"Broncos' offensive line will be all right even without Joe Thomas"?

[Cugel]

Here's the latest from the Denver Post about the Joe Thomas failed trade. Read the whole article, but here's a piece:


NFL sources told the Denver Post that Cleveland and Denver were extremely close in making the move. (http://www.denverpost.com/knowthis/ci_29070754/broncos-offensive-line-will-be-all-right-even-without-joe-thomas)The difference between a 2016 third-round pick and fifth-round pick coming back to Denver is the reason Thomas is not a Bronco. The deal in place would have sent a 2016 second-round pick and 2017 first-round pick to Cleveland for Thomas and one of the above mentioned picks. Cleveland wouldn't budge and neither would Denver.

So here we are with the Broncos offensive line much of the same, but that doesn't mean the Broncos struck out on their chance for a Super Bowl or that they are doomed for failure.

One of the most underrated aspects of the offense's improvement in the last couple of weeks has been the stellar play of the offensive line.

In the last two games, the big boys up front have led the way for 630 passing yards, 312 rushing yards and haven't allowed a sack. You'll never confuse the Broncos' line as elite, but it doesn't have to be.

Ty Sambrailo was injured in Week 3 and the line began to play better in his absence. Everyone was worried about Michael Schofield at right tackle, myself included, but he's been the best thing a lineman could be over the last four weeks: quiet. No mention of his name, no worries about struggles, he's handling his business.

Same for Ryan Harris and Tyler Polumbus rotating at left tackle. They'll likely have to settle on one or the other eventually, most likely Harris, but there has been no problem.

Barring injury, I think the Broncos are in solid shape on the line for the stretch run.

To be honest, you don't need an elite offensive line to win a championship.

I know this is the popular view, but I just think this is all wrong.

Perhaps, the OL will get better as the season progresses, but let's deal in reality here. The Broncos are down to their #3 LT or #4 LT after both Clady and Sambrailo went on IR.

That's not good to start with.

Then, Joe Thomas was the #3 pick of the draft, and is now the best LT in football, so losing out on the chance to trade for him is a BIG deal. A REALLY big deal. He's never missed a snap in 8 years, and he's been unbelievably good for a crappy Browns team.

Denver hasn't had a comparable LT since the 2012 season when Clady was still playing at his best, before the first of his multiple injuries.

And to turn down the deal over a difference between a 3rd round pick in 2016 and a 5th rounder in 2016?

Maybe Denver can get by in the playoffs without Joe Thomas, but maybe not too. This is probably Peyton's last season, and who knows if the Broncos will be in position to win a super-bowl again in the next 5 years with Brock Osweiler?

Even worse, this defense is historically great - as in 2013 Seahawks or 2002 Bucs good.

But, history says that great defenses don't last.

In 2000 the Ravens had the best defense of the modern era and gave up only 165 points, (10.3 ppg) on their way to the SB. In 2001, their defense gave up 265 (16.5 ppg). They went 10-6 and lost in the first round of the playoffs. They never went back to the SB again with any of those players or coaches (except Ray Lewis).

In 2002, the Bucs defense surrendered 196 points (12.25 ppg) on their way to SB victory. But, in 2003 their defense gave up 264 (16.5 ppg). They went 7-9 and never got close to a championship again.

The same thing happened to the '85 Bears. Their defense was great in '86 but they lost to the Giants in their playoff opener and haven't won a SB since. Their 2005 defense was amazing, giving up only 205 points (12.6 ppg.) and they managed to get to the SB despite having Rex Grossman as their QB. But, they've never been back since, and with Jay Cutler it ain't happening any time soon either.

I could go on and on about great defenses that had one great season and then started to decline. The Seahawks of 2013 are an obvious example, giving up 231 points (14.4 ppg). Their 2014 team got back to the SB but lost, giving up 254 points that season.

This season they have fallen to 10th in the league in points allowed with 140 (17.5 ppg) and partly as a result, the team is 4-4.

The Seahawks are an interesting case. They were helped out immensely because they were paying Russell Wilson only $660,000 a year for 3 years. Thus, they were able to re-sign Bobby Wagner, Kam Chancellor, Richard Sherman, Earl Thomas, Michael Bennett, and Cliff Avril to long term deals.

Because they were able to pay the $ they would normally be paying the QB to their defense, the decline of the Seahawks defense has been much delayed.

But, it is still inevitable. Now they are paying Russell Wilson $22 M a year on his new contract, and Marshawn Lynch $7M. And every team in the league is just waiting for their chance to sign Seattle's defensive players away from them. They haven't yet lost any stars, but they are losing backups who play significant roles, because their backup players are better than the starters for a lot of bad teams and you can't pay and keep everybody.

That's why it's easier from a cap standpoint to pay an elite QB $22 M than to keep an elite defense together and pay 11 guys what they are worth.

Next year the Broncos will have a boatload of FAs:

RB C.J. Anderson, RFA
S Omar Bolden, UFA
S David Bruton, UFA
TE Vernon Davis, UFA
LB Todd Davis, RFA
LT Ryan Harris, UFA
WR Bennie Fowler, UFA
RB Ronnie Hillman, UFA
LB Brandon Marshall, RFA
LB Von Miller, UFA
QB Brock Osweiler, UFA
T Tyler Polumbus, UFA
DT Antonio Smith, UFA
LB Danny Trevathan, UFA
DT Malik Jackson, UFA
DT Derek Wolfe, UFA

Now, some of these guys will go without bothering anybody, but re-signing Von Miller, Malik Jackson, Danny Trevathan, Derek Wolfe, Brandon Marshall, Ronnie Hillman, and David Bruton will be off-season priorities.

Von Miller alone with want somewhere around $17 M a year and he'll get it. They might franchise him. But, they also have to re-sign Brock Osweiler and that will take around $5-6 M a year. Vernon Davis averaged $7M a year over his 5 year deal. It's just fortunate the Broncos are only paying him $4.5 million, but next year he's going to want a raise, and so on, and so on.

When faced with the uncertainty of the Brock Osweiler era, and the host of FAs, many of whom may leave, the only safe conclusion is that THIS IS THE YEAR.

You've got an historically great defense and that just doesn't last in the NFL. I say Elway should have pulled the trigger and gotten Joe Thomas.

Because this season is very likely the best chance the Broncos will have to win a SB in the next 5 years at least, and maybe 10 or more.

Hall of Fame QBs and historically great defenses just don't come around every year. When they do you have to maximize your chances and say "screw the future, there is no future. The future is now."

That 1st round pick in 2017 and 2nd rounder in 2016 better be totally amazing, if he's going to compensate for losing Joe Thomas, and not at all like Cody Latimer, Denver's 2nd round pick for 2014! That's all I'm going to say.

[Joel]

Reports on the history of that trade discussion say it began when we lost Clady in preseason, but remained talk because the teams couldn't meet in the middle, then heated up and was nearly done just before the deadline: Those same reports understandably speculate the discussion may be revisited after the season. Won't help us NOW, so probably won't help Manning, but it's not a case of permanently missing a chance at a stud LT just because we wouldn't throw in a 3rd rounder on top of a 1st and 2nd.

I'm grateful for that FA list, if complete, because it's far less dire than I feared. Von Miller obviously leads the list, with Wolfe and Trevathan figuring prominently; Jackson, Bruton, Hillman and Fowler would be nice (to varying degrees) but are far from irreplaceable. If I had to guess, I'd say we'll keep Anderson but not Hillman unless there's a big season disparity between their performances, for the same reason I'm not too worried about Marshall: As RFAs, they can't ask for the moon and get it.

With the exception of Bolden (and one other I'm getting to, promise ;)) the rest are either JaG backups or were always single year rentals in the first place: I'm not losing sleep over guys who can't demand much, are easily replaced and were always MEANT to be replaced next year. You worried about re-signing Tyler Polumbus? Why's he on the list?

That just leaves Oz. Yes, his talents suit Kubiaks offense, but Kubiaks offense doesn't REQUIRE them to produce a Pro Bowl QB, and he's still a 4-year benchwarmer who didn't even get first team practices till this year. If Manning retires, we'll probably either draft a QB early to compete or bring in a FA vet, if not BOTH. Oz is largely an unknown, but the odds say losing him wouldn't be losing a future Pro Bowler, probably not even a franchise QB; the odds of finding one between our next 2nd and 2017s 1st round pick are much better.

