A tip for Broncos? Move out of the 28th spot in NFL draft

[Denver Native (Carol)]

With the 28th pick in the NFL draft, John Elway and the Broncos should select:

A) Alabama running back Eddie Lacy.
B) Notre Dame linebacker Manti Te'o.
C) Florida State defensive end Bjoern Werner.
D) None of the above.

The answer is D.

rest - http://www.denverpost.com/lunchspecial/ci_23013195/lunch-special-tip-broncos-move-out-28th-draft

[SR]

I don't agree. I think if Werner is there you have to take him.

[Joel]

rest - http://www.denverpost.com/lunchspecial/ci_23013195/lunch-special-tip-broncos-move-out-28th-draft
Trading back is only good for a team 1) so stacked at all positions it needs no help to win a title or 2) with so many holes it must concede next year and build for later ones. We're not the first or (hopefully) second.

No RB, our only decent safety is a 32 year old journeyman, we only have one pass rusher and NOTHING at Mike but question marks. I gotta think there'll be someone good left at one of those positions by our pick.

I guess I could see it if we're VERY sure one of our top choices will last until the middle of the second, but that's a big gamble to take with a couple HoFers who'll be >35 when the season starts.

[SR]

No RB, our only decent safety is a 32 year old journeyman, we only have one pass rusher and NOTHING at Mike but question marks. I gotta think there'll be someone good left at one of those positions by our pick.

Rahim Moore is a decent safety. Take the hate blinders off.

[Joel]

Rahim Moore is a decent safety. Take the hate blinders off.
A sack, pick and fumble recovery plus 7 passes defended in 15 starts. One play every 3rd game, two of them great, isn't decent, and not enough to win a SB: Just ask Joe Flacco. He had 59 tackles, but I'm not sold.

[Ravage!!!]

a 3rd option would be when the talent pool of players isn't that much different from the 28th pick to one you trade down to, thus gaining an additional pick for simply moving down and gettng what you consider to be the same level. Many reasons to move down.

[Joel]

a 3rd option would be when the talent pool of players isn't that much different from the 28th pick to one you trade down to, thus gaining an additional pick for simply moving down and gettng what you consider to be the same level. Many reasons to move down.
Fair enough, though I'm not sure that's much different from expecting guys we want will last till the middle of the second. The big difference is a much vaguer idea of whom we want; title-chasers can't draft vaguely.

[Poet]

Actually title chasers can draft vaguely. Teams who are stacked typically take the BPA with obvious exceptions. This is a draft where you have a ton of above average talent. The difference from pick 28 and pick 40 is not very huge. A few years ago Cam Newton, A.J. Green, Von Miller and that stud CB in Arizona headlined one of the most talented drafts in recent memory. This years draft is the exact opposite of that my friend.

Also, Moore is a solid safety. Go ahead and compare his play to most other second and third year safeties. He wasn't expected to be the next Ed Reed or Troy P. Safety isn't a glaring need. Now because there is about five or six really, really good safeties you may take one. That doesn't mean Moore is trash, either.

[Lancane]

Sorry, but if Denver traded down and had a legit shot at Werner, then they deserve to be questioned by any and everyone. So the answer is C, if that is not an option trade down and get additional picks, if Lacy or Te'o are available at that spot, then they become an option.

[Ravage!!!]

Fair enough, though I'm not sure that's much different from expecting guys we want will last till the middle of the second. The big difference is a much vaguer idea of whom we want; title-chasers can't draft vaguely.

You always go into the draft with a "vague" idea of whom you are going to get. Generally speaking, the general managers and owners know much more about who is going to take whom than we do, but if you draft with the idea of geting SPECIFIC players, then I think you end up drafting like McDoosh did....trading away picks so you can "get your guy."

If the talent pool at positions of need are "nearly the same"...then acquire more picks and hope you get yourself a diamond in the later round picks that you gain.

[MOtorboat]

A sack, pick and fumble recovery plus 7 passes defended in 15 starts. One play every 3rd game, two of them great, isn't decent, and not enough to win a SB: Just ask Joe Flacco. He had 59 tackles, but I'm not sold.

