PDA

View Full Version : what POSITIONS should the broncos target in the draft?



Chef Zambini
04-17-2013, 03:04 PM
are you able to answer this question ?
do you have an opinion?

slim
04-17-2013, 03:08 PM
None. BPA.

Chef Zambini
04-17-2013, 03:13 PM
None. BPA.so you think the broncos should ignore their needs and roster shortcomings and just take the best player available, regardless of the position he plays?

slim
04-17-2013, 03:14 PM
so you think the broncos should ignore their needs and roster shortcomings and just take the best player available, regardless of the position he plays?

Yes.

underrated29
04-17-2013, 03:21 PM
Center- Barrett Jones
SS- DJ Swearinger, cyprien, reid
RB- Christine Michael, lacy, bell
DE- Domontre Jones, John Simon, whoever
MLB- Teo, Minter, Muati, Reddik
OG- Winters, cooper, warmack
WR- keenan allen, Swope, hunter, wheaton, harper



There ya go

Chef Zambini
04-17-2013, 03:32 PM
Center- Barrett Jones
SS- DJ Swearinger, cyprien, reid
RB- Christine Michael, lacy, bell
DE- Domontre Jones, John Simon, whoever
MLB- Teo, Minter, Muati, Reddik
OG- Winters, cooper, warmack
WR- keenan allen, Swope, hunter, wheaton, harper



There ya goI appreciate your post!
combined with your signature it not only indicates what positions you feel we should fill , but also in what priority.
This would seem to me to be the most PRUDENT method of drafting!
1. identify NEED
2. look at the candidates available to fill those needs.
3. formulate a strategy that allows you to address those needs while getting the best VALUE for your pick in each round.
RESEARCH the actual players that could fill those spots.

Chef Zambini
04-17-2013, 03:36 PM
so you think the broncos should ignore their needs and roster shortcomings and just take the best player available, regardless of the position he plays?
Yes. (says slim)

that would make you matt millen who used that mentality to take a WR with his first pick 3 years in a row.

BroncoWave
04-17-2013, 03:38 PM
I think we should draft a QB in round 1 to compete with Osweiler.

Northman
04-17-2013, 03:41 PM
Clearly QB and Safety.

slim
04-17-2013, 03:42 PM
so you think the broncos should ignore their needs and roster shortcomings and just take the best player available, regardless of the position he plays?
Yes. (says slim)

that would make you matt millen who used that mentality to take a WR with his first pick 3 years in a row.

No, it would make me Ozze Newsome.

BTW, your approach would make you Mike Shanahan. :lol:

BroncoWave
04-17-2013, 03:44 PM
Clearly QB and Safety.

We don't need to draft a safety, we should put Champ there instead.

Ravage!!!
04-17-2013, 03:53 PM
I don't believe ANY team drafts purely on BPA. You have to look at your needs, or at least at a position that is getting old, could have a contract problem, or had a player suffer from a serious injury. Either way, you MUST look at needs first. You can't draft a 43 MLB when your defense is a 34. You can't draft a QB in the first round when you have a Brady, Manning, Brees, or Rodgers as your starting QB. Heck, can't even draft one early if you spent 20 million a year on a Flacco. You don't draft a RB in the first if you have Rice or Peterson on the roster. You don't draft a LT in the first if you are the Broncos.

Personally, I would LOVE a good MLB to fall to us in the first. Yes, I personally would draft Teo and feel very confident that we got ourselves a playmaker in the middle. If not MLB, I would love a stud DT....and now... a stud DE.

I don't think you can have too many WRs, Corners, or LBs o the roster. Same with OL...but don't want those in the FIRST round this year. But I believe they should be addressed.

I have NEVER wanted to draft a RB in the first round. Although, with the rookie-pay scale, that mentality can be changed since the 1st round picks are signed to a 5 year contract. That would mean we could basically get a stud RB in the first round, and by the time he's ready to sign out of his rookie contract, we've gotten the best years from him and move on to another. Things have to be looked differently with the 1st round pick now days.

MLB
DT
DE
DB
RB
OL
WR

slim
04-17-2013, 03:55 PM
You can't draft a QB in the first round when you have a Brady, Manning, Brees, or Rodgers as your starting QB.