Oz has played so little that's like comparing a late 2nd round pick with 4 years on his odometer to a fresh 2nd AND 1st rounder. A 1st AND 2nd for Brandon Weeden? No, thanks.

I'd like more depth, but we're not naked at OT with a decent #3 who can play either side and knows the playbook; in a real midgame pinch, Vasquez could slide over long enough to get us to the gun, injuries to the training room and Elway to the waiver wire for the best backup OT available. It might be shakier inside in that scenario, because Smith is a shaky G and Ferentz a shaky (2nd year) C, so if Vasquez has to spend much time outside (where's he's not great, but serviceable) and Mathis starts, there's not much behind them.

It's doable though, especially now that we have a stud blocking TE to help out and incidentally haul in double digit TD passes. It's not the end of the world, especially with the line's steady recent improvement; that's one advantage of Harris, Smith and Daniels knowing Kubiaks playbook. And even if we keep Oz, there's still a good chance he'll be a bust, in which case we'll NEED next years 2nd and/or 2017s 1st to find and develop our franchise QB before all these defensive studs are so old we don't WANT to re-sign them.

[Joel]

One key omission: I agree with the consensus Manning retires and we either cut or radically restructure Clady; that's ~$25 million of cap, enough to re-sign Miller and all RFAs with millions to spare. I've no idea how the Patriot Way has nearly $20 million in dead money now and the El-Way only $3 million, but the guy seems to know his job.

[Simple Jaded]

How did Bennie Fowler get free agency after 2 seasons?

[TXBRONC]

The Steelers had a horrible offensive line and won Super Bowl and if I'm not mistaken the Giants didn't have great offensive lines on two separate occasions and still won those Super Bowls. It not that Denver's offensive line might get better they have been improving.

[Northman]

Joe Thomas is not the missing link for this team. The offensive line is improving every week and we just destroyed a good Packers team. Im glad Elway is running the show and not some of the fans on this board.

[Ravage!!!]

Joe Thomas is not the missing link for this team. The offensive line is improving every week and we just destroyed a good Packers team. Im glad Elway is running the show and not some of the fans on this board.

I hear you here...but a stud like Joe Thomas isn't around often. It's like finding Manning when we did...a luck shot. To have the chance, right now, with this season and this defense....is a pretty big deal. Finding THAT kind of talent at LT is pretty rare, and its literally a game changer when you have one.

[BronColt]

If they NEEDED a LT that bad, they would have picked up someone else besides the best option available. The fact that they didn't says they were only considering the trade if it was a good deal! It was not a good deal, and they had the mindset of getting a great deal or no deal at all. Plus....it's all part of Kubiak, Elway, and Mannings plan to pretend that the o-line sucks so they can continue PLAYING POSSUM!

[Yashahla17]

The broncos offensive line is just fine. Manning hasn't been sacked in two games, if he has its been like one sack. The offensive line will only get better. Sure having a joe thomas would help any line but it doesn't mean it was mandatory for our success. Im actually glad we didnt trade for him because id rather have the draft picks and draft our own 21 year old tackle.

[Northman]

I hear you here...but a stud like Joe Thomas isn't around often. It's like finding Manning when we did...a luck shot. To have the chance, right now, with this season and this defense....is a pretty big deal. Finding THAT kind of talent at LT is pretty rare, and its literally a game changer when you have one.

Not at the cost of the future.

[Yashahla17]

Not at the cost of the future.

When all fails just draft your own stud LT.

[TimHippo]

When all fails just draft your own stud LT.

Broncos are unlikely to have a round 1 top 3 pick in the draft in the forseeable future. So you are not going to get a stud like Joe Thomas.

[Cugel]

Not at the cost of the future.

That's the point. There IS NO FUTURE! The future is now, while they still have Peyton Manning and an historically great defense.

Reality: Nobody knows that Brock Osweiler can even play in this league, let alone lead the team to a SB. I know fans don't want to hear this but it's NFL reality. Late 2nd round QBs or later just aren't SB caliber very often. In fact, if Brock Osweiler turns out to be that good it would make THREE QBs drafted in this century (Brady & Wilson being the others).

The default assumption is that Brock might be a nice QB, but nothing special, and that he's going to be the next Brian Griese. Brian Griese had a couple of good seasons, went 19 TDs and only 4 INTs one year. But, not good enough to win a SB. Neither was Jake Plummer or Jay Cutler.

Who knows when the Broncos might find another SB caliber QB? 10 years? Happens all the time. How long have the Buffalo Bills been trying to replace Jim Kelly? 20 years!

Secondly: Historically great defenses that CAN win a SB come around rarely and don't last.

The '85 Bears defense was not as dominant in '86 and in '87 they were nothing special. The 2001 Ravens, the 2003 Bucs, the 2012 Steelers, even the 2014 Seahawks weren't as good as the 2013 defense, and didn't win the SB. Virtually ALL the historically good defenses that are in the top 5 scoring defenses of the last 35 years did not last.

And it's obvious why. Having an historically great defense is about more than just the starting lineup. It's having great depth, staying injury free, playing with intensity. Guys hungry.

It's just not possible to re-create that fire in the belly every year, particularly after a SB success. It's just human nature to want to relax and enjoy all the adulation, and forget about some of the hard work, and the LUCK it took to get there.

I think IF Peyton retires they will have enough money to re-sign their front line players - Von Miller, Malik Jackson, Vernon Davis, Derek Wolfe, etc. But, you inevitably lose players because your backups are better than the starters on some other teams (that's why Cleveland wanted Shaquil Barrett).

Everything starts to erode your team depth. And things just change.

If this defense is historically great then that is going to be a 1 year phenomenon. They should still be good next season, just like Seattle is good this year. But are the Seahawks the best defense in the NFL today?

NO! They still have Michael Bennett, and Cliff Avril and Bobby Wagner, Richard Sherman, etc., but they ain't playing like the 2013 Seahawks. Not by a long shot.

I say, the Broncos should have gone all in on Joe Thomas because there ain't going to be any future. If this is Peyton's last season, that's it for the Broncos SB hopes.

They are not winning any SBs with a rookie QB. And in 2017, who knows whether the team will even be good enough to win their division?

Joe Thomas is a Hall of Fame LT. He's been a pro-bowler every year. He's the best LT in football, and you can leave him 1 on 1 with virtually any defender in the league and not worry about him getting the guy blocked. That frees up the OL to put a TE to double team to help out Micheal Schofield at RT. That gives Peyton more time to throw.

He's a stud in the run game so you can just man up in the red zone and run for 3 yards behind Joe Thomas when you need 3 yards.

Can they do that with Ryan Harris? No. Tyler Polumbus? No.

And we now know the price was: Denver's 1st round pick in 2017, Denver's 2nd round pick in 2016; and Cleveland gives back a 5th round pick in 2016. And how much is Denver's 2nd round pick even worth this year? Well if they get to the SB it's worth 276 points. By comparison, the #1 overall pick is worth 3000 points and the 1st pick of the 2nd round is worth 580 points. That's just not that great of a pick.

And Elway didn't do the deal because he wanted a 3rd round pick back instead of a 5th (according to multiple sources, and as reported in the Post).

I still say that's a hideous blunder. Just think how much help having Joe Thomas would be to an inexperienced Brock Osweiler next year?

And then Elway muffed the snap. :coffee:

[Northman]

When all fails just draft your own stud LT.

Well, i get that you want to still try and put yourself in the best position to win now but you have to be very careful at how you go about adding talent. You cant sacrifice everything going foward just to add a piece that may or may not work out for you. I would rather this organization play on the side of caution than overreact and give up way too much for one player.

[Northman]

That's the point. There IS NO FUTURE! The future is now, while they still have Peyton Manning and an historically great defense.

Reality: Nobody knows that Brock Osweiler can even play in this league, let alone lead the team to a SB. I know fans don't want to hear this but it's NFL reality. Late 2nd round QBs or later just aren't SB caliber very often. In fact, if Brock Osweiler turns out to be that good it would make THREE QBs drafted in this century (Brady & Wilson being the others).

The default assumption is that Brock might be a nice QB, but nothing special, and that he's going to be the next Brian Griese. Brian Griese had a couple of good seasons, went 19 TDs and only 4 INTs one year. But, not good enough to win a SB. Neither was Jake Plummer or Jay Cutler.

