Broncos Draft Analysis -- The Argument FOR Trading Up

by MN Bronco on Apr 1, 2008 9:06 AM MDT Comment 40 comments

OK, after considering Claaaas' excellent work on trade scenarios, the general feel I get is that most here think the Broncos should look to trade down out of the #12 spot to gather more picks and be more effective at filling the needs on the roster. This also makes the most sense to me. Grabbing a couple 2nd tier DT's, the exact WR they're looking for (Bennett?) while parlaying some of their day 2 picks into mid-rounders seems a sound strategy.

So, I am going to attempt to argue the opposite: the Broncos should trade UP in this year's draft. Why would they do that, you ask? Here are a few reasons:

If you look around the league at the most effective defenses, it all starts up front. Obviously, fresh in everyones' minds is the Giants haraasing of Brady. But, take an even wider look and you've got Henderson and Stroud in Jax, Wilfork and Seymour in NE, Williams, Olshansky, Cesaire in SD to name a few. Denver looks to be set at the DE position for a few years with DOOM, Crowder and hopefully, Moss, so the DT spot is the question mark. Thomas is a piece of the equation, but they need one more rock-solid DT along with some rotational guys. The Broncos need to get that one rock-solid guy first and the 2 available in this year's draft will be gone by #12. This alone, getting possibly Dorsey, but most likely Ellis in Bronco swooshes should be enough to convince you, but if you need more, consider...
They have 9 picks to work with this year, plus their full complement of picks next year. They could easily package a few to move up in the first and have still have ammo to work with. For example, take Claaaas' Baltimore scenario, 12 and the 2 4ths for the #8. That would leave the Broncos with their 2nd, 2 5ths, a 6th and 2 7ths. The day 2 picks could be packaged together, along with 1 from next year if needed, to move back into day 1 a couple times. The result would be a smaller class like the past couple years, but with more impactful(?) players.
Getting fewer, more impactful players is better than loading the roster with "bubble" guys. Here, I will use Foxey as an example. The guy is a good nickel back, could start on several other teams. So, what do you do with him? He will not be happy to remain a nickel back until Champ or Bly leave or get injured. And, he's not going to get the kind of contract he wants as a backup. So, in all likelihood, he'll end up leaving the Broncos after this year (or earlier if they can get something for him). So, trade him (the equivalent of 2 4th rds.) to move up and get a guy who will have a cornerstone-type impact and be worth the money for years to come.
Finally, since trading up would mean a smaller draft class, it would have a smaller impact on the Broncos' salary cap. Managing the cap more effectively allows them to sign the mid-level free agents they are targeting or the higher priced one they may have an eye on in the future.

That's it. I'm sure with my flawless logic and astounding rhetoric, you are all convinced this is the way we should go, right?

Anyone?

Bueller?

Oh, well, flame on!

This is a Fan-Created Comment on MileHighReport.com. The opinion here is not necessarily shared by the editorial staff of MHR

0 recs | Comment 40 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I am on the fence.

I like the idea of trading up for Ellis, but on the flip side, I like the idea of trading down to get extra picks in the 3rd round or more.

Mike Shanahan has proven he can pick up quality players in the second-fourth rounds. The scenario that I like the most would probably be trading down to pick up Phillips later in the first round, and in the processes picking up two more picks in later rounds.

I'll pass on an Ellis, if it means we get a bunch more young players. I am a numbers kind of guy...we'll have fewer impacts from possible busts with the more players we draft. ;)

What if Ellis never pans out? Then we lose potentially 3 players we could have had staying at #12 and the chances of all three being a bust are far less than just that one.

Therefore, I think we should trade down and load up. This could be our eventual Championship draft class. ;)

OOMPA LOOMPA DOOMPADEE DOO
OOMPA LOOMPA, DOOMPADAH DEE
It's JaMarcus Russell, RRRRRUUUUNNNN!!!!!

by Tim Lynch on Apr 1, 2008 10:05 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs

I like trading down in the first round...