Tell that to Ted Thompson.

Ravage!!!
04-17-2013, 04:00 PM
Tell that to Ted Thompson.

Yeah, but that is not a normal situation.

The Packers drafted Rodgers when they felt confident that Favre was going to retire. Rodgers plummeted down the draft board, and the Packers grabbed the steal figuring he would sit a year or two.... not knowing that Favre wanted to play until he was 50.

Obviously, the Colts would NOT have drafted Luck had Manning been healthy. It was the injury that forced the Colts to take a chance. Heck, if Manning would have been healthy, they wouldn't have had the chance to draft Luck to begin with. Either way, there are always exceptions to the rule, and this is NOT an example of simply drafting the "BPA."

slim
04-17-2013, 04:06 PM
Seriously? You think that's a normal situation?

The Packers drafted Rodgers when they felt confident that Favre was going to retire. Rodgers plummeted down the draft board, and the Packers grabbed the steal figuring he would sit a year or two.... not knowing that Favre wanted to play until he was 50.

Obviously, the Colts would NOT have drafted Luck had Manning been healthy. If Manning would have been healthy, they wouldn't have had the chance to draft Luck. There are always exceptions to the rule, but this is NOT an example of simply drafting the "BPA."

:lol: Brett didn't retire for 5 years. It is a perfect example of BPA.

As a practical matter, BPA is a theory only. I find it hard to imagine a scenario outside of the first few picks where it would be applicable. This is because any draft board will have a fair number of players with the same/similiar grade. Obvisoulsy if you have 3 players with the same grade, then you could pick the one in the greatest area of need, etc.

Under no circumstances would I draft a player with a lesser grade, simply because I needed to fill a position. I would rather sign a FA vet to fill-in than to take that chance.

MOtorboat
04-17-2013, 04:12 PM
Rush end, middle linebacker, guard/center, safety, defensive tackle, running back.

In that order of priority.

Ravage!!!
04-17-2013, 04:12 PM
:lol: Brett didn't retire for 5 years. It is a perfect example of BPA.


No..its not, because they THOUGHT he was going to retire much faster. THey didn't draft Rodgers with the expectations of Favre continuing to play.

No matter.....

Ravage!!!
04-17-2013, 04:14 PM
Rush end, middle linebacker, guard/center, safety, defensive tackle, running back.

In that order of priority.

Hey MO, I'm curious. Are you saying that the DE is more important because you feel its more of a need, or because of the players that most likely will be at 28 in this year's draft?

MOtorboat
04-17-2013, 04:20 PM
Hey MO, I'm curious. Are you saying that the DE is more important because you feel its more of a need, or because of the players that most likely will be at 28 in this year's draft?

I'm saying it because I think it's a need for the Broncos. However, I would also argue that this is a deep draft for defensive line prospects, and not so much for middle linebackers.

But that list is specifically the order in which I would prioritize the Broncos needs if I were in charge.

Ravage!!!
04-17-2013, 04:32 PM
I'm saying it because I think it's a need for the Broncos. However, I would also argue that this is a deep draft for defensive line prospects, and not so much for middle linebackers.

But that list is specifically the order in which I would prioritize the Broncos needs if I were in charge.

So you would make the same prioritization had you not known the prospects for this draft? Just on needs alone? I ask because I just believe that MLB is SUCH a major position for any top defense... and considering we have none, makes me think that would be a higher priority. Now, obviously that may not be the case if you compare the needs with the prospects available, which is what made me ask.

MOtorboat
04-17-2013, 04:51 PM
So you would make the same prioritization had you not known the prospects for this draft? Just on needs alone? I ask because I just believe that MLB is SUCH a major position for any top defense... and considering we have none, makes me think that would be a higher priority. Now, obviously that may not be the case if you compare the needs with the prospects available, which is what made me ask.

Yes.

And Denver currently has Bradley and Irving, which is obviously not ideal, but they are likely capable of playing the position. Denver, literally, does not have a RDE on the roster at all.

And then yes, after looking at the draft, that makes even more sense, because of the depth at defensive line and complete lack of depth at inside linebacker in this draft.