Remember how badly you wanted Laron Landry? Remember how you made the argument you'd rather have him than Manning?

He had eight deflections, 2 picks, zero sacks and zero recovered fumbles.

[Lancane]

You always go into the draft with a "vague" idea of whom you are going to get. Generally speaking, the general managers and owners know much more about who is going to take whom than we do, but if you draft with the idea of geting SPECIFIC players, then I think you end up drafting like McDoosh did....trading away picks so you can "get your guy."

If the talent pool at positions of need are "nearly the same"...then acquire more picks and hope you get yourself a diamond in the later round picks that you gain.

Agreed, and that is why most teams refuse to trade picks before the day of the draft. For example, if Denver is sitting there at 28 and Werner and Trufant are off the board and they feel they can move down and get those ranked below their top marked draftees on their short board at another spot or a fair number of them, then they'll do just that. I have them trading the 28th Pick to Baltimore for the 32nd and an additional fourth round pick at this time, but that is with Werner and Trufant off the board.

[Joel]

Actually title chasers can draft vaguely. Teams who are stacked typically take the BPA with obvious exceptions. This is a draft where you have a ton of above average talent. The difference from pick 28 and pick 40 is not very huge. A few years ago Cam Newton, A.J. Green, Von Miller and that stud CB in Arizona headlined one of the most talented drafts in recent memory. This years draft is the exact opposite of that my friend.
Technically, they CAN draft however they wish, but they're unlikely to catch their quarry doing it.

I know contenders often go BPA because it served the Pack well when they just happened to have a couple bad seasons and high picks toward the end of Favres career, but it's REALLY not the percentage play. Contenders almost always have tons of talent many places, and usually pretty good depth in several, so drafting even a first ballot HoFer does little good if he never sees the field because they already have three Pro Bowlers at his position. Top teams aren't likely to get sure HoFers as the best player "available" combing over the leftovers from 25 other teams anyway.

Anyone going after the "best player available" better have the best PICK available. Otherwise what they're doing is more accurately called "drafting the best player REMAINING." The further down they draft, the worse that player gets. Top teams usually have at least serviceable players most places already, so drafting another serviceable one while ignoring thin positions where guys are about to retire, become FAs or just flat suck won't put them over the top.

Conversely, and for the sake of completion, garbage teams shouldn't pass over a drafts best talent to focus on one or two positions with lesser players when they need help EVERYWHERE. They should snatch up 22 year old first ballot HoFers to build a franchise around, because they took a beating to get high draft picks that, ideally, are rare, and always come at a painful price.

Just because a few teams consistently outperform others when the whole league's drafting the same way doesn't vindicate that approach; it's just group think, an echo chamber where the loudest voice sounds wisest for lack of ACTUALLY wise competition.


Also, Moore is a solid safety. Go ahead and compare his play to most other second and third year safeties. He wasn't expected to be the next Ed Reed or Troy P. Safety isn't a glaring need. Now because there is about five or six really, really good safeties you may take one. That doesn't mean Moore is trash, either.
I can't recall a single time in the last two years where I found myself saying, "gee, I'm sure glad Rahim Moore was there to make that game-saving play for us." The only game-changing play I recall from him is one I wish I could forget, but can't. It's only his third year, so hopefully he gets better, but I wish he'd quit trying to make BIG hits and concentrate on SURE ones, and a lot more on coverage. Maybe Champ and Harris can give him and Mays a clinic or something.


You always go into the draft with a "vague" idea of whom you are going to get. Generally speaking, the general managers and owners know much more about who is going to take whom than we do, but if you draft with the idea of geting SPECIFIC players, then I think you end up drafting like McDoosh did....trading away picks so you can "get your guy."

If the talent pool at positions of need are "nearly the same"...then acquire more picks and hope you get yourself a diamond in the later round picks that you gain.
Scouting and keeping track of enough picks to preserve options is one thing, but I doubt many teams ever draft guys who aren't on their boards at all. Scouts are paid to maximize certainty so GMs can seek trades to maximize how many of the best players they get. Yet if those trades can't be had, I doubt the list of players they're considering is very long unless they expect several equally desirable options to be gone soon.


Remember how badly you wanted Laron Landry? Remember how you made the argument you'd rather have him than Manning?