Who knows when the Broncos might find another SB caliber QB? 10 years? Happens all the time. How long have the Buffalo Bills been trying to replace Jim Kelly? 20 years!

Secondly: Historically great defenses that CAN win a SB come around rarely and don't last.

The '85 Bears defense was not as dominant in '86 and in '87 they were nothing special. The 2001 Ravens, the 2003 Bucs, the 2012 Steelers, even the 2014 Seahawks weren't as good as the 2013 defense, and didn't win the SB. Virtually ALL the historically good defenses that are in the top 5 scoring defenses of the last 35 years did not last.

And it's obvious why. Having an historically great defense is about more than just the starting lineup. It's having great depth, staying injury free, playing with intensity. Guys hungry.

It's just not possible to re-create that fire in the belly every year, particularly after a SB success. It's just human nature to want to relax and enjoy all the adulation, and forget about some of the hard work, and the LUCK it took to get there.

I think IF Peyton retires they will have enough money to re-sign their front line players - Von Miller, Malik Jackson, Vernon Davis, Derek Wolfe, etc. But, you inevitably lose players because your backups are better than the starters on some other teams (that's why Cleveland wanted Shaquil Barrett).

Everything starts to erode your team depth. And things just change.

If this defense is historically great then that is going to be a 1 year phenomenon. They should still be good next season, just like Seattle is good this year. But are the Seahawks the best defense in the NFL today?

NO! They still have Michael Bennett, and Cliff Avril and Bobby Wagner, Richard Sherman, etc., but they ain't playing like the 2013 Seahawks. Not by a long shot.

I say, the Broncos should have gone all in on Joe Thomas because there ain't going to be any future. If this is Peyton's last season, that's it for the Broncos SB hopes.

They are not winning any SBs with a rookie QB. And in 2017, who knows whether the team will even be good enough to win their division?

Joe Thomas is a Hall of Fame LT. He's been a pro-bowler every year. He's the best LT in football, and you can leave him 1 on 1 with virtually any defender in the league and not worry about him getting the guy blocked. That frees up the OL to put a TE to double team to help out Micheal Schofield at RT. That gives Peyton more time to throw.

He's a stud in the run game so you can just man up in the red zone and run for 3 yards behind Joe Thomas when you need 3 yards.

Can they do that with Ryan Harris? No. Tyler Polumbus? No.

And we now know the price was: Denver's 1st round pick in 2017, Denver's 2nd round pick in 2016; and Cleveland gives back a 5th round pick in 2016. And how much is Denver's 2nd round pick even worth this year? Well if they get to the SB it's worth 276 points. By comparison, the #1 overall pick is worth 3000 points and the 1st pick of the 2nd round is worth 580 points. That's just not that great of a pick.

And Elway didn't do the deal because he wanted a 3rd round pick back instead of a 5th (according to multiple sources, and as reported in the Post).

I still say that's a hideous blunder. Just think how much help having Joe Thomas would be to an inexperienced Brock Osweiler next year?

And then Elway muffed the snap. :coffee:


All i saw was blah blah blah blah

[MOtorboat]

When all fails just draft your own stud LT.

It's hard to draft a top tier left tackle if you keep drafting at 25 and later and plan to stay there. Top left tackles usually don't make it past 15.

[BroncoJoe]

All i saw was blah blah blah blah

Just more utter and complete garbage.

[Yashahla17]

I wasnt aware that all the good tackles are top 3 picks.

[Yashahla17]

As a matter of fact more than enough of them are bust. You just have to ( get it right ) when you take one no matter where you find them.

[Yashahla17]

It's hard to draft a top tier left tackle if you keep drafting at 25 and later and plan to stay there. Top left tackles usually don't make it past 15.

No its not. Its no harder than it is any other position. You just have to get it right.

[foco]

This one is really conflicting. I guess I'm happy, right now, that we didn't give up a 1st and 2nd for a 30yr old LT. If this is Peyton's last year, and I think it is, we're either gonna have a young unproven QB(Oz, Siemian, or a rookie) next year or a FA lottery ticket QB (Kaepernick, RG3, etc) next year. There's always a chance that QB sucks and we have few injuries on D, and boom, we're a 4-12 team that doesn't have it's pick to rebuild. Also, going all in like that after a SINGLE game of Manning looking good again just seams really risky. We had 16 game sample size of him regressing directly before that.

On the other hand, if Manning continues to look better and we make a run that comes up short of a SB, this is gonna be one of the most scrutinized "what if" scenarios in Broncos history. The first time Harris or Polumbus give up a blindside sack, Collingsworth's head is gonna explode on national television.

[Joel]

No its not. Its no harder than it is any other position. You just have to get it right.
Sure it is; finding a top OT after the top 10-20 picks is as hard as finding top QBs dependent on them. Top players at any premium position are hard to find after nearly every team's had first choice, because at least a couple team's are always desperate for one thing or another. What's interesting is that the track record for premium positions isn't much different anywhere in the 1st round, because "just getting it right" isn't as easy as you make it sound.

However, after the 1st, top talent at premium positions becomes very rare very fast, because it's just not likely 32 entire NFL scouting teams all overlook a future All Pro, and exceedingly unlikely they all do it TWICE in the same draft. Good players at positions in less demand remain available in the midrounds; you can still find a stud RB, G, blocking TE etc. But anyone drafting a QB, OT, CB, pass rushing OLB/DE or WR after the middle of the 2nd round is getting everyone elses leftovers, who usually play accordingly.

This, incidentally, is why I wanted to spend the #28 overall pick on one of several good OTs, rather than trade it, our next TWO 5ths and Man Ram to Detroit (who, ironically, spent it on starting G Laken Tomlinson) just to move up 5 spots and get a #4 OLB, then hope the #59 overall pick would get us a starting quality OT. Five OTs were taken before #28 (and four before #23: DJ Humphries, whom many here wanted, went right after Ray) but three more went before we got the drafts ninth OT at #59.

[MOtorboat]

No its not. Its no harder than it is any other position. You just have to get it right.

The perennial All-Pros are almost all Top 15 draft picks: Joe Thomas 3, Tyron Smith 9, Clady 12. Joe Staley being the outlier at 26 and Jason Peters being the Tom Brady-type guy as a UDFA.

Other than quarterback, I don't see another position where the All-Pro players are always high first rounders. It's harder to find a left tackle later in the draft because teams swipe up the best early. It seems like a position that teams judge better at the college level and value highly. The combination is that if you want a franchise guy, you've pretty much got to find a way into the Top 15 to get one. Denver hasn't had a Top 15 pick since Von Miller, and considering he's the best edge rusher in the game, I think they made the right choice. For the foreseeable future, Denver's not going to draft that high, so Joe Thomas would have been a complete coup.

[Bronco4ever]

As a matter of fact more than enough of them are bust. You just have to ( get it right ) when you take one no matter where you find them.

This seems pretty obvious. I think the object is always to "get it right" with whatever position you are drafting or signing.

[Joel]

The perennial All-Pros are almost all Top 15 draft picks: Joe Thomas 3, Tyron Smith 9, Clady 12. Joe Staley being the outlier at 26 and Jason Peters being the Tom Brady-type guy as a UDFA.

Other than quarterback, I don't see another position where the All-Pro players are always high first rounders. It's harder to find a left tackle later in the draft because teams swipe up the best early. It seems like a position that teams judge better at the college level and value highly. The combination is that if you want a franchise guy, you've pretty much got to find a way into the Top 15 to get one. Denver hasn't had a Top 15 pick since Von Miller, and considering he's the best edge rusher in the game, I think they made the right choice. For the foreseeable future, Denver's not going to draft that high, so Joe Thomas would have been a complete coup.
To be fair, we could always trade up; it's how we got Ray. One of our beat reporters also speculated in print that revisiting the Thomas trade we attempted when Clady went down in preseason raises the chance we revisit it again next offseason (which can't help us NOW, but he'd still be under contract to help Mannings successor through 2018.)

[MOtorboat]

To be fair, we could always trade up; it's how we got Ray. One of our beat reporters also speculated in print that revisiting the Thomas trade we attempted when Clady went down in preseason raises the chance we revisit it again next offseason (which can't help us NOW, but he'd still be under contract to help Mannings successor through 2018.)