Joel
04-17-2013, 05:13 PM
Do I have an opinion?! :tongue: Of course I have an opinion; I just don't know nearly enough about college football to have an INFORMED one.

We haven't had a decent MLB since losing Wilson SEVEN years ago, yet everyone says this years crop is awful. I've only heard of the top prospect, but WHAT I've heard makes me want him nowhere near Denver.

We lost our only blitzing DE to Faxgate, and our only other pass rusher is Miller; while I feel blitzers overrated, we do need more than ONE, and this draft is reportedly deep with them.

Champ says he's not playing safety yet, so our only other decent one is a 32 year old FA journeyman in his final contract year. If there's a good one out there at our pick, he'd be a good choice.

Neither of our top RBs stays healthy (that's not solely them, but one thing at a time.) One's >30, missed half of last year and STILL had 5 fumbles; the other had to leave a playoff game converting 3rd and 3 wins.

None of our guards can push linemen, only cut them or pull to block much smaller safeties and LBs downfield. If our RBs got hit behind the line less, they'd convert 3rd and short and wouldn't constantly be hurt.

We addressed some of the above in recent drafts, but those picks haven't come through or they'd be filling those holes as starters instead of LOWER on the depth chart than guys who can't and don't. Even if some earlier picks finally "arrive" this year we'll still have no depth behind them if they're hurt: Another high pick would increase the chance we 1) found our long term starter and 2) insured him with more than scrubs.

Priorities depend on which position's most critical and currently has the worst starter, as well as which are available at our pick and their quality relative to each other. If the best safety's a likely HoFer and the best DE a maybe starter, choosing the latter would be foolish even if we considered the need greater, because both holes are real and crippling, and the second player wouldn't fill his nearly as well (perhaps not at all.)

Again, I can't speak to what's out there, but having at least one pass rusher in the front four is about as valuable as having a MLB who can cover, runstop and blitz, and it sounds like this draft has many of the former yet few of the latter. The chance of getting a top DE who can play the run, too (i.e. all three downs) is a lot better than the chance of a top MLB, so that would be my top defensive priority. In the 2nd or 3rd round, a top MLB, combined with Woodyard and our quality/depth at CB, would minimize our hole at safety, but if the MLBs all suck and there's a top safety, I'd take him.

On offense, a top guard would minimize our weakness at RB; if we find one who road grades like Franklin and Clady we might even stop hearing complaints about Moreno dancing around behind the line, because he won't HAVE to anymore. A guard who can play center would also ease my worries about Walton far more than pinning all our hopes on last years fourth round pick. I get the impression from commentary this draft has many good but few, perhaps no, great RBs, so we probably can't get a star even in the first and there should be plenty of solid ones left by the third or fourth round.

Those are my preferences based solely on where I feel we have big holes, with little consideration for this drafts relative quality at each position, because I'm not qualified to speak on the latter. Generally, good teams with few holes should prioritize need, filling those few holes with the final pieces of the championship puzzle. Their low picks give them no chance at the Best Player AVAILABLE; they must be content with the Best Player LEFT, and choosing one who must sit on the bench behind two Pro Bowlers wastes a first round pick, never wise, but idiocy during a title run.

I actually think we're closer to the dog teams who should take the BPA because they have so many holes a star almost ANYWHERE immediately improves them a lot, but we're in Win Now mode until Peyton and/or Champ retires. Even if we weren't, top talent tends to require top picks, and we don't have any; we can't get the Best Player AVAILABLE after nearly 30 other teams have first shot: We get their leftovers, and I doubt this draft is good enough they'll leave any first ballot HoFers unless all the scouts (including ours) just missed him.

Joel
04-17-2013, 05:59 PM
I appreciate your post!
combined with your signature it not only indicates what positions you feel we should fill , but also in what priority.
This would seem to me to be the most PRUDENT method of drafting!
1. identify NEED
2. look at the candidates available to fill those needs.
3. formulate a strategy that allows you to address those needs while getting the best VALUE for your pick in each round.
RESEARCH the actual players that could fill those spots.
Value is a composite of need AND ability. If a team had Rodgers, Brady and Manning the last ones only value would be as tradebait, and not GOOD tradebait since he's in his last years, commands a ton of money and the other 31 teams would know his current team was desperate to get him off their bench and cap. Conversely, despite many people telling me Laron Landry didn't deserve his trip to last years Pro Bowl, two weeks BEFORE the Pro Bowl even his mediocre ability looked far better than what we had at safety instead.