I really like Phillips, and so I think it might be worth it to trade down in the first round and pick up a later pick or two.

I do also like MN's idea to trade the later picks for earlier ones though. Lets face it, the 6th and 7th round picks are pretty hit or miss, and we have done well picking up college free agents. I'd be inclined to trade those in and get a pick or two in the 3rd or 4th round where you are more likely to get an impact player.

by hai17 on Apr 1, 2008 1:41 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Great Point

most people forget Phillips is still on the board. and welcome to MHR.

Davis to the Hall! "A leader, once convinced that a particular course of action is the right one, must be undaunted when the going gets tough." Ronald Reagan

by Jon Tollerud on Apr 1, 2008 2:41 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Your #3

Here is my only problem with a trade involving Foxy. First off, I enjoy the guy on the team, I had the privlidge of attending the Denver vs Indy game in the 2006 season (you know the one we blew away), My grilfriend had gotten me the tickets as a birthday gift and we were right behind the stinkin bench. Right before the game started I got to talk to him and he found out it was my birthday. After that he had the whole team come over throughout the game to give me congrats hand shakes and autographs. So I really like the guy. That being said he isn't our strongest in the nickle formation and I don't know that he would fetch what we think he could. We offerd him the low tender on his RFA contract. That means anyone coudl come in with a 3 year 15 million dollar deal and swoop him up. thats relatively low I know, but take into account that we let Myers walk away for less, Myers was more of a need and we can always pick up a spare CB in this draft and you go, "how much is foxy worth?" I think however, this year if we give him a 1 year contract he will play his heart out knowing that we dont intend to keep him. I would love to have our starting four stay that way until Foxy and Paymah become #1 and #2 (an yea I have every belief that Foxy will be a #1, and hopefully here). That being said its all my opinion but I liek the post. I also think we should trade down (then again I'm up for anything that puts either of the USC studs on our team ha ha). Great work MN

Davis to the Hall! "A leader, once convinced that a particular course of action is the right one, must be undaunted when the going gets tough." Ronald Reagan

by Jon Tollerud on Apr 1, 2008 10:30 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs

Sweet

That's really cool about Foxy. I, too, really like the guy's personality. The fact that he's already the guy representing the team with the union says a lot about him.

Or so I'm told.

by MN Bronco on Apr 1, 2008 11:29 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'd rather trade down

First, I don't agree with this salary cap logic. Top 10 picks are significantly more expensive than later picks. You are allocating more cap room to a single player rather than spreading the risk. Given that the probability of drafting a pro bowler in the 1st round is not much greater than the probability of drafting a pro bowler in the 3rd, these gambles tend to come at too heavy a price.

Second, I don't think there is a good fit for us at DT available to us in this years draft. Dorsey would be a great pickup, but I'm weary of his stress fracture and his knees. Ellis is a good talent, but he's a 1-gap defensive tackle--like Dumervil who for some reason has been cast at DE by the media. Ellis might improve our pass rush, but he doesn't fill our distinctive need, which is to have an NT to take some of the pressure off our linebackers.

The highest rated player available who fits the mold of an NT is arguably Balmer. Taking Balmer at 12 wouldn't be much of a reach; however, Balmer is lazy and character issues abound. He managed to put together one great year in college, so who knows which guy you are drafting for #12 money.

The first player that I think is both a good fit and a good risk at DT in this years draft is Pat Sims from Auburn. Sims is a true NT, a blue-collar athlete, and a great character. He wouldn't be a pass-rushing force, but he's formidable against the run. With a talent like this, the probably of Niko's (or Curtis Lofton's??) success at MLB skyrockets.

Most analysts have Pat Sims on the bubble in the first round. I would rather trade down and get an extra second-rounder out of the deal, than take a shot on an athlete that doesn't fit our system for a whole lot of money.

