PDA

View Full Version : Grading the Broncos 2010 Draft Class



UnderArmour
05-02-2013, 08:53 AM
Grading the current draft class is always useless because players have to actually play before you know what you have. Now that 3 years have passed, it is fair to grade the 2010 draft class for their actual on-the-field contributions. So here are my my grades for the Broncos 2010 draft class. Critique and write your own.

Maneuvering:
Grade: A
McDaniels/Xanders masterfully moved around the draft board acquiring picks and taking productive players.


1) WR: Demaryius Thomas, Georgia Tech
Grade: A
He has developed into a pro bowl player and a big-time receiving option. Grade will become A+ after he has a season where he is dominating games on his own. He did struggle with injuries early on, but the front office could not have picked a better guy to step in for Brandon Marshall. Rare combination of size and speed. Pro Bowl player.

1) QB: Tim Tebow, Florida
Grade: B+
Though he was later traded off for a 4th, he led the team to a 6 game winning streak and helped lead the team to one of its only victories during a miserable 4-12 season. He cannot throw the football effectively, but smart decision making and not turning the football over combined with his abilities as a runner and playmaking in clutch situations puts his grade at a B+. With Tebow in the backfield, the Broncos led the league in rushes and miracles. Also factored into this grade is the fact we received a 4th round pick after we upgraded to Manning.

2) Guard: Zane Beadles, Utah
Grade: A-
Pro Bowl player. Granted, it was because of Manning's popularity running off on him, but he has developed into a solid starter and has been a solid part of an elite pass-blocking line. Could not ask for much more out of a 2nd rounder.

3) Center: J.D. Walton, Baylor
Grade: B-
Has struggled at times, but the 3rd round is where you find guys to step on the field and start. Walton has done just that for us. Ineffective and overpowered at times, based on his draft position he has met expectations.

3) WR: Eric Decker, Minnesota
Grade: A-
A high production player acquired in the 3rd round of the draft. Decker is a solid possession receiver and has been reliable for both Manning as well as Tebow. Often fades during stretches of games or trips on phantom sprinklers, he has far exceeded reasonable expectations. Could not ask for more out of a player taken here.

5) CB: Parrish Cox, Oklahoma State
Grade: F
Character risk. Was a solid player while he was here and started a few games. Not bad for a fifth round selection, but he dragged down Demaryius along with him. We took a gamble here and we lost. There is a reason the current front office isn't gambling on these types of guys anymore. DT could be in jail right now depending on how that case unfolded.

6) Center: Eric Olsen, Notre Dame
Grade: D-
Backup player that has stuck in the league, just not for us.

7) CB: Syd'Quan Thompson, California
Grade: C
While injuries have destroyed his career, for a 7th round pick this guy was money. If not for the injury, this guy could have developed into a real player for us. It's a real shame.

7) LB/DE: Jammie Kirlew, Indiana
Grade: D-
Camp fodder. Has shuffled around league and even into CFL. Contributed nothing on the field. D grade is for lasting in the league as a reserve.

Overall Grade: A
2 Pro Bowl players and a borderline one. Solid starters in Tebow, Walton, Squid, and Cox who have fell out of favor for various reasons(Manning, injuries, being scum of the earth, etc).

Simple Jaded
05-02-2013, 09:48 AM
Riiiiggght. :rolleyes:

Ravage!!!
05-02-2013, 10:20 AM
Did you REALLY want to start the grading on Tebow? Giving a B+ to a 1st round pick that has no job in the NFL after 3 years?

As much as I wanted Walton when we drafted, I have to be honest and see that he's been nothing but bad as a starting center so far.

TXBRONC
05-02-2013, 10:36 AM
Some of the grade are way to generous.

There is no way in my mind that Tebow deserves a B+. No he wasn't a smart decision maker. He can't read coverage and he became turnover in the machine. His last start NFL was a beat down. He has a .500 record in the playoffs. Yes he has a playoff win on his resume but he also has 35 point loss on his resume. Only getting a midround pick for a guy who was taken in the 1st isn't good. That should also tell us that one playoff win didn't mean squat. I would give him C at best.

As far as I'm concerned Cox, Olsen, Thompson, and Kirlew don't serve passing grades because they contributed little to nothing and not a one of them still plays for the Broncos.

As a final note no Thomas couldn't be sitting in jail unless he was charged with a crime/put on trial.

camdisco24
05-02-2013, 10:47 AM
Say what you want about UA's grades, but I think it's pretty amazing how this draft class turned out. I honestly had VERY low expectations for this class. The fact that we have two star WR's and a solid G out of 2010 is pretty impressive. It's rare two WR's from one draft turn out as good as Thomas and Decker have.

TXBRONC
05-02-2013, 11:05 AM
Say what you want about UA's grades, but I think it's pretty amazing how this draft class turned out. I honestly had VERY low expectations for this class. The fact that we have two star WR's and a solid G out of 2010 is pretty impressive. It's rare two WR's from one draft turn out as good as Thomas and Decker have.

I have no quams with other players. I never had a problem with Decker and Thomas. I thought both could be good recivers if they could stay healthy. Beadles is solid. He wasn't the weak link on the offensive line it was Kuper's replacement that was problem and even he improved as the season went. He still a back up player but nevertheless he did improve to some degree.

slim
05-02-2013, 11:15 AM
Tebow aside, it ended up being a pretty good draft.

Dapper Dan
05-02-2013, 11:20 AM
I think Andrew Mason gave it a B. I don't know. I'm thinking B+ or A-

When you come up a few solid starters and even Pro Bowlers, it's a good draft. The draft is a tricky thing.

Ravage!!!
05-02-2013, 11:23 AM
Some of the grade are way to generous.

There is no way in my mind that Tebow deserves a B+. No he wasn't a smart decision maker. He can't read coverage and he became turnover machine. His last start NFL was a beat down. He has a .500 record in the playoffs. Yes he has a playoff win on his resume but he also has 35 point loss on his resume. Only getting a midround pick who was taken in the 1st. That should also tell us that one playoff win didn't mean squat. I would give him C at best.

As far as I'm concerned Cox, Olsen, Thompson, and Kirlew don't serve passing grades because they contributed little to nothing and not a one of them still plays for the Broncos.

As a final note no Thomas couldn't be sitting in jail unless he was charged with a crime/put on trial.

A C is pretty generous considering we used 3 picks on a guy that is out of the NFL after 3 years. Even if you are trying to grade on JUST what a player did for the Broncos "alone" as a career, 3 draft choices and a 1st round pick for 1 year starting and out of the league is not a "C"..imo. To me, that's an ultimate Fail. If after 3 years, and he's not with the Broncos, its not only a waste of a 1st round pick, but a waste of 4 picks.

Like you, I always felt DT and Decker were good WRs. Walton isn't a B- as a player, and I don't think Beadles is an A. I personally would give Beadles a B-...but he's a "C" as a player (meaning just average). Walton, unfortunately, hasn't been good. I TRULY Hope he's better this year as it's going to be his 4th season, and he missed most of last with injury. But losing Koppen, to me, is going to be a HUGE loss. Crossing my fingers for Walton because I really wanted him at the time of the draft.

