good corners in League where teams have three wide receivers as part of their base offense. Moving one of them to safety we be the proverbial cutting off your nose to spite your face.
I have a clue, and Denver has three good corners; I contend we have four. Tony Carter's a significant step down from the first three, but still pretty goo;, good enough to start at nickel, at any rate. Know what else you need in a league where offenses routinely have three (or more) WRs on the field, and/or TEs, FBs, and HBs who are good receivers? More than ONE starting quality safety.

Think about what you're saying here: Teams put so many good receivers on the field we need a THIRD Pro Bowl CB, but don't need a SECOND decent safety? How is that logical? Ever consider that if we had more than one safety who could cover slot receivers we wouldn't need a top CB at nickel?

However, you're not saying Champ should start at nickel instead of safety, now are you? ;) You're saying DRC and Harris shouldn't be our starting CBs; in light of Champs visible slowing I can't agree. If you're REALLY saying he's good enough to start at nickel, that makes him good enough to start at F/SS; his tackling, anticipation and ability to read defenses would be wasted at nickel, but invaluable at safety.

[Joel]

We don't have any clue. So not only would be losing our best cornerback, we don't even know if the perceived problem at safety would be fixed.
Losing a playoff game because a guy who can't throw anything but bombs completed a 70 yd Hail Mary to a second year sprinter at the end of regulation isn't a "perceived" problem: It's a real one. I don't care how well Rahim Moore lays out RBs or racks up sacks (though ONE is hardly impressive; Harris actually had more last year) if he can't get within 10 yds of a season-ending deep TD pass. That's kind of like HIS JOB.

[MOtorboat]

Losing a playoff game because a guy who can't throw anything but bombs completed a 70 yd Hail Mary to a second year sprinter at the end of regulation isn't a "perceived" problem: It's a real one. I don't care how well Rahim Moore lays out RBs or racks up sacks (though ONE is hardly impressive; Harris actually had more last year) if he can't get within 10 yds of a season-ending deep TD pass. That's kind of like HIS JOB.

Making personnel decisions based on one play is a piss poor evaluation plan.

I don't think Elway and Fox will do that.

[SR]

Losing a playoff game because a guy who can't throw anything but bombs completed a 70 yd Hail Mary to a second year sprinter at the end of regulation isn't a "perceived" problem: It's a real one. I don't care how well Rahim Moore lays out RBs or racks up sacks (though ONE is hardly impressive; Harris actually had more last year) if he can't get within 10 yds of a season-ending deep TD pass. That's kind of like HIS JOB.

Sacks aren't a measuring stick for a safety or a CB's success. Also, a whole season of solid play is never defined by one play. For typing so much you sure don't say a lot.

[Chef Zambini]

Losing a playoff game because a guy who can't throw anything but bombs completed a 70 yd Hail Mary to a second year sprinter at the end of regulation isn't a "perceived" problem: It's a real one. I don't care how well Rahim Moore lays out RBs or racks up sacks (though ONE is hardly impressive; Harris actually had more last year) if he can't get within 10 yds of a season-ending deep TD pass. That's kind of like HIS JOB.of even greater concern,
WHERE THE f WAS THE LEADERSHIP ON THE FIELD?
nobody reminded this kid of what was crucial in the situation, nobody on the field discussed down, distance, time and objective?
WTF champ? !
concerned about your own short-comings?
that play was a failure of leadership! both players and coaches must take credit for the incompetence !

[Ravage!!!]

reminder of down and distance? Who would need to be reminded of down in distance with 30 seconds to go? What about the game, the play calling, the defense called and the alignment showed ANY kind of "incompetence" when it comes to not knowing the "situation awareness??" :confused:

Dude, you have made some really BAD posts to try and cause arguments, but this was one of the worst yet.

[Simple Jaded]

Ya know, one of these days Champ Bailey may be moved to S. I can see it happening but I can't say whether or not it'd be a smart move.

I can tell you one thing with absolute certainty, there will be about five people saying "I told you so! Look at how smart I am".......but you're not, saying a Top 3-5 player should switch positions is not smart. It's stupid.

Y'all have been saying this for how long, exactly? If you've been saying it for five years you've been saying for five years BEFORE Bailey had one of his best seasons, do you not realize how stupid that is?

If Bailey is willing it will happen some day but the fact that you've been "saying that for years" doesn't make you clairvoyant, it makes you Chicken Little or The Boy Who Cried Wolf.

Soon after Bailey is moved to S the "Move Clady to G" or "Move Miller to MLB" threads will pop up.

[Ravage!!!]

Ya know, one of these days Champ Bailey may be moved to S. I can see it happening but I can't say whether or not it'd be a smart move.

I can tell you one thing with absolute certainty, there will be about five people saying "I told you so! Look at how smart I am".......but you're not, saying a Top 3-5 player should switch positions is not smart. It's stupid.

Y'all have been saying this for how long, exactly? If you've been saying it for five years you've been saying for five years BEFORE Bailey had one of his best seasons, do you not realize how stupid that is?

If Bailey is willing it will happen some day but the fact that you've been "saying that for years" doesn't make you clairvoyant, it makes you Chicken Little.

Soon after Bailey is moved to S the "Move Clady to G" or "Move Miller to MLB" threads will pop up.

Exactly. Its possible that Champ makes the move to safety at SOME POINT. But some have been asking this for YEARS now. Corner is more important to a defense than a safety is. Its not the question of simply moving Champ to safety, but WHEN is he no longer viable as a corner? When is NO LONGER able to play corner as well as others on the team?? THAT is when you move him. Other than the top burners in the NFL, Champ is still a VERY good coverage CB. That's more important to any defense, and harder to find, than a safety.

This "you can avoid Champ at corner" argument is the worst one... since "avoiding" champ means you are avoiding the guy he's covering... WHICH IS EXACTLY THE POINT.

Now there is no denying that Champ has lost a step. IF there was a time to start considering moving Champ to safety, I think that time has arrived. But considering he's still a tough corner to beat, it still makes sense to keep him there. But there definetly could be no "I told you so" if it eventually happens.

[Ravage!!!]

I think Tom Brady and Peyton Manning should retire. You'll see, its going to happen, then.. THEN.... who will be the one laughing at this idea?

[Simple Jaded]

I think Tom Brady and Peyton Manning should retire. You'll see, its going to happen, then.. THEN.... who will be the one laughing at this idea?

I've been saying that for years, you'll see! Just keep hatin, people, just keep hatin.

[TXBRONC]

For a guy who cited facts in another thread you sure are ignoring them in this one. Pryce played DE for 6 of his 9 years in Denver. That includes 2004, two years before he left the team at least as much because he was tired of being pressed into the DT role as because of money.

As to why a 4-3 needs a true NT, for much the same reason a 3-4 does: To clog the middle, stop runs up the gut, draw double teams and collapse the pocket. The need isn't as GREAT as in a 3-4, because 4-3s aren't confined to a single DT who must consequently DOMINATE the middle. However, 4-3s still need a big strong clogger to CONTROL the middle, so starting "nimble" multi-technique 280-pounders as twin UTs is a recipe for disaster, as Denver's demonstrated for a decade. Starting quality Cs and Gs can usually handle UTs one-on-one; what they can't do is double team a NT AND prevent UTs adroitly slipping past them.


I have a clue, and Denver has three good corners; I contend we have four. Tony Carter's a significant step down from the first three, but still pretty goo;, good enough to start at nickel, at any rate. Know what else you need in a league where offenses routinely have three (or more) WRs on the field, and/or TEs, FBs, and HBs who are good receivers? More than ONE starting quality safety.

Think about what you're saying here: Teams put so many good receivers on the field we need a THIRD Pro Bowl CB, but don't need a SECOND decent safety? How is that logical? Ever consider that if we had more than one safety who could cover slot receivers we wouldn't need a top CB at nickel?

However, you're not saying Champ should start at nickel instead of safety, now are you? ;) You're saying DRC and Harris shouldn't be our starting CBs; in light of Champs visible slowing I can't agree. If you're REALLY saying he's good enough to start at nickel, that makes him good enough to start at F/SS; his tackling, anticipation and ability to read defenses would be wasted at nickel, but invaluable at safety.

I ignored nothing. The only thing I might have wrong is that he was drafted as defensive tackle and not a defensive end and he spent more time at defensive tackle than I remember according Pro Football Reference. According to them he spent six years a defensive tackle and only three as a defensive end. Again the biggest point is that he wasn't not used as a nose tackle. I have no earthly idea where you came up with that because he was never nose tackle.

It's rather inconsistent to say that Carter is significant step down yet he should still play with top three. That makes absolutely no sense. You're not disagreeing with me you're disagreeing with Elway and Fox.

Where did I say we don't good safties? I'm saying I think your evaluations are incorrect and that I agree with Elway and Fox..

[Davii]

of even greater concern,
WHERE THE f WAS THE LEADERSHIP ON THE FIELD?
nobody reminded this kid of what was crucial in the situation, nobody on the field discussed down, distance, time and objective?
WTF champ? !
concerned about your own short-comings?
that play was a failure of leadership! both players and coaches must take credit for the incompetence !

How did you hear any conversations, etc, that took place? Man, you must've had some great seats and one of those sound dish things.

[Joel]

Sacks aren't a measuring stick for a safety or a CB's success. Also, a whole season of solid play is never defined by one play. For typing so much you sure don't say a lot.
I agree they aren't, nor are tackles, but keep hearing Moore's our future at safety because he's a great tackler. It's more valid to say he's a HARD tackler WHEN he makes the play, because he's literally "hit and miss." He's a Joe Mays safety. Regardless, that's not the metric for DBs, as you rightly note. In coverage he had 7 passes defended and 1 pick in 15 starts last year. Wow, one play every other game; I'm sold. :rolleyes:

[Joel]

I ignored nothing. The only thing I might have wrong is that he was drafted as defensive tackle and not a defensive end and he spent more time at defensive tackle than I remember according Pro Football Reference. According to them he spent six years a defensive tackle and only three as a defensive end. Again the biggest point is that he wasn't not used as a nose tackle. I have no earthly idea where you came up with that because he was never nose tackle.
Yeah, but saying he spent most of his Denver career at DE when he actually spent 67% of it at DT is kind of a BIG oversight considering that was THE WHOLE POINT. "I was completely right except for being completely wrong about the arguments entire thrust"? Um, OK; good job then. :tongue: The biggest point was NOT whether he was used at NT, because I never said that: I said we moved him to DT because he was the closest we HAD to an absent NT (but still pretty far off.) He very vocally hated it and left two years after we moved him back, partly for that reason, but filled a huge need better than anyone we had then (or since.)


It's rather inconsistent to say that Carter is significant step down yet he should still play with top three. That makes absolutely no sense. You're not disagreeing with me you're disagreeing with Elway and Fox.
Not at all: Carter's a significant step down from three exceptional CBs; he can be (and is) a good CB without invalidating that statement. I'd start ANY of those three ahead of him at ANY position. In terms of the only places I WOULD put Carter (nickel or dimeback,) this isn't about whether Carter/Champ should be NB, but whether Carter/Harris should be. Most NBs are a step down from the starting CBs; that's usually why they're NBs, and it's very hard to convince a starting quality CB to skip first and second down for NB money (as we learned with Foxworth.)

No, this is about whether Champ/Harris should start at CB, or perhaps more properly, since everyone seems to think ANY safety spot trivial compared to ANY CB spot, how we should divide Carter, Champ, DRC and Harris among CB, NB and F/SS. Personally, I think

CB DRC, Harris
FS Adams
SS Champ
NB Carter

makes a HELL of a lot more sense than

CB Champ, DRC
FS Adams
SS Harris
NB Carter

and swapping the last two would make it worse, not better. I want to get as much of our best talent on the field at once, and our top four DBs are Champ, DRC, Harris and Adams; the only way to get all four out there at once is two playing safety: Which two do you prefer that be...?


Where did I say we don't good safties? I'm saying I think your evaluations are incorrect and that I agree with Elway and Fox..
Perhaps I took too much for granted: By implication, saying we don't need Champ at F/SS means either 1) Moore and Adams are both starting quality safeties OR 2) only ONE (or less) is, but that's all we need.

I disagree either way, and safety, not Champ, really is much of what this is about: Not just whether Champ can play CB, or Harris can play it better, but whether we have ANY decent safety but Adams. I can't speak for others, but all I said when we still had Foxworth was I hoped we'd keep him to succeed Champ "when he slows down and moves to safety in a few years," which IS where we are now. A lot of my motive then was that all our decent safeties were >30 (in fact, Lynch retired that year and Ferguson hasn't played since '09.)

Considering how everyone went into apoplexy then, shrieking that Champ can play CB till 50, Champ will NEVER move to safety, CBs are INCAPABLE of moving to safety and, anyway, Foxworth (the '07 version of Harris) should move to safety, the current reaction is neither novel nor surprising: Jaded is absolutely right that we've been here before, unfortunately.

[Simple Jaded]

Reductio ad absurdum is fun.

[Joel]

Reductio ad absurdum is fun.
Clearly; in the past few days I've learned:

1) Champ MUST play CB because our only other option got run down by a big slow white guy,
2) We HAD to get Peyton because our only other option was garbage,
3) Os MUST succeed him because our only other option is gargbage (yet, by the preceding logic, isn't Os garbage, too? :confused:) and
4) A continent of half a BILLION people can't even muster 500 pro quality football players.

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, man. ;)

I'm reasonable though; you tell me: Who starts at safety next to Adams? Rahim Moore? I'd like more from our starting safety than one good play every other game and two great ones per season.

[jhns]

LOL

This thread is too funny. It reminds me to be thankful that Bowlen has Del Rio and Fox running the defense.

You don't move one of the best players in the league. If your only real argument is that we are weak at safety, then you should be arguing to bring in new safeties. We are weak at MLB. You don't see me claiming that Miller needs to move to MLB. That argument doesn't make a bit of sense.

Then there is the fact that the OP links to Bleacher Report... Just wow...

[Simple Jaded]

Clearly; in the past few days I've learned:

1) Champ MUST play CB because our only other option got run down by a big slow white guy,
2) We HAD to get Peyton because our only other option was garbage,
3) Os MUST succeed him because our only other option is gargbage (yet, by the preceding logic, isn't Os garbage, too? :confused:) and
4) A continent of half a BILLION people can't even muster 500 pro quality football players.

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, man. ;)

I'm reasonable though; you tell me: Who starts at safety next to Adams? Rahim Moore? I'd like more from our starting safety than one good play every other game and two great ones per season.

That's why I said it's fun, I do it as much as anyone. What?

And yes, Rahim Moore. But, hey, I'm rational too, what Top 3-5 CB replaces Bailey when he moves to S?

Btw, I said your idea of a QB is garbage, and that's not absurd.

[Simple Jaded]

LOL

This thread is too funny. It reminds me to be thankful that Bowlen has Del Rio and Fox running the defense.

You don't move one of the best players in the league. If your only real argument is that we are weak at safety, then you should be arguing to bring in new safeties. We are weak at MLB. You don't see me claiming that Miller needs to move to MLB. That argument doesn't make a bit of sense.

Then there is the fact that the OP links to Bleacher Report... Just wow...
Don't start Joel on moving Miller to MLB unless you have the time to read a War and Peace response.

[Chef Zambini]

LOL

This thread is too funny. It reminds me to be thankful that Bowlen has Del Rio and Fox running the defense.

You don't move one of the best players in the league. If your only real argument is that we are weak at safety, then you should be arguing to bring in new safeties. We are weak at MLB. You don't see me claiming that Miller needs to move to MLB. That argument doesn't make a bit of sense.

Then there is the fact that the OP links to Bleacher Report... Just wow...
NO, MY ARGUMENT has always been that CHAMP could make a greater impact as a safety, because as a corner he just gets ignored.

[Chef Zambini]

How did you hear any conversations, etc, that took place? Man, you must've had some great seats and one of those sound dish things.swo you think somebody in the huddle said 'no time outs, clock running, they need a TD, just dont let anyone get behind you and make a tackle to end the3 game, and moore still let a wr get behind him?
is that what you and the I|I&YV who saluted you think?

[Simple Jaded]

NO, MY ARGUMENT has always been that CHAMP could make a greater impact as a safety, because as a corner he just gets ignored.

And who gets ignored at CB when Bailey moves to S?

[Joel]

That's why I said it's fun, I do it as much as anyone. What?

And yes, Rahim Moore. But, hey, I'm rational too, what Top 3-5 CB replaces Bailey when he moves to S?

Btw, I said your idea of a QB is garbage, and that's not absurd.
Chris Harris is the top five CB who succeeds Champ. That's what makes it win-win: We both improve a starting CB spot and DRASTICALLY improve the starting FS spot for the foreseeable future, without having to pay a single new player to do it. I don't think moving Harris to FS instead does the same thing, because I think he's a lot better one-on-one than playing centerfield, whereas Champ has made a career of doing both, but is no longer fast enough to do the former with the best receivers.

So there ya go: You answered my question with a question, but I answered with an answer anyway. Care to return the favor...?

Btw, there are a few QBs neither Mannings NOR garbage. The Pack and Pats have one apiece, another's running Denvers front office and (hopefully) one named Osweiler's waiting to succeed PFM. We've gone from the club where no one's fit to succeed Elway to the one where no one's fit to succeed Manning; here's hoping every QB we draft from now on is a HoFer, even if we just trade them for not being Elway or PFM.


And who gets ignored at CB when Bailey moves to S?
I have to admit I've never really bought into that logic. Sure, we want a ballhawking FS who flows to the ball and makes plays, but we also want a CB who makes even the best QBs afraid to target their best WR, and that's at least as valuable. Thing is, in his prime, Champ did both, often dropping his man once balls were thrown to cross the width of the field for a pick. Those days are gone; that's no knock on Champ, it's just life.

[jhns]

NO, MY ARGUMENT has always been that CHAMP could make a greater impact as a safety, because as a corner he just gets ignored.

So he does his job and that makes you want to move him? If that reciever isn't taken out of the game, then what? He still can't cover any more of the field than he already does. It' s not like you can't avoid a safety. That is actually what all QBs are doing most of the time. So he now gets ognored at another position. Are you going to move him again?

[jhns]

Also, while Harris has been playing very well, I'm not sure he is a #1 yet. He did great against teams second and third recievers. He also had a lot more help than Champ. They regularly leave Champ by himself.

Rogers-Cromarte(sp?) is a fantastic athlete, but he isn't a top corner. He has struggled and hasn't lived up to his potential yet. I think he will have much better coaching now and he has the right attitude. Maybe he will get there, but he isn't there yet.

We need Champ at corner.

[Simple Jaded]

I said Rahim Moore starts next to Adams. And nowhere did I say it has to be Manning to win a SB, the question was who you would build a SB contender around and your ridiculous answer was Flynn, if I what little I read in that response is right. A bunch of equally high-priced '12 FA's that wanted no part of the '12 Broncos and a QB that was under contract in '12.

That's your solution to the SB riddle. Wow.

[Simple Jaded]

Btw, y'all are wrong if you think Bailey is the only CB Denver has that can't keep up with the Torrey Smith's of the world.

[FanInAZ]

This is what I hear every time I see Bleacher Report.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uLe2VcUCJw

So how old are your kids?

[Thnikkaman]

So how old are your kids?

7, 5, and 2

[Joel]

I said Rahim Moore starts next to Adams.
You did, at that; I stand corrected, and my apologies. I still DISLIKE that answer intensely, and did before last season started, but it IS an answer.


And nowhere did I say it has to be Manning to win a SB, the question was who you would build a SB contender around and your ridiculous answer was Flynn, if I what little I read in that response is right. A bunch of equally high-priced '12 FA's that wanted no part of the '12 Broncos and a QB that was under contract in '12.

That's your solution to the SB riddle. Wow.
Flynn, Palmer, trade up for RGIII, suck for Luck; those were just the first few answers that came to mind off the top of my head. There are multiple viable, if never guaranteed, options each year, and good front offices find them. They don't sit around waiting for someone to release an old expensive HoFer, then try to roll back his odometer.

I hate the Pack with a passion, but they've done a good job of that over the last 20 years; when Majkowski went down they had Favre ready to start for a decade and a half, and when he decided he was worth more than he actually was they had Rodgers, so they just shrugged and said, "don't let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya, and if you come back to the NFCN we're gonna pound the crap out of you twice a year." I think we're in trouble when Manning retires because of what we've invested, at the expense of many other huge needs, but don't think the NFL will disband. I'm done debating the Manning signing though.

[MOtorboat]

You did, at that; I stand corrected, and my apologies. I still DISLIKE that answer intensely, and did before last season started, but it IS an answer.


Flynn, Palmer, trade up for RGIII, suck for Luck; those were just the first few answers that came to mind off the top of my head. There are multiple viable, if never guaranteed, options each year, and good front offices find them. They don't sit around waiting for someone to release an old expensive HoFer, then try to roll back his odometer.

I hate the Pack with a passion, but they've done a good job of that over the last 20 years; when Majkowski went down they had Favre ready to start for a decade and a half, and when he decided he was worth more than he actually was they had Rodgers, so they just shrugged and said, "don't let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya, and if you come back to the NFCN we're gonna pound the crap out of you twice a year." I think we're in trouble when Manning retires because of what we've invested, at the expense of many other huge needs, but don't think the NFL will disband. I'm done debating the Manning signing though.

Favre was a throwaway second-round pick traded in his second season because no one thought he was any good. You ACTUALLY think they knew he'd be a Hall of Famer?

Man, arguments like that with hindsight are very convenient. Because I can't prove you wrong about Osweiler, because we aren't living in 2030. Of course, you can't prove the other half of the argument, either...

[Simple Jaded]

The Broncos had the worst QB situation, by far, in the entire league at the time they signed Manning, yet here we are debating whether or not they should have went with one of the options that you can think of off the top of your head? Sounds almost as if you really haven't put much thought into other options.

Yeah, I'd say the debate was over before it started.

[Joel]

Favre was a throwaway second-round pick traded in his second season because no one thought he was any good. You ACTUALLY think they knew he'd be a Hall of Famer?

Man, arguments like that with hindsight are very convenient. Because I can't prove you wrong about Osweiler, because we aren't living in 2030. Of course, you can't prove the other half of the argument, either...
Since I the only thing I've said about Osweiler is that we'll undoubtedly bring in other guys in case he's not "the one," no, I doubt you can prove me wrong about him. No, I don't think the Pack knew Favre was a HoFer, but you'll have to explain the concept of "throwaway SECOND ROUND pick," because it is new and strange to me. Is that what we spent on Osweiler? ;) The Pack covered their butt with a high pick, and it worked out well for them when their starter got hurt. Kinda sucked for him, but those are the breaks.

[MOtorboat]

Since I the only thing I've said about Osweiler is that we'll undoubtedly bring in other guys in case he's not "the one," no, I doubt you can prove me wrong about him. No, I don't think the Pack knew Favre was a HoFer, but you'll have to explain the concept of "throwaway SECOND ROUND pick," because it is new and strange to me. Is that what we spent on Osweiler? ;) The Pack covered their butt with a high pick, and it worked out well for them when their starter got hurt. Kinda sucked for him, but those are the breaks.

You realize Favre was picked by the Falcons, right? If the Falcons were willing to trade him in year two, then I consider it them considering it a throw away pick.

It's the equivalent of Denver trading Osweiler this year.

[Joel]

You realize Favre was picked by the Falcons, right? If the Falcons were willing to trade him in year two, then I consider it them considering it a throw away pick.

It's the equivalent of Denver trading Osweiler this year.
Yeah, but they were clueless back then, and Glanville couldn't stand Favre, so you can't really go by that. Steve Young started for Tampa for 2 years and only won 3 games; does that mean he sucked, or they did? For that matter, the 'Niners had Joe Cool in his prime when they traded for Young. Two different teams, one with a promising starter beginning his career, the other with a first ballot HoFer, but both traded for young future HoFers planning to eventual start them, after their original incompetent teams declared them busts. Because teams that wait for star QBs to leave before drafting replacements are in deep trouble.

[MOtorboat]

Yeah, but they were clueless back then, and Glanville couldn't stand Favre, so you can't really go by that. Steve Young started for Tampa for 2 years and only won 3 games; does that mean he sucked, or they did?

I'll forgive you for not knowing the Packers didn't draft Favre. Especially since it hurts the hindsight argument.

Now, can you PROVE Osweiler can't be a good quarterback in the NFL? I didn't think so.

Denver took the exact same route the Packers did, and I think complaining about it is stupid.

[ShaneFalco]

Charles Woodson still a fa?

[Simple Jaded]

I coulda swore the Broncos drafted a QB with the intention of grooming their post-Manning QB?

Anyway, suppose Denver drafts a Tyler Bray in the 3rd round these same people will be questioning the QB situation all over again. Whether it's Zam questioning Osweiler/Bray/Both or Joel questioning the move of dumping Tebow for Manning if they were gonna draft so many QB's anyway.

Whatever fits the agenda.

[FanInAZ]

7, 5, and 2

The 5 & 2 year-olds probably have it on all the time, 7 year-old has probably out grown it.

[Joel]

I'll forgive you for not knowing the Packers didn't draft Favre. Especially since it hurts the hindsight argument.
Since GB traded a FIRST rounder (19th overall) for him, I'm not sure it matters. Are first round picks "throwaways"? Ron Wolf wanted to draft him in the second himself, but Atlants beat him to it.


Now, can you PROVE Osweiler can't be a good quarterback in the NFL? I didn't think so.
Why would I try to prove something I've never said, nor even implied? The issue's not whether to trade a 2nd round QB before he ever sees the field, but whether a designated starter and NOTHING else (which is where we are when Manning retires) means a team shouldn't get another one to groom in case the first one fails. Were it up to me, I'd give every early round QB drafted a 3-4 year contract—just not much signing bonus; earn your money and you'll get it.


Denver took the exact same route the Packers did, and I think complaining about it is stupid.
I'm not complaining about Osweiler, and don't know where you got that idea. I don't follow college and Dove Valley's a bit of a trek from Norway, so about all I know about Osweiler is we drafted him in the 2nd round last year and he didn't fumble the ball at the end of the first Ravens game when we were pounding the snot out of them. I really don't have any feelings about him one way or the other beyond hoping Denver has a solid QB for the next decade. So if you want to fight about whether Osweiler sucks in a thread about DBs, you're welcome to keep moving till someone bites. :)


I coulda swore the Broncos drafted a QB with the intention of grooming their post-Manning QB?

Anyway, suppose Denver drafts a Tyler Bray in the 3rd round these same people will be questioning the QB situation all over again. Whether it's Zam questioning Osweiler/Bray/Both or Joel questioning the move of dumping Tebow for Manning if they were gonna draft so many QB's anyway.

Whatever fits the agenda.
"Whatever fits the agenda," indeed; are there so few QB threads we had to divert one about DBs to the topic just so people can demand I "defend" things I never even suggested?

[Joel]

Charles Woodson still a fa?
According to rotoworld, yeah, and not getting many calls, but eager to play, so we could probably get him for league minimum (unfortunately, I believe that's right at $1 million for him.) He turns 37 in October, but CAN'T be worse than Moore. A pick, forced fumble, 1.5 sacks and 5 passes defended in 7 starts vs. a pick, 1 sack and 7 passed defended in 15? He produced as much in half as many games.

[Simple Jaded]

Since GB traded a FIRST rounder (19th overall) for him, I'm not sure it matters. Are first round picks "throwaways"? Ron Wolf wanted to draft him in the second himself, but Atlants beat him to it.


Why would I try to prove something I've never said, nor even implied? The issue's not whether to trade a 2nd round QB before he ever sees the field, but whether a designated starter and NOTHING else (which is where we are when Manning retires) means a team shouldn't get another one to groom in case the first one fails. Were it up to me, I'd give every early round QB drafted a 3-4 year contract—just not much signing bonus; earn your money and you'll get it.


I'm not complaining about Osweiler, and don't know where you got that idea. I don't follow college and Dove Valley's a bit of a trek from Norway, so about all I know about Osweiler is we drafted him in the 2nd round last year and he didn't fumble the ball at the end of the first Ravens game when we were pounding the snot out of them. I really don't have any feelings about him one way or the other beyond hoping Denver has a solid QB for the next decade. So if you want to fight about whether Osweiler sucks in a thread about DBs, you're welcome to keep moving till someone bites. :)


"Whatever fits the agenda," indeed; are there so few QB threads we had to divert one about DBs to the topic just so people can demand I "defend" things I never even suggested?
Are you suggesting that you didn't suggest what I said you suggested?

[Joel]

Are you suggesting that you didn't suggest what I said you suggested?
No, I'm explicitly stating I didn't suggest what you said I suggested. If I even THINK the word "QB" you say I'm defending a guy we traded a year ago, even though I'm not. Apparently if I even think the word "CB."

[Thnikkaman]

The 5 & 2 year-olds probably have it on all the time, 7 year-old has probably out grown it.

That's one that my 2 year old likes. Fortunately they all like Phineas and Ferb.