My last comment is that I'd sooner trade Bly than Foxworth. Foxworth is a locker room leader and a talent with huge upside. Bly has peaked and his skill set will only diminish over the next couple of years. I think signing Foxworth long term should be a top priority for Broncos management. He'll never be cheaper than he is right now. His replacement cost in the open market or via the draft is both uncertain and cost prohibitive.

by r8erh8er on Apr 1, 2008 10:34 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs

Correction

That should say, "I don't think there is a good fit at DT available to us at the top of this year's draft."

by r8erh8er on Apr 1, 2008 10:36 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

So

first off I want to say that DOOM is a DE and has been. Thats how he lines up in the game and the position he is given by the team. The question I really want to ask is why do you feel Dorsey and Ellis don't fit our team. I personally believe that both showed their metal in their respective preformances. Dorsey laid to rest a lot of speculation about his injury at the College day. and Ellis if you watched him play at SC he was like a 50 gap guy. He played some of the top tire O line man (Jake Long)and manhandled them. I'm just curious because I know a couple of college players who were considered 1 gap guys and panned into multi gap guys.

Davis to the Hall! "A leader, once convinced that a particular course of action is the right one, must be undaunted when the going gets tough." Ronald Reagan

by Jon Tollerud on Apr 1, 2008 11:13 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Response

Dumervil's distinctive ability is the bull-rush, where you drive your blocker straight back with overwhelming strength. As a pure speed rusher, Dumervil excels at end. His technique is suited to playing on the interior on passing downs. KC Joyner recently listed Dumervil among the top 5 defensive ends in the league.

Dumervil isn't best suited to be an every-down defensive lineman. He's best inserted on passing downs to get to the quarterback. I expect to see him play both positions. With the depth we have at the end position, I would be shocked if we don't see a healthy dose of Dumervil at DT, especially on third and longs. Given that very few other DT's in the entire league are as adept as doom in those situations, Denver would be foolish not to.

With regard to your second question, a guy whose played the 3-technique for 2-3 years in college (a) doesn't necessarily want to and (b) isn't necessarily capable of lining up at NT. The first lines up between the guard and tackle and works to "shoot the gap" to get into the backfield. The second lines up over center and is supposed to hold the line and anticipate the run.

I've no doubt that Ellis has the strength to play NT, but I have serious doubts that he has the desire or skill set to fill that need in 2008 and beyond. Dorsey is a guy that could play either position capably, probably isn't available--even if we trade up--even if he didn't have significant health concerns.

From my assessment, Denver has plenty of talent at the 3-technique position. Some depth might be nice, but adding another 3-technique player crowds the competition where we are already strong (assuming Thomas pans out) and leaves us empty at our true position of need.

Dwayne Robertson is an interesting guy because he was forced to play the 1-technique last season even though he's a 3-technique player. Well, that was a failed experiment for Mangini, but his experience at the position would make him a great fit for Denver on passing downs. If we signed Robertson (assuming he stays healthy), we'd have a player with experience at both positions, which gives us a lot of options in our defensive line rotation.

Having a true 1-technique tackle--at least on running plays--is a big deal. The less the MLB has to worry about a running play between the tackles, the greater his ability to make plays. Just ask Ray Lewis, Baltimore has traditionally used 2 1-technique tackles. When they moved away from this, Ray Lewis's numbers plunged. As soon as they drafted Haoli Ngata, Lewis's numbers got better in a hurry.

If we want to be effective at the MLB position, we can't run with a platoon of 3-technique tackles.

by r8erh8er on Apr 1, 2008 2:38 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

The Logic

is great there so compliments for the time and thought you put in. I think Ellis is probably the most versitile guy in teh draft and I think thats what you stated as well. I also agree that he may not want to play 3 he may want 1 or 2. I don't think he is suited for a NT situation and so he most likely fits very few upper teams which is why I think he could drop. I agree with everything you said though except for maybe DRob only because I don't think he will take the pay cut to comer here and will there for lable himself ineffective but I have been proven wrong before.