Like you... Cox, Olsen, Thompson, Kirlew are all F's. If it's only after 3 years, and they have disappeared from our team... then its a FAIL of a pick. Doesn't do any good to draft players that aren't on your team. I would be hypocritical to say otherwise considering the QB above.

broncohead
05-02-2013, 11:35 AM
4 or our top 5 picks are starters. Thats pretty good. I agree Walton needs to step up but what we have seen from him is what is expected of a 3rd rounder

Dapper Dan
05-02-2013, 11:37 AM
4 or our top 5 picks are starters. Thats pretty good. I agree Walton needs to step up but what we have seen from him is what is expected of a 3rd rounder

Along with 2 Pro Bowlers, and Decker has the potential to get there too.

TXBRONC
05-02-2013, 11:47 AM
A C is pretty generous considering we used 3 picks on a guy that is out of the NFL after 3 years. Even if you are trying to grade on JUST what a player did for the Broncos "alone" as a career, 3 draft choices and a 1st round pick for 1 year starting and out of the league is not a "C"..imo. To me, that's an ultimate Fail. If after 3 years, and he's not with the Broncos, its not only a waste of a 1st round pick, but a waste of 4 picks.

Like you, I always felt DT and Decker were good WRs. Walton isn't a B- as a player, and I don't think Beadles is an A. I personally would give Beadles a B-...but he's a "C" as a player (meaning just average). Walton, unfortunately, hasn't been good. I TRULY Hope he's better this year as it's going to be his 4th season, and he missed most of last with injury. But losing Koppen, to me, is going to be a HUGE loss. Crossing my fingers for Walton because I really wanted him at the time of the draft.

Like you... Cox, Olsen, Thompson, Kirlew are all F's. If it's only after 3 years, and they have disappeared from our team... then its a FAIL of a pick. Doesn't do any good to draft players that aren't on your team. I would be hypocritical to say otherwise considering the QB above.

I understand where coming from but as far as Tebow's time in Denver we did get something positive. That's why I would give him a C for his time here. That isn't difinitive for his career. Overall his career is a failure. The other guys did nothing.

Walton might get beat out by Blake.

Traveler
05-02-2013, 12:19 PM
A C is pretty generous considering we used 3 picks on a guy that is out of the NFL after 3 years. Even if you are trying to grade on JUST what a player did for the Broncos "alone" as a career, 3 draft choices and a 1st round pick for 1 year starting and "possibly" out of the league is not a "C"..imo. To me, that's an ultimate Fail. If after 3 years, and he's not with the Broncos, its not only a waste of a 1st round pick, but a waste of 4 picks.

Fixed it!

Giving Tebow a grade of "C" is pretty generous. I'd personally would grade him as a "D". As you mention above, Tebow is no longer playing for this team. Having said that, giving up those three picks to select him in the first can't be blamed on Tebow. That's on McDaniels! I've addressed that in another thread. Tebow can be blamed for his crappy passing mechanics, but even moreso, his inability to quickly read defenses and go through his progressions.

I was never a fan of TT, but agreed with the teams decision to insert him into the starting lineup. Orton had lost the team's confidence and wasn't going to get any better. Elway & Company had to find out what they had in Tebow. Only way to know for sure was to let him play. My other beef with TT was the media was quick to give him credit for the winning games we did. When in reality, it was our defense that kept us in those games. They didn't receive the credit they deserved for their "awesome" level of play during the 6-7 game winning streak.

Once teams finally figured out how to defend the read option, things went downhill pretty quickly. Tebow couldn't adjust his game accordingly since he is such an awful passer. 4 years into his career, he hasn't gotten any better and there is a very distinct possibility he could be out of the league. He must swallow his pride and accept a change of position.

Lastly, for those who say he should play in Canada, that's not really a possibility either. As Warren Moon correctly stated, the CFL is also a passing league, even moreso than the NFL. It is not a viable option for Tebow.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/9234640/warren-moon-tim-tebow-throwing-not-cut-cfl

As for the remainder of the draft class the bright side is we get 3-4 starters. Especially the WR's. The downside being we'll probably lose one of them (Decker) unless he agrees to a team friendly deal. I give the both an "A" grade.

Beadles and Walton would get the grade of "B" and "C" respectively. There have been several articles the team was actively looking to upgrade those positions.

Overall grade from me would be a B+.

Traveler
05-02-2013, 12:21 PM
I understand where coming from but as far as Tebow's time in Denver we did get something positive. That's why I would give him a C for his time here. That difinitive for his career. Overall his career is a failure. The other guys did nothing.

Walton might get beat out by Blake.

I hope so!

Ravage!!!
05-02-2013, 12:45 PM
Having said that, giving up those three picks to select him in the first can't be blamed on Tebow. That's on McDaniels!

Yes.. but we are grading the DRAFT.. not Tebow. When grading the draft, I'm grading what was accomplished in the draft compared to what was spent. When grading a draft that gave up 4 picks for a player that was off the team in 2 years, those picks that were used HAVE to be considered.
I could say that its a bigger fail than spending a single draft pick on a player that is off the team in 2 years. Less given up, less loss.

If grading the player, individually, then you can obviously point out that the player has no involvement in the picks used to take him.

Northman
05-02-2013, 12:46 PM
You cant take away Tim's motivation or fire thats for sure. But yea, a C or D grade for him is about fair.

Simple Jaded
05-02-2013, 12:48 PM
This draft was a complete disaster until one personnel move pulled it out of the crapper. Two starters that don't fit this system or the system they were drafted for, two other starters that contributed almost nothing until last year, not to mention the biggest joke trade in Broncos history that nearly saddled this franchise with the albatross of the worst starting passer in decades and the headaches that will afflict this organization for years to come.

McDaniels passed a once-in-ten-or-so-years OL prospect that actually fit his (or any) system just so he could have enough ammo to way overpay to move up into the 1st round to take a 4th or 5th round prospect that still isn't ready to play the position. He could have drafted this OLman or any other player in the 1st and still had enough ammo to move back up and take Thomas (too high) and still get Decker and Walton (for whatever God awful reason).

This draft sucked then and it sucks now, just be glad the Broncos finally brought in competent coaches and evaluators that could make chicken soup outta chicken poop.

"A" my hairy white ass!

BroncoWave
05-02-2013, 12:50 PM
The Tebow pick aside, still a great draft. Two players from it have already made Pro Bowls and Decker is just below that level. I could not care less about the late picks not panning out. Most of them don't.

The WORST I could see anyone giving this draft is a B+. I give it an A.

Simple Jaded
05-02-2013, 12:59 PM
Uh huh, Tebow replaced a "Pro Bowler" in Kyle Orton.

Traveler
05-02-2013, 02:13 PM
Yes.. but we are grading the DRAFT.. not Tebow. When grading the draft, I'm grading what was accomplished in the draft compared to what was spent. When grading a draft that gave up 4 picks for a player that was off the team in 2 years, those picks that were used HAVE to be considered.
I could say that its a bigger fail than spending a single draft pick on a player that is off the team in 2 years. Less given up, less loss.

If grading the player, individually, then you can obviously point out that the player has no involvement in the picks used to take him.

I did grade the overall draft.