He had eight deflections, 2 picks, zero sacks and zero recovered fumbles.
I wanted that $4 million player, another Pro Bowler AND the third player that could've been had for that same $20 million, not just one guy. However, Landry also forced FOUR more fumbles, made sixteen more tackles and went to one more Pro Bowl than Moore last year. I don't recall him blowing any games either, much less in the playoffs.

[SR]

A sack, pick and fumble recovery plus 7 passes defended in 15 starts. One play every 3rd game, two of them great, isn't decent, and not enough to win a SB: Just ask Joe Flacco. He had 59 tackles, but I'm not sold.

You can't measure the impact of a player solely on popping stats. Rahim Moore was MUCH improved last year and every right mind around football will tell you that. With the exception of the one play he had a solid year and with the exception of one play people like you wouldn't have shit to say.

[Superchop 7]

Of course you take Werner if he is there, but I highly doubt it. Look, this draft is so friggin deep in round 2 that unless a guy like Werner is sitting in your lap, you can move back 20 spots, pick up 2 4th rounders and still kill it with your first 2 picks.
This draft is coming to us and we know it. When John said he is gonna throw a dart at the wall, thats how easy this draft is going to be.

John will have major swag, the likes you haven't seen in awhile.

I don't think Hot Carl could screw up this draft, even after he picks Flo from progressive.

OK, maybe McDaniels could do it.......

[Poet]

I wanted that $4 million player, another Pro Bowler AND the third player that could've been had for that same $20 million, not just one guy. However, Landry also forced FOUR more fumbles, made sixteen more tackles and went to one more Pro Bowl than Moore last year. I don't recall him blowing any games either, much less in the playoffs.

You could take the entire list of free agents from last season and pick any three for Denver. They still wouldn't have had the same impact that Peyton did. I also don't know who exactly was going to be that other Pro Bowl player? Where they going to make Denver an elite offense? Would they have tremendously helped the development of your wideouts? Could they mask your very average running game? Where were these players. Don't give me hypotheticals, Joel, tell me exactly who existed on the market that could have accomplished what Peyton did? Landry is old news, he spent his best years up already and is just a very solid FS. Paying him 4 million a year is not an attractive contract at all. Futhermore, I've seen that guy get a game losing 15 yard penalty. Moore was a young player who screwed up on a play. Landry was a pro with Rodney Harrison's temperament and not Harrison's production. Do you see the difference? Please tell me that you do.

Moore would be a starter on most of the teams in the NFL. He's a solid safety with upside. Yes, he may not be a game winning heir apparent to Ed Reed, but the notion that he is bad is ridiculous. Time and time again I have asked for proof in regards to how 'bad' he is. Not one time, not a single ******* time has anyone been able to produce such an argument. You know why? Because you can't actually make that argument. You can't do it. It's impossible. You can produce numbers that aren't sexy but are definitely not bad. You can show one boneheaded play. That's it. That's all. That's not an actual argument.

Today you have made it clear that you're tired of being debated as a poster. I understand that, I've been there myself. However, if you want that to stop, please refrain from making the same posts. Stop posting about how you wanted the other three players. You can have your opinion, but that's a bad one. Stop talking about how awful Moore is. He's clearly not. You can have that opinion, but it's awful. Stop posting about how Bailey should be a safety. You can have that opinion, but it's awful. Please just stop. I like you as a poster, a lot, but I almost always know what you're going to post about. I will grant you that you get more shit than you deserve. Sometimes you have those old arguments used against you and you have to defend yourself. I get it, but by and large, just stop.

Please.

[Joel]

You can't measure the impact of a player solely on popping stats. Rahim Moore was MUCH improved last year and every right mind around football will tell you that. With the exception of the one play he had a solid year and with the exception of one play people like you wouldn't have shit to say.

I'm not going by stats alone; again, I can't recall a single game-saving play Moore made last year, or any really good ones but the pick. Most people know who Rahim Moore is for pretty much one reason, and NOT a good one. Sure, he was better last year; people tell me the same about Beadles and I keep wondering why "he was better than when he was awful" is a reason to start a guy. The only point I've ever heard anyone cite in Moores favor is he hits hard in a league that suspends people for that, but I keep seeing him out of position or whiffing tackles trying to unload, so if you see some other positive in him, please share.