Davis to the Hall! "A leader, once convinced that a particular course of action is the right one, must be undaunted when the going gets tough." Ronald Reagan

by Jon Tollerud on Apr 1, 2008 3:03 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks

I don't think the Robertson situation ends well for Denver either way. I have a bad feeling about his health, I don't like his cap number, and he strikes me as a career underachiever. Personally, I'd rather pass on him, but given the deficiencies in our line, we may not have a better option.

Marcus Thomas DT's with 16 solo tackles and 20 total tackles last season. Granted, a lot of this is due to the fact that we had so many guys start at tackle last year. But consider this: if you sort the DT statistics by tackles, there are 82 DT's who had more solo tackles than our team leader last year. That's more than 2.6 players per team! We weren't weak at DT last year, we were abysmal.

Led by Dumervil's 12 sacks, we did manage to amass the 17th most sacks in the league. Granted, that's not spectacular, but with a healthy Engleberger and Moss AND D.J. moving back to Will, you've got to think that number only gets better. If we had a true NT to take the pressure of the interior, the sky's the limit.

There are a couple of guys that could be had on the second day that could be the solution. My favorite is Athya Rubin from Iowa State. He's a true NT; his draft stock is low because he's basic useless on passing downs, but he's one of the best run stuffers in the draft. Frank Okam from Texas looks solid but he lacks durability and three websites say he's lazy. A final candidate who is probably a 7th rounder, is Matt Malele from California. I could see Denver drafting 2 of these guys and letting them fight for a job.

Remember, most of the big dollar DT's get paid because they possess pass rushing skills; thats the real marquis ability. A 1-dimensional NT is like drafting a center: they aren't that sexy, they don't get paid much, but you can't live without them in the 4-3 (and I think the 3-4 although I've been corrected on this one a time or two).

Thanks for the compliment. I do like all the players your talking about; I just have a different take on the D-Line than I've seen discussed elsewhere.

by r8erh8er on Apr 1, 2008 5:00 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Marcus Thomas

...led all Denver DT's in...

Sorry for the cryptic sentence.

by r8erh8er on Apr 1, 2008 5:01 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Could that be because he was the only DT

Denver kept the entire season? The rest of the DT production was split amongst 22 other DTs besides Marcus Thomas. lmao 2007...what a year!

OOMPA LOOMPA DOOMPADEE DOO
OOMPA LOOMPA, DOOMPADAH DEE
It's JaMarcus Russell, RRRRRUUUUNNNN!!!!!

by Tim Lynch on Apr 1, 2008 7:40 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think we are

Confusing terms. A Nose Tackle (NT) is used in a 3-4 formation where there are only 3 Lineman. We run a 4-3 so we have no real use for NT's. I Used Ellis' NT playing time to show how durable and reliable he was for USC. I think he would fit well with our 4-3 however becasue he would be a threat in the middle that would require the opposing team to double him. now if you put DOOM and Ellis' on the same team and on the same side you have a problem. Throw them to the strong side and you are forced to keep your TE on the line to block those two bad boys. That leaves Gates and Gonzales and any other TE on the line and not catching because you have crazy fast strong and athletic guys lined up and you have to double team both guys so it ends up three on two over there. all of a sudden Thomas, Crowder/ Moss and DJ are free on the weak side to just completely blast the QB from the back. Easy fumbles easy sacks. I know it is a theory but I like it and I like those possibilities.

Davis to the Hall! "A leader, once convinced that a particular course of action is the right one, must be undaunted when the going gets tough." Ronald Reagan

by Jon Tollerud on Apr 1, 2008 6:03 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hmm...

NT is a misnomer in the context of the 4-3, you're right. The principle is the same though. A 2-gap tackle is a run-stopping specialist who lines up with a gap on his right and his left. Such a player is responsible for overpower his blocker to get to the rusher. He doesn't "shoot the gap" to try and get to the QB.

Denver has traditionally been a 2-gap scheme under Shanahan. Bates switched us to a scheme that used smaller 3-technique players without a true 2-gap DT. It was a failed experiment (just look at the sack totals and the horrible tackling statistics). Currently, we have zero 2-gap DT's on our roster. That's a big liability in the running game.