Assigning a grade to a player indicates you are using that grade to assist in determining an overall grade for the draft. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I might be having a "Senior" moment but I'm not quite sure what you mean you state you are grading based on "what was accomplished in the draft". IMO, what we accomplished overall with this draft was getting 3-4 starters. If you are not considering the picks surrendered to acquire a player as part of the overall draft appears faulty logic. Especially when the player is no longer with the team.

Not trying to start an argument, but just because the player had nothing to do with the picks surrendered to acquire him, those picks should be part of the equation when trying to establish an overall draft grade.

Believe it or not, I'm actually agreeing with most of what you've said.;)

BroncoWave
05-02-2013, 02:17 PM
Uh huh, Tebow replaced a "Pro Bowler" in Kyle Orton.

Any draft in which you can get a top 5 talent at his position (which we got in DT), and multiple solid/borderline probowl starters (which we got with Decker, and Beadles), and an average starter (Walton), is a good draft.

You are full of shit saying this was a bad draft. This draft was one of our best in a long time.

Simple Jaded
05-02-2013, 02:26 PM
Any draft in which you can get a top 5 talent at his position (which we got in DT), and multiple solid/borderline probowl starters (which we got with Decker, and Beadles), and an average starter (Walton), is a good draft.

You are full of shit saying this was a bad draft. This draft was one of our best in a long time.


It didn't say it was mere bad, I said it sucked. Just getting players that start is not a comprehensive measure of a draft, every draft produces starters. Ya have to take everything that happened in that draft, and in doing so it becomes a monument to stupidity.

Simple Jaded
05-02-2013, 02:34 PM
Who would rather have Beadles, Thomas, Decker and Walton over Iupati, Thomas, Decker and Walton? Other than Doogie, maybe Mike Shanatan and Gary Kubiak for obvious reasons. Maybe! Neither proclaim to run a dominant power running game.

Beadles and Walton belong in a ZBS, Thomas and Decker were both injured and took three years and the biggest FA ever to get any tangible results. Then there is the galactically ******* stupid Tebow trade.

Give the A to Elway, Fox and coaching staff, they're the only thing that kept this from being a complete disaster.

rationalfan
05-02-2013, 03:23 PM
Who would rather have Beadles, Thomas, Decker and Walton over Iupati, Thomas, Decker and Walton? Other than Doogie, maybe Mike Shanatan and Gary Kubiak for obvious reasons. Maybe! Neither proclaim to run a dominant power running game.

Beadles and Walton belong in a ZBS, Thomas and Decker were both injured and took three years and the biggest FA ever to get any tangible results. Then there is the galactically ******* stupid Tebow trade.

Give the A to Elway, Fox and coaching staff, they're the only thing that kept this from being a complete disaster.

i'm not a fan of hindsight criticism with the draft. there are always busts in a draft, and always people who "should have" been picked. it's more fair to grade what the team did do in a draft, rather than what it should have/could have done.

as for the tebow thing, i still believe a late first round pick is a fair price to trade for a season with a playoff game victory. not saying it was all tebow that season, but it's undeniable he was the catalyst and leader for that squad. without him, that season doesn't happen how it did. and just to play the "what if" game, does that season happen the same way with the selection of any player from that draft slotted after tebow? nope, it doesn't.

check out the link below to get better perspective on how well denver did. when you see the entire list and see how many teams whiffed on players, the draft looks much better than some people might think.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_NFL_Draft

Ravage!!!
05-02-2013, 03:54 PM
I did grade the overall draft.

Assigning a grade to a player indicates you are using that grade to assist in determining an overall grade for the draft. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I might be having a "Senior" moment but I'm not quite sure what you mean you state you are grading based on "what was accomplished in the draft". IMO, what we accomplished overall with this draft was getting 3-4 starters. If you are not considering the picks surrendered to acquire a player as part of the overall draft appears faulty logic. Especially when the player is no longer with the team.

Not trying to start an argument, but just because the player had nothing to do with the picks surrendered to acquire him, those picks should be part of the equation when trying to establish an overall draft grade.

Believe it or not, I'm actually agreeing with most of what you've said.;)

Yes, I think you are saying the same thing I am... :beer:

Ravage!!!
05-02-2013, 04:00 PM
i'm not a fan of hindsight criticism with the draft. there are always busts in a draft, and always people who "should have" been picked. it's more fair to grade what the team did do in a draft, rather than what it should have/could have done.
Bingo.. couldn't agree with you more


as for the tebow thing, i still believe a late first round pick is a fair price to trade for a season with a playoff game victory.

Completely disagree. Two seasons of play is NEVER justified for a 1st round pick, especially when multiple picks were used on that player... unless he QBs you to the Lombardi trophy within those 2 seasons.

Simple Jaded
05-02-2013, 04:02 PM
i'm not a fan of hindsight criticism with the draft. there are always busts in a draft, and always people who "should have" been picked. it's more fair to grade what the team did do in a draft, rather than what it should have/could have done.

as for the tebow thing, i still believe a late first round pick is a fair price to trade for a season with a playoff game victory. not saying it was all tebow that season, but it's undeniable he was the catalyst and leader for that squad. without him, that season doesn't happen how it did. and just to play the "what if" game, does that season happen the same way with the selection of any player from that draft slotted after tebow? nope, it doesn't.

check out the link below to get better perspective on how well denver did. when you see the entire list and see how many teams whiffed on players, the draft looks much better than some people might think.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_NFL_Draft

I'm not criticizing in hindsight, it sucked then and it sucks now.

And trading a No1 for a single playoff win is weapons grade stupid.

Ravage!!!
05-02-2013, 04:02 PM
Beadles and Walton belong in a ZBS, Thomas and Decker were both injured and took three years and the biggest FA ever to get any tangible results.

So you are saying that DT and Decker wouldn't have had "tangible results" had they had another throwing QB behind center OTHEr than Manning? You are holding it against them that they had Tebow throwing the ball, and even then, you could see how good they were on the field with Orton throwing.

Ravage!!!
05-02-2013, 04:06 PM
Jaded, I don't know what you expect to get from a single draft class, but if you are grading this out as bad as you are stating, then you expect WAYYY too much and will always be disappointed.

Now there are many things wrong with that draft, and the OP's grading was pretty generous in a LOT of ways (orange glasses will do that)....but its not nearly.. NEARLY.. as far on the other side of the spectrum that you are saying. Walton's play this season will make a HUGE difference to that grade (from my perspective)...and you can't say Beadles is for the ZBS when he showed to play pretty damned decent last season.

Idk, we see a couple posters that will give high grades because they want to defend McDoosh, but I think maybe you have gone to the dark-side on this one.

Simple Jaded
05-02-2013, 04:11 PM
So you are saying that DT and Decker wouldn't have had "tangible results" had they had another throwing QB behind center OTHEr than Manning? You are holding it against them that they had Tebow throwing the ball, and even then, you could see how good they were on the field with Orton throwing.

I don't disagree at all. I'm just saying it took a Peyton Manning to get starter results outta those two to this point, hopefully we get to see the same results with Osweiler/Dysert but it's impossible to say what they'd turned out to be without the time they've spent with one of the GOAT's.