Ray was drafted at 23.

[Cugel]

Joe Thomas is the #1 LT in football and has been for the last 8 years, pretty much. Even if the Broncos had the #1 overall pick there would be nobody in the draft to equal him.

Just to point out the obvious:

The hardest positions to draft because there's the most demand and lowest supply are:

#1 - Franchise QB
#2 - LT to protect your franchise QB
#3 - Pass rushing DL or LB
#4 - CB

Pretty much in that order. Starting RT is possible to find later in the first round, same with G and C.

[Cugel]

Just to give you an idea how different it is to try and draft a LT:

Joe Thomas was #3 overall of the 1st round.
Ryan Clady was #11 overall of the 1st round.
Evan Mathis was #79 of the third round:


Pro Football Focus rated Mathis as the best guard in the NFL for the 2011, 2012, and 2013 seasons. In 2014 he was rated as the second best guard in the league despite missing seven games due to injury.[11]

It's not at all impossible to find a stud G in the 3rd round, although he will rarely be as good as Evan Mathis. But, try and find a QB or elite LT at that position. Not very likely.

[Ravage!!!]

When all fails just draft your own stud LT.

Yeah.. hard to imagine how teams just don't draft their own stud LTs and stud QBs all the time, right?

[Ravage!!!]

Not at the cost of the future.

What is the cost of the future? Possible guesses and hopes? I mean, what position other than QB is a higher, more important, priority than LT on the entire team? So this "cost of the future"..seems a bit odd to me when it literally is BUILDING the future anchor of the 2nd most important spot. Then, if we believe that Elway thinks of Oz being the next guy to "step up"... that would mean we would have the top 2 positions filled for the future.

[Ravage!!!]

As a matter of fact more than enough of them are bust. You just have to ( get it right ) when you take one no matter where you find them.


No its not. Its no harder than it is any other position. You just have to get it right.

Brilliance.

This is the one that refers to the rest of us as simpletons.

[Joel]

Ray was drafted at 23.
I'd already said that, but thanks for reminding/quoting me. It's possible to move up >5 spots.

[MOtorboat]

I'd already said that, but thanks for reminding/quoting me. It's possible to move up >5 spots.

When I say Top 15, and you say something dumb like 'to be fair, they could move up like they did with Shane Ray' it needs to be pointed out that 23 is not Top 15. Which begs the question the question, if you already said he got drafted at 23, why'd you dispute my post? I assume you know 23 is not inside the Top 15. I guess I shouldn't assume you have basic counting skills.

And thanks for another dickish MHS. Always appreciated.

[Yashahla17]

When i say get it right it means do your homework and hope you have good coaches to make sure they get it out of the player. Only a simpleton would think it just literally means make the right pick. Most gms smart or dumb think they made the right pick

[Joel]

When I say Top 15, and you say something dumb like 'to be fair, they could move up like they did with Shane Ray' it needs to be pointed out that 23 is not Top 15. Which begs the question the question, if you already said he got drafted at 23, why'd you dispute my post?
Because "it's possible to move up >5 spots." Like, moving up 13 spots is totally doable.


I assume you know 23 is not inside the Top 15. I guess I shouldn't assume you have basic counting skills.
I do, yes; the difference between moving up 5 and 13 spots is 8 (i.e. single digits.) Do you have basic READING skills? Sometimes it's genuinely hard to tell.


And thanks for another dickish MHS. Always appreciated.
Thanks for another dickish post, and likewise. ;)

[MOtorboat]

Because "it's possible to move up >5 spots." Like, moving up 13 spots is totally doable.


I do, yes; the difference between moving up 5 and 13 spots is 8 (i.e. single digits.) Do you have basic READING skills? Sometimes it's genuinely hard to tell.


Thanks for another dickish post, and likewise. ;)

And going up 12-20 spots to get a left tackle is wildly different than going up 3 to get a guy sliding because of off field problems.

It's not, oh, they could go up 11 spots instead of three with a snap of their fingers!

I read your effing post. And it said essentially the same damn thing and there was absolutely no need for me to respond, so I didn't until you felt the need to respond and subsequently **** up basic math.

[Simple Jaded]

Ryan Clady, maybe he can play LT.

[Joel]

And going up 12-20 spots to get a left tackle is wildly different than going up 3 to get a guy sliding because of off field problems.

It's not, oh, they could go up 11 spots instead of three with a snap of their fingers!
28-23=5 (basic counting skills ;)) and 28-15=only 8 more, for a total of 13. It took a pair of 5ths and a worthless G to move those 5 spots; give a bit more, we can get 13 more.


I read your effing post. And it said essentially the same damn thing and there was absolutely no need for me to respond, so I didn't until you felt the need to respond and subsequently **** up basic math.
You just subtracted 23 from 28 and got 3—even after I did it FOR you TWICE—but want to talk about "****[ing] up basic math"?

[Joel]

Ryan Clady, maybe he can play LT.
He can also be released to save ~$9 million of cap: Given 3 serious injuries to the same leg in 6 years (and playing like crap all year after each of the first two) that's a safer bet. Still not the end of the world though; again, we'll have a 1st round pick next year, and can use it and a few later ones to get into the top 15 if we really feel the need.

[MOtorboat]

28-23=5 (basic counting skills ;)) and 28-15=only 8 more, for a total of 13.


You just subtracted 23 from 28 and got 3—even after I did it FOR you TWICE—but want to talk about "****[ing] up basic math"?

Good grief. My bad. Thought we moved from 26 to 23.

My initial point still stands.

We agreed. Until you decided to respond and tell me that we could trade up like we did with Shane Ray who was drafted at 23, not Top 15 which was the entire ******* point of my post.

We ******* agreed until you had to pull out your ******* semantics bag and be a dick. And you wonder why people get really sick of your shit.

[Simple Jaded]

He can also be released to save ~$9 million of cap: Given 3 serious injuries to the same leg in 6 years (and playing like crap all year after each of the first two) that's a safer bet. Still not the end of the world though; again, we'll have a 1st round pick next year, and can use it and a few later ones to get into the top 15 if we really feel the need.

Yeah, I remember Clady a lot different than you do.

Anyway, the Broncos will stay with original pick and take a LT you don't like and you'll spend the next 12 months talking about how the Broncos failed, yet again, to "address the OL".

Y'all heard it here first.

[TimHippo]

As a matter of fact more than enough of them are bust. You just have to ( get it right ) when you take one no matter where you find them.

There you go again, Yashi. Stop babbling.

There's plenty of data to support the notion that highly drafted offensive tackles have the highest success rate and lowest bust rate among positions:

"Quarterback Hit Rate: 48.2%
Defensive Tackle Hit Rate: 46.9%
Offensive Tackle Hit Rate: 69.2%

Quarterback Bust Rate: 44.4%
Defensive Tackle Bust Rate: 46.9%
Offensive Tackle Bust Rate: 19.2%

Pretty insane, huh? Offensive tackles chosen in the top 16 hit 69.2 percent of the time and bust on just a 19.2-percent clip.

There will always be busts at every position in the NFL Draft. There is no such thing as a guarantee when you're giving 21- and 22-year-olds millions of dollars. But offensive tackles are as close to a guarantee as you're going to get."

Read more at http://walterfootball.com/nfldraftoffensivetackles.php#HH1ZSLV4TcVsz22l.99
http://walterfootball.com/nfldraftoffensivetackles.php

[Joel]

Good grief. My bad. Thought we moved from 26 to 23.

My initial point still stands.

We agreed. Until you decided to respond and tell me that we could trade up like we did with Shane Ray who was drafted at 23, not Top 15 which was the entire ******* point of my post.

We ******* agreed until you had to pull out your ******* semantics bag and be a dick. And you wonder why people get really sick of your shit.

We PARTLY agreed, but I DISAGREE with people saying Elway should've pulled the trigger on giving up our next 2nd and following 1st for Thomas and a 5th, as did Yoshi: That's why he posted what he did, prompting your rebuttal. So either:

1) Your post was an argument for doing the Thomas trade, and NOW (since my response to you also noted we could do it in the offseason) or
2) You agree with Yoshi (and me) that we SHOULDN'T have done that trade, but chose to do the kind of petty passive-aggressive stuff to HIM that you accuse me of doing to you.