If a great team's just one or two holes from a Super Bowl, filling one—even with average talent—is more important than a first ballot HoFer who rides pine behind two Pro Bowlers. Conversely, a team that sucks EVERYWHERE can't afford to ignore an Elway with the #3 overall pick just because they have Danny White at QB and NOTHING at WR. That would waste a once in a generation opportunity paid for in shame, and thus increase it. Even acknowledging neither priority's exclusive, we can't say "need ALWAYS trumps ability" OR vice versa: It depends on a teams overall state, partly because that tends to dictate draft position.

Like I say, it's all covered in "The Draft Dodge," but since you seem to disagree with that flexible approach, I'd appreciate if you reviewed the chapter and shared what you find lacking in their logic. I usually skip this, but another good point they make is a 4 win team using it's #2 pick to get a star to build around, they can KEEP building around him even several years later, when top picks have turned them into an 8 win team that only gets middling picks and middling players. They make MANY good points, and that chapter was like an epiphany for me; in the 25 years since I've seen much to support, but nothing to refute, their arguments.


Rush end, middle linebacker, guard/center, safety, defensive tackle, running back.

In that order of priority.
Liking this a lot, and I'll just have to trust your judgement there's a MLB worth drafting in the 2nd; as weak as we've been there for so long, whether he's legit 2nd round talent may matter less than whether he gets Joe Mays off the field in the playoffs. I'm slightly curious why you included DT though. Do you think the FAs we signed won't cut it, won't stick around long, or both? Or is it simply a question of depth?

If we ever find a solid anchor to stop runs up the gut, draw doubles and push the pocket Wolfe has "star UT" written all over him (maybe I'm being unfair, but I think most people who see him as a DE are the same ones who use the term "DL.":tsk:) Vickerson's not bad either now that he's added a LOT of muscle mass (like, 50 lbs. of weight if we trust his statements last offseason, while his body fat went DOWN >10%.) I know it's been a perennial need for a while, but if either of our FAs pan out and the other is even decent we look to be in pretty good shape in the middle; it's the ends that are the problem.

MOtorboat
04-17-2013, 06:02 PM
Again, that's the priority I believe Denver has, not the order of positions taken in the draft.

I don't think there's a legit 4-3 middle linebacker in this draft outside of Te'o, and that has circus written all over it. Minter possibly.

Joel
04-17-2013, 06:21 PM
Again, that's the priority I believe Denver has, not the order of positions taken in the draft.

I don't think there's a legit 4-3 middle linebacker in this draft outside of Te'o, and that has circus written all over it. Minter possibly.
The only thing I know about Te'o is he was 1) regarded as the top MLB prospect all year, 2) MIA in the National Championship he lost and 3) publicly devastated by his imaginary girlfriends death. None of that makes me desperate to spend a first round pick. Actually, I take it back; I know one other thing about him: He's from the posterchild for the overhyped undertalented world of Division I-A football.

I'm with you on the MLBs, I'm just not sure why you want a DT, even late. I'm not saying they're all Pro Bowlers, but I can't remember the last time I felt this comfortable with our DTs, and from what I recall of Dean and Coachs historical overview a few years back the record of late round DTs is fairly abysmal.

MOtorboat
04-17-2013, 06:30 PM
The only thing I know about Te'o is he was 1) regarded as the top MLB prospect all year, 2) MIA in the National Championship he lost and 3) publicly devastated by his imaginary girlfriends death. None of that makes me desperate to spend a first round pick. Actually, I take it back; I know one other thing about him: He's from the posterchild for the overhyped undertalented world of Division I-A football.

I'm with you on the MLBs, I'm just not sure why you want a DT, even late. I'm not saying they're all Pro Bowlers, but I can't remember the last time I felt this comfortable with our DTs, and from what I recall of Dean and Coachs historical overview a few years back the record of late round DTs is fairly abysmal.