I think it's fair to say that this draft is a complete disaster if Elway doesn't take over for McDaniels. Whether or not it's a disaster if someone else takes over instead we'll never know. That draft, at the time it took place, and how it took place, was and still is horrible.

Simple Jaded
05-02-2013, 04:18 PM
Nope, I look at what the Broncos needed, who was there, who fit, what was traded, what was taken. It sucked.

Every draft produces starters, that doesn't make it an A, it's all relative. There is a chance that Walton, Beadles and Decker are playing for different teams this time next year, the Broncos passed up a player that you HAVE to keep in order to save ammo to move up and make the biggest ******* joke pick in Broncos history.

If this draft represents the opposite of the dark side you can just call me Darth Jaded.

BroncoWave
05-02-2013, 05:08 PM
Idk, we see a couple posters that will give high grades because they want to defend McDoosh, but I think maybe you have gone to the dark-side on this one.

No one is doing this. Everyone giving the draft a high grade is citing the productive play we have gotten from several members of it. That has nothing to do with defending McD.

BroncoWave
05-02-2013, 05:09 PM
Every draft produces starters

Very few drafts produce multiple Pro Bowl talents. Ours in 2010 did. You are out of your mind here.

BroncoWave
05-02-2013, 05:14 PM
This is an example of a bad draft:

2007 Broncos Draft

Rnd 1, Pick 17: Jarvis Moss
Rnd 2, Pick 57: Tim Crowder
Rnd 3, Pick 70: Ryan Harris
Rnd 4, Pick 121: Marcus Thomas

This is proof that not every draft produces multiple starters.

broncohead
05-02-2013, 07:05 PM
I don't disagree at all. I'm just saying it took a Peyton Manning to get starter results outta those two to this point, hopefully we get to see the same results with Osweiler/Dysert but it's impossible to say what they'd turned out to be without the time they've spent with one of the GOAT's.

I think it's fair to say that this draft is a complete disaster if Elway doesn't take over for McDaniels. Whether or not it's a disaster if someone else takes over instead we'll never know. That draft, at the time it took place, and how it took place, was and still is horrible.

McD was a terrible coach so I don't think he would have gotten the best out of any prospect. Thats not on the player thats on the coach

Superchop 7
05-02-2013, 07:47 PM
Manning alone makes the o-line better and the receivers better.

Tebow was damn lucky Mike McCoy was here, most coaches don't have a "We are Marshall" moment and toss out the playbook, the question of "what is the simplest offense you have ever run and actually won a football game" was real and Mike made it work right down to running a high school veer play.

On the subject of Tebow, he has value to the NFL, if I am Goodell I am starting a developmental league with Tebow as the main reason I'm doing it. The kid has global appeal......I'm a global guy......this is a match made in heaven.

Simple Jaded
05-02-2013, 10:00 PM
This is an example of a bad draft:

2007 Broncos Draft

Rnd 1, Pick 17: Jarvis Moss
Rnd 2, Pick 57: Tim Crowder
Rnd 3, Pick 70: Ryan Harris
Rnd 4, Pick 121: Marcus Thomas

This is proof that not every draft produces multiple starters.

Harris and Thomas were starters.

Simple Jaded
05-02-2013, 10:01 PM
Very few drafts produce multiple Pro Bowl talents. Ours in 2010 did. You are out of your mind here.

This draft produced one, who was only available because the idiot drafted him with ****** up ankles.

rationalfan
05-03-2013, 09:44 AM
Harris and Thomas were starters.

harris was a very good pick. but thomas was a starter on one of the worst Dlines in the league, on teams that were never better than average.

i still think about the draft class with darrent williams; three corners in a row. ugh.

rationalfan
05-03-2013, 09:53 AM
Completely disagree. Two seasons of play is NEVER justified for a 1st round pick, especially when multiple picks were used on that player... unless he QBs you to the Lombardi trophy within those 2 seasons.

i get your point. as elway says, you hope for a "10 year starter" in the first round. but let's say you draft a 10 year starter in the first round for a team that never reaches the playoffs in that time. what's the point? i mean, the goal of every team, every year is to reach the postseason, right? so even if you get a hall of fame type talent who can't push you into the playoffs, where's the value in that pick? he was a good player. well, that's fine, but what did it do for the team?

conversely, if you can get a player in the first round who provides a spark that not only carries you into the playoffs, but to a playoff victory, but you will only have him for two years, would you do it? i think every coach and GM in the league would do that.

perhaps i value playoff games higher than others, but a victory in the postseason is the type of thing that rallies a fanbase. it helps gel a locker room. it provides more stability in a front office and in the coaching positions. it creates a team that's more attractive to free agents. and it makes the owner, and the team, more money, which creates a stronger organization.

hey, i get the logic of wanting long term production from first round picks. but let's not forget the bigger picture, postseason wins can create a winning environment. a good player on a bad or average team can't.

Ravage!!!
05-03-2013, 10:16 AM
i get your point. as elway says, you hope for a "10 year starter" in the first round. but let's say you draft a 10 year starter in the first round for a team that never reaches the playoffs in that time. what's the point? i mean, the goal of every team, every year is to reach the postseason, right? so even if you get a hall of fame type talent who can't push you into the playoffs, where's the value in that pick? he was a good player. well, that's fine, but what did it do for the team?

Every team is built with 90% of these kind of players. You have to have these kind of players to intertwine with the stars.


conversely, if you can get a player in the first round who provides a spark that not only carries you into the playoffs, but to a playoff victory, but you will only have him for two years, would you do it? i think every coach and GM in the league would do that.
Again, I COMPLETELY disagree. I don't t hink ANY coach or GM would do this....not to mention "every." To get only TWO years, and 8-8 season, and a wildcard win does NOT equal good value... at all.. for a 1st, 2nd, or a 3rd round pick. If Im a genie, and ask a coach if he could trade a draft choice for 2 years of play, an 8-8 season, and a single wildcard playoff win for a draft choice.... you think he would trade a 1st round pick for that? Noooooo way. Maybe a 4th, and that's only if the coach is trying to save his job!

I get what you are saying with a single playoff win, but seriously, GMs, coaches, and especially owners are looking for a long-term competitivness. I don't think many GMs and coaches see the value of a playoff win nearly as much as you do when it comes in exchange for those high round draft picks. I also don't think a guy that the wildcard win is as important to FAs as the money, or who's behind center. Andrew Luck and no playoff wins is MUCH much more valuable to a FA than Tebow and that wildcard win.


a good player on a bad or average team can't.
Again, completely disagree....


I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree on the value of that single playoff win. I believe they are nice, but coaches/GMs/Owners have their eye on the Trophy... and you can't get there (not to mention being consistent contenders) by only getting 2 years from your star positions.

rationalfan
05-03-2013, 01:01 PM
Every team is built with 90% of these kind of players. You have to have these kind of players to intertwine with the stars.


Again, I COMPLETELY disagree. I don't t hink ANY coach or GM would do this....not to mention "every." To get only TWO years, and 8-8 season, and a wildcard win does NOT equal good value... at all.. for a 1st, 2nd, or a 3rd round pick. If Im a genie, and ask a coach if he could trade a draft choice for 2 years of play, an 8-8 season, and a single wildcard playoff win for a draft choice.... you think he would trade a 1st round pick for that? Noooooo way. Maybe a 4th, and that's only if the coach is trying to save his job!