If the first (i.e. you think we should've taken Clevelands offer) we DISAGREE on this threads main point (which was how I took your first post: This thread IS about the potential trade.) If the second, people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, especially when I only replied to you because you disputed a reason to reject a trade I opposed.

[MOtorboat]

We PARTLY agreed, but I DISAGREE with people saying Elway should've pulled the trigger on giving up our next 2nd and following 1st for Thomas and a 5th, as did Yoshi: That's why he posted what he did, prompting your rebuttal. So either:

1) Your post was an argument for doing the Thomas trade, and NOW (since my response to you also noted we could do it in the offseason) or
2) You agree with Yoshi (and me) that we SHOULDN'T have done that trade, but chose to do the kind of petty passive-aggressive stuff to HIM that you accuse me of doing to you.

No. My argument was that you can't expect to draft a top flight left tackle outside the Top 15.

And you bitch about my reading skills.

[TXBRONC]

yeah, i remember clady a lot different than you do.

Anyway, the broncos will stay with original pick and take a lt you don't like and you'll spend the next 48 months talking about how the broncos failed, yet again, to "address the ol".

Y'all heard it here first.

fify

[Joel]

Yeah, I remember Clady a lot different than you do.

Anyway, the Broncos will stay with original pick and take a LT you don't like and you'll spend the next 12 months talking about how the Broncos failed, yet again, to "address the OL".

Y'all heard it here first.
If we spend even a LATE 1st rounder on a LT, I'll be satisfied: Isn't that EXACTLY what I advocated they do INSTEAD of trading up a whopping 5 spots for a #4 OLB?

Since the most Elways EVER spent on an OT (in 5 seasons) is a pair of late 2NDS (i.e. ~32 spots lower) I'm not exactly holding my breath.

[TimHippo]

The perennial All-Pros are almost all Top 15 draft picks: Joe Thomas 3, Tyron Smith 9, Clady 12. Joe Staley being the outlier at 26 and Jason Peters being the Tom Brady-type guy as a UDFA.

.

Peters was actually a defensive tackle his freshmen year at Arkansas and then moved to tight end his sophomore and junior year. He had never played Oline until being coached by the Buffalo Bills on the position.

Joe Staley was also a late bloomer having played tight end his freshman year at Central Michigan before learning the Oline position his final two years.

Stephen Neal albeit a guard was also a UDFA was any D1 national champion and wrestled in college while not playing any football.

These outliers are often times projects who switched from a different position.

[Joel]

No. My argument was that you can't expect to draft a top flight left tackle outside the Top 15.
I read and understood your argument: Did you make it because you wanted the trade, or just because you wanted to nitpick Yoshi agreeing with him about the trade. Again, if the first, we strongly disagree on this whole thread, justifying my objection; if the second, you just did the very thing that you're pissed I (supposedly) did to you. TO BE FAIR (which is how I prefaced my response to you,) your point about the rarity of good LTs after the mid-first is valid (I told him the same) but so is my point that we can trade up.


And you bitch about my reading skills.
Not sure what to tell you at this point except "slow down, and sound out the words." Or maybe read and consider them all instead of just skimming for an excuse to fight.

[TimHippo]

He can also be released to save ~$9 million of cap: Given 3 serious injuries to the same leg in 6 years (and playing like crap all year after each of the first two) that's a safer bet. Still not the end of the world though; again, we'll have a 1st round pick next year, and can use it and a few later ones to get into the top 15 if we really feel the need.

I get the feeling we passed on Joe Thomas because of the steep price but also the cap hit. It leads me to believe that Elway knows that Osweiler is not the answer and is looking to use cap money to get a Drew Brees, Stafford or other stud QB and using the picks to get cheap lineman through the draft.

[MOtorboat]

I read and understood your argument: Did you make it because you wanted the trade, or just because you wanted to nitpick Yoshi agreeing with him about the trade. Again, if the first, we strongly disagree on this whole thread, justifying my objection; if the second, you just did the very thing that you're pissed I (supposedly) did to you. TO BE FAIR (which is how I prefaced my response to you,) your point about the rarity of good LTs after the mid-first is valid (I told him the same) but so is my point that we can trade up.


Not sure what to tell you at this point except "slow down, and sound out the words." Or maybe read and consider them all instead of just skimming for an excuse to fight.

I was not making an argument for or against the trade. Period. End of story.

[Joel]

Peters was actually a defensive tackle his freshmen year at Arkansas and then moved to tight end his sophomore and junior year. He had never played Oline until being coached by the Buffalo Bills on the position.

Joe Staley was also a late bloomer having played tight end his freshman year at Central Michigan before learning the Oline position his final two years.

Stephen Neal albeit a guard was also a UDFA was any D1 national champion and wrestled in college while not playing any football.

These outliers are often times projects who switched from a different position.

Not looking for a fight (apparently I'm obligated to say that now,) but I can't help wondering if moving to Beadles to G was a mistake since he was drafted as an OT. He sure plays like one: Useless for run surge, and I've never seen him pancake anyone but safeties, but his protection was usually decent (except for the SB, which the consensus insists was "just one game") and he's fast and agile enough to get way downfield flattening those safeties on screens (which went from our best to worst play without him.)

[tomjonesrocks]

I get the feeling we passed on Joe Thomas because of the steep price but also the cap hit. It leads me to believe that Elway knows that Osweiler is not the answer and is looking to use cap money to get a Drew Brees, Stafford or other stud QB and using the picks to get cheap lineman through the draft.

Don't see how that can be concluded but really didn't like that '17 first. This team could easy go 8-8 or 7-9 in Oz's first year or worse.

Plus I thought one of the big benefits of the ZBS was that it let you get away from ultra-premium O-linemen. If it doesn't would rather be running a different system.

Anyway this shit about Elway "failing" or ******* up by not getting it done is ludicrous.

[Joel]

I was not making an argument for or against the trade. Period. End of story.
Okay: Then why are you IN this thread? To "pull out your ******* semantics bag and be a dick" to Yoshi? "And you wonder why people get really sick of your shit."

[MOtorboat]

Okay: Then why are you IN this thread? To "pull out your ******* semantics bag and be a dick" to Yoshi? "And you wonder why people get really sick of your shit."

I was unaware that I had to take a stance on the trade to post in this thread about the offensive line moving forward without Thomas and needing a left tackle with the uncertainty of Clady's health and performance in the future. The trade thread is an entirely separate thread. You should try reading that thread if you want to argue over the trade itself.

[TimHippo]

Don't see how that can be concluded but really didn't like that '17 first. This team could easy go 8-8 or 7-9 in Oz's first year or worse.

Plus I thought one of the big benefits of the ZBS was that it let you get away from ultra-premium O-linemen. If it doesn't would rather be running a different system.

Anyway this shit about Elway "failing" or ******* up by not getting it done is ludicrous.

That is true in general about ZBS with both the line and the running backs. You can usually find someone in the lower rounds that has the attributes for the ZBS.

Brees is Unrestricted in 2017 but I think maybe Brees can force a trade if he wants out and wants to come to Denver. I think Elways knows the guy he wants and is going to go after him like he did Peyton Manning.

[Joel]

I get the feeling we passed on Joe Thomas because of the steep price but also the cap hit. It leads me to believe that Elway knows that Osweiler is not the answer and is looking to use cap money to get a Drew Brees, Stafford or other stud QB and using the picks to get cheap lineman through the draft.
Well, I hope he doesn't cheap out again; just because I'm willing to "settle" for a late 1st round OT doesn't mean I want to continue spending late 3RD (nor even 2nd) rounders on premium positions, expecting starter quality of the 9th or 10th player drafted at a position in high demand.

Likewise, I hope Elway won't go chasing the last gasp of an aging All Pro QB and remain just a few seasons from desperately seeking the guy to lead the franchise for the next decade. That's part of why I didn't want Manning: Rebuild the line BEFORE you get the franchise QB, THEN get him and be set for 10 years; don't race to build a team around a guy in his late 30s when he's eating $20 million of your cap. I'd like at least an adequate vet QB brought in for competiton/insurance in case Oz bombs (and maybe even a draft pick into the bargan; if 2nd round QB didn't have a decent track record, we wouldn't be talking about Oz.) But no more "SB or bust with our All Pro 35-year-old who doesn't even know the playbook yet."