Is it possible to run the 4-3 without a 1-technique in the middle? Yes. There isn't a lot of precedent for it working, however.

Some players are versatile enough that they can shift around and play either style. Glenn Dorsey is that guy. Kentwan Balmer--if he lives up to his hype (which is fading fast)--might be that guy. Outside of those two, there aren't a lot of guys in the draft that fit the bill.

It would be great to have a John Henderson or a Kelly Gregg to be an unstoppable force in the middle that can also drive a QB nuts, but lets be realistic: that guy isn't available after the first 2nd pick.

by r8erh8er on Apr 1, 2008 9:35 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Perhaps I'm confused but

this doesn't sound right to me. We already had smallish DTs before Bates showed up. That was the problem. We got rid of DTs who were more talented in the kind of defense we had been playing and replaced them with guys who were less talented for the kind of defense Bates wanted to play, which was to have BIG guys hold their ground at the point of attack rather than shoot the gap. That's why we got rid of Warren. He likes to penetrate and either didn't adapt well or didn't have the skill set the "run contain" system requires. But I understand he did pretty well in Oakland. By moving to a system that didn't fit our personnel, and exchanging more talented for less talented players, we're worse off than we were before Bates. For one thing, we wouldn't have given away Warren. He has his issues but he's a better run stopper, at this time at least, than any of the other guys who played DT for us last year.

And now we're more or less going back to the less-massive, penetrating DTs, if I'm not mistaken. I think M Thomas will improve a lot this year, but we'd have a lot more depth if we still had Warren. Oh well, spilled milk. I think Ellis, if we could get him, would be a great complement to Thomas, but it'd be nice if he could grow into the job while we get solid production from a veteran, like Robertson if we can get him at a price we can afford. The thing about Robertson is that we need to get him to restructure his contract because of his knee issue, and we have to be wary of giving too much for him since they're probably going to release him anyway. But we need to be willing to give SOMETHING for him or otherwise he'll hit the open market and we'll be outbid by, say, Cincinnati.

My understanding - perhaps HT can step in here and clarify - is that two-gappers normally play in a 3-4 and not so much in a 4-3, although the latter is what Bates does. And I suppose you could have a one-gap in a 3-4 but it doesn't seem likely to me. A one-gap nose tackle is very nearly a contradiction in terms. Wouldn't it leave holes for the offense to exploit? But maybe someone who knows more than me can clarify.

by spock on Apr 2, 2008 1:45 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Here I am.

There's a few things I'm reading that I might disagree with, but I don't want my role to be "the big correcter" either. But since you asked... : )

I find that both you (and previous commentators) are getting some material right, and missing a little on some other things.

The type of DT to play the Bates version of the run contain is in fact a two gap. In the run-contain system the OLBs vector run plays to the inside (only tackling if the play turns inside to prevent a run downfield from the sideline). The DTs are NOT supposed to rush, but are charged with "holding the line". They don't take the RB until he is "Vectored", but more commonly they protect the MLB who racks up the most tackles. As bad as our DTs and OLBs played, DJ still managed to have the second highest tackle total in the NFL, in part because of the system.

Denver brought in some DTs to fit the system, but by and large they failed.

A very, very common misconception is that the 3-4 defense is predicated on two gap assignments. In the "Fairbanks-Bullough" system (as run by NE) the system is indeed primarily a two gap program. On the other hand, the "Phillips" system (as run by both SD and DAL) is actualy a 1 gap system (and is named for Wade Phillips' father Bum Phillips, both of whom have coached in Denver).

Technicaly a NT is the name of the center defensive lineman in a 3-4. But both sides get credit on this one. NT is also commonly used as a term to refer to a player type, in this case, a DT or NT who demands double teams (and is typicaly a 2 gap, 1 or 2 technique) guy.

I hope all of that helps a little.