I get what you are saying with a single playoff win, but seriously, GMs, coaches, and especially owners are looking for a long-term competitivness. I don't think many GMs and coaches see the value of a playoff win nearly as much as you do when it comes in exchange for those high round draft picks. I also don't think a guy that the wildcard win is as important to FAs as the money, or who's behind center. Andrew Luck and no playoff wins is MUCH much more valuable to a FA than Tebow and that wildcard win.


Again, completely disagree....


I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree on the value of that single playoff win. I believe they are nice, but coaches/GMs/Owners have their eye on the Trophy... and you can't get there (not to mention being consistent contenders) by only getting 2 years from your star positions.

i'm with you, agreeing to disagree. though, you miss my point about having good players on bad teams. if, to continue your example, andrew luck plays for ten years in a fabulous fashion on teams that are never good enough to reach the playoffs is he more valuable than a tebow who gets a postseason victory? in some ways, yes, in other ways no.

i think sometimes we get so concerned about the perceived value of a given draft pick. the ultimate prism every player/coach/team is judged up on is victories. again, good players on bad teams are virtually irrelevant.

Ravage!!!
05-03-2013, 02:25 PM
i'm with you, agreeing to disagree. though, you miss my point about having good players on bad teams. if, to continue your example, andrew luck plays for ten years in a fabulous fashion on teams that are never good enough to reach the playoffs is he more valuable than a tebow who gets a postseason victory? in some ways, yes, in other ways no.

i think sometimes we get so concerned about the perceived value of a given draft pick. the ultimate prism every player/coach/team is judged up on is victories. again, good players on bad teams are virtually irrelevant.

Its and undeniable yes. Tim was out of the league while Luck produced for a decade (in your example)at the most important position in professional sports. If you get 10 years out of a starter, then he was damn good football player. Good players on bad teams make a difference.

I mean, if Tebow was the reason, then he wouldn't have been let go so easily. So as you can see, the coaches/GMs/Owners don't see that being of much value. In fact, the Broncos showed how much that value meant to them when they traded him away for a 4th round pick.

I kinda see what you are trying to say, that if a player is good but doesn't get playoff wins, than he's a waste. I think thats a terrible perspective as we've seen GREAT players play football and never once considered them to be a waste. Barry Sanders, to me, wasn't irrelevant and wouldn't trade his career for Tebows single playoff win for a moment... not a second... not a glance. I don't think anyone would. By going on this same line of thinking, fans would much rather have drafted a guy like Brad Johnson and his SB win over Dan Marino.

In the ULTIMATE prism, great players are compared to other great players... and the "Super Bowl wins" is a tie breaker to some while others want to judge solely on that single category... which is a shame. But when comparing "wins" to other "wins"... Tebow's career will never be a blip when all said and done.

BroncoWave
05-03-2013, 04:48 PM
Carson Palmer is a great example for your point, rational. He played in Cincy for 10 years and never won a playoff game. Would you rather have that, or have Tebow here for 2 years with his playoff win?

rationalfan
05-03-2013, 05:17 PM
In the ULTIMATE prism, great players are compared to other great players... and the "Super Bowl wins" is a tie breaker to some while others want to judge solely on that single category... which is a shame. But when comparing "wins" to other "wins"... Tebow's career will never be a blip when all said and done.

the greatest players lead teams to championships.

broncohead
05-03-2013, 05:22 PM
If a team has a good to great QB and you miss the playoffs year in and year out then the FO isn't surrounding the QB with the right players. Probably poor drafting and terrible FA choices. At that point its on the FO not the player

Ravage!!!
05-03-2013, 06:39 PM
the greatest players lead teams to championships.

That's a cliche', as it's not always the case. We've seen lousy players play on championship teams, just as we've seen some the greatest of players not win the championship. If you think that only a Championship makes a player great, or one of the greatest, then you are missing a lot of the sport. Not to mention, making some pretty down played assessments of a player's 'relevance' based purely on a trophy case.

The greatest players are great no matter what kind of team they are on, or play with.

I mean, if you want to believe that a "Tebow playoff win" would have made more FA's sign with Cinci, or been better for that "winning feeling" with their fanbase, or would have changed their "winning" enviroment.... then that's your right. I just think you are way off.

Lancane
05-03-2013, 11:22 PM
2010 Class needs another year to be fairly graded. Thomas has been a starter and fully healthy for one season, despite the Pro-Bowl nod. Beadles will be pushed and will have to compete for his spot, if he wins then no one can dispute he is the better option and not claim his Pro-Bowl nomination was simply a fluke. Decker, well I believe Decker is the one bright spot of that whole draft, he's continually done whatever the team has asked of him and proven to be a solid number two receiver. Walton like Beadles will have competition and will be forced to re-earn his spot, so like Beadles he'll be fairly graded by what happens next. The rest of that draft is a wash, the drafting of Tebow in the first round already devalues the overall grade of the draft, it's those four who will save it, or not.

Simple Jaded
05-04-2013, 02:44 AM
Carson Palmer is a great example for your point, rational. He played in Cincy for 10 years and never won a playoff game. Would you rather have that, or have Tebow here for 2 years with his playoff win?

Your argument assumes Palmer couldn't have coattailed the Broncos D/ST's just as well as Tebow. Of Caleb Hanie, for that matter.

TXBRONC
05-04-2013, 08:56 AM
The Tebow pick aside, still a great draft. Two players from it have already made Pro Bowls and Decker is just below that level. I could not care less about the late picks not panning out. Most of them don't.

The WORST I could see anyone giving this draft is a B+. I give it an A.

I wouldn't this draft class an A just yet. Thomas and Decker were outstanding Beadles was solid but it's still only one season.

At the end of day if this some way to kind of way to exonerate McDaniels it doesn't. He credit for drafting them developing goes to Fox and Elway's credit.

Timmy!
05-04-2013, 09:21 AM
B/B-

Chef Zambini
05-04-2013, 12:40 PM
Manning alone makes the o-line better and the receivers better.

Tebow was damn lucky Mike McCoy was here, most coaches don't have a "We are Marshall" moment and toss out the playbook, the question of "what is the simplest offense you have ever run and actually won a football game" was real and Mike made it work right down to running a high school veer play.

On the subject of Tebow, he has value to the NFL, if I am Goodell I am starting a developmental league with Tebow as the main reason I'm doing it. The kid has global appeal......I'm a global guy......this is a match made in heaven.tebow, a global ambassador of football.
"jesus loves the single wing"
its a great idea.
Tebow and "developmental"
the two are synonymous.

Simple Jaded
05-05-2013, 11:50 AM
Oh, and btw, Earl Thomas for Elfonso Smith? Yeah that draft just plain sucks monkey nuts.

zbeg
05-06-2013, 02:53 AM
the greatest players lead teams to championships.

This is undeniably true. That's why Barry Sanders, Dan Marino, Cris Carter, and Tim Brown sucked, while Michael Pittman, Trent Dilfer, David Givens, and Qadry Ismael were great.