Alec Ogeltree from Georgia may fall because of off the field issues, but I see him more as a weak side linebacker in a 4-3, but better suited for a 3-4. Minter from LSU may be a solid pick in the second, but I'd say it's probably reaching to take him in the first. Then you get down to Kevin Reddick from North Carolina and Kiko Alonso from Oregon and I don't think either are going to start as a true MLB in the NFL. Again, Alonso, at least, is also probably a weak side guy or a 3-4 guy, and they are both 3rd, maybe even 4th round prospects.

The middle linebackers just aren't there this year.

Denver needs rotational defensive line guys, so I wouldn't be surprised if they took one. Knighton doesn't cure all the problems, and Wolfe is a tweener in Del Rio's scheme.

Joel
04-17-2013, 07:04 PM
Okay, that makes sense; thanks for explaining. Sometimes I forget 3-4 NTs aren't the only DTs who get tired and need something better than a placeholder to spell them.

CrazyHorse
04-17-2013, 10:16 PM
None. BPA.

So if the best player at our position ends up being a QB we should draft 6 QB's?

Best player in a position of need makes more sense.
I'd like to see us go after a tailback, defensive line, and inside linebacker.

BroncoWave
04-17-2013, 10:18 PM
So if the best player at our position ends up being a QB we should draft 6 QB's?

Best player in a position of need makes more sense.
I'd like to see us go after a tailback, defensive line, and inside linebacker.

I think it's pretty obvious he didn't mean that. By BPA, I always take that to mean BPA unless your BPA is at a position in which you have zero need. If BPA is a RB, G, C, DL, MLB, CB, or S that's probably who Denver takes. Maybe even WR if they really like player.

CrazyHorse
04-17-2013, 10:18 PM
So if the best player at our position ends up being a QB we should draft 6 QB's?

Best player in a position of need makes more sense.
I'd like to see us go after a tailback, defensive line, and inside linebacker.

I forgot to and defensive back too.

broncohead
04-17-2013, 11:33 PM
We have 3 MLB's on the roster and the FO have stated that they will compete for the starting role. I don't think Denver sees it as a need. Also I think OT depth is a need in the later rounds but drafting one in the top 3 rds would be dumb imo. I see a RDE, RB, CB, and safety as our top needs with OT depth in the later rounds. Remember we have Kuper coming back from injury who may slide the LG and Beadles as backup or starter. Who knows

underrated29
04-17-2013, 11:54 PM
Again, that's the priority I believe Denver has, not the order of positions taken in the draft.

I don't think there's a legit 4-3 middle linebacker in this draft outside of Te'o, and that has circus written all over it. Minter possibly.


I disagree with the whole circus thing and think that gets thrown around too often. Sure, the teammates will likely give him some shit for it. By so what, it wouldn't be any different then the players getting ripped off in that investment scheme or Woodward dating the chick that perish cox coxed.

They haze and tease him, big deal. The media says so what happened. He replies with I got duped. Or he is gay, iin which case he says I'm gay. That's it, the end. No circus, no nothing. Really what else is anyone going to do to the kid to make a circus? The teammates won't. They have better things to do and the leaders on the LR- Peyton, woody, champ. Hey are not going to put up with people screwing around when they should be focusing. Teo would laugh it all off anyway.


Don't forget about mike muati. H was a top 75 player before he blew out his ankles, - guy has talent, was a baller but broke down. Could he be fixed? No one knows but he is another ilb who could be worth a shot......late round to Ufda of course

Dzone
04-18-2013, 12:07 AM
Teo came across as a focused dude on Chuckies qb club. I would draft him. He doesnt care about the past. He is going to get harrassed. So what. The dude is going to take it out on the field. If he becomes a star, his past will be forgotten and the clown show will leave town.

Chef Zambini
04-18-2013, 01:41 AM
Rush end, middle linebacker, guard/center, safety, defensive tackle, running back.

In that order of priority.thanks for posting.

