PDA

View Full Version : Mark Schlereth Calls Out Elway To Make A Trade Happen!



Cugel
04-15-2017, 04:00 PM
[Is there a deal in the works? Mark Schlereth talks about Ty Sambrailo - and not at all in a nice way! ]


Q: “OK. How do the Broncos proceed now that they know Tony Romo is not in their plans?”

Mark Schlereth: “I think John Elway and the Broncos have to use all means necessary to secure a Left Tackle who can actually play.

Now if you think you’re going to draft one of these young guys, and you’re going to put him in at the left tackle and that kid is just going to produce, then I think you’re living a bit of a pipe dream. I think that is hard to do. I think that is really hard to come out of college into the NFL and play the toughest position in football next to quarterback . And that’s Left Tackle. It’s just a hard position to play.

And you’re insulated if you play on the inside [at guard] And that is why you see guys you see guys like Jonathan Ogden who is a Hall of Fame Left Tackle. You know where Jonathan Ogden started his career? He was a first round pick out of UCLA at the left tackle position. Where did he start? He started at left guard for a year. Because you’re insulated. You have a tackle on your outside and a center on your inside. You’re playing in a phone booth. And you can learn the game there at the guard position. We have seen this consistently.

Last year, Laremy Tunsil, #13 pick overall to the Miami Dolphins, where did he start? He started at left guard. So you insulate those guys, you teach them how to play the game. You keep a body presence on both sides of them, and you let them learn before you move them out and transition them to left tackle.

Well, the Broncos, take a look at them. They went out and got Ronald Leary to play left guard. It’s going to be really hard to sell anybody that you’re going to be OK there drafting a rookie left tackle and then sending them out saying ‘OK, go get ‘em Tiger!’ It just hasn’t worked.”

Q: “OK, so you’re not going to draft someone who can plug and play [step in and start his rookie year] and you’re certainly not going to sign anyone now. I mean it was a lousy left tackle market back when everybody was out there, let alone where you are right now. That leaves you with one option and one option alone. You’ve got to go make a trade. Well, who are we looking at? What’s the short list? Who are the couple, two or three guys who might be available out there?

Mark Schlereth: “I think you have to look at a couple of different things. I think there are three guys out there. Three guys where for the right price I think you could make a deal.

You take a look at Cleveland. Cleveland knows that they are a ways away from being competitive. You still have to go through Cincinnati, Baltimore and Pittsburgh in your own division. And you don’t have a quarterback, as your roster is currently constructed whom you believe can play. And you don’t think Cody Kessler is going to be the answer to a trivia question ‘who brought Cleveland out of the doldrums.’ Cause that guy’s not the answer.

You’re probably going to have to draft another guy. So, you’re in a rebuilding process. So could you trade some draft picks away. Package maybe a Shaquil Barrett whom them had some interest in at one time. So, you find a way to get yourself a left tackle, when, Cleveland, you know Joe Thomas has, what? Two, three good years left in him? And you know that you’re probably not, in two or three years going to be competitive with Pittsburgh, cause they still have Roethlisberger rolling. And I think that part could make sense. And the Broncos would have to put a package of picks and players together [to trade].

Just the contract that Kyle Shanahan and John Lynch signed in San Francisco, six years deals, says to you ‘we suck. And we know it.’ Joe Staley is a little bit longer in the tooth. I think he’s younger than Joe Thomas, but he’s been a pretty good tackle, an elite pro-bowl Left Tackle for quite some time in this league. Is that maybe a guy they could shift some picks to and maybe another position player?

I look at who they’ve drafted, and it looks like they are going to draft the kid out of Stanford who plays D-line. Solomon Thomas. They’re going to take him. And I think he could transition into a game-wrecking 3-techique nickel guy, but does he have the versatility to play a 5-technique defensive end in a 3-4 [DE plays outside the offensive tackle]and slide down in nickel situations. And one thing, and I called the S.F. 49ers game for ESPN Radio. They did not have an edge presence. They drafted a bunch of defensive linemen who in my mind are 5-technique slide down over the G guys. They don’t have an edge presence. So, could you put a Shaquil Barrett out there with a draft pick and get yourself a Joe Staley in return? That also makes sense to me.

And then the last one, and one that we’ve talked about here, and one that I really like is Jason Peters. In Philadelphia you’re going to have to pay Lane Johnson. He is an elite athlete. And you don’t want to pay an elite athlete big money at the right tackle position. That guy has got to play Left Tackle for you. And you were considering letting Jason Peters go as a cap casualty. Could you maybe put a couple of picks together and go get a Jason Peters, who is still one of the best guys in the league at that position? Maybe you don’t even have to give up a player. Maybe it’s just a couple of draft picks. Maybe it’s just a second and a third rounder. Here you go. To solidify that position.

So, those are the three options that in my mind would instantly, instantly, make me feel a ton better, not just about how this offense is, but about the quarterback going forward.”

Q: “Well then, there’s no excuse not to do that then. You’ve got 10 picks. Again for those of you who aren’t up to speed on what the Broncos have. You’ve got your first round pick at #20 overall. You have a second round pick, #51. You have two third round picks, #82 and #101. A 4th round pick, a 5th round pick and 3 seventh round picks. You’ve got the ammunition to move. “
Mark Schlereth: “Yeah. You can move around.”

Q: “So I gather this together: you feel it has to be a trade. That they have the assets to pull off a trade, and that if they pulled one of these guys on board, you’d feel infinitely better about the offensive line than you do right now. So, there’s no excuse not to get a deal done!”

Mark Schlereth: “Here’s what I know. We had Cecil Lammey on yesterday and we talked about the inability of 2nd and 3rd round picks to hit here. So, you’ve got a 2nd and you’ve got 2 3rd rounders. So, there’s the ammunition. And I also know from having watched this team for the last 5 or 6 years that they have not truly developed an offensive lineman. Well, you can make the excuse that Matt Paradis has turned out pretty well, and he has, so they’ve developed one. And how many have they taken?

Maybe you could make an argument that Schofield has developed at G, but come on! That’s a guy who should be a backup. So, you haven’t developed a guy. You haven’t made great picks with your second and third rounders . . . .”
Q: “Sorry to interrupt but do you want to know how bad their second round picks have been? If anything I would give away my second round pick rather than making a second round pick! Here’s their second round picks going back to 2011, John Elway’s first draft. Second round picks everybody! Second round picks: Orlando Franklin, Rahim Moore, Brock Osweiler, Derek Wolfe, Montee Ball, Cody Latimer, Ty Sambrailo and Adam Gotsis. Those are second round picks people!

Mark Schlereth: [low whistle]. And in today’s world of the draft you see a lot of people trade out of the first round after around pick 20, to get into the 2nd round, because the philosophy is that after around pick #20, there’s not a whole lot that separates pick number 20, from pick number 50. There’s just not enough of a discernable difference in terms of athletic ability/football acumen but there is a boatload of difference in the amount you pay him. So, you see some teams unable to get out of pick #25. Everybody’s like “Naw. No thanks. You can keep that pick. Good luck with that. Because you’ve got pick #25, and we’ve got pick #42 and we think we’re going to get basically the same exact player. Caliber wise.

So, if you could move that pick and get an asset who is a proven guy, why would you not do that? And especially given that track record Mike!”
Q: “Well, let’s start talking about 3rd round picks.”

Mark Schlereth: “Oh, no!”

Q: “A high value pick, right? In the eyes of NFL GMs, scouts, draft-niks, still a valuable pick. Right? Ton of value. Well, here’s who the Broncos have drafted in the 3rd round under Elway: Nate Irving, Ronnie Hillman, Kavyon Webster, Michael Schofield, Jeff Heurman, and Justin Simmons. Now Webster turned out to be a great special teams guy, and that was it. And Simmons, well he showed some things.”

Mark Schlereth: “Jury’s out but I think Simmons is going to be a good player.”
Q: “So, that’s it.”

Mark Schlereth: “Ooof!”

Q: “So, at the risk of getting myself knocked out of the circle, it kinda makes what the Patriots have been doing make sense. Trade unproven, crapshoot draft picks, for proven veterans that you know can play. And if you were the Broncos, why in the world would you be dead set on holding onto a 2nd our 3rd round pick, or both, at the expense of going out and trading for one of these Offensive Tackles that you’re talking about? If that is indeed the asking price.”

Mark Schlereth: “Yeah, it would be foolish not to make that move. Now, I don’t know what the asking price is, but I imagine that with one of those three guys, I think you could find a solution. There’s always a compromise out there, there’s always a solution if you are willing to work hard enough to make that a reality. Now if you buy into the pipe dream of ‘we’re going to draft a player’ or maybe, and I’ve heard this, one, [sarcastic voice] ‘all Sambrailo needs is some time in the weight room. You know with the injuries and all that time he’s missed, he just hasn’t had that time.’

Q: “So, you’ve seen enough from Ty Sambrailo. You’ve moved on. You’ve already seen everything you need to see about a 2nd round pick who was drafted with the idea that he would become a starting left tackle for this team for a long time. I mean, if you draft a tackle in the 2nd round, you’ve got a really good feeling that this guy could be a real stalwart for six or seven years or so. You’ve already seen enough. You’re labeling him a bust?”

Mark Schlereth: “OK. I agree with ‘he needs time in the weight room. He has been injured. That’s not the ideal way to start a career. All those things. But, do I believe that he’s ever going to be a better than average starting left tackle in this league? NO. I think he could be a good swing tackle for you. I think he’s the same thing as Michael Schofield. They’re swing tackles. They’re backup tackles. Now, that’s subject to change. I could be wrong, but that’s my impression. When he got the opportunity to start for Donald Stephenson last year, that was. . . . that was frankly one of those kind of games that sometimes you don’t recover from. I mean, that was ugly with a capital-U ! “
Q: “That was a nationally televised game, you know.”

Mark Schlereth: “Oh, my goodness!”

Q: “That was against the Chiefs, and I don’t remember who the announcers were, but they were saying on air ‘you have got to get him out of there.’

Mark Schlereth: “I think it was the Sunday Night crew with Chris Collinsworth.”
Q: “I think you’re right. I have never seen an offensive lineman put under a national spotlight that negatively, to the point where the announcers are saying ‘you’ve got to get him out of there.’

Mark Schlereth: “I’ll tell you how bad that game was for me watching that. I had nightmares. My goodness! I couldn’t even be critical. He was just so overmatched. And that was not just strength issues, ‘I haven’t been in the weight room’ it was pure technique issues, and it was just ugly! Just UGLY! And so, yet again, I’m not trying to bash the kid. And I know the kid probably hates my guts, and I understand. Sometimes I don’t even like myself. I just can’t quit me! I can’t quit me! [laughing] ”
[I'd have to say I pretty much agree with all of this. They need to make a deal!]

Northman
04-15-2017, 04:21 PM
I dont think Elway really cares what other people think of the team, none of them are the GM.

Hawgdriver
04-15-2017, 05:18 PM
I dont think Elway really cares what other people think of the team, none of them are the GM.

Then how do you explain the Tebow thing?

Devil's advocate.

Suck for Luck?

Valar Morghulis
04-15-2017, 05:20 PM
Then how do you explain the Tebow thing? Devil's advocate. Suck for Luck?

Are you implying he gave into the billboard pressure?

I think it had more to do with Kyle Orton or have I missed your point?

Hawgdriver
04-15-2017, 05:24 PM
Are you implying he gave into the billboard pressure?

I think it had more to do with Kyle Orton or have I missed your point?

That is what I implied. Am I off base?

Denver Native (Carol)
04-15-2017, 05:31 PM
ENGLEWOOD—John Elway can make the biggest draft splash of his career as the Denver Broncos’ general manager.

Here’s how: Elway uses the No. 20 overall draft pick on local legend Christian McCaffrey. Elway then trades his No. 51 pick in the second round, and his third-round compensatory pick (No. 101 overall) to the Cleveland Browns in exchange for left tackle Joe Thomas.

Ba Da Boom. Ba Da Bing.

War room phone drop. War room walk off.

Elway could then let his top assistant, Matt Russell, and new head coach Vance Joseph handle the final six picks in four rounds 4 through 7 for all anyone cares.

I’m not saying Elway is considering such maneuvers with his two top two draft picks. I am saying this would stir the most excitement and get this Broncos region thinking Super Bowl again.

I also think the McCaffrey-veteran left tackle idea coming out of their top two picks – if not Thomas, the Broncos should also consider taking a run at Philadelphia’s Jason Peters, or someone of that ilk -- must be a package deal. I don’t think the Broncos would take McCaffrey at No. 20 if they don’t have their left tackle in place.

rest - http://www.9news.com/sports/broncos-biggest-draft-splash-would-be-christian-mccaffrey-joe-thomas/431329265

Sounds good to me, but some are predicting that Christian will not last until the 20th pick.

Valar Morghulis
04-15-2017, 05:38 PM
That is what I implied. Am I off base?

I don't know mate, I think he knew the McDaniels era had left fans frustrated and Kyle Orton was depressing us even more, so I think the coaches probably felt like the team and fans could use an injection of energy.... And I think elway agreed with his coaches, and Tebow got the nod.

Hawgdriver
04-15-2017, 07:23 PM
I don't know mate, I think he knew the McDaniels era had left fans frustrated and Kyle Orton was depressing us even more, so I think the coaches probably felt like the team and fans could use an injection of energy.... And I think elway agreed with his coaches, and Tebow got the nod.

Don't know either...but w/e's...I trust Elway's gut feel for things.

Just wish he would quit gambling with the Oz's and Paxton's of the world when they seem, after the fact, so obviously not franchise dudes.

{Paxton has this year.}

Cugel
04-15-2017, 07:35 PM
rest - http://www.9news.com/sports/broncos-biggest-draft-splash-would-be-christian-mccaffrey-joe-thomas/431329265

Sounds good to me, but some are predicting that Christian will not lost until the 20th pick.