[topscribe]

I'm not crazy about Kiszla's logic (but then, I seldom am).

However, I'm not sure trading down wouldn't be a good idea . . .
.

[Joel]

You could take the entire list of free agents from last season and pick any three for Denver. They still wouldn't have had the same impact that Peyton did. I also don't know who exactly was going to be that other Pro Bowl player? Where they going to make Denver an elite offense? Would they have tremendously helped the development of your wideouts? Could they mask your very average running game? Where were these players. Don't give me hypotheticals, Joel, tell me exactly who existed on the market that could have accomplished what Peyton did? Landry is old news, he spent his best years up already and is just a very solid FS. Paying him 4 million a year is not an attractive contract at all. Futhermore, I've seen that guy get a game losing 15 yard penalty. Moore was a young player who screwed up on a play. Landry was a pro with Rodney Harrison's temperament and not Harrison's production. Do you see the difference? Please tell me that you do.
Landry's only 28 and made last years Pro Bowl; I don't think his best days are behind him, and $4 million was a steal since he just signed a 4 year $24 million deal with Indy. The other Pro Bowler I had in mind was Carl Nicks, who only turns 28 next month, made 2 of the last 3 Pro Bowls and would be a HUGE help for that "very average running game" of ours. For what Manning cost we could've had BOTH AND spent $7 million so 26 year old Curtis Lofton filled the gaping hole we've had at MLB since mid-2006: Three critical holes filled for 5 years or more. I don't want to rehash that, but you asked the previously answered question. ;)


Moore would be a starter on most of the teams in the NFL. He's a solid safety with upside. Yes, he may not be a game winning heir apparent to Ed Reed, but the notion that he is bad is ridiculous. Time and time again I have asked for proof in regards to how 'bad' he is. Not one time, not a single ******* time has anyone been able to produce such an argument. You know why? Because you can't actually make that argument. You can't do it. It's impossible. You can produce numbers that aren't sexy but are definitely not bad. You can show one boneheaded play. That's it. That's all. That's not an actual argument.
On the contrary, I've referenced him being in the wrong place at the wrong time and whiffing tackles because he tries to blow guys up, much like the current iteration of our gaping hole at MLB, and cited it last preseason. That's ON TOP OF the playoff Hail Mary (although that's really just the most glaring example of him being habitually out of position.) What have YOU seen him do that convinces you he's a legit starter?


Today you have made it clear that you're tired of being debated as a poster. I understand that, I've been there myself. However, if you want that to stop, please refrain from making the same posts. Stop posting about how you wanted the other three players. You can have your opinion, but that's a bad one. Stop talking about how awful Moore is. He's clearly not. You can have that opinion, but it's awful. Stop posting about how Bailey should be a safety. You can have that opinion, but it's awful. Please just stop. I like you as a poster, a lot, but I almost always know what you're going to post about. I will grant you that you get more shit than you deserve. Sometimes you have those old arguments used against you and you have to defend yourself. I get it, but by and large, just stop.

Please.
I don't mind debate. I don't even mind being debated as a POSTER, but it's childish, petty and as beneath me as it should be for those doing it. I can handle it, but, as noted elsewhere, consider ad hominems prima facie evidence one lacks any rebuttal on MERIT. I don't mind folks undermining their arguments by inability to support them, but it's tedious, pointless and disappointing with LAST YEARS arguments.

[Superchop 7]

OK, point A....Rahim MOORE.....trust me....everything I WANTED to teach this kid from day 1.......is now taught through experience.....kid now knows enough......he gets it, I ripped him for awhile......now he is where I want him.

[WARHORSE]

There will be a very good player there at 28.

If some of the teams ahead of Denver make some idiotic draft selections, then we may be able to trade down, get a third or a fourth and still get a good player.

I dont mind picking there, and I wouldnt mind trading down.......but not up.