Chef Zambini
04-18-2013, 02:04 AM
Thanks all for your input and comments.
I think our NEEDS are in this order:
1.RB
2.MLB
3. DL
4.OL
5.safety
I dont know if we draft in that order, but I do hope we adress those POSITIONS.
I hope we can find a starter, or at the very least, big time contributor at RB and MLB

Joel
04-18-2013, 03:16 AM
I think it's pretty obvious he didn't mean that. By BPA, I always take that to mean BPA unless your BPA is at a position in which you have zero need. If BPA is a RB, G, C, DL, MLB, CB, or S that's probably who Denver takes. Maybe even WR if they really like player.
That's the thing though: The better you are, the more likely the BPA plays a position where you have zero need. And the NEXT BPA, and the next, until you're forced to choose between an exceptionally talented player you don't need and a somewhat talented one you do need. The better the team, the better that second option looks, and the less likely their pick's good enough to even have a shot at the the first one.

That's why it's not "always" either. Nine times out of ten, you don't have to look any farther than last years record to know whether to go for the BPA or need. The problem, as noted long ago, is most people do it backwards: Dogs get the desperately deluded idea a few guys at the most important positions will make them champions, and contenders get the idea they need to draft another Pro Bowler to get/stay on top, even if he rides the bench behind several excellent players. So the first team blows its once in a decade chance at a franchise player, and the second vainly tries to get top five talent out of a top thirty pick.

TXBRONC
04-18-2013, 06:39 AM
Rush end, middle linebacker, guard/center, safety, defensive tackle, running back.

In that order of priority.

I understand the need for a middle linebacker but right now I'm not under the impression that they will given the fact they have three on the roster right now.

MOtorboat
04-18-2013, 07:38 AM
I understand the need for a middle linebacker but right now I'm not under the impression that they will given the fact they have three on the roster right now.

Yes. That combined with a lack of a 4-3 MLB in this draft combines for Denver not taking one. But I don't think the long term solution at the position is on the roster.

MOtorboat
04-18-2013, 07:39 AM
I disagree with the whole circus thing and think that gets thrown around too often. Sure, the teammates will likely give him some shit for it. By so what, it wouldn't be any different then the players getting ripped off in that investment scheme or Woodward dating the chick that perish cox coxed.

They haze and tease him, big deal. The media says so what happened. He replies with I got duped. Or he is gay, iin which case he says I'm gay. That's it, the end. No circus, no nothing. Really what else is anyone going to do to the kid to make a circus? The teammates won't. They have better things to do and the leaders on the LR- Peyton, woody, champ. Hey are not going to put up with people screwing around when they should be focusing. Teo would laugh it all off anyway.


Don't forget about mike muati. H was a top 75 player before he blew out his ankles, - guy has talent, was a baller but broke down. Could he be fixed? No one knows but he is another ilb who could be worth a shot......late round to Ufda of course

Te'o is taking the media circus wherever he goes. I think it's pretty naive to think that won't happen.

TXBRONC
04-18-2013, 08:18 AM
Yes. That combined with a lack of a 4-3 MLB in this draft combines for Denver not taking one. But I don't think the long term solution at the position is on the roster.

That's a very real posibility none of the three currently on the roster is long term solution. Hoping Irving can be that guy because that's why he was drafted but we'll know soon enough.

UnderArmour
04-18-2013, 08:28 AM
I don't want another George Foster, Willie Middlebrooks, or repeat of the 2007 draft class. The Broncos should NEVER AGAIN go back to reaching for need. If we can't get value at a position in the draft, don't take it. There are veterans on the market (via trade or free agency) that can fill spots for a year. "Need drafting" leads to too many busts and reduces the overall long-term talent of our roster. When people say draft BPA, this is what they mean. If the highest graded player on the draft board is there, you grab him regardless of other needs. The draft is for increasing the talent on your roster and finding guys that can ball, not for reaching to fill needs.

I feel like we can trust Elway here though. Based on our scouting criteria, we grade team captains higher than character malcontents so I don't expect us to ever pass on the best player on our board to fill a need.

aulaza
04-18-2013, 08:46 AM
I think an abstract list of needs is not that helpful. It doesn't take into account what is available, and the order would likely change depending on what you address first. Also, some needs are more immediate whilst others are more long term. Having said, that, in terms of being successful this year (i.e. very short term), and considering the draft class, a DE would be of prime importance to my mind.