Some experts are projecting that Christian may actually go inside the top 10 at #8 to Carolina. Out of four mocks, on NFL.com 2 had him going at #8, one at #14 to the Eagles and one at #19 to the Bucs. None had him there at #20 when the Broncos draft. And all five mock drafts had the Broncos taking a T at #20. U gh!

I just don't think the Browns are going to trade Joe Thomas. They should have done it last year! How many more games could they possibly have lost without him? 15 instead of 14? What actual difference did he make? They need more draft picks than 35 year old players. BUT, they are the Browns. They aren't trading him.

Could be the 49ers but they might want too much and some other team might offer more. It would be a mistake to think the Broncos are the only team trying to trade for a LT. If the Broncos made an offer to S.F. they would shop that offer and try and get more from someone else.

No, I think Denver is just going to suck at LT this year, like last year only worse. Perhaps they reach for a T at #20, but that won't make the kid any better! They pretty much have to make a deal with the Eagles. IT's pretty much that or bust.

Cugel
04-15-2017, 07:53 PM
I dont think Elway really cares what other people think of the team, none of them are the GM.

Of course Elway can't afford to care what anybody else is saying. But that doesn't mean he's necessarily right. He has certainly not been very right with his 2nd and 3rd round picks since he came here. Other than Derek Wolfe they've been pretty uniformly bad. So, Elway thumbing his nose at criticism isn't going to make it go away.

And he's going to have to produce this off-season. He has to do a hell of a lot better in the 2nd round than Adam Gotsis or Montee Ball if this team is ever to make it back to the playoffs and make another run at a championship.

Guys who might be there at #20 include: RB Dalvin Cook, S Jabrill Peppers, TE Njoku, as well as several QBs teams may want to trade up into the first round to get. I'd say trade the Broncos 2nd rounder and 3rd rounder for Joe Staley or Jason Peters. Then trade back out of the first round for a 2nd and 4th round pick or something from some team that wants to draft a franchise QB who won't be there in the 2nd round when they draft.

Cleveland comes to mind actually. If they were smart they'd use their #1 pick on Myles Garrett, their #12 pick on on defensive help like LB Reuben Foster or DE Jonathan Allen. Then they trade their #1 pick of the 2nd round. plus their 3rd rounder, which is the first pick of the 3rd round, to the Broncos in exchange for the Broncos #20 and they draft Pat Mahomes or Deshaun Watson as their franchise QB. Even if they don't trade Joe Thomas that's a big upgrade for their team since they get three immediate starters and two for sure impact players. If they traded Thomas it would be even more. But, I don't expect them to do anything that smart.

OrangeHoof
04-15-2017, 08:43 PM
I think the Broncos may need to give up more in a trade down. In every mock I do, I trade two of their 7ths for an extra 5th. Even if the Broncos trade for a LT, I still think they should draft one to develop. I've seen enough of Schofield (who I've been calling 'Schumaker" for unknown reasons).

King87
04-15-2017, 09:54 PM
Stink is an idiot and he needs to shut the **** up.

BroncoWave
04-15-2017, 10:03 PM
Stink is an idiot and he needs to shut the **** up.

Stink has good takes sometimes, but he annoys the shit out of me because he's one of those ex-players who loves to remind people at every opportunity that he played in the NFL, and that therefore makes him more knowledgeable about football than someone who didn't. It's almost like he's trying to convince himself that he knows what he's talking about.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
04-15-2017, 10:05 PM
Stink is an idiot and he needs to shut the **** up.

Thank you

King87
04-15-2017, 10:13 PM
Stink has good takes sometimes, but he annoys the shit out of me because he's one of those ex-players who loves to remind people at every opportunity that he played in the NFL, and that therefore makes him more knowledgeable about football than someone who didn't. It's almost like he's trying to convince himself that he knows what he's talking about.

Every last time I have read one of his takes I can think of a very obvious rebuttal that...man he sucks. I said it. He sucks and when he's good he's never going to give you a take that no one else could give you. Maybe I'm committing sacrilegious actions...but I think he's dookie butter.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
04-15-2017, 10:17 PM
Every last time I have read one of his takes I can think of a very obvious rebuttal that...man he sucks. I said it. He sucks and when he's good he's never going to give you a take that no one else could give you. Maybe I'm committing sacrilegious actions...but I think he's dookie butter.

Schlereth is a smart dude. It's unfortunate he's turned into a shock jock.

King87
04-15-2017, 10:33 PM
Schlereth is a smart dude. It's unfortunate he's turned into a shock jock.

I'll take your word, sir. I believe in you!

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
04-15-2017, 10:36 PM
I'll take your word, sir. I believe in you!

Haha! I concur at times he makes it hard to discern.

BeefStew25
04-15-2017, 10:42 PM
I love him. And he's mostly right.

DT88TheGreat
04-16-2017, 01:29 AM
Unless we can.get joe thomas for a 2nd I'd rather draft 10 guys, 4 of them offensive lineman and see who sticks, if we can go 2 out of 4 I'd call it a success. Not too mention we definitely need to pump some speed into the offense at the WR and RB/TE positions. So I dont know if we should be looking at 10 picks and just wanting to trade them all away for one single player when our offense has so little punch outside of just two guys (DT/E-Man)

DenBronx
04-16-2017, 02:45 AM
McCaffery is going to be gone before 20. So lets just get that part out of the way.

Next, I do like the idea of getting a LT via trade. But no more than a 2nd n 3rd round pick. I am talking pro bowl LT that has maybe 4 years left. We suck with our 2nd round picks anyway.

So..I want both McCaffery AND a LT but we're going to have to deal picks for both of them.

BOOM Playoffs!

Timmy!
04-16-2017, 05:14 AM
#okungorbust

Ziggy
04-16-2017, 07:09 AM
McCaffery is going to be gone before 20. So lets just get that part out of the way.

Next, I do like the idea of getting a LT via trade. But no more than a 2nd n 3rd round pick. I am talking pro bowl LT that has maybe 4 years left. We suck with our 2nd round picks anyway.

So..I want both McCaffery AND a LT but we're going to have to deal picks for both of them.

BOOM Playoffs!

So in a nutshell, you want a pro bowl left tackle for a 2nd and 3rd round pick. Oh, and one that has 4 maybe years left. Here ya go DB-

http://images.redbox.com/Images/EPC/boxartvertical/200000.jpg

Denver Native (Carol)
04-16-2017, 08:20 AM
The Denver Broncos have options at the 20th pick in the 2017 NFL Draft, but will they look at the offensive line or for a playmaker?

After weeks of vetting and meeting with a bevy of prospects, it’s almost executive decision time for the Denver Broncos brass as the 2017 NFL Draft looms. The team is flush with 10 selections this year — the most they’ve held since 2004 — and the paramount discussion naturally concerns who they should take with the 20th overall pick come April 27 in Philadelphia.

Wrapped around that debate, however, is the consensus that the Broncos need either an immediate offensive playmaker or a talented left tackle who’s ready to start and protect the neck of his quarterback. Ranking 22nd in total offense due to a 27th-ranked ground game and a 21st-ranked passing attack, the Broncos offense from 2016 is clearly in need of redress in at least three areas.

With only center and Pro-Bowl alternate Matt Paradis shining up front, the weak collective play from the behemoths in the trenches made the offense implode from the inside-out. Of course, It certainly didn’t help matters that Denver found themselves defending a Super Bowl title with a redshirt freshman quarterback and a rookie tailback forced to become a workhorse following C.J. Anderson’s torn meniscus in late-October.

Charged with keeping opposing mitts off of kiddos Siemian, Lynch, and Booker, the O-line faltered and clocked-out as the NFL’s ninth-worst unit.

Last year, Bronco quarterbacks were sacked 40 times (ninth-most in the league) and knocked-down 101 times (seventh-most). And not that anyone needs reminding, but the tackle positions were especially flimsy. Russell Okung and Donald Stephenson failed miserably to earn their keep on the edges after signing-on in free agency; Stephenson, in fact, graded-out as the worst offensive lineman in football last season according to a January survey from Pro Football Focus. At 28, the five-year veteran is still in the mix at left tackle, as is the similarly worrying and more inexperienced Ty Sambrailo.

Consequently, ESPN comedy duo Mel Kiper Jr. and Todd McShay have the Broncos addressing their ultimate need in lieu of lightning in their latest mock drafts. Kiper sees Wisconsin left tackle Ryan Ramczyk cutting a fine figure in orange, while McShay thinks Denver will opt for Alabama tackle Cam Robinson if he’s available. Should he be off-the-board by then, Utah’s Garett Bolles will become the team’s beacon of hope on the blindside.

rest - http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/denver-broncos-will-tackle-or-playmaker-prevail-with-20th-pick-041517

OrangeHoof
04-16-2017, 10:26 AM
I don't think a trade-up for McCaffrey is a smart thing to do. If he falls to 20 and we take him, ok. But giving up extra pieces to get him is too high a price. If McCaffrey is gone, go get an OT unless you've already got the deal in place to get a veteran LT like Thomas, Peters or Staley.

Cugel
04-16-2017, 12:30 PM
McCaffery is going to be gone before 20. So lets just get that part out of the way.

Next, I do like the idea of getting a LT via trade. But no more than a 2nd n 3rd round pick. I am talking pro bowl LT that has maybe 4 years left. We suck with our 2nd round picks anyway.

So..I want both McCaffery AND a LT but we're going to have to deal picks for both of them.

BOOM Playoffs!

I'd say your sentiment is about 80% of all Broncos fans at this point. McCaffrey is likely to be gone, but there are TONS of good players who might be available at #20 who could come in and make an impact. I've even seen mocks where OJ Howard is available at #20, the best TE in a very deep TE class. Not likely, but some immediate impact player will be there.

I just don't want to see what every single mock has us doing: taking a T at #20 who will come in and not be any better than Schofield or Ty Sambrailo at LT in 2017. Another year wasted while Aquib Talib and TJ Ward get older.

IF they don't get a veteran starting LT via trade then all the critics who insisted that the team had to sign a LT in FA will be proven right. The worst thing about it, Trevor is quite fragile. I mean, he's been hurt in every single season since High School (6 years). They need a LT.

That's why everybody on the radio keeps harping on it, and why there's so much scepticism, and why every mock draft has Denver taking a tackle at #20. You just cannot trot out a rookie and say "go get 'em Tiger!" and expect that not to be a disaster. They tried that with Sambrailo once before remember, when Clady got hurt in 2015?

The guy is a bust. Even forgetting the injury, he just didn't play at all well when he got the chance. He didn't even show a glimmer. Instead it was a disaster. You heard Stink's evaluation - so bad that he felt sorry for the dude and couldn't even criticize him. And the announcers were saying "you have to get that guy out of there."

Let's just get used to that fact and move on. Unfortunately they just don't have a starting LT on the roster. IT's pretty much down to a trade or total fiasco at this point.

Cugel
04-16-2017, 12:41 PM
So in a nutshell, you want a pro bowl left tackle for a 2nd and 3rd round pick. Oh, and one that has 4 maybe years left. Here ya go DB-

http://images.redbox.com/Images/EPC/boxartvertical/200000.jpg

Did you even read Stink's commentary that I typed out so laboriously? Jason Peters could be available. He's an elite LT but they have Lane Johnson who is an elite athlete who is much younger and cheaper, and he's playing RT. They are paying Lane Johnson nearly $10M. Johnson was the #4 pick of the draft in 2013 and he's proven to be ready to move to the left side.

So, they have to move him to LT. You just don't want to pay Jason Peters $11.2 M to play RT for you. But, his dead cap space is only $2M so the obvious move is for them to trade Peters and move their 27 year old franchise LT they took in the top 10 picks 3 years ago have the job.

Peters was very nearly a cap casualty in February, but when the Eagles looked at the market they figured that they might as well keep him around and see if they can generate some interest for a trade.

So, it's up to Elway to get it done! He's said "we're going to handle it" - getting a starting LT for 2017. Well, he'd damn well better handle it! "I John we trust?" OK. I'm on board with that. Now let's see some action!

Cugel
04-16-2017, 12:49 PM
I don't think a trade-up for McCaffrey is a smart thing to do. If he falls to 20 and we take him, ok. But giving up extra pieces to get him is too high a price. If McCaffrey is gone, go get an OT unless you've already got the deal in place to get a veteran LT like Thomas, Peters or Staley.

Christian McCaffrey is NOT the only impact player who could be there at #20. David Njoku, the Miami TE, WRs John Ross & Corey Davis could be there, etc.

And they can't ALL be taken in the top 20. SOMEBODY is going to fall. What if you're sitting there at #20 and LB Marshawn Lattimore is there who is a consensus top 10 talent? Would you pass up a chance to get a guy who in 2 or 3 years might be another Aquib Talib? You have to take that talent, just as they did with Shane Ray and Bradley Roby. Those guys were NOT "need positions" at the time but they've turned out to be great players and starters and now they lose DeMarcus Ware, but they have Shane Ray ready to step in. The guy got 8 sacks last year as a backup.

That's what you have to do with every single draft: draft elite talent in the first round. The best available guy. NOT plug a gaping hole because you stupidly didn't manage to sign a veteran FA LT or trade for one.

Meanwhile this is what EVERY SINGLE Mock Draft is saying:
"Broncos: Garett Bolles, OT, Utah

image: http://walterfootball.com/college/Utah_logo.gif
The Broncos have an extremely dubious tackle situation, which they almost have to address with an early-round selection. Menelik Watson, Donald Stephenson and Ty Samrailo are their top three tackles, and all three of them are horrible. Tony Romo just retired, but even if he had joined the Broncos, it wouldn't have mattered very much because Denver wouldn't have been able to block for him.

It's either Garett Bolles or Ryan Ramczyk for the Broncos. Bolles had a terrific combine, and I get the feeling that he's higher on Denver's board than Ramczyk.