[Jsteve01]

Listen the new rookie wage scale has really devalued 1st round picks. Especially those at the end of the round. Something else that hasn't been discussed much is that if you're building for the future it sure would be nice to have that 5th year tacked on to a first rounders deal. Lastly after watching the Broncos get less for their trades down last year than other teams only to squander what little reward they had reaped in the Hillman trade. I'd rather stand pat. Would I rather have the extra year on Wolfe's deal and settle for miller or turbin over Hillman? Well yeah yeah I would.

[Poet]

Joel, take a look at your list of players. If you don't realize that they don't equate to the impact Manning had...I can't do anything for you. At that point, you're either waaay out of touch or just stubborn. Don't be shocked when the Colts cut Landry two years from now.

[Jsteve01]

Laron Landry wait isn't he a slightly more athletic Roy Williams? There's a reason he's now on his third team. the guy is a freak but he's a liability in the passing game and has never reached his vast potential. tbh I'd rather have had his brother in his prime.

[Simple Jaded]

Technically, they CAN draft however they wish, but they're unlikely to catch their quarry doing it.

I know contenders often go BPA because it served the Pack well when they just happened to have a couple bad seasons and high picks toward the end of Favres career, but it's REALLY not the percentage play. Contenders almost always have tons of talent many places, and usually pretty good depth in several, so drafting even a first ballot HoFer does little good if he never sees the field because they already have three Pro Bowlers at his position. Top teams aren't likely to get sure HoFers as the best player "available" combing over the leftovers from 25 other teams anyway.

Anyone going after the "best player available" better have the best PICK available. Otherwise what they're doing is more accurately called "drafting the best player REMAINING." The further down they draft, the worse that player gets. Top teams usually have at least serviceable players most places already, so drafting another serviceable one while ignoring thin positions where guys are about to retire, become FAs or just flat suck won't put them over the top.

Conversely, and for the sake of completion, garbage teams shouldn't pass over a drafts best talent to focus on one or two positions with lesser players when they need help EVERYWHERE. They should snatch up 22 year old first ballot HoFers to build a franchise around, because they took a beating to get high draft picks that, ideally, are rare, and always come at a painful price.

Just because a few teams consistently outperform others when the whole league's drafting the same way doesn't vindicate that approach; it's just group think, an echo chamber where the loudest voice sounds wisest for lack of ACTUALLY wise competition.


I can't recall a single time in the last two years where I found myself saying, "gee, I'm sure glad Rahim Moore was there to make that game-saving play for us." The only game-changing play I recall from him is one I wish I could forget, but can't. It's only his third year, so hopefully he gets better, but I wish he'd quit trying to make BIG hits and concentrate on SURE ones, and a lot more on coverage. Maybe Champ and Harris can give him and Mays a clinic or something.


Scouting and keeping track of enough picks to preserve options is one thing, but I doubt many teams ever draft guys who aren't on their boards at all. Scouts are paid to maximize certainty so GMs can seek trades to maximize how many of the best players they get. Yet if those trades can't be had, I doubt the list of players they're considering is very long unless they expect several equally desirable options to be gone soon.


I wanted that $4 million player, another Pro Bowler AND the third player that could've been had for that same $20 million, not just one guy. However, Landry also forced FOUR more fumbles, made sixteen more tackles and went to one more Pro Bowl than Moore last year. I don't recall him blowing any games either, much less in the playoffs.
At what point in between those four FF's, 16 tackles and PB does a S come anywhere close to an MVP caliber QB? I guess that's where Super Mario's sacks come into the equation.

[aulaza]

Joel, it seems like if a guys not a perrenial all pro then he is trash to you. I understand that Moore is far from perfect, but we can't have Von Miller's at every position. I think he is in a position where he can continue to improve a lot.

As for the draft, I wouldn't mind seeing us trade down, as I think there isn't much difference talent wise between 28 and 40, so I could see a trade down. It just depends what our FO's board looks like as to what will happen.

[Joel]

Listen the new rookie wage scale has really devalued 1st round picks. Especially those at the end of the round. Something else that hasn't been discussed much is that if you're building for the future it sure would be nice to have that 5th year tacked on to a first rounders deal. Lastly after watching the Broncos get less for their trades down last year than other teams only to squander what little reward they had reaped in the Hillman trade. I'd rather stand pat. Would I rather have the extra year on Wolfe's deal and settle for miller or turbin over Hillman? Well yeah yeah I would.
Could you explain/elaborate on that devaluation a bit? I'd think first round picks playing longer contracts for less money RAISED their value: They're still the cream of each draft, but now cost less and play longer.