TXBRONC
04-18-2013, 10:30 AM
The needs that have been suggested here are concrete other than safety imo.

ForgettingBrandonMarshall
04-18-2013, 11:55 AM
Since John Elway thinks this draft is not top heavy (going as far to claim the guy at 28 is almost equivalent to picking at 10), I think that we are going to go to the trenches in the first round. I could see them picking G/C or DE as from my uninformed opinion on prospects. All I hear from "experts" is that the o-line and d-line are the deepest in the draft. If that's the case, I see us going there first unless someone unexpected drops (e.g., Vaccaro-S, Rhodes-CB).

As for the rest in order of need: DE pass rusher, CB, MLB, RB, OL (for depth), S (or pass coverage LB--the few times I agree with Zam are when it comes to covering TEs), WR (who can play special teams)

Lancane
04-18-2013, 02:20 PM
RB, DE, SS, CB, DT, OL, LB and QB, but I feel the first four are primary positions of need.

Chef Zambini
04-18-2013, 02:32 PM
I don't want another George Foster, Willie Middlebrooks, or repeat of the 2007 draft class. The Broncos should NEVER AGAIN go back to reaching for need. If we can't get value at a position in the draft, don't take it. There are veterans on the market (via trade or free agency) that can fill spots for a year. "Need drafting" leads to too many busts and reduces the overall long-term talent of our roster. When people say draft BPA, this is what they mean. If the highest graded player on the draft board is there, you grab him regardless of other needs. The draft is for increasing the talent on your roster and finding guys that can ball, not for reaching to fill needs.

I feel like we can trust Elway here though. Based on our scouting criteria, we grade team captains higher than character malcontents so I don't expect us to ever pass on the best player on our board to fill a need.so if geno smith is available at 28?
if you dont fill holes via the draft, you must acknowledge that so far , that same hole was not filled in free agency before the draft, when the best of talent has already been picked thru.
example. most think we need an MLB or ILB, we have not secured that person in months of free agency, we should not target one in the draft?
BPA as a singular mentality gets you 3 WR in a row and a GM looking for a new job.
Any team that does not address NEED is either very secure with their existing roster or not very bright.
anyone think the PATS are not going to target a TE in this years draft?
anyone think the ravens will use their first 3 picks on OFFENSE ?
BPA is a myth.
JFE said his policy last year was BPA, how do you move DOWN with a BPA policy?
what there is no best player available?
get a clue to reality people.

BroncoJoe
04-18-2013, 02:39 PM
so if geno smith is available at 28?
if you dont fill holes via the draft, you must acknowledge that so far , that same hole was not filled in free agency before the draft, when the best of talent has already been picked thru.
example. most think we need an MLB or ILB, we have not secured that person in months of free agency, we should not target one in the draft?
BPA as a singular mentality gets you 3 WR in a row and a GM looking for a new job.
Any team that does not address NEED is either very secure with their existing roster or not very bright.
anyone think the PATS are not going to target a TE in this years draft?
anyone think the ravens will use their first 3 picks on OFFENSE ?
BPA is a myth.
JFE said his policy last year was BPA, how do you move DOWN with a BPA policy?
what there is no best player available?
get a clue to reality people.

Um, because their BPA available wasn't being targeted by another team and they could pick up a pick or two to still get their BPA?

You really are stupid, aren't you.

UnderArmour
04-18-2013, 02:49 PM
so if geno smith is available at 28?
if you dont fill holes via the draft, you must acknowledge that so far , that same hole was not filled in free agency before the draft, when the best of talent has already been picked thru.
example. most think we need an MLB or ILB, we have not secured that person in months of free agency, we should not target one in the draft?
BPA as a singular mentality gets you 3 WR in a row and a GM looking for a new job.
Any team that does not address NEED is either very secure with their existing roster or not very bright.
anyone think the PATS are not going to target a TE in this years draft?
anyone think the ravens will use their first 3 picks on OFFENSE ?
BPA is a myth.
JFE said his policy last year was BPA, how do you move DOWN with a BPA policy?
what there is no best player available?
get a clue to reality people.

