PDA

View Full Version : How can anyone NOT want a DT in the Draft???



gobroncsnv
12-09-2007, 03:41 PM
Watching the Titans beat the Chargers (so far, anyway)... How can anybody see a game where Haynesworth makes such a difference in the Titans game and not see that we could use somebody like this? Vandenbosch is looking like a complete animal, when he plays on the same side with a good DT... Gonna be hard for me to grade out a draft well until we can get a Dline that is this disruptive.

We gotta get us one of those things!!!!!!!!!!!! FA or draft, it is money well spent.

Retired_Member_001
12-09-2007, 03:46 PM
Taking a DT in the draft is risky. I don't know what the stats are but it's one of the most bust prone positions you could draft.

Also a rookie DT also takes a few seasons to mature.

We would be best off getting a DT through the FA, so we know what we are getting.

Stargazer
12-09-2007, 11:32 PM
It does make you wonder if the Broncos had kept Big Money how the season would have turned out instead of going with Sam Adams.

Anyway, DT are boom or bust in the draft. If there's a good one to be had in FA, and if the Broncos are willing to spend, go there. Team immediate needs are S,LB,DT,OL.

I think the Broncos should focus on the draft/FA and repair the defense and OL.

dogfish
12-09-2007, 11:39 PM
c'mon, you mean you don't want to trade our whole draft and half of next year's to get mcfadden??



:lol: :laugh:

UnderArmour
12-09-2007, 11:51 PM
c'mon, you mean you don't want to trade our whole draft and half of next year's to get mcfadden??



:lol: :laugh:

No matter what we do the Patriots will end up with him. Their Running game could certainly use him and I don't think the Dolphins will take him.

dogfish
12-09-2007, 11:57 PM
No matter what we do the Patriots will end up with him. Their Running game could certainly use him and I don't think the Dolphins will take him.



actually, i'm betting that they'll make a serious effort to trade down out of the high pick-- it'll allow them to still target an impact player while saving some money, and gathering more picks. . . IMO that fits perfectly with their typical draft philosophy. . .

Stargazer
12-10-2007, 12:17 AM
No matter what we do the Patriots will end up with him. Their Running game could certainly use him and I don't think the Dolphins will take him.

I see them going defense. Chris Long would be my guess. Of'course it's early to speculate. But, I see the Pats going defense with their high pick which could mean trading down a few spots.

Stargazer
12-10-2007, 12:18 AM
actually, i'm betting that they'll make a serious effort to trade down out of the high pick-- it'll allow them to still target an impact player while saving some money, and gathering more picks. . . IMO that fits perfectly with their typical draft philosophy. . .

That does fit their philosophy. Definately save money trading down, but acquiring future picks. Not just '08 picks. I'm thinking Chris Long. And I'm thinking they're drafting defense.

Stargazer
12-10-2007, 12:24 AM
c'mon, you mean you don't want to trade our whole draft and half of next year's to get mcfadden??



:lol: :laugh:

If Denver is near Mcfadden I would still pull the trigger. Despite possibly being set at RB next year, Denver will not end up with a selection close enough to make a move on Mcfadden. He will go high. And the Adrian Peterson(who went #8 overall) effect will make teams notice & select him very high.

LoyalSoldier
12-10-2007, 12:43 AM
c'mon, you mean you don't want to trade our whole draft and half of next year's to get mcfadden??



:lol: :laugh:

Only if we hire Mike Ditka.

gobroncsnv
12-10-2007, 01:42 AM
If Denver is near Mcfadden I would still pull the trigger. Despite possibly being set at RB next year, Denver will not end up with a selection close enough to make a move on Mcfadden. He will go high. And the Adrian Peterson(who went #8 overall) effect will make teams notice & select him very high.

The RB's we have are fine. Our Dline is not. Don't care what happened today, we can't get a quality opponent's QB on the ground near enough. We have been near the top of the league in rushing plenty in the last 10+ years. We are not even close in sacks and run defense.

Stargazer
12-10-2007, 02:40 AM
The RB's we have are fine. Our Dline is not. Don't care what happened today, we can't get a quality opponent's QB on the ground near enough. We have been near the top of the league in rushing plenty in the last 10+ years. We are not even close in sacks and run defense.

The RB's are fine. They are not AD, and they are not McFadden. They will not scare teams on Sunday. They will not impose fear. But, yes they are fine. Denver doesn't have the ammo to consider McFadden anyway. I am all for DT help, but where Denver will be picking they should definately go LB or S. Not DT with the 1st pick.

champbronc2
12-10-2007, 08:02 AM
Well I don't see us getting Dorsey, that's for sure.

After Dorsey I don't think there is really any DT's that will "make the difference"

The OLB class is stronger IMO and picking up Connor would be nice.

I would like to pick up a nice DT in free agency.

Maybe Corey Williams or Haynesworth himself if one of those organizations is dumb enough to not resign them.

TXBRONC
12-10-2007, 08:13 AM
c'mon, you mean you don't want to trade our whole draft and half of next year's to get mcfadden??



:lol: :laugh:

Hey now, I would love to have McFadden but not at the expense of giving everything else just to get him.

Skinny
12-10-2007, 08:26 AM
Either way, early rounds, mid, or even the late rounds i feel confident in Bates and his staff's evaluation along with Sundquist's, of scouting Draft prospects to fill needs ... especially along the D-line.

In just Bates first year his impact in that area is already being seen. Bronco fans should be estatic about that ... i know i am. :cool:

topscribe
12-10-2007, 11:46 AM
Every year, it seems, a bevy of fans want the Broncos to sink their #1 into a
running back.


I hope the Broncos are smarter than that and concentrate on DT, LB, and
safety. The Broncos have proven they can run the ball with what they have.
They have yet to prove they can consistently STOP the run . . . and they
may not prove it until they get those positions solidified.

-----

omac
12-10-2007, 02:40 PM
The really funny thing about this is, the Colts' starting DRT is an UNDRAFTED ROOKIE, Ed Johnson. I guess what the Broncos can find undrafted at RB, the Colts can find at DT. Then again, Shanny is an offense guy, while Dunghy is a defense guy.

Lonestar
12-10-2007, 02:57 PM
Lets see Young running for 156 on a pretty good defense behind a beat up rather young OLINE..

And they think McFadden would run for a whole lot more..

More RBs are not a huge need on this team regardless of who they are.. Their are just so many carries a game and so many touches on Offense how much more is needed? How much more could McFadden do than what we are getting already? 50 100 yards a game? Who on the offense is gonna give up their chances at earning bonus for that? Walker, Scheffler, Graham, Marshall or Stokely?

I thought not. Are they willing to place all their marbles in a RB that could be gone and heartbeat with a ACL? Most normal folks would not be..


Get another top notch DT, next a SLB or a safety and all the rest falls into place..

underrated29
12-10-2007, 03:44 PM
mcfadden would be sick. If we got him we would most definitley have the MOST EXPLOSIVE SHOW ON turf/grass. But how many super bowls did that win the rams? 1,i think. So we can down inthe record books with 1 more sb, the best offense ever, and a great offense for a while with dmac.

Or we can draft a DT rd1, lb rd 2 (since this class is full of them), and shore up s/oline/wr/kr/rb with the rest. We can then have an extremely potent offense (as we have already demonstrated, id say top 5) and then also have a lock down defense. And be able to win several superbowls as we will be that good, plus our team is young and should remain intact for many years.

Id rather be dominant then explosive.

Medford Bronco
12-10-2007, 03:55 PM
actually, i'm betting that they'll make a serious effort to trade down out of the high pick-- it'll allow them to still target an impact player while saving some money, and gathering more picks. . . IMO that fits perfectly with their typical draft philosophy. . .

I can almost guaranty that is what Ne will do.

you are very perceptive dogfish:salute:

Requiem / The Dagda
12-10-2007, 04:05 PM
Anyone who would trade with New England is ridiculous. You do not help them out. AT ALL.

underrated29
12-10-2007, 04:07 PM
Anyone who would trade with New England is ridiculous. You do not help them out. AT ALL.



yup, but i think the texans would.

Medford Bronco
12-10-2007, 04:36 PM
yup, but i think the texans would.

If they could get McFadden, someone will bite guaranteed

SM19
12-10-2007, 05:49 PM
The really funny thing about this is, the Colts' starting DRT is an UNDRAFTED ROOKIE, Ed Johnson. I guess what the Broncos can find undrafted at RB, the Colts can find at DT. Then again, Shanny is an offense guy, while Dunghy is a defense guy.

It's a system thing. The Colts can use the kind of undersized players at DT that other teams don't value highly, just like we do with offensive linemen.

Anyway, given our likely draft position, I'd be thrilled if we took Frank Okam in the first round. Dorsey obviously would be even better, but I'm sure he's out of range for us.

Lonestar
12-10-2007, 05:55 PM
The really funny thing about this is, the Colts' starting DRT is an UNDRAFTED ROOKIE, Ed Johnson. I guess what the Broncos can find undrafted at RB, the Colts can find at DT. Then again, Shanny is an offense guy, while Dunghy is a defense guy.


I did not notice the DRT comment per se. I just have to add that Indy's Defense has sucked forever till last year in the playoffs ans since they have been better than ever.


I'd guess that this find was like us finding TD in the 5th round.. One of those things that happens when all the stars aligned just right.

dogfish
12-10-2007, 05:58 PM
Anyone who would trade with New England is ridiculous. You do not help them out. AT ALL.


yea, tell that to the dumbass 49ers. . . . :frusty:


ahh well, WTH do they care? they're in the NFC, and nowhere close to even competing for the playoffs. . .


they sure have egg on their faces now, though-- staley looks like he's going to be a solid player for them, but he's not worth a #2 or #3 overall pick. . . .

Requiem / The Dagda
12-10-2007, 06:11 PM
Teams like Dallas, Indianapolis, Green Bay and New England who are dominating their respective conferences are at the top because they've drafted players who fit the scheme they have and will be sticking to until the end of time. It doesn't necessarily matter where you draft them, as long as they fit the system and the players buy into what is going on. Mediator on the Mane made a really terrific post regarding this, and I really wish I had a link - but nonetheless, the point still stands.

It's the same reason why Denver has been successful with RB's and OL's late in the draft - and it's not because they're just "lucky" they adequately find people who will work within the system and do a pretty darn good job in the process. They know how they're going to run their offense, so they plug in the adequate players accordingly.

Denver's got the backside of their defense with players who fit the system and can do the job well, but we're still waiting on the guys up front. As much as Bates is getting his head called for here, he's actually attempting to bring an identity to this defense. He did it in Green Bay, and they're reaping the benefits. They didn't just drop everything he put together after he left, he let it go and they're doing wonders.

Denver is taking the appropriate measures to do this. Drafting Dumervil was a start, but that wasn't a Bates decision, but he's someone who can do damage (immense) given the system. Crowder as you can see is getting more PT and will hopefully be our base end on the left side next season. Jarvis Moss is the real wild card - but he's another player who can disrupt off the edge. Out of any end, I'm more concerned about him than anything just due to a longevity standpoint, but he's a prototype for the system and works perfectly.

Denver made an honest attempt to get a guy who can buy into the system and fit it with Thomas, and I thought he's played very well for a rookie. He doesn't and hasn't finished off the sacks yet, but he creates a lot of pressure. He will be good in a year or so, and I mean real good. For him having almost a full year of being out of football - I think he's done quite remarkable.

I don't know about our linebackers, I think Williams will be okay - and Webster and Gold seem to be improving as well, but there can be an upgrade at either outside spot. Bates did this in Green Bay completely and it started with Barnett in the middle. Where we didn't draft DJ to play the middle necessarily, Bates feels he has the aptitude to play it - so you can see where the situations are mirrored.

What we need is a true play making weakside linebacker, and I don't feel that Gold is going to be that guy. I have stated for over more than a year that he would be gone at the end of this season and I still believe it. This draft is four rounds deep in immense linebacker talent, especially at the weakside and I'd be SHOCKED if Denver didn't attempt to pick it up.

Last but not least, Denver seems to be doing fine at safety. Abdullah has done surprisingly well (and I'll eat my crow on that one) and all Denver really needs is a developmental guy (unless they go for Phillips) and they'll have their secondary complete. I wouldn't even peg safety as a top two round need right now, considering how many late-round players make impacts there at the NFL. They just have to fit and buy into the system. It's that easy.

To answer the question, "Why wouldn't we want a DT in the draft?" -- Well, it really comes down to priority. It is one of, IF NOT the hardest position to translate from college to the NFL because there is an immense amount of work to be done, especially regarding technique. Players like Thomas didn't necessarily dominate because they're the best thing since sliced bread in college, but they knew what they had to do by beating below-average players at their respective level. Time after time, you hear the young rookie defensive lineman (and Elvis) talking about stance and technique adjustment. That's the biggest thing. It's just an adjustment period, and some people just don't feel like waiting that long.

I think it'd be apt for Denver to put priority in FA and the draft on a defensive tackle because it gives us a shot both ways. Why not try to double-dip in an area that's probably the most problematic on the team? Get a savvy veteran like Corey Williams from Green Bay and pair him with Marcus Thomas. That's havoc. Allow Alvin McKinley to be a simple 3-technique guy in the second rotation and pair him with a guy like Frank Okam. It's really that easy, but easier said than done.

A lot of it also comes down to personal preference and priority - and what people see on a game by game basis. I'm usually pretty consistent in my draft needs and I've been on the DT/LB early for a long time now, but offensive tackle needs to be in there as well. Throw in a speed receiver and safety within the first several selections and I'd call it a nice draft.

Denver will play in FA this year and get some players, so we'll have more of an idea of what we truly need down the line.

If the word on Warren's pick escalating to a fourth based on play is true, Denver would have 1, 2, 4, 4, 4 and a 5 and that'd be absolutely one of the best set-ups going into the draft for a middle of the pack team. Throw in the possibility of a trade (as we seem to make) and we could have even more.

With this team blowing the pants off of Kansas City and playing with enormous confidence, if we do things right this off-season I will honestly feel sorry for any team that has to play us in a year or so. This team is going to be incredible.

Requiem / The Dagda
12-10-2007, 06:19 PM
Oh, and just for the record - the same defensive approaches the aforementioned teams (IND, NE, GB, DAL) took in the pasts drafts is what Denver really tried to do for their offense in 2006, and with the Harris pick in 2007.


Get your franchise quarterback.

Get him a pro-bowl receiver. (Walker, but unfortunately that's turning into a poor deal)

Get him a pass catching threat at tight end. (After all, a tight end is a QB's best friend)

Get him a couple of other weapons and hope they pan out (Marshall, Hixon - fortunately one did)

Get him some protection. (Kuper, Eslinger - well, Kuper's panning out)


Adding in Harris (versatile player, tackle at either position, more so LT) was one of the final parts in that process.

We added in Graham, Henry and Stokley to help that process as well. Unfortunately, injuries set back the plans - but we finally started to see what a confident young quarterback can do with experience (extensive with the same cast of players) and familiarity with the people surrounding him.

I look forward to Denver finishing off this offense this coming off-season (FA and Draft) and building a defense with identity. Might not be next year, but 2009 might just be damn awesome.

LoyalSoldier
12-10-2007, 08:18 PM
Get him a pro-bowl receiver. (Walker, but unfortunately that's turning into a poor deal)

I wouldn't say that just yet. He was playing really well before he got hurt.

gobroncsnv
12-10-2007, 08:55 PM
Teams like Dallas, Indianapolis, Green Bay and New England who are dominating their respective conferences are at the top because they've drafted players who fit the scheme they have and will be sticking to until the end of time.

So this is really kind of two points wrapped into one.... We have to draw a line in the sand and say that Bates is the guy we are sticking with. Our pattern has been to change DC's, and therefore, the system, so much that we cannot build any continuity. Bates has a proven system that works (the Pack runs it), WHEN HE GETS THE GUYS HE CAN BUILD IT WITH... And what we do know is that, right now, he is not at all set at DT. In the title, I mentioned we need to draft someone at the position. I still think that is the best way to go, so we can keep somebody around for a while to work along side Thomas.
Watching Haynesworth and Vandenbosch just positively work the Chargers line yesterday, it is so obvious what we need to improve (even more) Dumervil, and the others' game... It would change things dramatically. But I would be fine to get a proven FA who we could keep for 3 or more years, and who is worth his salt. IMO, via draft or FA, we just don't have a higher priority.

DenBronx
12-10-2007, 09:18 PM
Every year, it seems, a bevy of fans want the Broncos to sink their #1 into a
running back.


I hope the Broncos are smarter than that and concentrate on DT, LB, and
safety. The Broncos have proven they can run the ball with what they have.
They have yet to prove they can consistently STOP the run . . . and they
may not prove it until they get those positions solidified.

-----


ill admit it, i was one of the ones that wanted peterson or lynch. that was of course before we signed henry...but like stargazer said, "they dont exactly strike fear in the oposing teams." how lethal would this team be with a guy like peterson? we would be the team putting up 50+ points per game. its easy to win games when your blowing teams out of the stadium. defense does win games but id take an elite offense anyday of the week. saying that....i severly doubt mcfadden will even be around past pick 10 and henry won his case....so it doesnt matter.

besides we should get a veteran for a dt. id rather see us pick up a rookie slb/wlb or safety. look at what nelson is doing for jacksonville and this guy by the name of patrick willis isnt so bad either.

what dt's are available this offseason guys? are there any worth giving a look?

Lonestar
12-10-2007, 11:01 PM
ill admit it, i was one of the ones that wanted peterson or lynch. that was of course before we signed henry...but like stargazer said, "they dont exactly strike fear in the oposing teams." how lethal would this team be with a guy like peterson? we would be the team putting up 50+ points per game. its easy to win games when your blowing teams out of the stadium. defense does win games but id take an elite offense anyday of the week. saying that....i severly doubt mcfadden will even be around past pick 10 and henry won his case....so it doesnt matter.

besides we should get a veteran for a dt. id rather see us pick up a rookie slb/wlb or safety. look at what nelson is doing for jacksonville and this guy by the name of patrick willis isnt so bad either.

what dt's are available this offseason guys? are there any worth giving a look?

But you just don't get it! Veteran Great DT's seldom move because their teams know what they have. Unless they are totally cash strapped they are gonna re sign with them unless they just hate the team they got drafted to.. If they do move it is because they are getting WAY more than they should, $35-40 mil over a 4 year contract with loads of money up front.. Look what we paid for Warren to resign..

Conversely drafting a top DT gets you in with a few mil signing bonus 5-15mil tops and 350K-500k a year..
These guys just do not grow on trees most of the ones that are good are with there drafted teams..

RB's are there every year and frankly putting up 50 points a game is not gonna happen. If it does the the D lets them have 51..

Offense wins games defense wins the marbles..

TXBRONC
12-10-2007, 11:07 PM
ill admit it, i was one of the ones that wanted peterson or lynch. that was of course before we signed henry...but like stargazer said, "they dont exactly strike fear in the oposing teams." how lethal would this team be with a guy like peterson? we would be the team putting up 50+ points per game. its easy to win games when your blowing teams out of the stadium. defense does win games but id take an elite offense anyday of the week. saying that....i severly doubt mcfadden will even be around past pick 10 and henry won his case....so it doesnt matter.

besides we should get a veteran for a dt. id rather see us pick up a rookie slb/wlb or safety. look at what nelson is doing for jacksonville and this guy by the name of patrick willis isnt so bad either.

what dt's are available this offseason guys? are there any worth giving a look?

Haynesworth is going to be out there.

Lonestar
12-10-2007, 11:11 PM
Hanesworth is going to be out there.



We/they all saw what happened to their stellar Run D in our game with a beat up OLINE and not so great RB's..

I'd be surprised if the GM and coach would allow him to get on the market..While he is a UFA they would beyond stupid to do so..

TXBRONC
12-10-2007, 11:20 PM
We/they all saw what happened to their stellar Run D in our game with a beat up OLINE and not so great RB's..

I'd be surprised if the GM and coach would allow him to get on the market..While he is a UFA they would beyond stupid to do so..

It's out of the control of the Front Office if Haynesworth doesn't like the offer. Maybe they make him great offer but he doesn't like so leaves.

Also Haynesworth accept for this season has not always played up to his abilities according what Dogfish said awhile back and he also has had his series of other problems on and off the field.

Lonestar
12-10-2007, 11:21 PM
It's out of the control of the Front Office if Haynesworth doesn't like the offer. Maybe they make him great offer but he doesn't like so leaves.

Also Haynesworth accept for this season has not always played up to his abilities according what Dogfish said awhile back and he also has had his series of other problems on and off the field.

reagradless he/they would be stupid not to offer him the moon. Yes he could be stupid and move on but it is rare for a quality DT to hit the open market..

TXBRONC
12-10-2007, 11:27 PM
reagradless he/they would be stupid not to offer him the moon. Yes he could be stupid and move on but it is rare for a quality DT to hit the open market..

You're entitled to think that, but I don't. Up until this season Haynesworth hasn't been playing like a quality DT and as I said he's had a series of problems both on and off the field.

Requiem / The Dagda
12-11-2007, 01:02 AM
Haynesworth has been a very consistent player, just really underrated. I'm almost positive he's franchised. Tennessee is not stupid.

LoyalSoldier
12-11-2007, 02:12 AM
Haynesworth has been a very consistent player, just really underrated. I'm almost positive he's franchised. Tennessee is not stupid.

Fischer said in a press conference the other day "He isn't going anywhere"

Stargazer
12-11-2007, 02:30 AM
It's fun to speculate this early. Dan Conner or Kenny Phillips with the 1st pick.

And to the original thread starter. A DT should be drafted in the draft. Just not in the 1st round.

Stargazer
12-11-2007, 04:26 AM
c'mon, you mean you don't want to trade our whole draft and half of next year's to get mcfadden??



:lol: :laugh:

Though I would never advocate trading an entire draft for McFadden(or any player) and future picks. Have you seen this guy play?

It may be a lol to you, but the guy is VERY GOOD. Shocker, he's really that good. And to the team that drafts him, oh boy. I don't see the Pats selecting him, though they might. They have defensive needs to fill, and a possiblity of trading down to save money and acquire future picks. But, McFadden on the Patriots is scary. Very scary. Though I see them fixing their defense.

Stargazer
12-11-2007, 04:32 AM
Every year, it seems, a bevy of fans want the Broncos to sink their #1 into a
running back.




Bronco fans wanted AD in a Bronco uniform. Can you blame them with the season he is having? Guess what, the same Bronco fans want McFadden in a Bronco uni this upcoming season.

omac
12-11-2007, 06:00 AM
Dream,

Just wanted to say those were some real nice posts back in the previous page, and I agree with your points. :salute:

omac
12-11-2007, 06:07 AM
ill admit it, i was one of the ones that wanted peterson or lynch. that was of course before we signed henry...but like stargazer said, "they dont exactly strike fear in the oposing teams." how lethal would this team be with a guy like peterson? we would be the team putting up 50+ points per game. its easy to win games when your blowing teams out of the stadium. defense does win games but id take an elite offense anyday of the week. saying that....i severly doubt mcfadden will even be around past pick 10 and henry won his case....so it doesnt matter.

besides we should get a veteran for a dt. id rather see us pick up a rookie slb/wlb or safety. look at what nelson is doing for jacksonville and this guy by the name of patrick willis isnt so bad either.

what dt's are available this offseason guys? are there any worth giving a look?

http://footballsfuture.com/2008/nfl/freeagentsDL.html

omac
12-11-2007, 06:15 AM
Bronco fans wanted AD in a Bronco uniform. Can you blame them with the season he is having? Guess what, the same Bronco fans want McFadden in a Bronco uni this upcoming season.

I say not before the defense gets addressed. AD is maybe the best RB in the league, but that Vikings OL is excellent too. Still, we have to upgrade our defense first, or we could be similar to the Browns, scoring a lot of points but still getting beaten. Speaking of the Browns, I think the real key to their success is their OL, and specifically Joe Thomas.

DenBronx
12-11-2007, 12:38 PM
But you just don't get it! Veteran Great DT's seldom move because their teams know what they have.

no i do get it....what i get is DT is the highest risk bust position come draft day. i dont want to see denver draft another "project". we cant fool around here, we need a proven resume. last year we had the chance to pick up a rogers and/or jenkins and we went after fools gold instead. those guys would have helped win 1 or 2 more games....thus possibly helping us make the playoffs. now, thomas is pretty good for a rookie. in fact he seems to be better than fatty old man adams.


Haynesworth is going to be out there.

exactly! he would be a perfect fit but wont come cheap. but id take this beast over a rookie that will take 2-3 years to make an impact or possibly be a bust.

Requiem / The Dagda
12-11-2007, 01:05 PM
That's just the deal though, Haynesworth won't be out there. He will be franchsed. Secondly, as Denver fans (and the Denver coaches) should be really weary about giving another big contract out to a defensive tackle. I'm pretty sure I'm the only one who laughed at Warren's (considering most here thought he deserved it, and well - he didn't) and it'd be a little depressing to see another defensive tackle get another large contract.

However, players like Haynesworth demand it, and a guy like Corey Williams might be a cheaper alternative. Green Bay has some nice defensive tackles (drafted Harrell early) so it's possible that Williams would be expendable and they wouldn't re-sign him. I'd go after him and go for a rookie as well.

Makes sense that way. Add another veteran, add another young gun. That way, we don't worry about the problem anymore and our future off-seasons can be addressed by looking at the problems them. I'd HOPE with the drafting of five young lineman (if we took this scenario) and the addition of a few veterans in a three year period would be enough for addressing the problem.

This team could use some help elsewhere (as mentioned) but linebackers aren't going to help if the people working for them up front can't do their jobs.

omac
12-11-2007, 01:44 PM
That's just the deal though, Haynesworth won't be out there. He will be franchsed. Secondly, as Denver fans (and the Denver coaches) should be really weary about giving another big contract out to a defensive tackle. I'm pretty sure I'm the only one who laughed at Warren's (considering most here thought he deserved it, and well - he didn't) and it'd be a little depressing to see another defensive tackle get another large contract.

However, players like Haynesworth demand it, and a guy like Corey Williams might be a cheaper alternative. Green Bay has some nice defensive tackles (drafted Harrell early) so it's possible that Williams would be expendable and they wouldn't re-sign him. I'd go after him and go for a rookie as well.

Makes sense that way. Add another veteran, add another young gun. That way, we don't worry about the problem anymore and our future off-seasons can be addressed by looking at the problems them. I'd HOPE with the drafting of five young lineman (if we took this scenario) and the addition of a few veterans in a three year period would be enough for addressing the problem.

This team could use some help elsewhere (as mentioned) but linebackers aren't going to help if the people working for them up front can't do their jobs.

This sounds like a good approach. :salute:

Take care of both the present and the future. The inability of the defense to stop the run without putting 8 in the box makes Denver very vulnerable.

Lonestar
12-11-2007, 06:26 PM
Bronco fans wanted AD in a Bronco uniform. Can you blame them with the season he is having? Guess what, the same Bronco fans want McFadden in a Bronco uni this upcoming season.


But anyone that thinks he would have had this good a season in Den is smoking from Thenrys stash.. MIN has a damned good OLINE.. DEN as we speak has major issues on theirs..

Lonestar
12-11-2007, 06:38 PM
no i do get it....what i get is DT is the highest risk bust position come draft day. i dont want to see denver draft another "project". we cant fool around here, we need a proven resume. last year we had the chance to pick up a rogers and/or jenkins and we went after fools gold instead. those guys would have helped win 1 or 2 more games....thus possibly helping us make the playoffs. now, thomas is pretty good for a rookie. in fact he seems to be better than fatty old man adams.



exactly! he would be a perfect fit but wont come cheap. but id take this beast over a rookie that will take 2-3 years to make an impact or possibly be a bust.



Show me all of these top busts you speak about then go look at NE, PHIL and NYG..


2007 - Defensive Tackles
Rd Sel # Player School Team
1 10 Amobi Okoye Louisville Houston Texans
1 16 Justin Harrell Tennessee Green Bay Packers

2006 - Defensive Tackles
Rd Sel # Player School Team
1 12 Haloti Ngata Oregon Baltimore Ravens
1 14 Brodrick Bunkley Florida State Philadelphia Eagles
1 26 John McCargo North Carolina State Buffalo Bills

2005 - Defensive Tackles
Rd Sel # Player School Team
1 16 Travis Johnson Florida State Houston Texans
1 31 Mike Patterson USC Philadelphia Eagles

2004 - Defensive Tackles
Rd Sel # Player School Team
1 14 Tommie Harris Oklahoma Chicago Bears 2006
1 23 Marcus Tubbs Texas Seattle Seahawks

2003 - Defensive Tackles
Rd Sel # Player School Team
1 4 Dewayne Robertson Kentucky New York Jets
1 6 Johnathan Sullivan Georgia New Orleans Saints
1 12 Jimmy Kennedy Penn State St. Louis Rams
1 25 William Joseph Miami (Fla.) New York Giants

2002 - Defensive Tackles
Rd Sel # Player School Team
1 6 Ryan Sims North Carolina Kansas City Chiefs
1 9 John Henderson Tennessee Jacksonville Jaguars
1 12 Wendell Bryant Wisconsin Arizona Cardinals
1 15 Albert Haynesworth Tennessee Tennessee Titans 2004

2001 - Defensive Tackles
Rd Sel # Player School Team
1 3 Gerard Warren Florida Cleveland Browns
1 6 Richard Seymour Georgia New England Patriots 2003,04,05,06,07
1 12 Damione Lewis Miami (Fla.) St. Louis Rams
1 13 Marcus Stroud Georgia Jacksonville Jaguars 2003,04,05,06,07
1 29 Ryan Pickett Ohio State St. Louis Rams

2000 - Defensive Tackles
Rd Sel # Player School Team
1 6 Corey Simon Florida State Philadelphia Eagles 2004
1 25 Chris Hovan Boston College Minnesota Vikings
2 42 Cornelius Griffin Alabama New York Giants

1999 - Defensive Tackles
Rd Sel # Player School Team
1 15 Anthony McFarland Louisiana State Tampa Bay Buccaneers

1996 - Defensive Tackles
Rd Sel # Player School Team
1 20 Daryl Gardener Baylor Miami Dolphins
1 22 Marcus Jones North Carolina Tampa Bay Buccaneers

1995 - Defensive Tackles
Rd Sel # Player School Team
1 12 Warren Sapp Miami (Fla.) Tampa Bay Buccaneers 2002,03,04

1994 - Defensive Tackles
Rd Sel # Player School Team
1 1 Dan Wilkinson Ohio State Cincinnati Bengals
1 7 Bryant Young Notre Dame San Francisco 49ers 2002,03
1 20 Tim Bowens Mississippi Miami Dolphins 2003

If you say look at CLE your correct but that is the GM making those screw ups..

Hanesworth will never get out of TEN their coach is way to smart to allow that.. The worst case scenario in he gets franchised.. He is gonna get a mint anyway..

http://www.idatasports.com/nfl/probowl/rosters/

I added the pro bowlers in red and the year they went. The site I went to only went back to 2002-07. I know that Blowens in MIA went a couple of times, I think gardners went at least once. Alos pretty sure the Hovan went if he did not he should havea he was retty dominant for a couple of years. The only reason Henderson from JAX did not, was his teammate went almost every year.

Where on the list is a DEN DT that ever went as a DT..

DenBronx
12-11-2007, 10:44 PM
That's just the deal though, Haynesworth won't be out there.

That and Tenn is like 40 mil under the cap. No way they let him go...he'll be a Titan next year.





Show me all of these top busts you speak about then go look at NE, PHIL and NYG..



Ask that same question to the Cleveland Browns. All bust....sorry.

And most of those guys on your list are barely average....

Lonestar
12-11-2007, 10:56 PM
That and Tenn is like 40 mil under the cap. No way they let him go...he'll be a Titan next year.







Ask that same question to the Cleveland Browns. All bust....sorry.

And most of those guys on your list are barely average....

You see that teh DT spot is really hard to quantify..

For the most part they are no big in tackles or sacks they are the unsung heroes on the filed alot like the OLINE you only notice their absence..

When Hanesworth is not on the field for TEN their top 5 Run defense gets killed..

Stargazer
12-12-2007, 02:19 AM
But anyone that thinks he would have had this good a season in Den is smoking from Thenrys stash.. MIN has a damned good OLINE.. DEN as we speak has major issues on theirs..

Denver is not Dolphins bad on the OL. Young/Henry had a good day vs Chiefs. Mcfadden would be a huge addition to the running game. There's no doubt about that. Can't some of you accept the idea that yes he would look good in orange and blue? But, Denver doesn't have the ammo to even entertain the idea of selecting him.

Lonestar
12-12-2007, 03:55 AM
Denver is not Dolphins bad on the OL. Young/Henry had a good day vs Chiefs. Mcfadden would be a huge addition to the running game. There's no doubt about that. Can't some of you accept the idea that yes he would look good in orange and blue? But, Denver doesn't have the ammo to even entertain the idea of selecting him.

Yes there is debate about what he could do for DEN..

Just because he is great today in college doth not make him a lock in the NFL. and certainly not just in DEN.. While our OLINE today is better than MIA it is not nearly on par with a few others in the NFL and no where close to MIN's.

Just how much better can he make us in the running department?

Can he give us another 100 per game? 50? 25?

If he does give us say 33 more per game is it at 5 YPC. If so which of our other players Marshall, Walker, Stokely, Scheffler or graham are you gonna take those plays from?

And considering they are already making more than that per play why would you want to?

Why would you want Cutler as QB when you are gonna play RUN for 30+ plays a game? Anyone can hand the rock to him..

You just do not see the cost to benefit ratio. For every hand off he gets more than what we are doing now someone else loses one..
Is he gonna command a bigger cost pr play than any of these others and
who is gonna have to be cut to have a high priced RB?

There is only one ball, so many plays a game and a salary cap. something has to go to get that type of RB.

Or should we scrap the defense since we are gonna be scoring 50+ points a game.

We can cut Champ, Bly, Moss, DJ certainly gold at 2.4 per year can go.. Just as long as we score more than they do it does not matter?





Forget all of that your right with every win we get this year it takes us that much farther out of his league to be able to DAFT him.. Thank God for small favors..

omac
12-12-2007, 02:04 PM
Yes there is debate about what he could do for DEN..

Just because he is great today in college doth not make him a lock in the NFL. and certainly not just in DEN.. While our OLINE today is better than MIA it is not nearly on par with a few others in the NFL and no where close to MIN's.

Just how much better can he make us in the running department?

Can he give us another 100 per game? 50? 25?

If he does give us say 33 more per game is it at 5 YPC. If so which of our other players Marshall, Walker, Stokely, Scheffler or graham are you gonna take those plays from?

And considering they are already making more than that per play why would you want to?

Why would you want Cutler as QB when you are gonna play RUN for 30+ plays a game? Anyone can hand the rock to him..

You just do not see the cost to benefit ratio. For every hand off he gets more than what we are doing now someone else loses one..
Is he gonna command a bigger cost pr play than any of these others and
who is gonna have to be cut to have a high priced RB?

There is only one ball, so many plays a game and a salary cap. something has to go to get that type of RB.

Or should we scrap the defense since we are gonna be scoring 50+ points a game.

We can cut Champ, Bly, Moss, DJ certainly gold at 2.4 per year can go.. Just as long as we score more than they do it does not matter?

I think this is a very good point.

As it stands, Denver has a very balanced attack; when it's clicking, the offense can rack up more than 100 yards rushing and 300 yards receiving. Just how much better can this offense get? We already have the ability to score 40 points.

Having a guy like AD on our team is a luxury; he will be greatly underused, or if not, Culter and our receivers will be greatly underused. If we can get a guy like AD cheap/affordable both in terms of salary and draft possition, then why not? But if getting a guy like AD means we don't properly address the real weaknesses in our team, like the DT specially, then we're making a mistake.

We could end up like the current Browns; high powered offense, very friendly defense. We could beat most teams, but when we face the real contenders who can keep up with the scoring, like the Pats, we'll lose.

omac
12-12-2007, 02:08 PM
Just to add; the Pats have always been fearless in their offense, because they knew they could rely on their defense.

underrated29
12-12-2007, 02:33 PM
If we didnt trade up and ;dmac fell to us, then it would have to be a strong consideration. But even then, i doubt they would take him. I think they would do just what i think we will do anyways, trade down.

Remember, last year shanny had m bush on his board, but elected to pass him up. he went in the 4th rd to the raiders. That man is 1st rd talent and will be a major pimp next year. if shanny is willing to pass over a 1st rd rb in the 4th, then that should give us some idea of what he will do this year.

I can promise that 1st rd pick will be a dt unless we sign a MAJOR one in FA (doubtful, we will most likely sign a quality vet.) or a LB/WR/S falls to us that we had graded out higher, that we thought was going to already be gone.

Lonestar
12-12-2007, 03:53 PM
I think this is a very good point.

As it stands, Denver has a very balanced attack; when it's clicking, the offense can rack up more than 100 yards rushing and 300 yards receiving. Just how much better can this offense get? We already have the ability to score 40 points.

Having a guy like AD on our team is a luxury; he will be greatly underused, or if not, Culter and our receivers will be greatly underused. If we can get a guy like AD cheap/affordable both in terms of salary and draft possition, then why not? But if getting a guy like AD means we don't properly address the real weaknesses in our team, like the DT specially, then we're making a mistake.

We could end up like the current Browns; high powered offense, very friendly defense. We could beat most teams, but when we face the real contenders who can keep up with the scoring, like the Pats, we'll lose.


Just to add; the Pats have always been fearless in their offense, because they knew they could rely on their defense.

That is what I have been preaching almost forever you stated it very well ..

To much run and not enough pass and they set 8-9 in the box, if we feed it to the RB all of a sudden the WR get sloppy in the down field blocking, why because they are receivers not TE's or full backs.

You must have some sort of balance or have a true WCO like NE seems to be able to do right now throw all the time and pray that something does not happen to Brady.. They tried this in INDY with manning and while successfully not nearly as good at it as NE is.

If we can get a quality RB in the third or fourth round AFTER we handle the DT and LB issues then by all means bring it on. But then you also have a THENRY, YOUNG, BELL and HALL issue to work around.

I personally think if Young 12-15 and Hall 8-10 can put a few more pounds on to handle the beating they will have to take that they are our future at RB. Both are very dynamic runners and CHEAP.. :salute: to you

******************************************
BTW I just noticed this on my clip board from somewhere else in this thread it is not directed to you in particular..

I'll say it one more time..

We need a hanesworth type DT preferably from FA and then draft one for depth.. The DE spot seems to be good to great depending on how the new kids finish the year and Moss coming back from injury.. Along wit Ekuban if he is recovered as Dogfish mentions that is a tuff one no matter what age they are.. Also Engelberger is a solid player not spectacular but solid relief work that is not gonna cost an arm and leg..

OLINE we have most of the pieces. Wookie is wrong about Lepsis being old and WEAK most OLINE guys are at their peak performance into the late thirties. Since he is more finesse than most OLT he needs his speed and agility to fend off the pass rushers..

If his knee is finally healed up from the year before last and most of the ACL/MCL repair take 18+ months to be back to where they were before mentally and physically. He should be prime time next year but it is probably time to start looking for a replacement IN case..

As TOP said most of the pieces are there and with this years playing time those kids will be that much stronger and will push the Vets for starting spots next year..

In DEN OLINE it is not so much about strength as team work and unless they have played next to the guy on both sides of him for awhile their are gonna be some screw ups..

BUT that said this team with the existing OLINE size will never be a strong running team inside the 5 yard line nor will it EVER be a great Pass protector for long ball throws.. It is designed more for the WCO type of quick throws than Air Corel.

We are IMO 1 major DT away from from good DL and two from greatness to being to rotate them and keep them fresh at altitude..

One OT away from being a really good OLINE.. But then pears just might be the man he is just going on what 17 or 18 games from being a raw rookie.

Lonestar
12-12-2007, 04:01 PM
If we didnt trade up and ;dmac fell to us, then it would have to be a strong consideration. But even then, i doubt they would take him. I think they would do just what i think we will do anyways, trade down.

Remember, last year shanny had m bush on his board, but elected to pass him up. he went in the 4th rd to the raiders. That man is 1st rd talent and will be a major pimp next year. if shanny is willing to pass over a 1st rd rb in the 4th, then that should give us some idea of what he will do this year.

I can promise that 1st rd pick will be a dt unless we sign a MAJOR one in FA (doubtful, we will most likely sign a quality vet.) or a LB/WR/S falls to us that we had graded out higher, that we thought was going to already be gone.

If he does not I'm looking for you..

It only makes sense to do so.. that is what is killing the D right now.. Everyone else is covering not having a clogger and not doing their jobs first..

Requiem / The Dagda
12-12-2007, 04:56 PM
I'd prefer to draft an offensive tackle high in this draft and pair them with Harris for the future. At the very worst, that gives us two younger guys (along with Pears) that can help us out for a long-term solution at LT and RT. Lepsis is not worth the money he will be getting paid next year, not by a long shot.

Lonestar
12-12-2007, 04:58 PM
I'd prefer to draft an offensive tackle high in this draft and pair them with Harris for the future. At the very worst, that gives us two younger guys (along with Pears) that can help us out for a long-term solution at LT and RT. Lepsis is not worth the money he will be getting paid next year, not by a long shot.

So cut lepsis and start a rookie?

dogfish
12-12-2007, 05:24 PM
I think this is a very good point.

As it stands, Denver has a very balanced attack; when it's clicking, the offense can rack up more than 100 yards rushing and 300 yards receiving. Just how much better can this offense get? We already have the ability to score 40 points.

Having a guy like AD on our team is a luxury; he will be greatly underused, or if not, Culter and our receivers will be greatly underused. If we can get a guy like AD cheap/affordable both in terms of salary and draft possition, then why not? But if getting a guy like AD means we don't properly address the real weaknesses in our team, like the DT specially, then we're making a mistake.

We could end up like the current Browns; high powered offense, very friendly defense. We could beat most teams, but when we face the real contenders who can keep up with the scoring, like the Pats, we'll lose.


it's called the law of diminshing returns. . . . ;)


when you already have a quality (let's say top ten, i'm too lazy to look it up right now) running game, it can only get so much better. . . . when you have possibly the worst rund efense in the league, on the other hand, there is tremedous room for improvement. . .


in any case, this is a moot discussion-- with the money we have locked up in henry, plus selvin young and andre hall producing very well when called upon, i give it approximately a zero percent chance that shanahan will give even a moment's thought to drafting a RB in the 1st round, let alone giving up a bunch to move up and do so. . .

and for the record, i would love to see another true stud RB in denver-- but we have about half a dozen more pressing needs. . .

Lonestar
12-12-2007, 05:33 PM
it's called the law of diminishing returns. . . . ;)


when you already have a quality (let's say top ten, I'm too lazy to look it up right now) running game, it can only get so much better. . . . when you have possibly the worst run defense in the league, on the other hand, there is tremendous room for improvement. . .


in any case, this is a moot discussion-- with the money we have locked up in henry, plus Selvin young and Andre hall producing very well when called upon, i give it approximately a zero percent chance that Shanahan will give even a moment's thought to drafting a RB in the 1st round, let alone giving up a bunch to move up and do so. . .

and for the record, i would love to see another true stud RB in denver-- but we have about half a dozen more pressing needs. . .

I agree the biggest bang for the buck is at DT as we speak..

Get a great one there and he impacts Positively on the entire Defense..

Everyone can go back to doing the job they are supposed to do instead of covering the DT weaknesses..

De can focused on QB kills first instead of worrying about the Running game up the middle..

The LB are not being beat up by OC OG on their side of the LOS. The DB's can cover TE's WR and Rb out of the back field as well as play center field instead of being the 4-5 LB.

CB are not hung out to dry because the QB have all day to find an open receiver.

Whereas a RB gets an additional 4-6 carries over what they are getting now and someone else on O does not..

Requiem / The Dagda
12-12-2007, 05:55 PM
So cut lepsis and start a rookie?

Re-structure his contract, allow for Harris to compete and draft another possible replacement.

omac
12-12-2007, 06:54 PM
it's called the law of diminshing returns. . . . ;)


when you already have a quality (let's say top ten, i'm too lazy to look it up right now) running game, it can only get so much better. . . . when you have possibly the worst rund efense in the league, on the other hand, there is tremedous room for improvement. . .


in any case, this is a moot discussion-- with the money we have locked up in henry, plus selvin young and andre hall producing very well when called upon, i give it approximately a zero percent chance that shanahan will give even a moment's thought to drafting a RB in the 1st round, let alone giving up a bunch to move up and do so. . .

and for the record, i would love to see another true stud RB in denver-- but we have about half a dozen more pressing needs. . .

Yeah, you're spot on with that. There are so many other parts of the team that can become so much better, and make the team congruently so much better.

And like Jrwiz posted, until the rush defense isn't fixed, it will affect the whole defense; I say it affects the offense as well, because it makes the coach call safer plays in some situations, and desperate plays in others, when he doesn't have much confidence in the defense to take care of things.

dogfish
12-12-2007, 06:56 PM
Yeah, you're spot on with that. There are so many other parts of the team that can become so much better, and make the team congruently so much better.

And like Jrwiz posted, until the rush defense isn't fixed, it will affect the whole defense; I say it affects the offense as well, because it makes the coach call safer plays in some situations, and desperate plays in others, when he doesn't have much confidence in the defense to take care of things.

yea, going for it on 4th-and-long inside our own red zone with 4-5 minutes left in the jacksonville game springs to mind immediately. . . .



:mad:

omac
12-12-2007, 07:18 PM
yea, going for it on 4th-and-long inside our own red zone with 4-5 minutes left in the jacksonville game springs to mind immediately. . . .



:mad:

Yeah, that's how much confidence Shanny had on our defense stopping Jacksonville. The sad thing is, based on how things were going, I thought it was the right call. :D

dogfish
12-12-2007, 07:24 PM
Yeah, that's how much confidence Shanny had on our defense stopping Jacksonville. The sad thing is, based on how things were going, I thought it was the right call. :D


i did too. . .

DenBronx
12-13-2007, 11:17 PM
im thinking the broncos need protection for cutler. he is constantly being pressured. it's not like he is holding the ball forever...these guys are just getting blown off the ball and it doesnt allow cutler to go through his reads. we are more than set at qb, rb, te, and wr....we just need help on the oline.

gobroncsnv
12-14-2007, 08:06 AM
We might need a RG to enhance the mix on oline... I can't see Pears making more than a backup role next year, so maybe Harris steps in there? Our LOS players on both sides need help, but mostly middle of the Dline. The difference in our D between crappy games like most of this year, vs last week has been so frustrating. We need to smoke every oline like we did the Chiefs last week. So many other things fall into place when the defense can get off the field after maybe 1 first down instead of 12 in a row.