[TXBRONC]

Joel, take a look at your list of players. If you don't realize that they don't equate to the impact Manning had...I can't do anything for you. At that point, you're either waaay out of touch or just stubborn. Don't be shocked when the Colts cut Landry two years from now.

Joel's advise is a cluster ______ in waiting.

[Joel]

Joel, take a look at your list of players. If you don't realize that they don't equate to the impact Manning had...I can't do anything for you. At that point, you're either waaay out of touch or just stubborn. Don't be shocked when the Colts cut Landry two years from now.
A couple Pro Bowlers and a solid starter who have a good five years left vs. an aging first ballot HoFer who has two, MAYBE three? For a team that spent the previous year talking about "building for the future," I'm not sure the latter had more value, but I guess we'll see if he delivers a SB before retirement. Right now I'm still waiting for him to deliver his first playoff win; baby steps to a dynasty, I guess.


At what point in between those four FF's, 16 tackles and PB does a S come anywhere close to an MVP caliber QB? I guess that's where Super Mario's sacks come into the equation.
Super Mario wouldn't have come into my equation, for exactly the reason you derided the mention: Way too much cap space for a single player when we need many. I included him for completion: Given my choice of the FIVE FAs I listed, I'd have taken Nicks, Lofton and Landry. Yet it no longer matters what I'd have done a year ago (didn't then, for that matter,) so even directly asking me will yield no further comment on it.


Joel, it seems like if a guys not a perrenial all pro then he is trash to you. I understand that Moore is far from perfect, but we can't have Von Miller's at every position. I think he is in a position where he can continue to improve a lot.
Neither Leonhard nor Adams has ever made a Pro Bowl, but I was content with both: Because they do their job. Lofton's never made a Pro Bowl, but is a duly respected MLB, something we haven't had since mid-2006. If Moore improves a lot I'll withdraw my objection, but we won't win championships by starting guys at safety and guard for multiple seasons on the grounds they MIGHT—eventually—be decent.

[TXBRONC]

A couple Pro Bowlers and a solid starter who have a good five years left vs. an aging first ballot HoFer who has two, MAYBE three? For a team that spent the previous year talking about "building for the future," I'm not sure the latter had more value, but I guess we'll see if he delivers a SB before retirement. Right now I'm still waiting for him to deliver his first playoff win; baby steps to a dynasty, I guess.


Super Mario wouldn't have come into the equation for me for exactly the reason you derided the mention: Way too much cap space for a single player when we need many. Given my choice of any of the FIVE FAs I listed, I'd probably have taken Nicks, Lofton and Landry. However, it no longer matters what I would've done a year ago (didn't then, for that matter) and even directly asking me will yield no further comment on it.


Neither Leonhard nor Adams has ever made a Pro Bowl, but I was content with both: Because they do their job. Lofton's never made a Pro Bowl, but is a duly respected MLB, something we haven't had since mid-2006. If Moore improves a lot I'll withdraw my objection, but we won't win championships by starting guys at safety and guard for multiple seasons on the grounds they MIGHT—eventually—be decent.

Leonhard did such a great job that Denver let him go. :coffee:

[Joel]

Leonhard do such a great job that Denver let him go. :coffee:
How many catches did he surrender? How many of them cost us games? Playoff games? New Orleans has already snatched up Leonhard, but the front office and coaches are clearly committed to developing Moore so he started every game but one and remains in that spot on the depth chart. I just hope he's not the Third World of safeties: Forever "developing," never "developed."

[Slick]

Why not trade up if there's a guy they like and feel can help us win now? Is that absurd? All I see or read is trade down or stay at 28.

[Poet]

A couple Pro Bowlers and a solid starter who have a good five years left vs. an aging first ballot HoFer who has two, MAYBE three? For a team that spent the previous year talking about "building for the future," I'm not sure the latter had more value, but I guess we'll see if he delivers a SB before retirement. Right now I'm still waiting for him to deliver his first playoff win; baby steps to a dynasty, I guess.

Remove Peyton Manning and see how good your team really is. You'd eek out a division title and flounder in the playoffs. Even with your argument about building for the future, what you propose flies in the face of that. Those guys are closer to 30 than 20. By the time you groom a QB who is relevant, what of them? Are they going to set your young QB on their lap and tell him stories about how they used to be good? Come on Joel, you're saying that paying three guys who make less of an impact than PM is a good thing. It's clearly not.



Mario wouldn't have come into my equation, for exactly the reason you derided the mention: Way too much cap space for a single player when we need many. I included him for completion: Given my choice of the FIVE FAs I listed, I'd have taken Nicks, Lofton and Landry. Yet it no longer matters what I'd have done a year ago (didn't then, for that matter,) so even directly asking me will yield no further comment on it.

I appreciate the consistency. Man, Buffalo really has to be regretting that signing.



Neither Leonhard nor Adams has ever made a Pro Bowl, but I was content with both: Because they do their job. Lofton's never made a Pro Bowl, but is a duly respected MLB, something we haven't had since mid-2006. If Moore improves a lot I'll withdraw my objection, but we won't win championships by starting guys at safety and guard for multiple seasons on the grounds they MIGHT—eventually—be decent.

But you can win championships with solid players at those positions! Oh wait, you already have them. How many playoff wins did your guard help Tampa win this year?

[Poet]

Why not trade up if there's a guy they like and feel can help us win now? Is that absurd? All I see or read is trade down or stay at 28.

This is one of those drafts where the talent pool is deep, but the top shelf elite talent is scant. Why trade up to get a B player when staying put gets you that same kind of guy? It would be like going to the store and paying 5 bucks for a candy bar in one isle when the other isle has the same candy bar for 50 cents.

[TXBRONC]

How many catches did he surrender? How many of them cost us games? Playoff games? New Orleans has already snatched up Leonhard, but the front office and coaches are clearly committed to developing Moore so he started every game but one and remains in that spot on the depth chart. I just hope he's not the Third World of safeties: Forever "developing," never "developed."

You didn't answer the question. If Leonhard was so good why did Elway let him go?

Duh obviously they want to develop Moore that doesn't have jack to do with Leonhard. Leonhard was a dime safety so he wasn't on the field that much.

[Joel]

But you can win championships with solid players at those positions! Oh wait, you already have them. How many playoff wins did your guard help Tampa win this year?
How many of those playerS did they get? No one guy, no matter how good, can win a championship with just himself or one or two others. How many SBs did Elway win with just him and Mecklenburg? With the other three we'd "eek out a division win and flounder in the playoffs"? We played EIGHT losers last year, three twice: Showing up was enough to beat them for the division. In the playoffs we needed TWO kick return TDs to reach OT at home against a 10-6 team we stomped on the road a month earlier. Our four BEST players combined made one sack, surrendered two TDs and lost the ball three times: Flounder much?


You didn't answer the question. If Leonhard was so good why did Elway let him go?

Duh obviously they want to develop Moore that doesn't have jack to do with Leonhard. Leonhard was a dime safety so he wasn't on the field that much.
Just because you disagree with an answer doesn't mean it wasn't provided.

If we can trade down for more picks and still get all/most players we want/need, great; no loss, and there's no such thing as too many draft picks. However, we have a narrow rapidly-closing window of opportunity to win a championship before two of our best players retire and must be replaced, and several serious holes still jeopardize our ability to win it all; filling them should come first. Whether or not we should be, we ARE in "win now" mode. The urgency of that means, while we still want long term contributors to develop where possible, immediate contributors who fill critical holes should have priority.

[Slick]

Trade up and get an A player, King. Similar to what the Falcons did with Jones. I'm not saying it's absolutely what we should do, it was just a thought.

[MOtorboat]

Trade up and get an A player, King. Similar to what the Falcons did with Jones. I'm not saying it's absolutely what we should do, it was just a thought.

In this draft, the only thing I'd want them to move up to get is a pass rusher. Otherwise, sit tight...