If Geno Smith is there at 28, the Denver Broncos should either fill out their draft card as fast humanly possible and sprint to get it to the podium or trade out of the spot for what they believe is substantial value. I believe Geno is the real deal and the Baylor game demonstrated he can be an accurate quarterback. Osweiler has promise, but Geno Smith is a franchise quarterback.

You move down on BPA philosophy if your board has several players with the same grade or you feel that your criteria for rating players is different from the rest of the league and your top guys on the board will still be there. That's exactly what we did with Derrick Wolfe. We had him graded extremely high even though Kiper/Mayock barely even knew about him and there were many DTs mocked to go higher than him.

Furthermore, the reason Millen was fired is that he did not listen to his scouts. His scouts did not have those WRs rated as high as Millen did with his big head. The ONLY thing that changed after Millen left was him not being there. The scouting infrastructure stayed the same and they even promoted the second-in-charge, Martin Mayhew, to take over for Millen. You bring up this example of how Millen took BPA but it's evident that this was NEVER the case. Millen's head and ego got in the way of doing business. Your example is not valid at all and it's doubtful you have any clue what you're even talking about.

Superchop 7
04-20-2013, 04:25 AM
Missionary position.

SmilinAssasSin27
04-20-2013, 10:42 AM
Looking at our current roster, here are the positions I ignore (unless a highly rated stud drops):

Secondary, DT, MLB, OG

Although some of these spots can be improved upon, we have talent and/or generally healthy depth at each of these spots.

Where we are lacking depth and/or talent is at the following positions:

DE, OLB, WR, RB, OT

Wolfe should be a DT, but is flexible. Who else do we have as DE right now? Ayers?
We have ZERO OLB depth behind our starters. Although our MLB situation isn't great, we at least have a few of em.
McGahee...old, fumbles, gets hurt. Knowshon...1 season wonder, contract is up, gets hurt. Hillman...Like him but not an every down guy.
If even one of our top 3 WRs goes down, I cringe at who we would be lining up.
The addition of Vasquez gives up an upgrade on the inside. As with OLB and WR, one injury at OT and we're in trouble.

All this said...If Te'o dops to 28, I take him. Because I believe he's a clear upgrade over what we have AND is a very highly rated player. If Star drops to 28, I take him as well. He'll be a star. Same with the Alabama Guard. If someone screws up and he drops to us, I'd take him too. The point is that you don't pass on supremely talented or "rated" players just to fill holes, but ya still have to consider your depth chart "all things being equal".

Chef Zambini
04-20-2013, 11:47 AM
Looking at our current roster, here are the positions I ignore (unless a highly rated stud drops):

Secondary, DT, MLB, OG

Although some of these spots can be improved upon, we have talent and/or generally healthy depth at each of these spots.

Where we are lacking depth and/or talent is at the following positions:

DE, OLB, WR, RB, OT

Wolfe should be a DT, but is flexible. Who else do we have as DE right now? Ayers?
We have ZERO OLB depth behind our starters. Although our MLB situation isn't great, we at least have a few of em.
McGahee...old, fumbles, gets hurt. Knowshon...1 season wonder, contract is up, gets hurt. Hillman...Like him but not an every down guy.
If even one of our top 3 WRs goes down, I cringe at who we would be lining up.
The addition of Vasquez gives up an upgrade on the inside. As with OLB and WR, one injury at OT and we're in trouble.

All this said...If Te'o dops to 28, I take him. Because I believe he's a clear upgrade over what we have AND is a very highly rated player. If Star drops to 28, I take him as well. He'll be a star. Same with the Alabama Guard. If someone screws up and he drops to us, I'd take him too. The point is that you don't pass on supremely talented or "rated" players just to fill holes, but ya still have to consider your depth chart "all things being equal".

well said.

Chef Zambini
04-20-2013, 11:56 AM
BVTOT
best value to our team !
much different than BPA.
after all, "best player is so subjectivem as many of you have said so why overlook your actual needs when making your selection?
and even if you ddo have a stable roster of starters, picking for the future is still a consideration of AGE and depth.
BPA is a farce, a smokescreen, a blanket response from GMs used to placate the media before and after the draft.
BPA is a fairytail

NightTerror218
04-20-2013, 12:50 PM
BPA and look at the next 2-3 guys around, not value/position you want trade down.