Read more at http://walterfootball.com/mocks/nfl/2017/Offensive-Tackle#sbKVRhy3e7VluT6J.99

Everybody thinks the Broncos dropped the ball in FA and now have no choice but to take a T.

Well, if Elway does that there will be hell to pay, and quite rightly too! Bolles or Ramczyk are NOT the best available players at #20!

King87
04-16-2017, 12:53 PM
I see Walterfootball is prone to awful hyperbole, too.

OrangeHoof
04-16-2017, 01:07 PM
Cugel, if LT isn't addressed, the Broncos are doomed. It's that simple. All the "impact" RBs and TEs are worthless if we can't slow down speed rushers. How they address the issue is fine but they have to address it before anything else.

If the Broncos think Bolles is their answer, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. Duane Brown was a LT choice as the 26th overall choice and has been a Pro Bowler more than once so it *can* happen but I'd be happier with an established veteran even if it costs us our #1 pick and some extras. The McCaffreys and Njokus are just wet dreams right now until we take care of our more immediate needs.

Northman
04-16-2017, 01:18 PM
I see Walterfootball is prone to awful hyperbole, too.

I used to use them as a reference to doing my mock drafts but then realized that some of their approaches to teams are completely off and uninformed. They have had Denver in the past taking players they had no business even looking at. Not the best reference point really.

Northman
04-16-2017, 01:20 PM
The McCaffreys and Njokus are just wet dreams right now until we take care of our more immediate needs.

They may or may not be gone before Denver drafts but if for some reason McCaffrey is there you dont pass up on him. At the end of the day you still need playmakers and difference makers. Its still about value for the pick and the draft rarely plays out the way its supposed to.

Cugel
04-16-2017, 01:21 PM
Cugel, if LT isn't addressed, the Broncos are doomed. It's that simple. All the "impact" RBs and TEs are worthless if we can't slow down speed rushers. How they address the issue is fine but they have to address it before anything else.

If the Broncos think Bolles is their answer, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. Duane Brown was a LT choice as the 26th overall choice and has been a Pro Bowler more than once so it *can* happen but I'd be happier with an established veteran even if it costs us our #1 pick and some extras. The McCaffreys and Njokus are just wet dreams right now until we take care of our more immediate needs.

Just because you draft a T in the first round doesn't make that guy better than he is. NO rookie in this draft can just step in and start and be any good. So, is Bolles really much better in the long term than Dion Dawkins, or Taylor Moton, guys who will be available in the 2nd round? They're all developmental guys! All the Ts in this draft are guys you probably need a year or two to develop. I've seen mocks where Ramcyk goes in the top 17. If he was your guy do you just take Bolles? Hell no!

You just can't reach for a guy in the first round. That is just a disaster. And NONE of the tackle prospects are worth the #20 pick because none of them can step in and start. Which means you are either trading for a guy or else trying to get by with Michael Schofield, Ty Sambrailo or Donald Stephenson at LT.

Frankly, if Elway just says: "we tried to find a T in FA but they were all old and overpaid, and we tried to make a trade but couldn't get it done, so we're just drafting a T in the 2nd or 3rd round and seeing what we have with Sambrailo. And maybe we can swing a trade or a guy gets cut in training camp we can bring in and get by for a season." I'd be OK with that.

You can appease a bunch of clueless fans by drafting a T at #20 and say "well they addressed the problem." NO! No they haven't! Not unless you really think that guy will step in and be another Ryan Clady. But, Clady was the #12 pick of the draft and would go in the top 3 picks if he were in this draft.

King87
04-16-2017, 01:22 PM
Mayock has three tackles with first round grades on them. Thus far, Mayock is the best 'source' I've seen about the tackles.

Hawgdriver
04-16-2017, 01:23 PM
They may or may not be gone before Denver drafts but if for some reason McCaffrey is there you dont pass up on him. At the end of the day you still need playmakers and difference makers. Its still about value for the pick and the draft rarely plays out the way its supposed to.

Agreed. Outside of QB, you can find a way to fill holes by hook or crook. They may be poorly filled like soft earth that is prone to zombie expurgation, but you can get em filled.

#fillholes

Hawgdriver
04-16-2017, 01:24 PM
Mayock has three tackles with first round grades on them. Thus far, Mayock is the best 'source' I've seen about the tackles.

Like the meh QBs in this class, they benefit from scarcity and demand.

Cugel
04-16-2017, 01:30 PM
They may or may not be gone before Denver drafts but if for some reason McCaffrey is there you dont pass up on him. At the end of the day you still need playmakers and difference makers. Its still about value for the pick and the draft rarely plays out the way its supposed to.

This is absolutely right! What will Broncos fans feel if the Broncos pass on a difference maker at #20 because Elway couldn't find a mediocre LT in FA, only to see Bolles develop into a mediocre LT - in 2018 or 2019! Meanwhile Njoku or McCaffrey is just tearing up the league? Or John Ross develops into a top 10 WR?

THe first round is for impact players, not developmental guys who MIGHT turn into starters in year 2 and maybe will better than average players.

I for one will not be happy, and I will say stuff about that and so will a lot of fans. It will be a serious blight on Elway's performance.

But, I would be very surprised if Elway is stupid enough to just follow the herd and draft a T at #20 unless his scouts are reasonably sure that the guy is a ten year starter. That's what you expect to find at #20 - a guy you can plug in and he can be a stalwart on your team for the next six to 10 years.

First round picks are just too important assets to waste on a guy who isn't a difference maker!

Cugel
04-16-2017, 01:33 PM
Like the meh QBs in this class, they benefit from scarcity and demand.

That's exactly right. None of these guys would be drafted in the first round in a normal year. This is just the worst draft class for Ts in the last 15 years according to one NFL GM. Well, if the guy isn't a first round talent, then don't draft him in the first round.

LOSER teams are so desperate they reach for a player at a position of need. They are always drafting for need, so they pass on play-makers and over-reach for guys who are just average talent. Then their team is mediocre and the coach gets fired and they start over again from scratch. Story of the Cleveland Browns year after year.

Cugel
04-16-2017, 01:37 PM
Agreed. Outside of QB, you can find a way to fill holes by hook or crook. They may be poorly filled like soft earth that is prone to zombie expurgation, but you can get em filled.

#fillholes

That's been my approach all along. That's why I was arguing to just pay Russell Okung $11M he was due. He was mediocre and everybody criticized my approach. But, mediocre is looking pretty good right about now.

He'd certainly be better than either Bolles or Ramczyk their rookie year! And if you don't desperately need a LT, then you can draft a guy in the 3rd round and develop him for a year or 2.

For instance, Alabama LB Reuben Foster could conceivably fall. It's unlikely, but what if someone like that was sitting there and you could draft him? Do you just draft a boring mediocre tackle instead of an impact player just because he plays a position of need? Well, Cleveland and Detroit do stuff like that. Smart teams jump all over that impact player, like Laremy Tunsil who unexpectedly fell to the Dolphins last year at #13, after a video surfaced the day before the draft showing him smoking a gas-mask bong.


"He also seems like a bit of a luxury given high-priced Branden Albert plays left tackle and RT Ja'Wuan James was picked in the first round two years ago. Still, the Dolphins clearly remained true to their board and get a player who will protect QB Ryan Tannehill and should help a 23rd-ranked ground game."

So, the Dolphins already seemed set at T. They didn't need Tunsil, but he was by far the best player on their board so they grabbed him. Smart.

Someone will fall to #20 and the Broncos have to be ready to pounce. Anything else will be a terrible draft failure.

King87
04-16-2017, 01:40 PM
So Elway doesn't sign an overrated and underproducing LT and you'd be mad that he drafts a guy that a lot of analysts feel is a first rounder? So, here's thought - if those guys are barely first round prospects (and note that the big issue is that they've only produced for one year in college) but they're in the same hemisphere as Okung...you replaced his production for a fraction of the cost. That's not even factoring in the notion that they're going to develop on and grow, too.

I think you choose to ignore that Okung was in the bottom quarter of LT play. And the notion that it's worse because we lost out on what? A WR? One of the most bust prone positions? A RB? The position that is deepest with incredible talent this year? If the first round is for impact players, and that's your argument, remove WR from the list. Well, you seem to want immediate impact, but RB can be had in other rounds, so remove that, too. We drafting a QB? Nah? Well that one goes? We need a pass rusher? Nope.

Sometimes you end up drafting an ILB - who many feel are not impact players in a 3-4. No one's ever drafted a DT in the first? Well those guys don't (usually) get a ton of sacks, or stats, so they're no impact players either!

But back to the tackles!

This isn't a good draft for offensive linemen, and that may factor into the decision the Broncos make with the No. 20 pick in the first round, NFL Network analyst Mike Mayock said during an extensive conference call with media from around the continent Monday.

"This is a really bad offensive tackle class," he said, citing only two tackles -- Wisconsin's Ryan Ramczyk and Utah's Garett Bolles -- as potential first-rounders. Mayock said he sees Alabama's Cam Robinson as more of a guard prospect than a tackle.

"Put it this way: I think Ryan Ramczyk is the best tackle in the draft. And to tell you where this draft is for tackles, the two top guys -- Ramczyk and Garett Bolles from Utah -- are both one-year starters in major college football, which is kind of amazing," Mayock said. "I would say that if Ramczyk was in last year's draft, he would be the fourth or fifth [offensive tackle] taken.

http://www.denverbroncos.com/news-and-blogs/article-1/Mike-Mayock-Offensive-tackle-class-is-really-bad-but-plenty-of-quality-elsewhere/4105eb8f-ef66-419c-acea-83d0459ee6a9

So you have to first round grades, albeit not staggeringly high ones. Gues what? I can point to a whole slew of highly touted LT who bused. So there's a certain point where if we take a LT I'm fine. Because the one we had was bad. These ones are rough around the edges, but do have the talent. And while they might be bad, Okung was bad, and if they need time to develop they're just like any other player.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
04-16-2017, 01:45 PM
Take the tackle with upside and coach him up

Timmy!
04-16-2017, 01:48 PM
If we take a tackle at 20 it will be worth it just for the month long, foaming at the mouth while head is exploding Cugel rant(s).

Cugel
04-16-2017, 01:51 PM
So Elway doesn't sign an overrated and underproducing LT and you'd be mad that he drafts a guy that a lot of analysts feel is a first rounder? So, here's thought - if those guys are barely first round prospects (and note that the big issue is that they've only produced for one year in college) but they're in the same hemisphere as Okung...you replaced his production for a fraction of the cost. That's not even factoring in the notion that they're going to develop on and grow, too.

You're missing the entire point.

You're talking entirely about need. The Broncos need a LT, so they grab a guy at #20 who is *meh* - maybe some scouts have barely a first round grade on him. Mayock points out in the quote you cite that these guys would be the 4th or 5th T taken in last years' draft.

Know who the 5th best T taken in the 2016 draft was? Jason Spriggs, taken by Green Bay at #48 of the second round! And THAT is about where all of these Ts should be taken! Denver cannot be the team that reaches. To reach is to set your franchise back for years because you overdraft a player who will be mediocre.

Denver has already had enough of that kind of problem drafting guys like Montee Ball and Adam Gotsis in the 2nd round. They don't need to draft a mediocre talent in the first round and "develop" him. The first round is NOT for developmental players!

Cugel
04-16-2017, 01:55 PM
If we take a tackle at 20 it will be worth it just for the month long, foaming at the mouth while head is exploding Cugel rant(s).

Will it be worth it 3 years from now when guys taken after #20 turn out to be studs while Bolles is at best mediocre?

Are you laughing right now about how Adam Gotsis was drafted in the 2nd round? How about Ty Sambrailo in the 2nd round in 2015 and Jeff Heurmann in the 3rd? Two years later and the Broncos are desperately looking to replace both of those busts and NFL experts all have the Broncos drafting AGAIN at both of their positions, maybe in the first round?

Is that a laugh riot for you now? :coffee:

Cugel
04-16-2017, 01:58 PM
Take the tackle with upside and coach him up

In the second or third round, yes. In the first round, hell no! The first round is for impact players. Period.

Timmy!
04-16-2017, 02:04 PM
Will it be worth it 3 years from now when guys taken after #20 turn out to be studs while Bolles is at best mediocre?

Are you laughing right now about how Adam Gotsis was drafted in the 2nd round? How about Ty Sambrailo in the 2nd round in 2015 and Jeff Heurmann in the 3rd? Two years later and the Broncos are desperately looking to replace both of those busts and NFL experts all have the Broncos drafting AGAIN at both of their positions, maybe in the first round?

Is that a laugh riot for you now? :coffee:

I find this post highly amusing, yes.

I'm also aware that the draft is always a gamble and that declaring a prospect will only be "mediocre at best" in 3 years like it is fact is incredibly naive, arrogant, and incredibly dumb. Nostratimmy prefers to be correct about his predictions, and therefore doesn't touch the draft.

King87
04-16-2017, 02:08 PM
I find this post highly amusing, yes.

I'm also aware that the draft is always a gamble and that declaring a prospect will only be "mediocre at best" in 3 years like it is fact is incredibly naive, arrogant, and incredibly dumb. Nostratimmy prefers to be correct about his predictions, and therefore doesn't touch the draft.

Yeah - you might be able to get it down to the 'rough' probabilities, but that's about it. Sometimes you see a guy who is lazy or has another huge flaw going to a dumpster franchise...and that's an easy call. JaMarcus Russell or Manziel were easy ones to spot. A lot of first rounders are guys who end up being okay. FFS, the Bengals were really good at taking former first rounders that were cut from other teams and getting something out of them. Who knows?

The uncertainty doesn't mean teams should be reckless, but you're making an informed gamble. That's all.

King87
04-16-2017, 02:23 PM
You're missing the entire point.

You're talking entirely about need. The Broncos need a LT, so they grab a guy at #20 who is *meh* - maybe some scouts have barely a first round grade on him. Mayock points out in the quote you cite that these guys would be the 4th or 5th T taken in last years' draft.

Know who the 5th best T taken in the 2016 draft was? Jason Spriggs, taken by Green Bay at #48 of the second round! And THAT is about where all of these Ts should be taken! Denver cannot be the team that reaches. To reach is to set your franchise back for years because you overdraft a player who will be mediocre.

Denver has already had enough of that kind of problem drafting guys like Montee Ball and Adam Gotsis in the 2nd round. They don't need to draft a mediocre talent in the first round and "develop" him. The first round is NOT for developmental players!

I've missed nothing. I believe you're deadset on being obtuse.

They would be the fourth or fifth tackle last year. Does that change their first round grade? No - because they still have the first round grade on them by a draft guru. You don't get to run out crappy and suspect sources and then poopoo a better and more trusted source who says the tackles in this class have a first round grade.

I don't know if you follow the draft that much, but the first round holds all kinds of developmental players. Guys with massive amounts of talent but who weren't great or instant fits. For instance, Bud DePree of the Steelers in 2015 was a guy who in college was a beast. But it wasn't really known whether or not he would be a 4-3 DE or a 3-4 OLB. Another term for that type of player is 'tweener'. Vic Beasely is another guy like that, too. Think of every single DB in the first round who wasn't known to be either a pure coverage guy, or a safety. Or a pure coverage CB or a slot DB.

You seem to think the draft process is a very binary, plain, and simple process. This is astounding.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
04-16-2017, 02:23 PM
In the second or third round, yes. In the first round, hell no! The first round is for impact players. Period.

I agree, I wasn't suggesting we take him in the first, unless he's another Ryan Clady

Cugel
04-16-2017, 02:40 PM
I find this post highly amusing, yes.

I'm also aware that the draft is always a gamble and that declaring a prospect will only be "mediocre at best" in 3 years like it is fact is incredibly naive, arrogant, and incredibly dumb. Nostratimmy prefers to be correct about his predictions, and therefore doesn't touch the draft.

Athletic talent is easily seen. Occasionally a player falls but most often the serious impact players in the NFL were first round picks.

QBs are a different story because raw athleticism accounts for much less since the job is primarily mental.

Saying "there's uncertainty in the draft" is NOT the same as saying "it's all a crap shoot!" Only stupid people who don't understand statistics say that.

Just because something is a probability does NOT mean all probabilities are equal! You maximize your chances of getting an impact player by taking elite athletic talent. And no, none of the Ts in this class have elite athletic talent. That is why NFL experts are saying that none of them would have been drafted in the 1st round in a normal year.

Could one or more turn out to be decent NFL players in a year or two? Sure. That's why you draft them in the 2nd round. That is where developmental players with significant upside potential should be taken.

But, you better not draft a guy at #20 unless your scouting department feels very confident he's worth it. And that means you project him as an elite player at the next level.

Now, if they really believe Ryan Ramcyk is that kind of player, fine. But, they better be right!

King87
04-16-2017, 02:45 PM
Athletic talent is easily seen. Occasionally a player falls but most often the serious impact players in the NFL were first round picks.

QBs are a different story because raw athleticism accounts for much less since the job is primarily mental.

Saying "there's uncertainty in the draft" is NOT the same as saying "it's all a crap shoot!" Only stupid people who don't understand statistics say that.

Just because something is a probability does NOT mean all probabilities are equal! You maximize your chances of getting an impact player by taking elite athletic talent. And no, none of the Ts in this class have elite athletic talent. That is why NFL experts are saying that none of them would have been drafted in the 1st round in a normal year.

Could one or more turn out to be decent NFL players in a year or two? Sure. That's why you draft them in the 2nd round. That is where developmental players with significant upside potential should be taken.

But, you better not draft a guy at #20 unless your scouting department feels very confident he's worth it. And that means you project him as an elite player at the next level.

Now, if they really believe Ryan Ramcyk is that kind of player, fine. But, they better be right!

It's not always easily seen. Some guys are slower learners and what is on game tape isn't the hottest or most indicative of talent. That's why the combine is such a gift and a curse. Which explains a lot why guys stock shoot up and spiral downward after the combine. Evaluators get a better look and another piece of the puzzle. But some guys play above their talent, below their talent, etc. Even that isn't clean cut.

No one is saying it's all random. Certain teams draft really well. Certain teams develop certain positions really well. But the rest of your probability post is condescending and not beyond anyone else.

What you're not getting is that there's a tension between some evaluators. You cite to a lot of really bad sources. It's what you do. I cite to better sources, probably because I'm just a better person than you. :D

Your sources say these guys are all trash. My source, the better and more trusted one, says that these guys have first round talent. It would be nice if they had played one more year so one could be more 'sure' about them. Eh. That's not the case. They have first round talent, just not elite first round talent. Because...again...not everything is so black and white.

BroncoWave
04-16-2017, 03:44 PM
King has the best sources, everyone says so!

King87
04-16-2017, 03:54 PM
King has the best sources, everyone says so!

Not using the best sources? Sad! I want to be a great source wall! And the uninformed will pay for it! But I want to slash the taxes on these great sources! The information will trickle down!

Cugel
04-16-2017, 04:21 PM
It's not always easily seen. Some guys are slower learners and what is on game tape isn't the hottest or most indicative of talent. That's why the combine is such a gift and a curse. Which explains a lot why guys stock shoot up and spiral downward after the combine. Evaluators get a better look and another piece of the puzzle. But some guys play above their talent, below their talent, etc. Even that isn't clean cut.

No one is saying it's all random. Certain teams draft really well. Certain teams develop certain positions really well. But the rest of your probability post is condescending and not beyond anyone else.

What you're not getting is that there's a tension between some evaluators. You cite to a lot of really bad sources. It's what you do. I cite to better sources, probably because I'm just a better person than you. :D

Your sources say these guys are all trash. My source, the better and more trusted one, says that these guys have first round talent. It would be nice if they had played one more year so one could be more 'sure' about them. Eh. That's not the case. They have first round talent, just not elite first round talent. Because...again...not everything is so black and white.

They're not "all trash." They're guys who have some potential, but are not sure things. There are sure things in the first round. Christian McCaffrey is as close to a sure fire, can't miss, player as you will find. Very little chance of a bust.

There are other guys who just project to be immediate impact players at the next level. Reuben Foster, the LB is another guy like that. RB Leonard Fournette. David N'Joku, Ross, there are a lot of such players, one of whom is bound to be available at #20.

If you pass on a guy who projects to be an immediate impact player for a guy who might develop in year 2 that's the definition of a reach.

And I think most Broncos fans will agree with me that reaching for a developmental T at #20 is a mistake.

King87
04-16-2017, 04:25 PM
The bust rate for first rounders is pretty high, Cugel.

Cugel
04-16-2017, 04:29 PM
King has the best sources, everyone says so!

I wasn't even quoting WalterFootball because "its the best source" so it was particularly pointless to criticize them. They are saying the same damn thing as every single other mock draft: "Broncos will take a LT, Broncos will take a LT."

Well, personally, I'd say that's a horrible choice, but who knows? Maybe Elway thinks Ramcyk is a great player. If so, like I said, "Fine! But, you'd better be right."

King87
04-16-2017, 04:31 PM
I did not say WF was the best source. They're awful. I'm referring to Mayock, baby.

Cugel
04-16-2017, 04:31 PM
The bust rate for first rounders is pretty high, Cugel.

Except compared with 2nd rounders, and 2nd rounders are great compared with 3rd rounders. There are some busts in the first round and everybody focuses on those and says "see! The draft is a crap shoot! Look at all these first round busts!"

But, by the 3rd round they are about 1/2 busts. And the later rounds? Nobody expects anything from those players to begin with so if a guy develops into an all-star from the 6th round nobody forgets it!

This doesn't mean first round picks aren't incredibly valuable. Too valuable to waste on mediocre talent.

Cugel
04-16-2017, 04:41 PM
I've missed nothing. I believe you're deadset on being obtuse.

They would be the fourth or fifth tackle last year. Does that change their first round grade? No - because they still have the first round grade on them by a draft guru. You don't get to run out crappy and suspect sources and then poopoo a better and more trusted source who says the tackles in this class have a first round grade.

I don't know if you follow the draft that much, but the first round holds all kinds of developmental players. Guys with massive amounts of talent but who weren't great or instant fits. For instance, Bud DePree of the Steelers in 2015 was a guy who in college was a beast. But it wasn't really known whether or not he would be a 4-3 DE or a 3-4 OLB. Another term for that type of player is 'tweener'. Vic Beasely is another guy like that, too. Think of every single DB in the first round who wasn't known to be either a pure coverage guy, or a safety. Or a pure coverage CB or a slot DB.

You seem to think the draft process is a very binary, plain, and simple process. This is astounding.

Nice straw man! Have trouble knocking it down? :coffee:

You can develop guys, but the first round is supposed to be immediate impact players. Not always, and often not at all in regard to QBs, but if some first rounder you select at another position doesn't see much action in year one that's a good chance of a busted pick.

Because the really good ones tend to make an immediate impact at most positions. Ryan Clady stepped on the field, day 1. Well, if he were in this draft he would be taken in the top 3 picks. There just isn't that kind of player at all in the entire draft.

As for T's most mock drafts have Cam Robinson being the first tackle off the board, and gone at #20. Others see him as a Pro-Bowl caliber G. Virtually everybody admits this is a poor draft class for T's especially. Qbs are a bit dubious in this draft too.

TEs are plentiful, WRs, RBs, LBs, CBs. Lots of talent at all these spots. Which means a real impact player is going fall and be available at #20, it's just not going to be a T who is the best player available at #20.

Cugel
04-16-2017, 04:43 PM
I did not say WF was the best source. They're awful. I'm referring to Mayock, baby.

Mayock and Kiper have Denver taking a T. And both think "they have no choice" because Elway failed to land a T in FA.

King87
04-16-2017, 04:54 PM
What does that prove? That the entire process is insanely hard to predict? The guys in the first round who stick around often don't live up to their draft slot. Reggie Bush was never a top five RB in the game, but he stuck around. Manny Lawson was neither the brutal run stopper who could rush the passer, but he stuck around. Etc. Etc. Etc. Don't mistake not scrubbing out of the league for being good. For example, Okung was a first round tackle, and for much of his career he was subpar. Yet he's still starting and making a lot of money.

QB's are typically pretty bad in this league. So who do you think is going to get the chance to be a backup? The guy with first round talent who busted, or the fifth round QB? Oh, you need a third string runner? Who sticks around, the guy who sucks with 4.5 speed, or the guy who is slower?

http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2015/4/30/8525229/2015-nfl-draft-results-pick-by-pick

1 - He's doing a great job.

2 - He's doing a great job.

3 - Lulz.

4 - He's doing a great job.

5 - I've not heard much of him. He's probably doing alright. When I checked PFF on their o-line rankings, he wasn't mentioned one way or another.

6 - He's doing a great job.

7 - lulz

8 - He's been pretty good, iirc.

9 - He's awful.

10 - He's been really good.

11 - Wayne's been alright.

12- Shelton sucks ass.

13 - Peat has been moved from multiple positions. He sucks.

14 - I don't know what to make of Parker. He's not bad. He's not a number one WR, though. At least yet.

15 - I don't know how to feel about Gordon. I'm not sure he's all that great, though.

16 - Anyone hear about Kevin Johnson tearing it up?

17 Anyone know much about Armstead?

18 - Peters is a stylegod.

19 - Erving is good.

20 Nelson A. is awful.

21 Ogbuehi has been ass also thus far, and he's on a team that excels at developing OL, too.

22 - Dupree's pretty good, right?

23 - Ray's been good thus far, and I believe in him, but he's not been, or had, a chance to be a god.

24 - Hump sucks.

25 - Shaq's been good, right?

The rest of the players are ass awful.

Some of those guys will get better. Some of them will get worse. They'll mostly be around for awhile because....they have talent. But them sticking on rosters doens't mean they're all that great.

We can go through/over other years, too. It's mostly going to be the same, sir. Also, logically speaking, just becaue other rounds have more busts doesn't mean the first doesn't have a lot, either. Just saying.

King87
04-16-2017, 04:55 PM
Mayock and Kiper have Denver taking a T. And both think "they have no choice" because Elway failed to land a T in FA.

And Mayock has Denver taking a guy with a first round grade. And you know what, odds say he's not going to be much worse than Okung. And you will get so many hashtags, sir.

King87
04-16-2017, 05:00 PM
Nice straw man! Have trouble knocking it down? :coffee:

You can develop guys, but the first round is supposed to be immediate impact players. Not always, and often not at all in regard to QBs, but if some first rounder you select at another position doesn't see much action in year one that's a good chance of a busted pick.

Because the really good ones tend to make an immediate impact at most positions. Ryan Clady stepped on the field, day 1. Well, if he were in this draft he would be taken in the top 3 picks. There just isn't that kind of player at all in the entire draft.

As for T's most mock drafts have Cam Robinson being the first tackle off the board, and gone at #20. Others see him as a Pro-Bowl caliber G. Virtually everybody admits this is a poor draft class for T's especially. Qbs are a bit dubious in this draft too.

TEs are plentiful, WRs, RBs, LBs, CBs. Lots of talent at all these spots. Which means a real impact player is going fall and be available at #20, it's just not going to be a T who is the best player available at #20.

Most WR's aren't impact players from day one. Most OL aren't impact players on day one. Most secondary players aren't impact players at day one. Because they're rookies. There's a billion rookies each year, for instance, Cugel. Wanna tell me why there's usually only a few guys who actually are good enough to be ROTY candidates? They're manchildren. They got out on the field against grown ass men who are as fast, strong, etc as they are. They get schooled. How many second year corners, let alone rookies, get cover top five WR's? And out of those guys, how many are doing so by design?

You have a few, just a few, positions that consistently make an impact as rookies. I'm looking at the last two draft classes...we can talk about how many impact players there were...but...it's not helpful.

But yeah, Clady is representative of most players!

Traveler
04-17-2017, 09:16 AM
Both Cugel and Von Kinger make some very valid points. My take on this whole "need a LT" situation is while Denver does have a need for the position, none of the guys this year are really blue chip, 1st round prospects.

The worst thing a team can do is draft for need at a position bereft on top talent. Add the fact that OL has been Elway's most mistake prone position in terms of evaluation,who in their right mind has any confidence Elway can solve our problem at LT?

This draft has to be offensive centric. VJ has stated several times this offense needs an infusion of playmakers. This draft is loaded with them! Although we have a desperate need at LT, Elway has to go best and immediate impact player in the 1st round IMO. Offense or defense.

So what options remain for the team at LT? Trades or signing one of the remaining FA tackles available. The only way the team should sign Peters is if he becomes a cap casualty. Dude is 35 years old and isn't worth spending any early draft picks on unless PHI is willing to accept a 7th rounder.

As for acquiring Thomas in a trade, as several have mentioned in this thread, its not going to happen. Makes no sense for CLE to do so after they spent huge dollars in FA to address their needs on the OL. Why then would they cripple themselves by trading their best lineman when there are aren't any players available to replace his production at the same level?

Staley could be an option, but does SF want to hurt themselves like that even though they are rebuilding?

Sadly, I still believe Elway will stick to his penchant for going cheap on the OL again this year. This time out of necessity because of the lack of available talent. He might sign Dunlap after the draft as a stop gap and pick a player in the mid rounds with the hope our new OL coaches can train them better than our previous staff.

Again, my take is the team should focus on adding more playmakers on offense this year as this is the year to do so.

OT- Anyone know if the college OL prospects will be better in 2018?

Jaded
04-19-2017, 11:44 PM
Best thing that could happen for Broncos is Mitch Trubisky being there at 20, I've heard/read rumors that the Browns might trade Thomas and their 33rd pick to move up. Somebody you value at 20 might still be there at 33.

This is the rare exception to my disdain for trading down, it's a pretty good draft.

Btw, Ty Sampro should move to C, ala Matt Slauson for McCoy last year. The Broncos have A center, "A" as in one center...singular. They have one dude, coming off dual hip surgery and going into the final year of his contract.

Jaded
04-19-2017, 11:57 PM
Btw, next years LT's? ATM, McGlinchey and Trey Adams, maybe Mitch Hyatt, seem like 1st round LT's. Orlando Brown might have to be a RT only. It's early though.

But, Nasty Nate Solder has a legit chance to hit the open market. THIS is why a Cam Robinson seems like a no-brainer to me, he's a Day 1 starter based on traits and experience alone, if Solder is an upgrade you kick Robinson to RT.

DT88TheGreat
04-20-2017, 05:35 AM
Cam is a guy I could definitely live with playing LT and growing his game. He has a good kick to me and when he gets his hands on the guy he owns them running play or passing.

Traveler
04-20-2017, 11:39 AM
Pat Kirwan says almost daily that you can't move all these kids coming out this year to Guard. I agree with him. You put them out at LT first in camp to see if they can handle it. Kids I believe should stay at LT are Robinson, Dawkins, and Lamp.

MOtorboat
04-20-2017, 12:11 PM
After reading a couple of Cugel's posts in this thread, I've decided I think the Broncos should pass on the No. 20 pick. By doing so, they avoid drafting a bust.

Hawgdriver
04-20-2017, 12:27 PM
After reading a couple of Cugel's posts in this thread, I've decided I think the Broncos should pass on the No. 20 pick. By doing so, they avoid drafting a bust.

MO, either I missed it or you haven't chimed in the draft talk. Got any favorites you want to see at 20?

MOtorboat
04-20-2017, 12:42 PM
MO, either I missed it or you haven't chimed in the draft talk. Got any favorites you want to see at 20?

I haven't really paid much attention this year, to be honest. How about a player who doesn't suck?

slim
04-20-2017, 12:46 PM
I haven't really paid much attention this year, to be honest. How about a player who doesn't suck?

Agreed. We should definitely not draft a bust.

Buff
04-20-2017, 12:49 PM
[Is there a deal in the works? Mark Schlereth talks about Ty Sambrailo - and not at all in a nice way! ]


[I'd have to say I pretty much agree with all of this. They need to make a deal!]

Did you manually transcribe all of that? How long did that take? Thank you, I think.

Schlereth is not wrong here - not sure why he became the focus of the thread.

BroncoJoe
04-20-2017, 12:50 PM
Agreed. We should definitely not draft a bust.

Ditto. I'm calling Elway right now to make sure he understands this.

Buff
04-20-2017, 12:53 PM
Stink is an idiot and he needs to shut the **** up.


Stink has good takes sometimes, but he annoys the shit out of me because he's one of those ex-players who loves to remind people at every opportunity that he played in the NFL, and that therefore makes him more knowledgeable about football than someone who didn't. It's almost like he's trying to convince himself that he knows what he's talking about.

Not only are these bad takes - they completely ignore that Stink was 100% right about everything quoted by the OP.

King87
04-20-2017, 01:04 PM
Not only are these bad takes - they completely ignore that Stink was 100% right about everything quoted by the OP.

He 'challenged Elway' to make a trade. As if that wasn't either already looked at or being looked into. He then gave us trade scenarios that aren't really all that plausible. He then told us how bad the second and third round picks have been. If anyone got anything out of this article...woof.

I preemptively accept your apology.

Buff
04-20-2017, 01:12 PM
Stink is an idiot and he needs to shut the **** up.


He 'challenged Elway' to make a trade. As if that wasn't either already looked at or being looked into. He then gave us trade scenarios that aren't really all that plausible. He then told us how bad the second and third round picks have been. If anyone got anything out of this article...woof.

I preemptively accept your apology.

He works in sports talk radio. They have to say something compelling. He's not wrong about any of it.

Also, when he's previously made provocative statements, they've been accurate as well.

And as for Wave's claim - I think he speaks with authority about the o-line because of his vast personal experience. I've never interpreted as him trying to put himself on a pedestal. He's as self deprecating as any former players in his job and he understands what good o-line play looks like.

BroncoJoe
04-20-2017, 01:16 PM
He works in sports talk radio. They have to say something compelling. He's not wrong about any of it.

Also, when he's previously made provocative statements, they've been accurate as well.

And as for Wave's claim - I think he speaks with authority about the o-line because of his vast personal experience. I've never interpreted as him trying to put himself on a pedestal. He's as self deprecating as any former players in his job and he understands what good o-line play looks like.

I like Stink.

Wait...

King87
04-20-2017, 01:19 PM
He works in sports talk radio. They have to say something compelling. He's not wrong about any of it.

Also, when he's previously made provocative statements, they've been accurate as well.

And as for Wave's claim - I think he speaks with authority about the o-line because of his vast personal experience. I've never interpreted as him trying to put himself on a pedestal. He's as self deprecating as any former players in his job and he understands what good o-line play looks like.

How exactly is that compelling? Here's phantom trade scenarios! That's compelling? Here's basic observations about the drafts in the past! That's compelling? You read above a fifth grade level - that cannot compel you. So, what happens if Elway tries to make those 'trades' and there's no takers? Is Schlereth wrong then? Because he's saying those trades exist. If they do exist, but Elway doesn't make it happen because the price is too high, is Schlereth wrong then?

I don't see anything in that interview that's astute or 'new'. I cannot fathom how it's compelling to anyone, either.

Buff
04-20-2017, 01:33 PM
How exactly is that compelling? Here's phantom trade scenarios! That's compelling? Here's basic observations about the drafts in the past! That's compelling? You read above a fifth grade level - that cannot compel you. So, what happens if Elway tries to make those 'trades' and there's no takers? Is Schlereth wrong then? Because he's saying those trades exist. If they do exist, but Elway doesn't make it happen because the price is too high, is Schlereth wrong then?

I don't see anything in that interview that's astute or 'new'. I cannot fathom how it's compelling to anyone, either.

Here's why I find it compelling: Conventional wisdom says "We didn't acquire a LT in free agency, so we will find ours in the draft." Schlereth is saying that you're going to end up disappointed if you think that's going to be effective, and then he cites some evidence on why that's the case.

Some people merely read it as "Radio host tells Elway how to do his job!" But I think it's an accurate assessment that for this roster and this defense, you might be better off overpaying for a LT via trade than hoping to catch lightning in a bottle in what appears to be a weak draft for the position.

And the reason that's compelling is that it defies conventional wisdom, that you should build via the draft and treat draft picks as sacred.

King87
04-20-2017, 01:36 PM
Here's why I find it compelling: Conventional wisdom says "We didn't acquire a LT in free agency, so we will find ours in the draft." Schlereth is saying that you're going to end up disappointed if you think that's going to be effective, and then he cites some evidence on why that's the case.

Some people merely read it as "Radio host tells Elway how to do his job!" But I think it's an accurate assessment that for this roster and this defense, you might be better off overpaying for a LT via trade than hoping to catch lightning in a bottle in what appears to be a weak draft for the position.

And the reason that's compelling is that it defies conventional wisdom, that you should build via the draft and treat draft picks as sacred.

That's the basic argument we've had on this site for several weeks, if not months before his statement, though. And all he did was point to hypothetical trades. He didn't break any news...do anything...that hasn't been done...on this site...

IDK, man. Glad you apologized, though. I hate it when we fight.

Hawgdriver
04-20-2017, 01:41 PM
Buff is right.

King87
04-20-2017, 01:46 PM
Buff is right.

No. He's not even close. If compelling is banter we had weeks ago, it's not compelling, or insightful. I do not accept your preemptive apology, Driver of Hawgs.

chazoe60
04-20-2017, 01:59 PM
Buff is right.
I don't understand this sentence. I understand each individual word but put in that order they make absolutely no sense to me.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
04-20-2017, 02:04 PM
Buff is right.

Et tu Brute? 😪

King87
04-20-2017, 02:38 PM
If I had Buff's argumentation Hawg would call me out for not debating the point for point argumentation. They've all turned on me. I have only one true friend on this board....


Cugel!

DT88TheGreat
04-20-2017, 11:20 PM
Here's why I find it compelling: Conventional wisdom says "We didn't acquire a LT in free agency, so we will find ours in the draft." Schlereth is saying that you're going to end up disappointed if you think that's going to be effective, and then he cites some evidence on why that's the case.

Some people merely read it as "Radio host tells Elway how to do his job!" But I think it's an accurate assessment that for this roster and this defense, you might be better off overpaying for a LT via trade than hoping to catch lightning in a bottle in what appears to be a weak draft for the position.

And the reason that's compelling is that it defies conventional wisdom, that you should build via the draft and treat draft picks as sacred.

I think mark is wrong and that there are a few guys who will play LT day one and be pretty effective in there rookie year's.

Cugel
04-21-2017, 10:26 AM
How exactly is that compelling? Here's phantom trade scenarios! That's compelling? Here's basic observations about the drafts in the past! That's compelling? You read above a fifth grade level - that cannot compel you. So, what happens if Elway tries to make those 'trades' and there's no takers? Is Schlereth wrong then? Because he's saying those trades exist. If they do exist, but Elway doesn't make it happen because the price is too high, is Schlereth wrong then?

I don't see anything in that interview that's astute or 'new'. I cannot fathom how it's compelling to anyone, either.

Easy to understand: Here's the chain of logic:

#1 - Based on his experience of playing in the NFL for SB champions and for many years he looks at the Ts on the Broncos and concludes that none of them are good enough to be even a mediocre NFL LT. Maybe he's wrong, but who the hell are fans to dispute with him about it?

#2 - Based on #1 he concludes the Broncos desperately need a LT. That leaves 3 possible options: Free Agency, a Trade or the Draft.

#3 - Well, FA came and went and the Broncos did not land a LT. Instead they got a RT who has missed 1/2 his career due to injury. Well, that leaves a Trade or the Draft.

#4 - This is probably the worst draft class for T's in the last decade, maybe 15 years according to NFL draft experts. Plus, Stink knows how hard it is to come in and start at LT especially for a rookie. He concludes that no rookie they draft is going to be any good in 2017. That pretty much leaves a trade as the only possibility.

Personally, I don't think Elway is looking to trade for a veteran LT. It could happen the day of the draft of course, but there's no signs of it yet. Stink also thinks that expecting Donald Stephenson or Ty Sambrailo to suddenly morph into a quality starting LT is "a pipe dream." Not going to happen. That bolsters his conclusion that Elway needs to get a trade done.

Like I said, I don't see it happening. But, that doesn't mean Stink is wrong. Elway could just shrug and say "well, we're doing the best we can with what we've got." But, then the OL just goes out and sucks ONCE AGAIN, and the fans and commentators are all talking all season long about how horrible the OL play is - just like last year and the year before. That too is a realistic possibility.

Cugel
04-21-2017, 10:30 AM
I think mark is wrong and that there are a few guys who will play LT day one and be pretty effective in there rookie year's.

Well, maybe. But, Tyler Polumbus who also played 8 seasons in the NFL at T says exactly the same thing: you can't expect a rookie to come in and be any good his rookie year.

One exception to that rule was Polumbus's team mate his rookie year Ryan Clady. But, Clady was the #12 pick of the draft in 2008 and he was a MUCH better prospect than anybody in this draft class at T. MUCH better. So much better that if Clady were in this draft class he wouldn't get out of the top 5 and could easily go at #3, so that's not really a fair comparison. Obviously, Bolles or Ramcyk don't really compare favourably to Clady so that's not really what you could expect from either of them.

Stink also said yesterday that if the Broncos did do this (rely on Sambrailo or Stephenson or a rookie) they would have to limit their offense to rotate to the left side to bring as much help for that guy as possible, and even that might not be enough.

King87
04-21-2017, 12:01 PM
Easy to understand: Here's the chain of logic:

#1 - Based on his experience of playing in the NFL for SB champions and for many years he looks at the Ts on the Broncos and concludes that none of them are good enough to be even a mediocre NFL LT. Maybe he's wrong, but who the hell are fans to dispute with him about it?

#2 - Based on #1 he concludes the Broncos desperately need a LT. That leaves 3 possible options: Free Agency, a Trade or the Draft.

#3 - Well, FA came and went and the Broncos did not land a LT. Instead they got a RT who has missed 1/2 his career due to injury. Well, that leaves a Trade or the Draft.

#4 - This is probably the worst draft class for T's in the last decade, maybe 15 years according to NFL draft experts. Plus, Stink knows how hard it is to come in and start at LT especially for a rookie. He concludes that no rookie they draft is going to be any good in 2017. That pretty much leaves a trade as the only possibility.

Personally, I don't think Elway is looking to trade for a veteran LT. It could happen the day of the draft of course, but there's no signs of it yet. Stink also thinks that expecting Donald Stephenson or Ty Sambrailo to suddenly morph into a quality starting LT is "a pipe dream." Not going to happen. That bolsters his conclusion that Elway needs to get a trade done.

Like I said, I don't see it happening. But, that doesn't mean Stink is wrong. Elway could just shrug and say "well, we're doing the best we can with what we've got." But, then the OL just goes out and sucks ONCE AGAIN, and the fans and commentators are all talking all season long about how horrible the OL play is - just like last year and the year before. That too is a realistic possibility.

Cugel, this line of argumentation that Stink made/case/take/whatever the qualifier is/whatever isn't new. And, to several posters on the board, it's been obvious. So, argumentation aside, how is that compelling? Because I don't know about you guys, but obvious and often said things don't compel me.

Hawgdriver
04-21-2017, 12:20 PM
Well, maybe. But, Tyler Polumbus who also played 8 seasons in the NFL at T says exactly the same thing: you can't expect a rookie to come in and be any good his rookie year.

One exception to that rule was Polumbus's team mate his rookie year Ryan Clady. But, Clady was the #12 pick of the draft in 2008 and he was a MUCH better prospect than anybody in this draft class at T. MUCH better. So much better that if Clady were in this draft class he wouldn't get out of the top 5 and could easily go at #3, so that's not really a fair comparison. Obviously, Bolles or Ramcyk don't really compare favourably to Clady so that's not really what you could expect from either of them.

Stink also said yesterday that if the Broncos did do this (rely on Sambrailo or Stephenson or a rookie) they would have to limit their offense to rotate to the left side to bring as much help for that guy as possible, and even that might not be enough.

2016 T's

Name / Round / Pick / Team / Games Started as Rookie / Games

Ronnie Stanley, 1-6, Baltimore, 12 / 12
Jack Conklin, 1-8, Tennessee, 16 / 16
Laremy Tunsil, 1-13, Miami, 14 / 14
Taylor Decker, 1-16, Detroit, 16 / 16

MOtorboat
04-21-2017, 12:21 PM
2016 T's

Name / Round / Pick / Team / Games Started as Rookie / Games

Ronnie Stanley, 1-6, Baltimore, 12 / 12
Jack Conklin, 1-8, Tennessee, 16 / 16
Laremy Tunsil, 1-13, Miami, 14 / 14
Taylor Decker, 1-16, Detroit, 16 / 16

Cugel has made the argument that rookies can't start on the offensive line for years. He's obviously wrong.

King87
04-21-2017, 12:28 PM
Draft a rookie LT who is cheap and is bad but might improve is a bad idea. Paying Okung a ton of money, who is expensive and won't get better is a good idea.

From this logic much can be derived!

Hawgdriver
04-21-2017, 12:39 PM
Cugel has made the argument that rookies can't start on the offensive line for years. He's obviously wrong.

idk

last year's class may have been significantly more polished that this year's. But you have to ground arguments in data in these discussions.

I was looking at last ten years of OT draft data last night (yeah, bored).

It's true that many 1st round OTs come in as starters (maybe in week 3, week 6, etc.)

Class // (number of 1st round OTs starting 50%+ games as rookies / # of 1st round OTs) // Last picked starting rookie OT

2016 1st round class: 4/4 (16th pick)
2015 class: 3/5 (13th pick)
2014: 3/4 (19th pick)
2013: 4/5 (19th pick)
2012: 2/2 (23d)

Yeah, so going back the last 5 years, it's 16/20 1st rounders that started at least 50% of their rookie year games (it was typically ~10-16 game range as rookies).

But maybe those tackles were a lot better than this year's group. Not sure. I've heard from various sources that this year is a collection of early 2d round talent. But I can't tell if they are reliable sources.

It would be nice if there was someone out there who backed up their claims on talent with proof of their predictive accuracy. You know, like.. "My talent evaluation accuracy score based on dozens of predictions is 75% so I'm fairly reliable when I say so-and-so is a 2d round talent." Why no one does this is baffling to me.

MOtorboat
04-21-2017, 12:45 PM
idk

last year's class may have been significantly more polished that this year's. But you have to ground arguments in data in these discussions.

I was looking at last ten years of OT draft data last night (yeah, bored).

It's true that many 1st round OTs come in as starters (maybe in week 3, week 6, etc.)

Class // (number of 1st round OTs starting 50%+ games as rookies / # of 1st round OTs) // Last picked starting rookie OT

2016 1st round class: 4/4 (16th pick)
2015 class: 3/5 (13th pick)
2014: 3/4 (19th pick)
2013: 4/5 (19th pick)
2012: 2/2 (23d)

Yeah, so going back the last 5 years, it's 16/20 1st rounders that started at least 50% of their rookie year games (it was typically ~10-16 game range as rookies).

But maybe those tackles were a lot better than this year's group. Not sure. I've heard from various sources that this year is a collection of early 2d round talent. But I can't tell if they are reliable sources.

It would be nice if there was someone out there who backed up their claims on talent with proof of their predictive accuracy. You know, like.. "My talent evaluation accuracy score based on dozens of predictions is 75% so I'm fairly reliable when I say so-and-so is a 2d round talent." Why no one does this is baffling to me.

It'd be a complicated system to come up with. Obviously, you can't judge a player off their first year, so it would be near impossible to have immediate returns on your predictions. Just a shot in the dark, I've never read Phil Steele's pro stuff, but I read his college stuff pretty religiously and he seems like the type of personality that would try to do something like this.

Whether this tackle class isn't as talented as the last or more talented than four years ago, I think we can definitively say rookies can start and can succeed as rookies on the offensive line. I refuse to believe you can't start a rookie.

Hawgdriver
04-21-2017, 12:49 PM
I think we can definitively say rookies can start and can succeed as rookies on the offensive line. I refuse to believe you can't start a rookie.

I was surprised by how often this was the case! Not all of these guys stayed at left tackle, but 80% of them started for their teams as rookies.

King87
04-21-2017, 12:57 PM
https://www.profootballfocus.com/rookie-impact-offensive-tackles/

On our last day of examining how rookies perform, we move on to the position of offensive tackle. It is a position often considered a safe pick where if you are drafted early, you are expected to become a starter right away.

Even last year there were five rookie offensive linemen with over 1000 snaps including a fourth and fifth round pick. That is a trend that will likely continue. Here is what will likely happen.



I think the graph is somewhat useful for your purposes, Hawginton.

MOtorboat
04-21-2017, 01:05 PM
I was surprised by how often this was the case! Not all of these guys stayed at left tackle, but 80% of them started for their teams as rookies.

You'd have to start with a baseline for this type of evaluation, right? Well, I've got a couple hours before I need to go to work...

There have been 145 tackles drafted in the first round post merger, 1970 to 2015 (I eliminated 2016 draft picks for our purposes now, I think there's an argument that you'd have to eliminate the last five years or so to come up with a true baseline), according to pro-football-reference's database.

Using this as a baseline, the average first-round tackle played in 107.25 pro games, started 95.08 games and spent 6.22 years as a starter. That doesn't account for players that moved on, so it's not with the team that drafted them, it's just overall.

Twenty four of those first round tackles were named to at least one All Pro team and 48 were named to at least one pro bowl.

Hawgdriver
04-21-2017, 01:09 PM
Good stuff, Kinger.

Hey Jaded, read this:

https://www.profootballfocus.com/does-arm-length-affect-ot-play/

Buff
04-21-2017, 01:11 PM
You'd have to start with a baseline for this type of evaluation, right? Well, I've got a couple hours before I need to go to work...

There have been 145 tackles drafted in the first round post merger, 1970 to 2015 (I eliminated 2016 draft picks for our purposes now, I think there's an argument that you'd have to eliminate the last five years or so to come up with a true baseline), according to pro-football-reference's database.

Using this as a baseline, the average first-round tackle played in 107.25 pro games, started 95.08 games and spent 6.22 years as a starter. That doesn't account for players that moved on, so it's not with the team that drafted them, it's just overall.

Twenty four of those first round tackles were named to at least one All Pro team and 48 were named to at least one pro bowl.

But this analysis doesn't really deal with the issue at hand. Nobody is debating the merits of taking a 1st round LT and the long term growth potential in a typical draft class. We are specifically talking about 1st year production as a starter. Coupled with the idea that this is supposed to be a weak draft for tackle depth.

Many teams plug and play their 1st round LTs, but how many of them are effective in their first year?

That's where I feel like anecdotal analysis from guys who have played the position is valuable.

MOtorboat
04-21-2017, 01:13 PM
But this analysis doesn't really deal with the issue at hand. Nobody is debating the merits of taking a 1st round LT and the long term growth potential in a typical draft class. We are specifically talking about 1st year production as a starter. Coupled with the idea that this is supposed to be a weak draft for tackle depth.

Many teams plug and play their 1st round LTs, but how many of them are effective in their first year?

That's where I feel like anecdotal analysis from guys who have played the position is valuable.

I realize that doesn't deal with the issue at hand. Hawg asked about trying to find a way to trust the media evaluators and that's the type of place (not saying it is the place) you'd have to start - find a baseline for what a certain position should achieve for each specific round and then apply that to those evaluations.

King87
04-21-2017, 01:17 PM
But this analysis doesn't really deal with the issue at hand. Nobody is debating the merits of taking a 1st round LT and the long term growth potential in a typical draft class. We are specifically talking about 1st year production as a starter. Coupled with the idea that this is supposed to be a weak draft for tackle depth.

Many teams plug and play their 1st round LTs, but how many of them are effective in their first year?

That's where I feel like anecdotal analysis from guys who have played the position is valuable.

The fact that so many teams do it year after year means it has to either be a non-issue, the best scenario of bad scenarios, mediocre, or good. But that doesn't mean it's categorical. That's where Stink comes in, right? Great - he doesn't like these OT's and that's fine, but a lot of scouts/analysts/whomever are saying that these guys have first round grades, just not great ones. So that's a bit of a strike on that 'analysis from Stink'.

Is that unfair?

Buff
04-21-2017, 01:23 PM
The fact that so many teams do it year after year means it has to either be a non-issue, the best scenario of bad scenarios, mediocre, or good. But that doesn't mean it's categorical. That's where Stink comes in, right? Great - he doesn't like these OT's and that's fine, but a lot of scouts/analysts/whomever are saying that these guys have first round grades, just not great ones. So that's a bit of a strike on that 'analysis from Stink'.

Is that unfair?

It's not unfair - you can reasonably disagree with Schlereth's analysis. There is probably some LT in this draft class who could hold their own as a starter in year 1.

But I think those are long odds - and even longer in this draft class which is below average for our position of need.

King87
04-21-2017, 01:24 PM
It's not unfair - you can reasonably disagree with Schlereth's analysis. There is probably some LT in this draft class who could hold their own as a starter in year 1.

But I think those are long odds - and even longer in this draft class which is below average for our position of need.

I don't understand how it's long odds when three guys are getting round one grades?

Buff
04-21-2017, 01:30 PM
I don't understand how it's long odds when three guys are getting round one grades?

LT is arguably the 2nd most difficult position to play on offense behind QB - so even if you get drafted in the 1st round there is no guarantee you'll be an effective LT in the league - and certainly no guarantee you'll be effective in year 1. And in a typical draft you'll usually see multiple Top 5 or Top 10 tackles - this year there doesn't seem to be those top tier prospects.

So my only point is that we have a limited window, and a particularly weak class - so while it's not impossible that we could fill the hole via the draft, it's reasonable to think that the downside might compel Elway to look elsewhere to upgrade.

King87
04-21-2017, 01:38 PM
LT is arguably the 2nd most difficult position to play on offense behind QB - so even if you get drafted in the 1st round there is no guarantee you'll be an effective LT in the league - and certainly no guarantee you'll be effective in year 1. And in a typical draft you'll usually see multiple Top 5 or Top 10 tackles - this year there doesn't seem to be those top tier prospects.

So my only point is that we have a limited window, and a particularly weak class - so while it's not impossible that we could fill the hole via the draft, it's reasonable to think that the downside might compel Elway to look elsewhere to upgrade.

It's also regarded as one of the safest positions to draft for a team, though. And that's not my opinion -I'd argue the GMs around the league, collectively starting a bunch of rookies is a thing- in a singular sense. "On our last day of examining how rookies perform, we move on to the position of offensive tackle. It is a position often considered a safe pick where if you are drafted early, you are expected to become a starter right away." So, to me, you're either a first round talent or you're not. These guys, while not exciting as a class, have a first round grade on them. We have three first rounders as a talent pool - the pool is weak. So what? You have a lack of depth in the talent pool. The guys in the talent pool aren't world beaters, but they're legitimate selections. Especially if you're at 20.

For a frame of reference, Mayock said that in last year's draft Ramczyk would have been the fourth of fifth guy. So, in that sense, he fits your criterion. Robinson is polarizing, but a lot of people like him - it stands to reason that last year he would fit that criterion as well. Bolles big knock is age. Not his play. So if they had those seasons last year there would have been teams rejoicing becuase it was so deep for the pool. But again, the pool doesn't impact their individual worth - which is why I find it so frustrating that we talk about the talent pool and not the individual players.

Because when we talk about them as individuals, what Stink is saying means nothing. Because he's not a scout. He's not a front office guy. Which is another reason why it's not compelling.

I have enjoyed this thoroughly and love you. I hope Colorado takes me off of their waitlist so we can spoon.

Hawgdriver
04-21-2017, 01:38 PM
But this analysis doesn't really deal with the issue at hand. Nobody is debating the merits of taking a 1st round LT and the long term growth potential in a typical draft class. We are specifically talking about 1st year production as a starter. Coupled with the idea that this is supposed to be a weak draft for tackle depth.

Many teams plug and play their 1st round LTs, but how many of them are effective in their first year?

That's where I feel like anecdotal analysis from guys who have played the position is valuable.

One measure is by using Pro-football-reference's "AV" measure. It's "approximate value." It measures contribution. So if they don't play, no AV. If their team sucks, the line sucks, AV is lower. It's not perfect, but here are some examples of rookie AVs:

Joe Thomas - 11
Ryan Clady - 13
Jake Long - 11
Trent Williams - 6
Erick Fisher - 6
D.J. Fluker - 10
Jack Conklin - 15

My tea-leaf reading of AV is that 4-6 is JAG, 6-8 is starter, 8+ is pro bowl discussion-worthy, 10+ is great

Tackles drafted in 1st round since Joe Thomas's year, 2007, n=45

Average rookie season AV: 6.07
Median: 6
25th percentile: 4
75th percentile: 8.25

Percentage below 4 (not that helpful): 25%

Hawgdriver
04-21-2017, 01:40 PM
It's not unfair - you can reasonably disagree with Schlereth's analysis. There is probably some LT in this draft class who could hold their own as a starter in year 1.

But I think those are long odds - and even longer in this draft class which is below average for our position of need.

The latter statement is what I struggle with. I am not sure if it is reliable information.

Buff
04-21-2017, 01:48 PM
It's also regarded as one of the safest positions to draft for a team, though. And that's not my opinion -I'd argue the GMs around the league, collectively starting a bunch of rookies is a thing- in a singular sense. "On our last day of examining how rookies perform, we move on to the position of offensive tackle. It is a position often considered a safe pick where if you are drafted early, you are expected to become a starter right away." So, to me, you're either a first round talent or you're not. These guys, while not exciting as a class, have a first round grade on them. We have three first rounders as a talent pool - the pool is weak. So what? You have a lack of depth in the talent pool. The guys in the talent pool aren't world beaters, but they're legitimate selections. Especially if you're at 20.

For a frame of reference, Mayock said that in last year's draft Ramczyk would have been the fourth of fifth guy. So, in that sense, he fits your criterion. Robinson is polarizing, but a lot of people like him - it stands to reason that last year he would fit that criterion as well. Bolles big knock is age. Not his play. So if they had those seasons last year there would have been teams rejoicing becuase it was so deep for the pool. But again, the pool doesn't impact their individual worth - which is why I find it so frustrating that we talk about the talent pool and not the individual players.

Because when we talk about them as individuals, what Stink is saying means nothing. Because he's not a scout. He's not a front office guy. Which is another reason why it's not compelling.

I have enjoyed this thoroughly and love you. I hope Colorado takes me off of their waitlist so we can spoon.

But part of the reason they are considered so safe is that they can be moved to guard. In this instance - that doesn't offer us the value we need.

Again, I'm not even against taking an OT in the first round. I'm just saying that Stink has presented a reasonable and compelling argument that suggests a trade might be a better solution for THIS team, THIS year.


The latter statement is what I struggle with. I am not sure if it is reliable information.

Yeah, "long odds" is difficult to quantify and all of this is somewhat unscientific, but just the idea that most draftniks aren't projecting as many first round OTs as in prior years tells me that our odds go down slightly.

King87
04-21-2017, 01:53 PM
We say that now with both of our guards healthy. Depth on the line is everything. And who says they can't be guards, exactly? The scouts? Draftniks? Let's not kid ourselves, Watson could very be our starting LT by design in this offense in this year in this setting. Elway talked about that when we signed him. 'That' being Watson having played LT. At that point the whole line can shuffle around. So, I don't really find that compelling, either. But at this point I'm entrenched in that position because I'm a stubborn mule and Stink irritates me.

Cugel
04-21-2017, 06:15 PM
One measure is by using Pro-football-reference's "AV" measure. It's "approximate value." It measures contribution. So if they don't play, no AV. If their team sucks, the line sucks, AV is lower. It's not perfect, but here are some examples of rookie AVs:

Joe Thomas - 11
Ryan Clady - 13
Jake Long - 11
Trent Williams - 6
Erick Fisher - 6
D.J. Fluker - 10
Jack Conklin - 15

My tea-leaf reading of AV is that 4-6 is JAG, 6-8 is starter, 8+ is pro bowl discussion-worthy, 10+ is great

Tackles drafted in 1st round since Joe Thomas's year, 2007, n=45

Average rookie season AV: 6.07
Median: 6
25th percentile: 4
75th percentile: 8.25

Percentage below 4 (not that helpful): 25%

Those are interesting statistics. Ryan Clady started out great, and by his second season people could legitimately argue whether he could wind up having a better career than Joe Thomas. But, Thomas continued to excel better and better, and stayed healthy. Now he's a consensus first ballot Hall of Fame player, and clearly superior to any other LT in football, while Clady had 4 good years before he got hurt - and never was healthy again.

It was just bad luck that he never got to be that 10 year veteran star that his talent made him, all due to repeated injury.

But, those stats only point out there's not really that guy in this year's draft. Experts disagree on whether any of the top T's are really worth a 1st round grade at all. And this is a position that is ALWAYS overdrafted because of the crying need for LTs and the lack of adequate supply.

In almost any given year, the top T is always taken in the top 10 picks. And this year all three could be on the board at #20? That's as clear a sign as you could hope to see that NFL teams do NOT love these guys and are not sure that any of them are worth the pick.

Maybe one of the top 3 (Bolles, Ramcyk and Robinson) goes in between 10 and 20. Maybe 2 at most. And there's no guarantee the teams that take them won't regret it, whereas there's very little chance that whoever drafts Reuben Foster or Christian McCaffrey won't be very happy for years to come.

If Bolles grades out at a 6 for instance would it be a good idea to take him in the first round?

Hawgdriver
04-21-2017, 06:38 PM
I'll be super curious how many offensive linemen are taken in round 1, it will tell me a lot about how closely my perceptions align with the NFL personnel dep't perceptions.

Jaded
04-21-2017, 10:05 PM
I'll be super curious how many offensive linemen are taken in round 1, it will tell me a lot about how closely my perceptions align with the NFL personnel dep't perceptions.

I'm calling 4; Robinson, Lamp, Bolles, Ramzcyk.

Cugel
04-21-2017, 10:24 PM
I'm calling 4; Robinson, Lamp, Bolles, Ramzcyk.

So is everybody else, so you get no street cred with that prediction! :laugh:

Hawgdriver
04-21-2017, 10:27 PM
I'm calling 4; Robinson, Lamp, Bolles, Ramzcyk.

That's my gut feel right now.

King87
04-21-2017, 10:38 PM
Cugel, will you be our LT?

Jaded
04-22-2017, 07:22 PM
So is everybody else, so you get no street cred with that prediction! :laugh:

So if that's the case why are you so against drafting a T 1st round?

King87
04-22-2017, 07:33 PM
So if that's the case why are you so against drafting a T 1st round?

Because it's only for impact players, even though those are guys who are supposed to be first rounders and a lot of experts say there are first round tackles to be had.

Factor in that Cugel wanted Okung to be resigned, Okung sucked ass, the tackles to be had can suck/be as good while costing less...it's clear to see where the argument falls apart. If bad play at LT means you should get resigned, and that level of play can come from the rookie LTs, they should be making an 'impact'. Unless, of course, the play from someone like Okung isn't impactful.

#cugellogic

Jaded
04-22-2017, 08:02 PM
Because it's only for impact players, even though those are guys who are supposed to be first rounders and a lot of experts say there are first round tackles to be had.

Factor in that Cugel wanted Okung to be resigned, Okung sucked ass, the tackles to be had can suck/be as good while costing less...it's clear to see where the argument falls apart. If bad play at LT means you should get resigned, and that level of play can come from the rookie LTs, they should be making an 'impact'. Unless, of course, the play from someone like Okung isn't impactful.

#cugellogic

#hesorry

King87
04-22-2017, 08:15 PM
Hey Jaded, if we were to trade for a hypothetical LT, who would you want?

Jaded
04-22-2017, 11:07 PM
Hey Jaded, if we were to trade for a hypothetical LT, who would you want?

Wishful thinking, Thomas. Realistically, Greg Robinson is probably available.

Cugel
04-23-2017, 10:57 PM
Because it's only for impact players, even though those are guys who are supposed to be first rounders and a lot of experts say there are first round tackles to be had.

Factor in that Cugel wanted Okung to be resigned, Okung sucked ass, the tackles to be had can suck/be as good while costing less...it's clear to see where the argument falls apart. If bad play at LT means you should get resigned, and that level of play can come from the rookie LTs, they should be making an 'impact'. Unless, of course, the play from someone like Okung isn't impactful.

#cugellogic

There's bad, and then there's worse. Rookies are worse, definitely. But, we don't need to argue this. You will see for yourself this season. The Broncos appear ready to take a LT with #20, probably Bolles, but it could be any of them.

And then you will see that Jeff Saturday, who played 13 seasons at T in the NFL and was All-Pro 4 times, and Stink, and Tyler Polumbus are all right - and that it is not really going to happen that they draft a T and then that guy just steps out onto the field and is an instant success at starter.

If they take a T at #20 either someone else will be starting Game 1, or else they will have a very weak link at the key position of their OL.

ShaneFalco
04-23-2017, 11:04 PM
Wishful thinking, Thomas. Realistically, Greg Robinson is probably available.

greg robinson isnt even a tackle anymore.

Cam will share that.

Jaded
04-23-2017, 11:22 PM
greg robinson isnt even a tackle anymore.

Cam will share that.

I'm aware of that, (actually not exactly true, he's being tried at RT) reason why I assume he's available. He's better than anything Denver has.

Cam Robinson was better prepared for the NFL after his freshman season than Greg was when he was drafted. Cam Robinson is the single most physically gifted OT in this draft, he is by far the most prepared as far as college system. Three-point stance, pro style running game, tight splits, level of competition. Alabama is the NFL's 33rd team.

Are you aware of Marcus Cannon's story? He was always a dancing bear (who has nothing on Greg Robinson) but was a flop until the Cheatriots brought back their OL coach. Greg Robinson's biggest issue is penalties, I'm willing to bet on Jeff Davidson. Also, if the Rams think they've had it rough I suggest they try a year or two with Sampro and Okung.

King87
04-23-2017, 11:33 PM
There's bad, and then there's worse. Rookies are worse, definitely. But, we don't need to argue this. You will see for yourself this season. The Broncos appear ready to take a LT with #20, probably Bolles, but it could be any of them.

And then you will see that Jeff Saturday, who played 13 seasons at T in the NFL and was All-Pro 4 times, and Stink, and Tyler Polumbus are all right - and that it is not really going to happen that they draft a T and then that guy just steps out onto the field and is an instant success at starter.

If they take a T at #20 either someone else will be starting Game 1, or else they will have a very weak link at the key position of their OL.

Tackles are considered safe picks and starters. You said only first rounders should be taken in the first round, as they are impact players and this is done and accepted. If we take a LT in the first round, if we take the guys with the first round grade, we have taken a starter. That's going off of the logic used in your arguments and experts. Several guys have legitimate first round grades. Whether you like that or not means nothing at all. If Stink or Saturday thinks that they're a supreme talent evaulator, maybe they should go be GMs or head a scouting division.

ShaneFalco
04-23-2017, 11:46 PM
I'm aware of that, (actually not exactly true, he's being tried at RT) reason why I assume he's available. He's better than anything Denver has.


No way.

The guy has no clue how to pass block.

HORSEPOWER 56
04-23-2017, 11:46 PM
And then you will see that Jeff Saturday, who played 13 seasons at T...


Jeff Saturday was a Center. He never played Tackle.

Jaded
04-23-2017, 11:52 PM
No way.

The guy has no clue how to pass block.

Thanks for the affirmation, I feel even more confident in that assessment now.

ShaneFalco
04-24-2017, 12:00 AM
Thanks for the affirmation, I feel even more confident in that assessment now.

I am sure you do. Even rams fans have called him a complete bust, and they are super homers with their shitty players.

Hawgdriver
04-24-2017, 09:45 AM
Tackles are considered safe picks and starters. You said only first rounders should be taken in the first round, as they are impact players and this is done and accepted. If we take a LT in the first round, if we take the guys with the first round grade, we have taken a starter. That's going off of the logic used in your arguments and experts. Several guys have legitimate first round grades. Whether you like that or not means nothing at all. If Stink or Saturday thinks that they're a supreme talent evaulator, maybe they should go be GMs or head a scouting division.

How does TySam's prospect grade compare to this years crop?

DT88TheGreat
04-24-2017, 01:57 PM
Jeff Saturday was a Center. He never played Tackle.

Saturday actually was a decent amount tackle in Madden when I was forced to slide him there. Found an awesome center in round 3 so I moved Jeff to LT.

DT88TheGreat
04-24-2017, 01:58 PM
How does TySam's prospect grade compare to this years crop?

Why are people giving up on Sambrello after just one year? I am willing to give him this year to show improvement.

Valar Morghulis
04-24-2017, 02:09 PM
Why are people giving up on Sambrello after just one year? I am willing to give him this year to show improvement.

He's already had two

King87
04-24-2017, 02:20 PM
How does TySam's prospect grade compare to this years crop?

I'm not sure! I'm going to find out!

DT88TheGreat
04-24-2017, 02:26 PM
He's already had two

Didn't he get injured and miss majority of the year last year or the one before? By no means am I saying he's shown any flashes, but he's technically a pup who has been injured in a mans game. If he doesn't do anything this year then dump him.

He was also a 3rd round pick eh?

NightTerror218
04-24-2017, 07:00 PM
Didn't he get injured and miss majority of the year last year or the one before? By no means am I saying he's shown any flashes, but he's technically a pup who has been injured in a mans game. If he doesn't do anything this year then dump him.

He was also a 3rd round pick eh?

He has nit shown anythi g positive really. He was being beat by the viking DL before he got injured. And the last 2 years he has not shown much when trust into spot light. Maybe year 4 and a prayer?

Jaded
04-24-2017, 07:34 PM
I am sure you do. Even rams fans have called him a complete bust, and they are super homers with their shitty players.

I didn't say he wasn't a bust, I said he's better than anything Denver has.

DT88TheGreat
04-24-2017, 08:10 PM
He has nit shown anythi g positive really. He was being beat by the viking DL before he got injured. And the last 2 years he has not shown much when trust into spot light. Maybe year 4 and a prayer?

We will see, I am not giving up on him yet, hopefully him or Watson takes the RT position and play well.

Canmore
04-25-2017, 01:13 AM
Didn't he get injured and miss majority of the year last year or the one before? By no means am I saying he's shown any flashes, but he's technically a pup who has been injured in a mans game. If he doesn't do anything this year then dump him.

He was also a 3rd round pick eh?

He was a second.

NightTerror218
04-25-2017, 06:00 PM
We will see, I am not giving up on him yet, hopefully him or Watson takes the RT position and play well.

I gave up on him last year. I think we need a miracle with him at this point because he has been worae every year.

Valar Morghulis
04-26-2017, 12:32 AM
He was a second.

Would have been there in the fifth if I remember correctly, or was that some other lineman that never worked out either?

Canmore
04-26-2017, 12:37 AM
Would have been there in the fifth if I remember correctly, or was that some other lineman that never worked out either?

Don't remember for sure. You maybe right.

Cugel
04-26-2017, 02:56 PM
How does TySam's prospect grade compare to this years crop?

He was a 2nd round pick and everybody had him around a 2nd round grade. Maybe some teams thought third round. But, he was drafted about where he was expected to be.

And the plan was certainly not for him to start year one. That changed in a hurry when Ryan Clady went down in training camp with yet another knee injury and was done for the year. They threw Sambrailo in there and he was terrible, but that's hardly fair to him. Partly, he wasn't ready, and partly he quickly got his shoulder hurt, tried to rush back because the coaches were pushing him desperately to get back on the field, and then reinjured his shoulder and went on season ending IR. Then last year he was hurt again, came back and was even worse than he was in 2015. Really really bad.

But, technique can be fixed with hard work and good coaching, so if he's healthy, and gets in the weight room and gains the strength he needs, and works out his technique flaws he could be a decent starter.

Is this guy ever going to be an All-Pro? Almost surely not, but he could be serviceable and that is a damn sight better than anything the Broncos have right now. I'd certainly rather have Sambrailo start than Elway's other option - Donald Stephenson! (He mentioned him at the presser).

I'd rather have Sambrailo start rather than a rookie too. At least he knows the NFL and isn't trying to figure out how to be a pro at the same time as trying to get ready to prevent Joey Bosa from ripping Siemians' head off and tossing it into the South Stands.

Hawgdriver
04-26-2017, 03:47 PM
He was a 2nd round pick and everybody had him around a 2nd round grade. Maybe some teams thought third round. But, he was drafted about where he was expected to be.

And the plan was certainly not for him to start year one. That changed in a hurry when Ryan Clady went down in training camp with yet another knee injury and was done for the year. They threw Sambrailo in there and he was terrible, but that's hardly fair to him. Partly, he wasn't ready, and partly he quickly got his shoulder hurt, tried to rush back because the coaches were pushing him desperately to get back on the field, and then reinjured his shoulder and went on season ending IR. Then last year he was hurt again, came back and was even worse than he was in 2015. Really really bad.

But, technique can be fixed with hard work and good coaching, so if he's healthy, and gets in the weight room and gains the strength he needs, and works out his technique flaws he could be a decent starter.

Is this guy ever going to be an All-Pro? Almost surely not, but he could be serviceable and that is a damn sight better than anything the Broncos have right now. I'd certainly rather have Sambrailo start than Elway's other option - Donald Stephenson! (He mentioned him at the presser).

I'd rather have Sambrailo start rather than a rookie too. At least he knows the NFL and isn't trying to figure out how to be a pro at the same time as trying to get ready to prevent Joey Bosa from ripping Siemians' head off and tossing it into the South Stands.

I really just wanted the raw numbers.

HORSEPOWER 56
04-26-2017, 04:58 PM
Sambrailo was never supposed to be a LT. He was drafted to play RT and be Franklin's replacement. He was forced into service at LT due to Clady's injury. Then he got hurt and hasn't been "right" since. It would be great if he can come back strong this season and contribute, but I'm not holding my breath.

Cugel
04-26-2017, 05:23 PM
It's looking more like Garrett Bolles of Utah is the pick at #20. Here are some of the concerns about him:


Jeffrey Essary (http://www.milehighreport.com/2017/4/26/15431176/take-best-player-available) I wouldn't draft Garett Bolles. I’ve been adamant about this one from the beginning. He comes from a spread scheme at Utah, played two years of small school football, and only one year in the mediocre PAC-12 before turning pro. And I haven’t even mentioned that fact that he’ll be 25 years old before he ever steps onto the field, and has major flaws in hand technique and functional strength. Don’t fall in love with a combine warrior who scored a 9 on the Wonderlic. Pass.

Elway can sometimes have a fatal attraction for older players - he really was interested in QB Branden Weeden, who was 25. Of course Weeden was taken at #25 by the Browns, and then disappeared forever into the Black Hole that is Cleveland. Maybe Bolles would be a good player despite the concerns of course.

But, he's not the kind of guy who would be considered a 1st round talent in other draft classes.

Cugel
04-26-2017, 05:28 PM
Sambrailo was never supposed to be a LT. He was drafted to play RT and be Franklin's replacement. He was forced into service at LT due to Clady's injury. Then he got hurt and hasn't been "right" since. It would be great if he can come back strong this season and contribute, but I'm not holding my breath.

Pretty good summary. Nobody was planning on Clady being suddenly gone from the Broncos, but he didn't even make the field in 2015, thus cascading a long series of dominoes that haven't stopped falling yet.

First, Sambrailo was pressed into service, then when that didn't help, the Broncos signed Okung for what was essentially a 1 year deal. Then he went to the Chargers for $13M a year. Then the Broncos failed to sign a FA LT to replace him.

Now we're facing the grim reality that the Broncos don't have a starting LT on the roster, while this is the worst draft class for OT in decades.

What that really means is that players with a "first round grade" doesn't mean they would be taken in the first round in years with better OTs in the draft. In last year's class Bolles and Ramcyzk would be 2nd round picks.

Hawgdriver
04-26-2017, 05:39 PM
this is the worst draft class for OT in decades.

2003 had Jordan Gross and Kwame Harris as 1st round picks according to Cooney's pre-draft scout rankings, and George Foster as a 1-2. Worse class, just last decade.

2004 has 2 1's, Robert Gallery and Shawn Andrews.

2005 had 3 1's at OT like this year. Alex Barron, Khalif Barnes, and Jammal Brown, but then no one after that until 2-3.

2006 pretty similar. D'Brick Ferg, Winston Justuce as 1's, and McNeill & Winston as 1-2's.

Btw, decades are like this:

1980-1989, 1990-1999, 2000-2009, etc., if that helps.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
04-26-2017, 06:49 PM
Utah had to play Stanford, USC, and Washington. The nock on competition is stupid, and so is the continual fretting about his age. He's 25, not 35.

DT88TheGreat
04-26-2017, 07:38 PM
People just fear if he has a learning curve and it takes 3-4 year's to happen he will be on the door step of 30. I don't think it holds much weight because to me if you can get 7 great year's out of a player then that's a good pick for me. Seems like GMs have always held age against guy's even in the NBA you can slip and be looked down upon if you are a senior coming out. Strange stuff.

Cugel
04-26-2017, 08:08 PM
2003 had Jordan Gross and Kwame Harris as 1st round picks according to Cooney's pre-draft scout rankings, and George Foster as a 1-2. Worse class, just last decade.

2004 has 2 1's, Robert Gallery and Shawn Andrews.

2005 had 3 1's at OT like this year. Alex Barron, Khalif Barnes, and Jammal Brown, but then no one after that until 2-3.

2006 pretty similar. D'Brick Ferg, Winston Justuce as 1's, and McNeill & Winston as 1-2's.

Btw, decades are like this:

1980-1989, 1990-1999, 2000-2009, etc., if that helps.

You think I'm making this "worst class in decades" stuff? Other teams like the Vikings are facing the same grim reaper. They desperately need OL help, but there just isn't any help coming soon via the draft:


Dearth of offensive linemen in draft creates dilemma
(http://pro32.ap.org/denverpost/article/dearth-offensive-linemen-draft-creates-dilemma)By DAVE CAMPBELL
— Apr. 26, 2017 5:55 PM EDT


MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — The deficiency on Minnesota's offensive line made that position the obvious priority for offseason improvement on a team that stumbled to an 8-8 finish.

By the second day of the NFL's open market last month, the Vikings had two free-agent tackles signed for their starting lineup. They simply couldn't afford to wait for the rookies this spring.

"I don't know if this will be an aberration or if this just is a picture of what the future will be," Senior Bowl executive director Phil Savage said, "but this year's offensive line draft is the poorest I can remember in terms of the quality of depth."

What's more, the Vikings don't have a pick this weekend until halfway through the second round, at No. 48 overall.

Uh-oh.

"Top to bottom, from player one to player 20 on the o-line, I knew in October that this was not going to be a strong group," Savage said. "I think you've got to have an offensive line coach who's willing to try to train and develop these players, because a lot of these guys are not going to be instant coffee, coming straight into the NFL."

The Vikings aren't alone with this dilemma.

The Denver Broncos and Seattle Seahawks are two otherwise-strong teams whose 2016 seasons were hindered by weakened offensive lines. The Cincinnati Bengals missed the playoffs for the first time in six years and lost their two best blockers, left tackle Andrew Whitworth and right guard Kevin Zeitler, in free agency. The Los Angeles Chargers have squandered prime seasons for quarterback Philip Rivers with an inability to protect and support him with better blocking.

"There's not a forest of offensive linemen trees out there that you can just run out to the back yard," Seahawks general manager John Schneider said.

You can spin all you want to but this is the Executive Director of the Senior Bowl saying this is the worst draft class for OL he can remember. That's bad. Period. He's saying bluntly that anybody who drafts one of these linemen will have to be patient and have "an offensive line coach who's willing to try to train and develop these players", because "a lot of these guys are not going to be instant coffee, coming straight into the NFL." That's him saying "these guys I'm watching are not NFL ready and you need to be patient and develop them.

Are there exceptions? Not really:


Wisconsin tackle Ryan Ramczyk, Alabama tackle Cam Robinson, Utah tackle Garett Bolles, Western Kentucky guard Forrest Lamp, Indiana guard Dan Feeney and Temple guard Dion Dawkins are the leading candidates, but none of them without come without questions or concerns. Ramczyk, for one, had surgery on his right hip in January and started only one season for the Badgers.

There's a chance they'll all slip through the first 20 selections, too. Over the last four years, between four and eight offensive linemen in each draft have been top-20 picks.

Can any of these players step in and be a day 1 starter? Every sign is pointing to "no." None is regarded as an elite talent, which is why none may be taken before #20. There are problem areas for every single one of these guys. And that's not normally as true for the very top, first round guys. This year is different.

Some years there are just no good QBs in the entire draft. But, it's an abnormal draft when there is no Pro-Bowl caliber T in the draft. This year could be that year.

DT88TheGreat
04-26-2017, 08:28 PM
I didn't know that anything (senior) bowl was the end all be all of opinions. I'll have to pay attention to the senior bowl for once now.

Hawgdriver
04-26-2017, 10:40 PM
Cugel, just own it, man. It was too strong a statement.

DT88TheGreat
04-26-2017, 11:01 PM
Yeah the worst class ever is a strong statement, there are 3 with first round grades, then you have lamp who has LT ability even though he may start at guard. And a bunch of other guy's who are projects surely.

DT88TheGreat
04-26-2017, 11:06 PM
You think I'm making this "worst class in decades" stuff? Other teams like the Vikings are facing the same grim reaper. They desperately need OL help, but there just isn't any help coming soon via the draft:



You can spin all you want to but this is the Executive Director of the Senior Bowl saying this is the worst draft class for OL he can remember. That's bad. Period. He's saying bluntly that anybody who drafts one of these linemen will have to be patient and have "an offensive line coach who's willing to try to train and develop these players", because "a lot of these guys are not going to be instant coffee, coming straight into the NFL." That's him saying "these guys I'm watching are not NFL ready and you need to be patient and develop them.

Are there exceptions? Not really:


Can any of these players step in and be a day 1 starter? Every sign is pointing to "no." None is regarded as an elite talent, which is why none may be taken before #20. There are problem areas for every single one of these guys. And that's not normally as true for the very top, first round guys. This year is different.

Some years there are just no good QBs in the entire draft. But, it's an abnormal draft when there is no Pro-Bowl caliber T in the draft. This year could be that year.

When has there ever been a draft where all the QBs were bust? Also when has there ever been a draft where all the OL were bust? Half these guy's if they somehow don't make it at LT they should be elite guard's. I think Robinson, Bolles, Ramcyk and maybe Lamp all have a chance to be good tackles.