"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe

by Steve Nichols on Apr 2, 2008 1:47 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks HT

it makes it clearer for me. What do you think of Denver switching to a 3-4 for some plays i.e. third downs or "passing" downs? I have thought for a while this would work for us with the speed we have at LB, though not for our base D

Davis to the Hall! "A leader, once convinced that a particular course of action is the right one, must be undaunted when the going gets tough." Ronald Reagan

by Jon Tollerud on Apr 2, 2008 2:05 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Jon

I have zero doubt that Denver will use a 3-4 on some plays this year. "How often" is the only question. Many 4-3 teams will rotate in an occasional 3-4, and Denver seems to do so most years. In fact, I would be shocked not to see a few glimpses of 3-4s (albeit rare).

If Denver ends up with a VERY impressive DT (or NT) we could even become a 3-4 team, but it is still doubtfull. I think we have more depth at LB than DT at this point, so who knows?

Mike did say we needed to get back to Denver's identity at defense, but 3-4 was a loooong time ago. Right now I think we need to get several picks at DT in the hopes that at least one works out, and hopefuly two or more. Our current roster at DT is good for rotation at best.

"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe

by Steve Nichols on Apr 2, 2008 3:16 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks

this was my line of thinking too especially with what Shanny said. I would like to see teams "Guessing" which defense Denver throws out there from a formation rather than a quality point this year.

Davis to the Hall! "A leader, once convinced that a particular course of action is the right one, must be undaunted when the going gets tough." Ronald Reagan

by Jon Tollerud on Apr 2, 2008 3:41 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think the money issue is overrated

The salary cap difference between pick 5-6 and 12-13 is about a million per year for each of the six years of the contract. This does not take into account escalator clauses which I would presume would bump the top picks more than the lower picks. The difference becomes much more pronounced as you keep dropping in the first. (A quick guess would be that the 22 and 28 picks that Dallas own will cost the same to sign as the #11)

The biggest discrepancy between the first round picks is with bonus money. I'd say that more than half the difference in compensation is due to bonuses paid in the first 18 months. If the player pans out, the extra money is not that big a deal. But if he does not, the bigger bonus means a bigger cap hit to cut him loose and (perhaps more importantly given recent financial rumblings) a bigger chunk of money that the owner essentially threw away.

by MattR on Apr 1, 2008 4:39 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Good post

It'll be interesting to see what we do for sure.

Denver will have NO reservations about trading up if they think Eliis is THE guy who can spark our defensive turnaround. I think Ellis is a stud too. He is a force at the point of attack. Let's not dismiss him as a 1 gap/2 gap/3-4/4-3 guy yet. He played at USC and was a highly recruited player, he had to learn a new system there too and he's got bigtime skills and should be able to perform at a high level in the NFL. I think if Denver trades up, they're probably targeting Ellis, unless they are secretly after McFadden (highly doubtful, but you never know)

That said, I can't imagine that Denver will trade Foxy (even though I think he's a tad overrated locally) and/or another pick. I think Denver wants as many players from this draft as they can get.

by super7 on Apr 1, 2008 11:37 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs

I could go either way but

I have to question one part of your analysis concerning Foxworth. You say he won't be happy to stay behind Champ and Bly and will probably leave after this year, but I remember reading about him worrying that he might get traded, because he WANTS to stay with the Broncos.I might be one of the "locals" who overrates him, as super7 suggests, but I'm with r8erh8er in that I'd rather trade Bly than Foxy. Of course, the coaches know better than I, and they have Bly starting. It seems to me, though, and maybe it's just selective memory, that Foxy has a knack for rising to the occasion in big games and key moments.

As for Ellis, I LOVE the guy. He's the one person I want most for us to get, if it's possible, and I like the idea of trading for Baltimore's pick, if he's still on the board at that point, rather than the Jets'. It'll cost us less. If we get Robertson, on the other hand, that makes getting Ellis a little less urgent and I could see trading down and picking up two or even three DTs instead.

by spock on Apr 1, 2008 1:04 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs

Trading up/down

Either trading scenerio can work for the Broncos. Mike usually has a surprise or two in store during the draft.
orangeman

by corangemanr on Apr 1, 2008 1:24 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs

Only under one condition...