Good thing Elway finally learned how not to suck at the very very end of his career. Prior to 1997, he wasn't even great! What a stiff.



At the end of day if this some way to kind of way to exonerate McDaniels it doesn't. He credit for drafting them developing goes to Fox and Elway's credit.

The gyrations people are going through in order to avoid giving McDaniels credit for something are pretty impressive. Don't sprain anything!

Dapper Dan
05-06-2013, 05:21 AM
It's funny when someone uses hindsight to determine the quality of a draft. Using that method, no one gets above a C grade. Ever. There will always be places you could have taken this player or that player. Comparing each draft class to a figurative all-madden class is ridiculous.

I wish the words Tebow and McDaniels were seen as curse words and blanked out. Or maybe the system could automatically delete the post. I would LOVE that.

TXBRONC
05-06-2013, 06:51 AM
This is undeniably true. That's why Barry Sanders, Dan Marino, Cris Carter, and Tim Brown sucked, while Michael Pittman, Trent Dilfer, David Givens, and Qadry Ismael were great.

Good thing Elway finally learned how not to suck at the very very end of his career. Prior to 1997, he wasn't even great! What a stiff.



The gyrations people are going through in order to avoid giving McDaniels credit for something are pretty impressive. Don't sprain anything!

It's no gyrations at all it's called reality. John Ralston is the coach that gathered the core of talent that went to the Super Bowl in 1977 but his name is hardly ever pops when discussing those players.

BroncoWave
05-06-2013, 12:03 PM
Your argument assumes Palmer couldn't have coattailed the Broncos D/ST's just as well as Tebow. Of Caleb Hanie, for that matter.

It's RF's argument, not mine. I was just giving an example of his argument.

BroncoWave
05-06-2013, 12:06 PM
I wouldn't this draft class an A just yet. Thomas and Decker were outstanding Beadles was solid but it's still only one season.

At the end of day if this some way to kind of way to exonerate McDaniels it doesn't. He credit for drafting them developing goes to Fox and Elway's credit.

This has nothing to do with exonerating McDaniels. It has everything to do with looking at who was drafted and how they have performed in the NFL. Maybe my bar has been lowered with the barrage of awful drafts Denver has had in my lifetime, but this one was pretty damn good IMO.

topscribe
05-06-2013, 12:30 PM
UA, I saluted you for the time and thought you put into this, not for your grades.
IMO, you have the grades on Beadles and Walton too high, and the grade on
Tebow WAY too high. I would give Beadles a B- because he was a Pro Bowl
alternate, but he has to follow it up to show it wasn't a fluke, IMO. Walton
still hasn't shown me anything. A C- so far would be more appropriate, IMO.

Tebow? F. First of all, a first round draft choice should be an above average
player, if not a Pro Bowler. Tebow is already out of football, and no one
seems interested in him. I don't attribute his "success" in Denver to his play.
I attribute it to Denver's defense.

But there's more to it than that, which Ravage pointed out very well. Not only
did Denver invest a first-round draft choice in Tebow, but several choices.
Tebow's selection was a disaster.

So I would give McDaniels' maneuvering a D at best, and the overall grade,
by point value, a C-.
.

rationalfan
05-06-2013, 01:10 PM
This is undeniably true. That's why Barry Sanders, Dan Marino, Cris Carter, and Tim Brown sucked, while Michael Pittman, Trent Dilfer, David Givens, and Qadry Ismael were great.

you're reducing this to a narrow, black and white argument when there's an entire spectrum of grey. i'm not saying players who don't win a championship "suck." that's your ignorant logic (even as a joke, it's ignorant). i simply stated the "greatest" players lead their teams to championships. i still believe that's true. now, can you be a great player and retire without rings? sure. but, in my mind, you can't be the "greatest" without a ring.

admittedly, the fault in my argument would focus on, say, guards. it's hard to suggest the greatest guard ever could maul his team to the title. that's likely true with punters or long snappers too. but in the interest of QBs, specifically (when this debate spurred off the tebow draft value concept), it's hard to suggest the greatest QB of all time couldn't lead his team to a title.

TXBRONC
05-06-2013, 02:07 PM
This has nothing to do with exonerating McDaniels. It has everything to do with looking at who was drafted and how they have performed in the NFL. Maybe my bar has been lowered with the barrage of awful drafts Denver has had in my lifetime, but this one was pretty damn good IMO.

It's going to take more than one good year to know for sure.

BroncoWave
05-06-2013, 02:17 PM
It's going to take more than one good year to know for sure.

Decker and Thomas have each had multiple good seasons. And given that we are grading this draft now, and not next year or the year after, you can only base your grades on what the players have done so far. And so far, the majority of our early picks from that draft have played well for us.

TXBRONC
05-06-2013, 02:34 PM
Decker and Thomas have each had multiple good seasons. And given that we are grading this draft now, and not next year or the year after, you can only base your grades on what the players have done so far. And so far, the majority of our early picks from that draft have played well for us.

No Decker and Thomas each have one good season behind them. Three out of nine picks isn't a majority.

Lancane
05-06-2013, 02:38 PM
Decker and Thomas have each had multiple good seasons. And given that we are grading this draft now, and not next year or the year after, you can only base your grades on what the players have done so far. And so far, the majority of our early picks from that draft have played well for us.

That's not true B, Thomas has only been completely healthy and productive this past season, there was talk that he was a bust till the season really got under way and that Gaffney was a better number one. Decker has been the most productive of the Broncos' draftees from that class because he's done whatever they've asked of him, whether on special teams, in the slot or as a starting one or two. And there is an open debate about Beadles and Walton, a good number of the fans believe neither are good starters and overrated, so...Denver is loaded, Clady, Beadles, Walton, Vasquez, Franklin, Burke, Ramirez, Kuper, Clark, Painter, Boren, Cornick, Saulsberry and Foketi. I expect the top five to start and the best nine to be kept before the season starts. Some will still not be happy either way it plays out...but it should lessen the active vehement arguments either for or against those particular two. Thomas needs to have another uninjured, productive season, Decker needs to continue as he has done, Beadles and Walton, or at least one of them has to step it up and keep his starting spot on the line, then and only then can we call it even somewhat successful. However, if Thomas is injured again and both Beadles and Walton are usurped then I think it's fair to say the draft was piss poor.

BroncoWave
05-06-2013, 04:57 PM
No Decker and Thomas each have one good season behind them. Three out of nine picks isn't a majority.

Look at their production relative to how Tebow played and tell me they didn't play well with him.

And I said a majority of our EARLY picks. Late picks almost never pan out. If you have 9 picks in every draft and 3 turn out to be really good players, then you are a good drafting team.

BroncoWave
05-06-2013, 04:58 PM
That's not true B, Thomas has only been completely healthy and productive this past season, there was talk that he was a bust till the season really got under way and that Gaffney was a better number one. Decker has been the most productive of the Broncos' draftees from that class because he's done whatever they've asked of him, whether on special teams, in the slot or as a starting one or two. And there is an open debate about Beadles and Walton, a good number of the fans believe neither are good starters and overrated, so...Denver is loaded, Clady, Beadles, Walton, Vasquez, Franklin, Burke, Ramirez, Kuper, Clark, Painter, Boren, Cornick, Saulsberry and Foketi. I expect the top five to start and the best nine to be kept before the season starts. Some will still not be happy either way it plays out...but it should lessen the active vehement arguments either for or against those particular two. Thomas needs to have another uninjured, productive season, Decker needs to continue as he has done, Beadles and Walton, or at least one of them has to step it up and keep his starting spot on the line, then and only then can we call it even somewhat successful. However, if Thomas is injured again and both Beadles and Walton are usurped then I think it's fair to say the draft was piss poor.

That's a lot of ifs. Based on how they have ACTUALLY played, it was a good draft at this point in time.

TXBRONC
05-06-2013, 05:18 PM
Look at their production relative to how Tebow played and tell me they didn't play well with him.

And I said a majority of our EARLY picks. Late picks almost never pan out. If you have 9 picks in every draft and 3 turn out to be really good players, then you are a good drafting team.

Actually Decker's production went down when Tebow became starting quarterback and Thomas played about half season and it wasn't the last four or five weeks that we were gettng glimpses of what he might be able to do if he could stay healthy for entire season.

MOtorboat
05-06-2013, 06:57 PM
Going into next season, four years removed from that draft, there are four players who are going to be starting. That's a pretty damn productive draft.

Another should be starting, but because of off the field issues, Denver chose to part ways. That, luckily, gave Chris Harris a chance to shine, though.

But Tebow in the first. What an epic fail? You trade THREE picks to go up and get a quarterback, who is quite possible done as a quarterback after three seasons, in the first round. That's an epically bad pick, no matter what anyone tells you about the one game against Pittsburgh.

That alone drags a solid draft down to the B- range if we're doing it on grade school grading.

topscribe
05-06-2013, 07:08 PM
Going into next season, four years removed from that draft, there are four players who are going to be starting. That's a pretty damn productive draft.

Another should be starting, but because of off the field issues, Denver chose to part ways. That, luckily, gave Chris Harris a chance to shine, though.

But Tebow in the first. What an epic fail? You trade THREE picks to go up and get a quarterback, who is quite possible done as a quarterback after three seasons, in the first round. That's an epically bad pick, no matter what anyone tells you about the one game against Pittsburgh.

That alone drags a solid draft down to the B- range if we're doing it on grade school grading.
You make a lot of sense, and I'm with you to a degree. But I just cannot give
a draft of THREE wasted, zero picks more than a C-, no matter how hard I try.
But you take away the Tebow debacle, and Thomas and Decker - and possibly
Beadles - alone would bring it up to an A, IMO.
.

MOtorboat
05-06-2013, 07:18 PM
You make a lot of sense, and I'm with you to a degree. But I just cannot give
a draft of THREE wasted, zero picks more than a C-, no matter how hard I try.
But you take away the Tebow debacle, and Thomas and Decker - and possibly
Beadles - alone would bring it up to an A, IMO.
.

I don't have a problem with losing the picks. I have a problem with who they selected after using the picks. They didn't need to take a stab at 10 players in that draft, so drafting seven and moving around the draft I'm ok with. It's who they picked.

topscribe
05-06-2013, 07:29 PM
I don't have a problem with losing the picks. I have a problem with who they selected after using the picks. They didn't need to take a stab at 10 players in that draft, so drafting seven and moving around the draft I'm ok with. It's who they picked.
I think we're saying the same thing from two different directions. It's the
trading of three picks for a wasted pick that bothers me. That amounts
essentially to three busts, at least to me.
.

zbeg
05-06-2013, 07:36 PM
you're reducing this to a narrow, black and white argument when there's an entire spectrum of grey. i'm not saying players who don't win a championship "suck." that's your ignorant logic (even as a joke, it's ignorant). i simply stated the "greatest" players lead their teams to championships. i still believe that's true. now, can you be a great player and retire without rings? sure. but, in my mind, you can't be the "greatest" without a ring.

admittedly, the fault in my argument would focus on, say, guards. it's hard to suggest the greatest guard ever could maul his team to the title. that's likely true with punters or long snappers too. but in the interest of QBs, specifically (when this debate spurred off the tebow draft value concept), it's hard to suggest the greatest QB of all time couldn't lead his team to a title.

So if the Broncos don't draft Terrell Davis, then John Elway somehow becomes less great because he likely never wins a title? That his ability to play football and lead his team got magically better when the Broncos used the 196th pick on a Georgia running back?

Your argument falls apart because football's a team sport. Bronco fans of all people should know this.

Dapper Dan
05-06-2013, 07:36 PM
In the first 2 rounds we got 2 pro bowlers. In the third round, we got Decker. Also in the third, we have our current starting C.

As for he-who-shall-not-be-named, I know we didn't get first round value out of him. We got a memorable season and a playoff win against Pittsburgh. We hadn't had that in a long time. We traded him and a seventh and got Phillip Blake and Danny Trevathan. Both seem pretty promising, especially Trevathan.

MOtorboat
05-06-2013, 07:38 PM
I think we're saying the same thing from two different directions. It's the
trading of three picks for a wasted pick that bothers me. That amounts
essentially to three busts, at least to me.
.

Yes, I think we're close in what we're saying, but I don't agree that that equals three busts.

For example, I think Washington used four picks to go get Robert Griffin, III, last year, that doesn't mean that pick equates to four great picks (I know, a little early to grade, but it's the example I could think of). It just equals one great pick. Denver using three picks to go up and get Tebow just means one bust, because there's nothing saying that Denver would have received three solid players with those picks had they not traded them, just as there's no guarantee that Washington would have drafted poorly with the four picks they used to go get RGIII.

In draft strategy, sure, it was a poor move, because the player didn't pan out, but to me it doesn't equate 3 Fs, it just equates to 1.

MOtorboat
05-06-2013, 07:39 PM
In the first 2 rounds we got 2 pro bowlers. In the third round, we got Decker. Also in the third, we have our current starting C.

As for he-who-shall-not-be-named, I know we didn't get first round value out of him. We got a memorable season and a playoff win against Pittsburgh. We hadn't had that in a long time. We traded him and a seventh and got Phillip Blake and Danny Trevathan. Both seem pretty promising, especially Trevathan.

It was only five years! People get so effing dramatic about that. We're aren't the effing Chiefs, so don't act like it.

;)

Dapper Dan
05-06-2013, 07:43 PM
It was only five years! People get so effing dramatic about that. We're aren't the effing Chiefs, so don't act like it.

;)

I think what a lot of people forget is that the younger generation, me included, don't have these great memories of The Drive, or even the Super Bowls. That season and that playoff win racks up most of my memories as a Broncos fan. That, and the 2005 season. I was 9 years old when Elway retired. People wonder why a fan would see so much positives in that one season. It was amazing, to me. The comebacks. Revenge against Pittsburgh. It was a hell of a lot better than another Orton season.

I understand your point though. I've just been wanting to mention that for a while.

MOtorboat
05-06-2013, 07:46 PM
I think what a lot of people forget is that the younger generation, me included, don't have these great memories of The Drive, or even the Super Bowls. That season and that playoff win racks up most of my memories as a Broncos fan. That, and the 2005 season. I was 9 years old when Elway retired. People wonder why a fan would see so much positives in that one season. It was amazing, to me. The comebacks. Revenge against Pittsburgh. It was a hell of a lot better than another Orton season.

I understand your point though. I've just been wanting to mention that for a while.

Fair enough. The 2005 win, with Champ's return was pretty exciting too. The 2005 AFC Championship loss was every bit as heart-wrenching as last year's. But, again, those are all sentimental things.

If you want to grade on analytical things, it was a poor pick. The offense got worse with Tebow at the helm, and Orton was pretty bad to begin with.

Dapper Dan
05-06-2013, 07:50 PM
Fair enough. The 2005 win, with Champ's return was pretty exciting too. The 2005 AFC Championship loss was every bit as heart-wrenching as last year's. But, again, those are all sentimental things.

If you want to grade on analytical things, it was a poor pick. The offense got worse with Tebow at the helm, and Orton was pretty bad to begin with.

Agreed. Both losses were tough. Last season was slightly easier for me because I had the distraction of the wife and kids to keep me happier. It was still a complete disappointment.

Lancane
05-06-2013, 11:29 PM
That's a lot of ifs. Based on how they have ACTUALLY played, it was a good draft at this point in time.

It's not a lot of (If's) B, if Thomas ends up injured again and looks the part he did before last season, then one years production doesn't justify three injury riddled seasons, no matter which way you spin it. If Beadles and Walton get replaced by Burke and Painter or Kuper? That is three years of starter production but not long-term value which would eventually mean that Denver had a shoddy draft overall, period and end of story. Three years of starters, back-ups and never has been or will be players. Hence the reason we need to see how this season plays out, Tebow already lowers the value of that draft, the team needs to retain at least three starters IMHO to maintain the façade that, that class was successful.

TXBRONC
05-07-2013, 09:14 AM
In the first 2 rounds we got 2 pro bowlers. In the third round, we got Decker. Also in the third, we have our current starting C.

As for he-who-shall-not-be-named, I know we didn't get first round value out of him. We got a memorable season and a playoff win against Pittsburgh. We hadn't had that in a long time. We traded him and a seventh and got Phillip Blake and Danny Trevathan. Both seem pretty promising, especially Trevathan.

Just a couple of things. It kind of trying to have it both ways when you're about center. Assuming that Walton is still the starting center Elway and Fox still went out and drafted another center/guard. I don't think they drafted Blake because he because he can guard but he could play center. Edit: According to the bio I just read Denver drafted Blake in the 4th and Trevathan in the 6th. But the fact of the matter is Denver only manage to get a 4th and 6th for Tebow who was taken in the first round. Even if Blake and Trevathan become very players Denver took a loss in draft picks.

topscribe
05-07-2013, 09:42 AM
It's not a lot of (If's) B, if Thomas ends up injured again and looks the part he did before last season, then one years production doesn't justify three injury riddled seasons, no matter which way you spin it. If Beadles and Walton get replaced by Burke and Painter or Kuper? That is three years of starter production but not long-term value which would eventually mean that Denver had a shoddy draft overall, period and end of story. Three years of starters, back-ups and never has been or will be players. Hence the reason we need to see how this season plays out, Tebow already lowers the value of that draft, the team needs to retain at least three starters IMHO to maintain the façade that, that class was successful.
Well, yes and no. If Beadles and Walton were to be replaced by Painter and Kuper,
then Denver's draft choices were replaced by other Denver draft choices. If
Denver were to draft another Andre Johnson and he replaced Decker, that
wouldn't make Decker's choice a failure. Denver would have just replaced a
good player with a superstar.
.

Slick
05-07-2013, 10:00 AM
I started a thread right before the draft with a link to every Denver Bronco draft. If you compare the 2010 draft to every single one of our other drafts in the history of the Denver Broncos, 2010 looks pretty good to me.

Northman
05-07-2013, 12:20 PM
2010 is looking to be a solid draft, but that doesnt overshadow the other crap that reigned down during McD's tenure. He also had some bad picks in those drafts so if people want to give credit to the few he hit on than great. But there was always far more negatives during that time than positives. Im thankful that those who followed were able to take those players and do more and get more out of them.

BroncoWave
05-07-2013, 02:24 PM
It's not a lot of (If's) B, if Thomas ends up injured again and looks the part he did before last season, then one years production doesn't justify three injury riddled seasons, no matter which way you spin it. If Beadles and Walton get replaced by Burke and Painter or Kuper? That is three years of starter production but not long-term value which would eventually mean that Denver had a shoddy draft overall, period and end of story. Three years of starters, back-ups and never has been or will be players. Hence the reason we need to see how this season plays out, Tebow already lowers the value of that draft, the team needs to retain at least three starters IMHO to maintain the façade that, that class was successful.

Those are a couple of pretty big ifs. I'm making my judgement of the draft on what has happened SO FAR. Not on "ifs".

Simple Jaded
05-07-2013, 11:04 PM
If this draft was an A wtf do you give the Steelers '74 draft?

"Starters", whoo hoo.

Dapper Dan
05-07-2013, 11:13 PM
If this draft was an A wtf do you give the Steelers '74 draft?

"Starters", whoo hoo.

An F... For F*ck the Steelers.

Dapper Dan
05-07-2013, 11:17 PM
Just a couple of things. It kind of trying to have it both ways when you're about center. Assuming that Walton is still the starting center Elway and Fox still went out and drafted another center/guard. I don't think they drafted Blake because he because he can guard but he could play center. Edit: According to the bio I just read Denver drafted Blake in the 4th and Trevathan in the 6th. But the fact of the matter is Denver only manage to get a 4th and 6th for Tebow who was taken in the first round. Even if Blake and Trevathan become very players Denver took a loss in draft picks.

I never meant to imply we got adequate production or value of the first round pick. I was simply stating that we got more than nothing. We got fairly successful, in my mind, season that got a playoff win. We got OL and LB depth in return. I think Trevathan may be an eventual starter. I don't know if the pick, itself, was an F. I don't grade things like the draft because there is no right or wrong answer.

Lancane
05-08-2013, 01:38 PM
Those are a couple of pretty big ifs. I'm making my judgement of the draft on what has happened SO FAR. Not on "ifs".

Really? Then how about grading them fairly? Walton and Beadles were sub-par their freshman season, improved their junior year though it could be argued that Walton was still at a sub-par level, so much so that the Broncos drafted a possible replacement. Beadles improved once more while we saw a significant improvement once Walton went down and Koppen stepped in. Decker is inarguably the best addition from that class followed by Beadles at this time. Thomas has had one productive, non-injury riddled season...do you remember Javon Walker? According to your line of thinking then the 2002 NFL Draft was successful in the same grading span as this one. There are always 'if' based questions around any given move, purchase or decision to ignore them completely is a lack of common sense. If Thomas has a similar year to last season, Decker continues and at least Beadles or Walton retain their positions, if not both...then the draft was solid and should be graded as such despite the Tebow pick.

atwater27
05-08-2013, 09:58 PM
Love the guy, but Tebow, where he was drafted, was an F. Had we selected him in the 5th it would have been acceptable. Again, love what he did in Denver, but the pick in the 1st was full retard.