Don't see how that can be concluded but really didn't like that '17 first. This team could easy go 8-8 or 7-9 in Oz's first year or worse.
Yup; as someone else said, if we ended up 4-12 because our QB sucks but already gave away the top 5 pick needed to solve that problem, Elway would look a fool.


Plus I thought one of the big benefits of the ZBS was that it let you get away from ultra-premium O-linemen. If it doesn't would rather be running a different system.

Anyway this shit about Elway "failing" or ******* up by not getting it done is ludicrous.

There I'm forced to agree with Jaded: The ZBS' lesson shouldn't be "you can make crappy linemen decent," but "you can make good linemen great." It may be the best argument for eating Cladys big cap hit next year, though I still wonder what his mobility will be like after tearing up the same leg three times. It sucked all year the last two times he did that, so round three's not promising, especially after 30.

[TimHippo]

Well, I hope he doesn't cheap out again; just because I'm willing to "settle" for a late 1st round OT doesn't mean I want to continue spending late 3RD (nor even 2nd) rounders on premium positions, expecting starter quality of the 9th or 10th player drafted at a position in high demand.

Likewise, I hope Elway won't go chasing the last gasp of an aging All Pro QB and remain just a few seasons from desperately seeking the guy to lead the franchise for the next decade. That's part of why I didn't want Manning: Rebuild the line BEFORE you get the franchise QB, THEN get him and be set for 10 years; don't race to build a team around a guy in his late 30s when he's eating $20 million of your cap. I'd like at least an adequate vet QB brought in for competiton/insurance in case Oz bombs (and maybe even a draft pick into the bargan; if 2nd round QB didn't have a decent track record, we wouldn't be talking about Oz.) But no more "SB or bust with our All Pro 35-year-old who doesn't even know the playbook yet."


Yup; as someone else said, if we ended up 4-12 because our QB sucks but already gave away the top 5 pick needed to solve that problem, Elway would look a fool.



There I'm forced to agree with Jaded: The ZBS' lesson shouldn't be "you can make crappy linemen decent," but "you can make good linemen great." It may be the best argument for eating Cladys big cap hit next year, though I still wonder what his mobility will be like after tearing up the same leg three times. It sucked all year the last two times he did that, so round three's not promising, especially after 30.

Well I think that's the pattern you are going to have to go with because the Broncos are too good to get a top pick to get the next Andrew Luck, etc.
That leaves you with getting an older stud QB like Drew Brees or getting a younger guy with all the tools whose worn out his welcome in football purgatory in Detroit like Matt Stafford.

[Simple Jaded]

If we spend even a LATE 1st rounder on a LT, I'll be satisfied: Isn't that EXACTLY what I advocated they do INSTEAD of trading up a whopping 5 spots for a #4 OLB?

Since the most Elways EVER spent on an OT (in 5 seasons) is a pair of late 2NDS (i.e. ~32 spots lower) I'm not exactly holding my breath.
So if they traded up to 23 to draft Sambrailo you'd be satisfied?

[Joel]

I was unaware that I had to take a stance on the trade to post in this thread about the offensive line moving forward without Thomas and needing a left tackle with the uncertainty of Clady's health and performance in the future. The trade thread is an entirely separate thread. You should try reading that thread if you want to argue over the trade itself.
They're practically inseparable: Though we could want but not NEED the trade, understandably few feel that way, due to its cost. For proof, just look how few people are debating the wisdom of getting back a 3rd vs. a 5th, and how many are talking about giving away the 2nd and 1st. No one gives up even a late second AND an UNKNOWN 1st if they've got a viable alternative, especially not when (probably) starting a new untested QB next year. So the trade was either insane or indispensable: There is no Third Way.

Therefore, arguing we didn't need the trade necessarily argues we didn't (or shouldn't) WANT it (and vice versa.) Refusing an All Pro blindside protector is only but always smart if we've got a decent shot without him; giving away a 2nd and undetermined 1st's only but always smart if we're screwed without him.

So Yoshi stated what he considers an alternative, you (correctly) pointed out why that alternative's unviable and I (also correctly) pointed out how we could make it viable if we really REALLY want. I also implied we probably don't "want," and further noted even Thomas himself isn't guaranteed to be off the table forever: This was the second time we discussed him with Cleveland, hence one Broncos beat reporter thinks there could be a third after the season.

Note that, while a postseason trade for Thomas or trading up into the top 15 (probably) won't help Manning, neither would a natural top 15 pick (i.e. the thing whose lack you cited to refute Yoshis argument.) So Yoshi's right for the wrong reason; you're wrong from motives known only to you. ;)

[Yashahla17]

There you go again, Yashi. Stop babbling.

There's plenty of data to support the notion that highly drafted offensive tackles have the highest success rate and lowest bust rate among positions:

"Quarterback Hit Rate: 48.2%
Defensive Tackle Hit Rate: 46.9%
Offensive Tackle Hit Rate: 69.2%

Quarterback Bust Rate: 44.4%
Defensive Tackle Bust Rate: 46.9%
Offensive Tackle Bust Rate: 19.2%

Pretty insane, huh? Offensive tackles chosen in the top 16 hit 69.2 percent of the time and bust on just a 19.2-percent clip.

There will always be busts at every position in the NFL Draft. There is no such thing as a guarantee when you're giving 21- and 22-year-olds millions of dollars. But offensive tackles are as close to a guarantee as you're going to get."

Read more at http://walterfootball.com/nfldraftoffensivetackles.php#HH1ZSLV4TcVsz22l.99
http://walterfootball.com/nfldraftoffensivetackles.php

You really lack any intelligence. The only data we need is the cone drill.

[Joel]

Well I think that's the pattern you are going to have to go with because the Broncos are too good to get a top pick to get the next Andrew Luck, etc.
That leaves you with getting an older stud QB like Drew Brees or getting a younger guy with all the tools whose worn out his welcome in football purgatory in Detroit like Matt Stafford.

Like I say, we can always trade up; our rosters good and deep enough we don't need a lot of other help (with the notable exception of the line, given that Mathis is an old one-year rental and I don't expect Clady back, both of which, combined with trying out Oz, are why I don't expect to pick a QB next year.) I do expect to bring in SOMEONE in FA rather than put all our eggs in Oz' basket, but the Stafford scenario's exactly what I expect, not another aging stud. It's time to find a QB with >2-3 years left.


So if they traded up to 23 to draft Sambrailo you'd be satisfied?
In principle, but not just reaching for our typical mid-draft tackles with a 1st round pick, no: The 9th or 10th rated OT remains just that even if a team promotes him to the 3rd or 4th OT drafted. Again, I don't think the ZBS requires drafting crappy untalented linemen and making them decent so we can spend top picks elsewhere; it means drafting smart athletic linemen who are ALSO big and strong, then making good ones great and dominating all comers.

Look at our championship lines: Yeah, they were the NFLs smallest line, but nearly all were studs long before the SB wins.

Zimmerman: That book I imprinted on ranked all NFL lines for the last three (pre-strike,) and their comment on Minnesota was "only so so in '86, but Zimmerman showed he is a comer." He was a rookie then, and all he did was make the next two All Pro teams, then two more before Minnesota traded him to us for about what Cleveland asked for Thomas: Our next 1st and 6th plus our following 2nd. Maybe if Cleveland had asked our next 1st and following 2nd instead of the reverse, Thomas would be a Bronco.

Schlereth: Maybe overrated by some fans, but still good; he got his first Pro Bowl and SB win with the '91 'Skins and started his whole career, even as a rookie.

Nalen: Made his first Pro Bowls on the championship teams, but 3 more later, including 2 First Team All Pro selections, and was our anchor from his 2nd season till retirement.

Habib/Neil: I admit not knowing much about Habib apart from our first SB, but he cracked his first starting lineup his 3rd year and remained there till he retired, while Neil was an excellent G at Texas (I don't follow college ball, but it's hard to live in Austin and ignore the Longhorns) and career starter by his second year (when Habib left.)

Jones: A solid RT, starting all but 4 games after his rookie year, he was easily overlooked because stuck with the Browns, but made it to Denver in time for a couple SB wins, and a Pro Bowl pick when he replaced Zimmerman at LT.

Swayne: The only one who might really be dubious, but still not BAD; he started most of his career, but was Jones' sub when we had Zimmerman, then took the starting spot when Zimmerman retired, then moved on to start in Baltimore (picking up a 4th AFC Championship and 3rd SB Ring two years later.)