... if we could get either Ellis or Dorsey by moving up to #9, then we should do it.

Trying to move any higher is a mistake.

Orange County is hot. Really! Haven't you seen the weather report?

by amirebram on Apr 1, 2008 2:50 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs

Hey,

we've discussed this cb situation numerous times.

Secondly, I see a ton of "?" that if they all pan out, we'll be great, but if they dont......

With that said, Kaywho'syourdaddy isn't a known or Bailey at this point. LB's are a ?.

D-Line is just such a hard spot to evaluate. That'd be why I'm in favor of trading down, grabbing Phillips and somehow having a high second rounder to snag someone who could fall.

Okay, as some might know, I'm the guy with the opinions that sometimes cause a great debate. I called for the heave of Walker and met stiff resistance among other players ala Rice, Henry, Adams, Gold, ect....

Well, I'm on a new campaign now. Bly. Just not worth it. Too many "?"s for me. When the main weapon on your offense is in trouble and the guts of his arm are on the floor coupled with Thomas, it's time to get rid of the hit or miss guys.

Leading to the draft. You take the best available player or you trade down. Now in many spots, you get the best available player and that player fits your system, but not always.

Okay, Cutler has a rocket arm lets utilize it. Think offense. A D can be coached up and the best defense is a great offense.

With that I'm proposing somehow getting a wr. Now, the Gardner, Walker, Plummer, ect contracts bite us in the ass which is why i think Sundquist is looking for a job. He dished them out.

O-Line is a major need. We have to have 6 o-lineman on the field at a time with the 6th being Graham. That's a problem.

Okay so,............do do do.........

I propose an acquastion of either Ocho or JT. What we need: explosive offense and a gang green pass rush with he and Doom. Let's get to it Shanny.

Mike, it's your ship now. No Sundquist, no other big time coaches, the rocket armed qb not named Elway or Favre is yours and you have the best CB in the game in Bailey. No more excuses. 10 years is far too long. Get it done.

Denial is a river in Oakland.

by broncodude793 on Apr 1, 2008 4:45 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs

About Bly

I had similar thoughts recently. It is nothing against him personally or with his playing ability, but he is making too much money at a position where we seem to have plenty of talent wasting on the bench. Bly is not going anywhere . It would be too big a hit to cut/trade him. But I kinda wish that Denver had gotten a draft pick from Detroit instead of Bly.

by MattR on Apr 1, 2008 4:55 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Bly

I think Bly is a nice fit as a #2 CB with as much man-to-man as we play. Didn't we sign him to like a 3-year deal? I would like to see Foxworth develop into our #2 in the next 2 years.

by r8erh8er on Apr 1, 2008 5:06 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Bly is signed through 2011

Champ through 2010.

by MattR on Apr 1, 2008 5:12 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Another thing to consider on Bly

Bly is a man coverage CB who likes to take the big gambles (just like Darrent did). We would serve Bly (and the entire pass defense) better if we had a second SAF in deep zone. This would allow Bly (and even Bailey to a lesser extent) to do what he does best.

Some may point out that our weak run defense calls for a SAF in the box. But if our front seven can't stop the run then we need a new front seven, not a SAF playing as a fourth LB.

"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe

by Steve Nichols on Apr 1, 2008 6:46 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

I think we really really need to get someone with some wheels in the back back field. Kenny Phillips really makes me feel more secure in this area.

Davis to the Hall! "A leader, once convinced that a particular course of action is the right one, must be undaunted when the going gets tough." Ronald Reagan

by Jon Tollerud on Apr 1, 2008 7:03 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Couldn't agree more

I would love to upgrade both safety positions. I think John Lynch (FS??) is a glorified linebacker at this point in his career. He was the guy that got picked on the most on third and longs last year. Granted we are extremely talented at the corners, but I feel like Lynch is a liability. He's an efficient player and a leader, but he's lost too much speed.