[Poet]

Trade up and get an A player, King. Similar to what the Falcons did with Jones. I'm not saying it's absolutely what we should do, it was just a thought.

There don't seem to be many of those in the draft, beloved Slick.

[WARHORSE]

Trade our draft picks out this year for draft picks next year.

There is a player named Clowney who I would like to have.............Jadeveon to be exact.

Give our first rounder to Oakland this year for their first next year and their third and fourth this year.

Then next year, after they cant win one game this year......they pretty much have gutted their roster........we will have the first pick in the draft.





If they get the second pick in the draft..........Manziel is there too.....we could pick him or ransom the pick.






woo


hoo

[TXBRONC]

How many of those playerS did they get? No one guy, no matter how good, can win a championship with just himself or one or two others. How many SBs did Elway win with just him and Mecklenburg? With the other three we'd "eek out a division win and flounder in the playoffs"? We played EIGHT losers last year, three twice: Showing up was enough to beat them for the division. In the playoffs we needed TWO kick return TDs to reach OT at home against a 10-6 team we stomped on the road a month earlier. Our four BEST players combined made one sack, surrendered two TDs and lost the ball three times: Flounder much?


Just because you disagree with an answer doesn't mean it wasn't provided.

If we can trade down for more picks and still get all/most players we want/need, great; no loss, and there's no such thing as too many draft picks. However, we have a narrow rapidly-closing window of opportunity to win a championship before two of our best players retire and must be replaced, and several serious holes still jeopardize our ability to win it all; filling them should come first. Whether or not we should be, we ARE in "win now" mode. The urgency of that means, while we still want long term contributors to develop where possible, immediate contributors who fill critical holes should have priority.

I asked if Leonhard was that good why did Denver let him walk away? Going in long rambling answers as why you think he's a good players doesn't answer the question.

[Joel]

I asked if Leonhard was that good why did Denver let him walk away? Going in long rambling answers as why you think he's players doesn't answer the question.
Because they want Moore starting instead. You puzzled out that was my answer when I gave it; why are you still pretending I DIDN'T answer? Should I speculate on your ulterior motives, since that's the new thang?

[Jsteve01]

Could you explain/elaborate on that devaluation a bit? I'd think first round picks playing longer contracts for less money RAISED their value: They're still the cream of each draft, but now cost less and play longer.

there's nothing hard and fast but teams consistently gave up far less than what the standard point value chart would have indicated they should have. It's essentially anecdotal. I was extremely pissed at what the Broncos got to move back last year vs previous years. But when you look around, that' what has happened. Teams in general gave up far less to move up than in previous years. Other than the Skins which of course was a premium pick for a franchise qb.

[Joel]

there's nothing hard and fast but teams consistently gave up far less than what the standard point value chart would have indicated they should have. It's essentially anecdotal. I was extremely pissed at what the Broncos got to move back last year vs previous years. But when you look around, that' what has happened. Teams in general gave up far less to move up than in previous years. Other than the Skins which of course was a premium pick for a franchise qb.
I didn't know that, and find it intriguingly counterintuitive. If top picks go for LESS than before, even though the players inflict smaller cap hits and are bound to longer contracts, that could be a game-changer.

[MOtorboat]

there's nothing hard and fast but teams consistently gave up far less than what the standard point value chart would have indicated they should have. It's essentially anecdotal. I was extremely pissed at what the Broncos got to move back last year vs previous years. But when you look around, that' what has happened. Teams in general gave up far less to move up than in previous years. Other than the Skins which of course was a premium pick for a franchise qb.

I don't think it's anecdotal at all. Teams were taking less to move back, and the Patriots started moving up, rather than moving back. Regardless of the players chosen, the Patriots completely reversed their draft strategy, which for years, ws to trade back. I think Belichek is ahead of everyone on this. He realized it takes less to go up and get better players.

[TXBRONC]

I don't think it's anecdotal at all. Teams were taking less to move back, and the Patriots started moving up, rather than moving back. Regardless of the players chosen, the Patriots completely reversed their draft strategy, which for years, ws to trade back. I think Belichek is ahead of everyone on this. He realized it takes less to go up and get better players.

Jimmy Johnson is the first one I can remember who used look at draft picks like they were currency.