So they were small and nimble, but also solid; the ZBS didn't get Zimmerman or Schlereth to Pro Bowls (I guarantee Schlereth wouldn't have started for Joe Gibbs, much less on a SB championship team, if he didn't know how to block straight up, though one might argue the ZBS is just the counter trey on steroids.) It didn't win the 2000 Ravens' SB either. It's perfectly OK to have GOOD linemen in the ZBS; as in all systems, it's actually preferable.

[Joel]

You really lack any intelligence. The only data we need is the cone drill.
Right, you're on your own: I'm not gonna keep trying to pull you out if you insist on shoveling dirt on yourself. ;)

[MOtorboat]

They're practically inseparable: Though we could want but not NEED the trade, understandably few feel that way, due to its cost. For proof, just look how few people are debating the wisdom of getting back a 3rd vs. a 5th, and how many are talking about giving away the 2nd and 1st. No one gives up even a late second AND an UNKNOWN 1st if they've got a viable alternative, especially not when (probably) starting a new untested QB next year. So the trade was either insane or indispensable: There is no Third Way.

Therefore, arguing we didn't need the trade necessarily argues we didn't (or shouldn't) WANT it (and vice versa.) Refusing an All Pro blindside protector is only but always smart if we've got a decent shot without him; giving away a 2nd and undetermined 1st's only but always smart if we're screwed without him.

So Yoshi stated what he considers an alternative, you (correctly) pointed out why that alternative's unviable and I (also correctly) pointed out how we could make it viable if we really REALLY want. I also implied we probably don't "want," and further noted even Thomas himself isn't guaranteed to be off the table forever: This was the second time we discussed him with Cleveland, hence one Broncos beat reporter thinks there could be a third after the season.

Note that, while a postseason trade for Thomas or trading up into the top 15 (probably) won't help Manning, neither would a natural top 15 pick (i.e. the thing whose lack you cited to refute Yoshis argument.) So Yoshi's right for the wrong reason; you're wrong from motives known only to you. ;)

It truly is unbelievable how much shit you make up just to make you think you're right.

The only comment I made in this thread before you decided to respond was that Denver couldn't be sure of getting a top-flight tackle at 28, or 30, or wherever they draft next year, and that they had to be Top 15. I did say it would have been a coup to get Thomas. None of that is an endorsement for or against the trade. That's all you and your speculation and your semantics.

A simple 'I'm sorry I implied way too much into your comment' would have sufficed, but you chose to double down. Seriously, **** you.

[Joel]

It truly is unbelievable how much shit you make up just to make you think you're right.

The only comment I made in this thread before you decided to respond was that Denver couldn't be sure of getting a top-flight tackle at 28, or 30, or wherever they draft next year, and that they had to be Top 15. I did say it would have been a coup to get Thomas. None of that is an endorsement for or against the trade. That's all you and your speculation and your semantics.
It's true we can't get a top LT at 28 (or wherever) but also IRRELEVANT, because we can trade up as we did this year. It moots that whole point, and validates Yoshis, if not for the reason he claimed. But that whole discussion's equally irrelevant unless the trade's a good idea; if we never should've taken the trade, whatever we can or can't do in the next draft is the only way we fill that spot, because Thomas stays in Cleveland regardless. Short form: Unless you DID want the trade, none of that other crap MATTERS.

Except as an excuse to give Yoshi "other crap," which makes complaining about GETTING crap for it hypocritical (and, in this case, inaccurate to boot.)


A simple 'I'm sorry I implied way too much into your comment' would have sufficed, but you chose to double down. Seriously, **** you.
Is "I'm sorry you failed to see what your comment INEVITABLY implies, as well as the way around your otherwise valid point" good enough?

[Northman]

Good grief. My bad. Thought we moved from 26 to 23.

My initial point still stands.

We agreed. Until you decided to respond and tell me that we could trade up like we did with Shane Ray who was drafted at 23, not Top 15 which was the entire ******* point of my post.

We ******* agreed until you had to pull out your ******* semantics bag and be a dick. And you wonder why people get really sick of your shit.

I sometimes think that Joel just likes to argue for the sake of arguing. :lol:

[Joel]

I sometimes think that Joel just likes to argue for the sake of arguing. :lol:
First three words are dubious, but the rest is plausible enough; maybe why MO and I get along so swimmingly. ;)

[slim]

Why don't you two just blow each other and get it over with?

[Ravage!!!]

When i say get it right it means do your homework and hope you have good coaches to make sure they get it out of the player. Only a simpleton would think it just literally means make the right pick. Most gms smart or dumb think they made the right pick

Again... brilliance. Its just so simple. Make the right pick and make it work. Nothing to it. It's why all the teams have top flight LTs and tope flight QBs. Just make the right pick and "coach-em-up." SImple.

[MOtorboat]

It's true we can't get a top LT at 28 (or wherever) but also IRRELEVANT, because we can trade up as we did this year. It moots that whole point, and validates Yoshis, if not for the reason he claimed. But that whole discussion's equally irrelevant unless the trade's a good idea; if we never should've taken the trade, whatever we can or can't do in the next draft is the only way we fill that spot, because Thomas stays in Cleveland regardless. Short form: Unless you DID want the trade, none of that other crap MATTERS.

Except as an excuse to give Yoshi "other crap," which makes complaining about GETTING crap for it hypocritical (and, in this case, inaccurate to boot.)


Is "I'm sorry you failed to see what your comment INEVITABLY implies, as well as the way around your otherwise valid point" good enough?

You're a clown. This discussion can exist with a neutral stance on the trade. It's possible to openly wonder who the left tackle is going to be because Clady is hurt, the Thomas trade fell through and they don't have a Top 15 pick. It's possible to discuss all that while remaining neutral to the trade. I continue to not care whether or not the trade went through only to realize the reality of it not happening.

[Yashahla17]

Right, you're on your own: I'm not gonna keep trying to pull you out if you insist on shoveling dirt on yourself. ;)

Dude sthu. Nobody is even talking to you.

[Yashahla17]

I sometimes think that Joel just likes to argue for the sake of arguing. :lol:

Exactly. This guy quotes me and i wasn't even talking to him just to start an argument. He's clearly lacking something in the real world.

[TimHippo]

Exactly. This guy quotes me and i wasn't even talking to him just to start an argument. He's clearly lacking something in the real world.

Yashi, the gangsta from Cherry Creek, represent! So tough!

[Cugel]

Therefore, arguing we didn't need the trade necessarily argues we didn't (or shouldn't) WANT it (and vice versa.) Refusing an All Pro blindside protector is only but always smart if we've got a decent shot without him; giving away a 2nd and undetermined 1st's only but always smart if we're screwed without him.

The problem with this logic is that there is absolutely no way to know until we reach the SB (or don't).

In 2013 nobody thought that the OL (although weakened by the loss of Clady) was going to give the record setting Broncos offense NO CHANCE in the SB.

That's just how it worked out. In retrospect it should have been obvious that while they were adequate with Chris Clark at LT, Zane Beadles at G and Orlando Franklin at RT that just wasn't going to be good enough in the SB against a ferocious Seahawks defense.

Same thing here. The Broncos can obviously get through the regular season with Tyler Polumbus or Ryan Harris at LT. They might even get home field advantage, win a game and possibly get to host the AFC Championship against the Patriots.

And, just like in 2013, they might beat the Patriots and go to the SB.

But, what happens if they face the Seahawks again in the SB? (Just suppose).

Would this OL really be any better at protecting Peyton and opening running lanes than the 2013 OL?

Well, with Joe Thomas they sure as hell would. There's no doubt about that. Joe Thomas can block Michael Bennett or Cliff Avril one on one in a huge game and win almost all of the time.

He's the best in the NFL and he can flat stone-wall just about anybody.

But, they don't have him. Are they going to need him to win a SB?

We can't know until we get there (if we ever do) and then it will be too late if it turns out "whoops! I guess we should have made that trade after all."

That's why Elway should have made the trade. Because if this is Peyton's last year who knows when they will ever get another chance at a SB? It might not be until every current Bronco is retired. That happens all the time in the NFL.

[Joel]

You're a clown. This discussion can exist with a neutral stance on the trade.
In theory, but not practice: You're in the minority with no opinion on the trade yet discussing its consequences.


It's possible to openly wonder who the left tackle is going to be because Clady is hurt, the Thomas trade fell through and they don't have a Top 15 pick.
That tends to lead quickly to "we should've done the trade, because we have no alternative." Especially since Sambrailo's ALSO on IR and many doubt Harris (and Polumbus; our only other OTs are a pair of PS rookies.) Plus, y'know, blindside protector of a 39-year-old immobile surgically repaired HoF QB.


It's possible to discuss all that while remaining neutral to the trade. I continue to not care whether or not the trade went through only to realize the reality of it not happening.
The reality of it not happening is that Harris is our starting LT until/unless he's hurt, and Polumbus is all we've got if anything happens to him OR Schofield. Is that "alright" or at least good enough? Because the answer to that question is also the answer to the question "should we have done the trade"? NO opinion on that? Really?


Exactly. This guy quotes me and i wasn't even talking to him just to start an argument. He's clearly lacking something in the real world.
He (correctly) blew up YOUR argument, genius: I just pointed out we have a way into the top 15 even without a natural pick, but the top 15 IS the only place to get a top LT. As I said, you were right on the trade for the wrong reasons, but (as I also said) if this is my thanks for bailing you out, deal with MO yourself (you may need a tetanus/rabies shot.)

[Joel]

The problem with this logic is that there is absolutely no way to know until we reach the SB (or don't).
There's no way to be sure, no; GMs always say cuts are the hardest part of their job, but predicting all possible futures to plan all possible contingencies actually is.


In 2013 nobody thought that the OL (although weakened by the loss of Clady) was going to give the record setting Broncos offense NO CHANCE in the SB.
The name's "Joel," not "nobody" (contrary to popular belief.) ;)


That's just how it worked out. In retrospect it should have been obvious that while they were adequate with Chris Clark at LT, Zane Beadles at G and Orlando Franklin at RT that just wasn't going to be good enough in the SB against a ferocious Seahawks defense.
It was obvious with foresight or even presentsight, except for Clarks "adequacy." Clark was never adequate, because he has the same problem as Franklin: Good vs. bull rushes, but too slow and clumsy to handle any kind of speed or stunt. We might have been better off with him at LG and quick-but-weak Beadles at LT (we DID draft him as an OT.)


Same thing here. The Broncos can obviously get through the regular season with Tyler Polumbus or Ryan Harris at LT. They might even get home field advantage, win a game and possibly get to host the AFC Championship against the Patriots.

And, just like in 2013, they might beat the Patriots and go to the SB.

But, what happens if they face the Seahawks again in the SB? (Just suppose).

Would this OL really be any better at protecting Peyton and opening running lanes than the 2013 OL?
That's a fair question that remains pivotal, but here's the thing:

Green Bay had more sacks than anyone but us and a 42-game sack stread UNTIL WE BROKE THAT STREAK SUNDAY.

It was only one game after 5 awful ones, followed by a trip to Cleveland with "adequate" protection and improved (though still inconsistent) run blocking. And it was a home game, with the team pumped by honoring Mr. Bowlen in absentia and most of our former champions returning to do so. But it WAS still strong reason to believe we're actually in pretty good shape; I'm actually more worried about OT depth (there's literally NOTHING after Polumbus) than the starters now.


Well, with Joe Thomas they sure as hell would. There's no doubt about that. Joe Thomas can block Michael Bennett or Cliff Avril one on one in a huge game and win almost all of the time.

He's the best in the NFL and he can flat stone-wall just about anybody.

But, they don't have him. Are they going to need him to win a SB?

We can't know until we get there (if we ever do) and then it will be too late if it turns out "whoops! I guess we should have made that trade after all."

That's why Elway should have made the trade. Because if this is Peyton's last year who knows when they will ever get another chance at a SB? It might not be until every current Bronco is retired. That happens all the time in the NFL.
If this is Peytons last year (probable,) Oz bombs (likely) AND we have no 2017 1st rounder (averted) you can take it for granted we won't reach another SB till all of most of this roster retires. Is that risk worth shoring up one last gasp with Manning when it may not even be necessary? We DON'T know if we need Thomas to reach, much less, win the SB AND we don't know if we need our 1st 2017 pick to reach, much less win, any MORE SBs.

If we'd been talking next years 1st and the following 2nd (i.e. what we gave for Zimmerman) I'd totally support the trade, and Elway probably would've made it without a second thought. But an unknown 1st when we've got an unknown starting QB next year... no way. Thomas isn't worth more than Zimmerman.

[Cugel]

There's no way to be sure, no; GMs always say cuts are the hardest part of their job, but predicting all possible futures to plan all possible contingencies actually is.
. . . .

If this is Peytons last year (probable,) Oz bombs (likely) AND we have no 2017 1st rounder (averted) you can take it for granted we won't reach another SB till all of most of this roster retires. Is that risk worth shoring up one last gasp with Manning when it may not even be necessary? We DON'T know if we need Thomas to reach, much less, win the SB AND we don't know if we need our 1st 2017 pick to reach, much less win, any MORE SBs.

If we'd been talking next years 1st and the following 2nd (i.e. what we gave for Zimmerman) I'd totally support the trade, and Elway probably would've made it without a second thought. But an unknown 1st when we've got an unknown starting QB next year... no way. Thomas isn't worth more than Zimmerman.

I thought Gary Zimmerman was an UFA?

As for this season, well maybe this team is going to be more effective running the ball than the 2013 Broncos. Knowshon Moreno rushed for 1,038 yards that season. This year, Ronnie Hillman, their leading rusher is on pace for 875 yards. Hopefully that will improve with better OL play. But, we don't KNOW that.

The proposed deal was actually slanted a bit towards Denver. It looks like the Broncos will win at least 12 games this year, so that 2nd round pick is somewhere around 59 (or worse) and is worth at most 310 points - almost a third rounder. No wonder the Browns didn't want to give back their 3rd round pick (which might be the #1 overall pick of the 3rd round!).

I just heard an interview with Bill Polian where he said he looked at all the Broncos tape for the season and doesn't think Peyton's physically unable to play at all. He thinks Peyton could return next year and play if he wants to. And they might want him to. "Is Peyton's arm the same as when he was 27? No. But, I looked at the tape and I can't see any physical reason Peyton couldn't come back and play another year."

They would sign Brock essentially to sit on the bench for 1 more year, and let Petyon play out his contract. Until this last game I reluctantly concluded that Peyton was so upset with the criticism, the pressure and the frustration of having to do things Kubiak's way, but not having any success, that this was definitely going to be his last year.

But, if this team wins, say, 14 games and gets a bye in the playoffs and advances to the AFC Championship game, even if they don't go to a SB, how much would you bet that Peyton wouldn't want to come back for one more year?

Because I wouldn't put a tic-tac on that bet. John Elway is going to have a LOT to say about whether they want Peyton back. If Peyton plays anything like he did in the Packers game, they're going to want him back.

And does 14 wins look so improbable now? The Broncos should have 8 after this weekend and will be favored in every remaining game but the Pats.

Everything will depend on how he does the rest of the year, but we must concede that its a realistic chance he WILL come back next year. I've said this all along, and now it appears I might be right.

If Peyton comes back next season with this defense, this team is going to be drafting somewhere in the late 20's or 30's again - i.e. they win at least 10 games and probably make the playoffs. And that 1st round pick won't be worth squat.

In both the 2014 draft and the 2015 draft the Eagles went 10-6, missed the playoffs, and had the 20th pick and 23rd pick respectively. Those picks were worth 850 and 720 points respectively. If the team wins the normal 12 games Peyton has averaged over his career, regardless of what they did in the playoffs, then the draft position would be worse.

But, that's not great draft position. Even with Brock, a better run game, and this defense, it's wildly unlikely the Broncos will be drafting in the top 15 (i.e. 8-8 or worse).

I'd say taking the Joe Thomas deal and giving up the equivalent of a mid first-round pick (1050 points or so) was an absolute no brainer. Of course they should have taken the deal.

The only reason they didn't do it is that teams seem to wildly over value their draft picks, when in reality, those picks are at best a crap shoot as to whether the player is even any good. (The 2nd round pick they are surrendering this year would be worse than the one they used to draft useless WR Cody Latimer).