Last year, I desperately wanted Denver to draft Reggie Nelson. Didn't work out. I don't think Phillips is as good as any of the first round safeties in last years draft. At 12 I think he's a hard sell. It doesn't look like Denver has any intention of upgrading this year because we've added a ton of depth in the offseason.

by r8erh8er on Apr 1, 2008 9:46 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well then I guess

this makes more of a point to trade back. My thinking is along with what I have been looking at. Drafting for the vikings I have a pick further back than the Broncos, Not much but enough to look outside the top 15 which is where I believe Phillips will fall. My thought is we trade our #12 for Minnesota's #17 and a third rounder. As Minn I have proposed this trade for two reasons. It benefits my team (Minn) by going up ahead of a few teams that are drafting for the same position we are. Second we already have a third round pick so we don't lose anything. Finally it appeals to Denver who originally had the 3rd rounder I am trading with, they get back in the third round which as I said in another post is absolutely something we need to do because currently there are 66 players that will go between Denver's 2nd and 4th round picks.

Davis to the Hall! "A leader, once convinced that a particular course of action is the right one, must be undaunted when the going gets tough." Ronald Reagan

by Jon Tollerud on Apr 1, 2008 9:56 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Good luck

I've tried to move Tampa's pick and haven't even received a response to my emails.

by r8erh8er on Apr 1, 2008 10:14 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Check the main board soon

Sometimes it takes the right package. Other times teams just want to stay where they are

Davis to the Hall! "A leader, once convinced that a particular course of action is the right one, must be undaunted when the going gets tough." Ronald Reagan

by Jon Tollerud on Apr 1, 2008 10:35 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Maybe

I've been trying to move some combination of my #1, #3, Cadillac Williams (with a conditional #3 based on playing time next year), and Michael Clayton. In a mock draft, I don't think players are given the consideration they'd be given in the NFL.

I offered the Jet's all of the above for their #6 pick and Leon Washington. Tampa has a running back controversy brewing with Caddy and they are desperate for a kick returner. With no workhorse back on their roster and Brad Smith/Jerricho Cotchery able to get it done in the return game, I thought it was a no-brainer for both teams.

Clayton I thought would have some traction with Denver. I would have liked to move a 4th rounder plus Clayton to swap picks with Denver.

by r8erh8er on Apr 1, 2008 11:10 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Try Denver

Again, I heard a rumor they may be looking to go back but I think EJ will want picks not players. Thats how I would play it if I were Denver

Davis to the Hall! "A leader, once convinced that a particular course of action is the right one, must be undaunted when the going gets tough." Ronald Reagan

by Jon Tollerud on Apr 1, 2008 11:15 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Don't Trade Up

If our only need on this football team was defensive tackle, I would say there MIGHT be a small chance of trading up. We have a lot more needs than DT. r8trh8r articulates the fallacy of saving money with one early pick in the first round vs. more later picks. Even though this was a well written and thought provoking post, I say we should stay where we are and take the highest rated player available, or trade down and get Balmer or Simms and another pick.

by firstfan on Apr 1, 2008 4:46 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs

Also

What a great post! There's been a ton of great discussion in this thread. Kudos to you.

by r8erh8er on Apr 1, 2008 9:47 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs

run stuffing

with the run-stopping discussion, i'll offer this. i don't recall denver ever being able to stop the run without 8 in the box. lynch, atwater before him, and dennis smith before him were the only reasons we ever stopped the run. look at the games. the safety in the box, along with excellent mlb play(wilson, romo, et al), were the reasons we contained the better running backs. right now, mlb is a ?, so i really feel bringing back lynch was a needed move right now, and drafting a physical safety would be a great idea. these 2 positions are critical if we are going back to playing "bronco defense", as shanny has stated. we don't have the size or physicality to go with 7 up front, we are/have been a speed team for quite a while, now. we need "hammers" at these 2 spots, and hopefully niko can become one of them

by davecheffy on Apr 3, 2008 1:24 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs