Mile High Report: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:



Around SBN: Check out our NFL Scoreboard: scores, schedule and blogs Bar-right-arrows



My final roster predictions (with practice squad)

This is a combo of what I think will happen with what I would like to see. There are 56 players on the final roster since Edell Shepherd does not count since he is on IR, Carlotn Powell does not count since he is on reserve/PUP and Brandon Marshall will not count once his suspension starts on Saturday. (The fourteen rookies on the team are in italics)

 

** EDIT ** I have lost the ability to count.  There are only 55 players in my chart below not the 56 that the Broncos can keep if Marshall's suspension is not overturned.  So throw Nic Clemons onto the team as the 10th DL and 56th player.

Star-divide

Pos Have Their Spot Locked Up Will Make the Team Practice Squad Cuts
QB Jay Cutler Patrick Ramsey Darrell Hackney
RB Selvin Young
Andre Hall
Michael Pittman, Cecil Sapp
Peyton Hillis, Anthony Alridge
Ryan Torain
WR Brandon Marshall, Brandon Stokely
Eddie Royal, Darrel Jackson
Keary Colbert, Glenn Martinez
Edell Shepherd (IR)
Marquay McDaniel
Cliff Russell
TE Daniel Graham, Tony Scheffler Nate Jackson Brett Pierce Chad Mustard
OL Ryan Harris, Ryan Clady
Chris Kuper, Ben Hamilton
Casey Wiegmann
Tom Nalen
Erik Pears
Montrae Holland
Kory Lichtensteiger
Tyler Polumbus
Dylan Gandy
PJ Alexander
Mitch Erickson
DL Elvis Dumervil, Dwayne Robertson
John Engelberger, Jarvis Moss
Tim Crowder, Marcus Thomas
Alvin McKinley, Kenny Peterson
Ebenezer Ekuban, *Nic Clemons*
Carlton Powell (PUP)
Steven Harris Nic Clemons
Paul Carrington
Larry Birdine
LB DJ Williams, Boss Bailey
Niko Koutouvides
Nate Webster, Jamie Winborn
Spenser Larsen
Wesley Woodyard Louis Green
Jordan Beck
CB Champ Bailey, Dre Bly
Dominique Foxworth
Karl Paymah
Jack Williams Tyrone Poole
Wale Dada
S Marlon McCree, Hamza Abdullah
Marquand Manuel
Josh Barrett Roderick Rogers Vickiel Vaughn
ST Mike Leach, Matt Prater Brett Kern Sam Paulescu

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

8 recs | Comment 84 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

Experience with the system?

Since Rogers was with Denver all last year while Barrett is a rookie. Those two could definitely flip flop depending on the health of Manuel and Abduallah (and if Denver thinks one of the two is more likely to be grabbed off of waivers)

by MattR on Aug 27, 2008 2:03 PM MDT to parent up   0 recs

Barrett's status

I’ve thought about posting on the subject of whether Barrett’s being 4th string meant he had fallen out of favor or failed to rise because of his injury — which seems to be some part, at least, of the story.

Our own observors from here at MHR gave Barrett glowing evaluations for his work in camp, so he seems to have distinguished himself there although I don’t doubt that there may have been things the coaches viewed a sharply different light. His work in the Houston game appeared to make him a lock on a roster spot but then he rolled his ankle in the Dallas game. Barrett returned to action and showed his mettle but his physical condition is probably still impaired, even though there haven’t been any reports on this subject.

I think Barrett’s 4th string status is a combination of factors; he’s probably still behind the other Safeties in terms of recognition skills and knowing assignments (at least, not ahead so that moving him up the depth chart was warranted), and he’s probably still recovering from the ankle injury, so another way of justifying promoting him is also unavailable to him. A third factor also works against him — he’s a SS on a team that needs FSs with strong pass coverage skills.

Depth Charts are true examples of meritocracy in action but I still doubt that the Broncos would cut a player with a much greater upside if the competition is relatively close — assuming that the coaches don’t know something I don’t. But that’s the problem, since there’s an enormous amount of information they possess that I don’t. Still, I don’t recall any Bronco Safeties logging 9 tackles in a game lately and I think it’s going to be difficult to justify cutting him after that kind of performance. The decision on the cut will be primarily based on how he handles his responsibilities at the Safety position (IMO), but it’s also hard to ignore Barrett’s potential on Special Teams, particularly Gunner.

by Colinski on Aug 27, 2008 3:44 PM MDT to parent up   0 recs

he has looked good as a gunner

and woodyard too. Man, I love how much “fight” we brought into the lockerroom this year!

Mountains, forest, sea: these render man fierce, but yet do not destroy the man.

by styg50 on Aug 27, 2008 9:18 PM MDT to parent up   0 recs

STs

I hope O’Brien is lobbying hard for his guys this week. I must be strange but having good STs actually excites me. There’s a number of draftees in this year’s class who look like they could be wonderful ST players.

by Colinski on Aug 28, 2008 1:17 AM MDT to parent up   0 recs

That is a depth chart I would love to see

I have no idea who the 11 guys are on each of the return and coverage units (and who they were last year). I know guys like Louis Green and Jordan Beck are considered very good special teamers and that could help them make the team. But it depends on which new guys are performing on ST and who they lost (or promoted) from last year

by MattR on Aug 28, 2008 1:44 AM MDT to parent up   0 recs

We need to do that

…I’d love to see a listing of our players on STs along with an explanation of some of the positions. The gunners, wedge-busters, etc. deserve recognition, and it’s an important part of the game that the media tell us almost nothing about. It’s rather ridiculous that media types frequently opine about how STs will determine which reserves make the team even though that’s the extent of their knowledge on the subject. It’s a nice cliché though.

by Colinski on Aug 28, 2008 2:20 AM MDT to parent up   0 recs

ST

Special teams is the rug the msm sweep questions under. Have no idea who will win the game? Say it comes down to special teams! Same with roster cuts. Special Teams! If they us plebs knew about special teams, then they would have to say “I don’t know” and we know how they hate that.

by bushwah on Aug 28, 2008 9:17 AM MDT to parent up   0 recs

How STs contribute

We could devote an entire topic to the subject but one statistic from 07 is significant — Average Starting Position (of the Broncos and their opponent).

We know they don’t care about STs themselves but it becomes an interesting subject when you point out that both the offense and defense were frequently fighting an uphill battle against poor field position.

I loath joke statistics but there are some numbers that are really worth looking at.

by Colinski on Aug 28, 2008 3:38 PM MDT to parent up   0 recs

Recommended!

Atwater for the Hall!

by broncobear on Aug 28, 2008 3:34 PM MDT to parent up   0 recs

They should excite you

That’s a third of the game, weak sister though a lot of fans see it as. Remember how many times in the past few years we’ve been pinned due to ST and them saw them have 20 or 30 years less to go for the same reason?

Go ST!

Atwater for the Hall!

by broncobear on Aug 28, 2008 3:33 PM MDT to parent up   0 recs

that was more heart than brain

I like K-Lich and want to see him on the team, but I don’t want to see any of the other O-linemen cut. So I compromised with myself and decided to try and slip him through waivers.

by MattR on Aug 27, 2008 2:11 PM MDT to parent up   0 recs

Polumbus vs Erickson was a toss up

They could both end up on the PS. Not really sure why I went with Polumbus since Denver already has plenty of youth at the tackles.

by MattR on Aug 27, 2008 2:05 PM MDT to parent up   0 recs

Erickson

has been playing as a tackle in the preseason.

Mountains, forest, sea: these render man fierce, but yet do not destroy the man.

by styg50 on Aug 27, 2008 2:56 PM MDT to parent up   0 recs

That's called me covering my ass

So no matter which one they keep I can say “see, I knew the team would keep him in some form” :)

More seriously, a punter on the PS is doubtful but could happen if the team thinks one of them has more potential but needs to work on consistency.

by MattR on Aug 27, 2008 2:07 PM MDT to parent up   0 recs

Each team is allowed eight. Padilla would be the ninth

The 16 teams with an international player get the extra spot, but it is not really the same since Padilla cannot be promoted to the active roster.

by MattR on Aug 27, 2008 4:39 PM MDT to parent up   0 recs

CORRECT

I’ve checked around and you’re correct — the International Player counts as a 9th member (although they refer to an 8 man limit, confusingly). As I recall, there was a poorly written newspaper article that led to my confusion.

by Colinski on Aug 27, 2008 4:53 PM MDT to parent up   0 recs

I just don't see how Woodyard makes it to the Practice Squad

He has played too well this preseason…perhaps we switch him out with Spencer Larsen. That’s my surprise call. ;)

If God is not a Bronco fan, then WHY are sunsets Blue and Orange? - Jon Tollerud 5/22/08

I got a high ankle sprain in college and it still hurts! ~ TSG 8/13/08

by Zappa on Aug 27, 2008 2:17 PM MDT   0 recs

Agreed

Great stuff, as usual Matt. Woodyard has played very well, and Larsen hasn’t shown very much in games. The fact that he’s wearing #46 and playing both Fullback and Linebacker makes him seem like a practice squad guy to me. I also doubt Lichtensteiger goes to the practice squad, and suspect Pears may end up being a goner in his place (if an injury doesn’t materialize to send Kory or somebody else to IR for the year.)

Finally, my understanding is that Nic Clemons is a favorite of the defensive coaching staff, and I expect him to be in the mix to stick around too.

"I wouldn't ever set out to hurt anyone deliberately unless it was, you know, important --like a league game or something." DICK BUTKUS

by TedBartlett905 on Aug 27, 2008 2:46 PM MDT to parent up   0 recs

Nalen to IR opens up a spot for Lichtensteiger

Don’t want it to turn out that way, but I have a bad feeling that is the direction things are going.

I would like to see the NFL change the rule so players hurt during the preseason could go on the PUP list (and be eligible to return after 6 games) instead of the all or nothing choice of the IR.

I can’t really argue about Woodyard’s performance, but I will stand my ground :) Woodyard sneaks through waivers for the same reason he was not drafted. He does not have great measurables (and his solid play in preseason games came against second and third stringers)

by MattR on Aug 27, 2008 3:10 PM MDT to parent up   0 recs

Zappa and Ted

I respectfully disagree. I want Woodyard to make the team. However, not at the expense of Larson. I have been a huge fan of Niko and still would like him to start. But if he isn’t starting he cost too much money. See if we can trade him off… or cut him. I am seriously disappointed he couldn’t win the MLB spot. I am sure I am not the only one that think he is a highly paid backup.

Hopefully we can get a draft pick out of him. Seattle seemed to love him. Maybe they will take him back. (yeah right)

by YellowStoneBronco on Aug 28, 2008 3:48 PM MDT to parent up   0 recs

Totally agree with you.

He was very impressive in preseason and would love to see more of him. However if he makes the team someone will be the odd man out.

by weazel on Aug 28, 2008 9:59 PM MDT to parent up   0 recs

Isnt Hackneys

Practice squad eligiblity up? He was on it last year and wasnt he on it in Cleveland? He only has 3 years of practice squad years.

by broncfanstuckinsd on Aug 27, 2008 2:22 PM MDT   0 recs

Cleveland drafted him in 2006

but cut him and he was out of football that entire year. Before Denver signed him after the 2006 season concluded. It does seem like he has been here longer, doesn’t it?

by MattR on Aug 27, 2008 2:25 PM MDT to parent up   0 recs

Sure does

I just like the kid, and dont want to lose him, and if they can keep him on the practise squad for another year that would be great. Plus my surprise cut will be pittman. I just have that feeling

by broncfanstuckinsd on Aug 27, 2008 2:33 PM MDT to parent up   0 recs

If it is gonna be a RB, I lean Sapp as my surprise

With Torain hurt, I think they will keep Pittman for short yardage. And with Hillis looking good now that he is healthy Sapp may be the most redundant piece in the backfield.

by MattR on Aug 27, 2008 2:46 PM MDT to parent up   0 recs

We are in complete agreement here. Sapp would be my surprise cut as well..

If God is not a Bronco fan, then WHY are sunsets Blue and Orange? - Jon Tollerud 5/22/08

I got a high ankle sprain in college and it still hurts! ~ TSG 8/13/08

by Zappa on Aug 27, 2008 2:55 PM MDT to parent up   0 recs

Agreed on Sapp

Shanny loves those tweener HB/FB types and he bring a level of experience to the backfield that no one else does.

by bushwah on Aug 27, 2008 4:05 PM MDT to parent up   0 recs

It looks pretty solid

" He goes against Champ everyday." -Jay Cutler

Davis to the Hall!

by Jon Tollerud on Aug 27, 2008 3:08 PM MDT   0 recs

Lots of DL

That’s a lot of DL there, 11 including Powell (PUP), I don’t think all of them will be there.

Same on receivers, I don’t think we’ll keep 6. Either Martinez or Colbert will get cut (depending mostly on whether they want Martinez for returns at all)

by bushwah on Aug 27, 2008 4:13 PM MDT   0 recs

I know

I think one of the two WR you mention will get cut when Marshall comes back from suspension. And I think a DL may get cut after a few weeks (and someone promoted from the practice squad) once they see some of the bottom tier D-linemen playing real games inn the NFL. I’d rather see L Green or Beck kept over Clemons, but this was a case where all the info indicates Clemons so my head overruled my heart

by MattR on Aug 27, 2008 4:21 PM MDT to parent up   0 recs

I see EE getting the ax too

"There's one thing I want you to do for me. Win. Win!" - Rocky II

by MileHighFros on Aug 27, 2008 4:39 PM MDT to parent up   0 recs

Does Colbert play special teams?

If not I think he may be on the chopping block. I see one more RCV going from the list. I would say right now if Colbert and Martinez were running neck and neck that would give Martinez the leg up.

"There's one thing I want you to do for me. Win. Win!" - Rocky II

by MileHighFros on Aug 27, 2008 4:43 PM MDT   0 recs

Steiger is a puzzle

With Nalen in his final days (hopefully his final season), we can’t afford to take the chance on Steiger not clearing waivers . I don’t think that he would – He was rated as the 2nd best center in the draft. A lot of teams are said to covet him as a guard – bad for us. We’ll have to protect him, so another cut on the O line has to come.

Pears? We have him penciled in behind Clady. Clady is doing great, but Ryan Harris isn’t our next LT if Clady’s injured. I can see Polumbus and Erickson to the PS, but this could be a spot for a surprise cut on the O line, even Kuper or Holland to the PS. It’s a tough one – perhaps the receivers will be Marshall, Royal, Stokely, Jackson and Colbert or Martinez (my gut says Glenn). And, to make enough room, my heart says oh no, but my head thinks that Alridge is PS and someone will take him.

4 DEs and 4 DTs, I suspect, but Clemons could be the 5th DT. I think that Ek is gone – too bad, I like him. Larsen – PS only, I suspect. Woodyard behind DJ, Winborn behind Bailey. Drafting a highly ranked Mike next year, do you think? Likely so. Another SAM, too, I hope, although Winborn is a fav.

I’m in a quandary on DBs. We’ll keep Foxworth, Bly and Bailey, Williams I belleve. Paymuh? Sure…But on safety, Barrett is a tough call – such potential. If he does make it, it’s a massive youth movement, overall. But I think that he’s as good as Rogers. Perhaps the coaches will agree.

Matt – great post. Recommended!

Atwater for the Hall!

by broncobear on Aug 27, 2008 6:40 PM MDT   0 recs

quibble on the DL -- only 8?

I know you’re only thinking out loud BB, but the bottom line on the DL is probably 9 — assuming there’s not too much of a talent drop-off. My remedy at DT is to consider EE another DT, and he always played both DT and DE but people may have forgotten. I’m not against moves that preserve the overall strength of the DL but I can’t see it dropping below 9. We may see some surprises, like dropping EE and keeping Clemons. We may even see them drop both or someone else, and then acquire someone else’s DT, assuming the coaching staff decides that we’re just too weak at the bottom of the DL depth chart.

by Colinski on Aug 27, 2008 7:06 PM MDT to parent up   0 recs

Not bad options, 'Ski

I’d like another DL. I’m worried about EE’s back – bad age for back problems in his business. Interesting week…

At least I got the surprise on Holland right – thought that he might get cut, so I’m glad that we got something for him
Cheers!

Atwater for the Hall!

by broncobear on Aug 28, 2008 6:01 PM MDT to parent up   0 recs

DLs

There’s a high probability of finding DL help in a few days, if we conclude that we’re inadequate in that area.

I’d like to see a little bit more of Peterson and Clemons before I wholeheartedly endorse replacing them with other teams’ castoffs. And I don’t know what to say about ‘EE," or McKinley, etc. But find the right player and I’ll jump on board — maybe another vet who’s fallen out of favor because of a high contract (which we could re-write) or because he’s been pushed aside by younger talent. But I think the eventual solution lies in the next two drafts, it would be a short-term fix.

The target of 9 DLs seems sound. We have to have enough of them to rotate, at least enough DTs. It would actually make sense to carry only 4 DEs and 5 DTs, so the general idea is sound. Removing one DE, especially if he’s unable to perform, makes sense and would open the door for more acquisitions.

by Colinski on Aug 28, 2008 7:13 PM MDT to parent up   0 recs

small differences

I probably would be uncomfortable risking Lichtensteiger because he looks like our future for the interior OL and would take Clemons, your latest adjustment, back off. I don’t like the idea of taking too few DTs though, so you might find another spot for him if you take Martinez off (he’ll stay until Marshall’s back). I think line strength is pretty important but I’d risk going with only 4 DTs considering Eukuban plays DT in the nickel package. That would be 9 DLs overall. It’s a tough call. The decision of Martinez is based on keeping Alridge, who takes Glenn’s PR/KR backup role. WR is also a strength and, in this case, a reduction would help other positions more in need.

I’m also in favor of dropping Larsen and keeping Woodyard. We have 3 LBs who play MLB, and two — Larsen & Koutouvides — only play Mike. It would seem to make more sense to allow more flexibility and reward the best production, which is Woodyard’s. I certainly like Larsen but he’s also at the most crowded LB position. If he showed ability at SLB it would be different.

by Colinski on Aug 27, 2008 6:49 PM MDT   0 recs

Ek's back issues worry me

Afte the ankle the back can be bothersome, and he’s nt all that yung. It’s a tough call – glad I’m not Shanny tonight.

Atwater for the Hall!

by broncobear on Aug 29, 2008 11:56 PM MDT to parent up   0 recs

Reccommended.

Solid work Matt!

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

by hoosierteacher on Aug 27, 2008 7:02 PM MDT   0 recs

Food for thought???

Polumbus was courted by 3 or 4 other teams, so I doubt he’ll make it through waivers, whereas Ericson wasn’t so he might clear. Haven’t heard much about Nalen’ s healing yet, so he could be that surprise cut, BUT Shanny’s loyalty to him could make the diff there. Just guessing?

by Pmac54 on Aug 27, 2008 8:23 PM MDT   0 recs

Shanny would keep nalen in the loop

if a cut was imminent he would be given every opportunity to retire as a Denver Bronco.

Mountains, forest, sea: these render man fierce, but yet do not destroy the man.

by styg50 on Aug 27, 2008 9:20 PM MDT to parent up   0 recs

at least 25 teams wanted to sign Polumbus

The truth is rather absurd but according to Tom Mills, his agent, over 25 teams wanted to sign Polumbus.

"It’s the most intense competition we’ve ever had for an undrafted free agent.. " – Tom Mills

by Colinski on Aug 28, 2008 1:08 AM MDT to parent up   0 recs

That is interesting

The question is how many of them would want to put him on their 53 man roster this late in the game? I am gonna assume that since Polumbus chose Denver over the teams initially, that he would also choose to be on Denver’s practice squad over the practice squad of another team.

by MattR on Aug 28, 2008 1:13 AM MDT to parent up   0 recs

Does Polumbus have that option?

If someone picks him up, can he tell them no?

"It's all over Fat Man" - Tom Jackson to John Madden 1977 AFC Championship Game

"I wouldn't say he's nowhere near T.O." - Pacman Jones on Brandon Marshall

"I love your analysis of our team. Its kinda like watching a spider monkey trying to figure out a jar of peanuts.. you know whats going on.. you know whats in there, but to actually figure it out, is just a bit beyond your mental skills..."
- Bronco Dano from DP Comments

by DesertBroncoFan on Aug 28, 2008 2:14 PM MDT to parent up   0 recs

I would think so?

" He goes against Champ everyday." -Jay Cutler

Davis to the Hall!

by Jon Tollerud on Aug 28, 2008 2:22 PM MDT to parent up   0 recs

sure

but he would have no reason to. I mean, they are putting him on their active 53. More glory! And his agent will be sure to see to it that it means more money too…

Mountains, forest, sea: these render man fierce, but yet do not destroy the man.

by styg50 on Aug 28, 2008 3:04 PM MDT to parent up   0 recs

Aargh, I just lost a long response

So you are gonna get a shorter version. I am pretty sure that Polumbus has to go through waivers after he is cut. I think the window is 24 or 48 hours for other teams to claim him. If one (or more) teams claim him, they assume his current contract (which means he has to be put on the 53 man roster of the claiming team). If no one claims him, he becomes a free agent again and can choose to sign with any team. He could turn down an offer from another team to be on their 53 man roster to sign with Denver’s practice squad. But practice squad players make a minimum of $5700 per week (about $97K over 17 weeks) as opposed to $295K minimum for the 53 man roster. Of course any team is free to offer their practice squad players more as long as it fits under the salary cap (NE has done this in the past).

Once Polumbus (or any player) is signed to a practice squad, any other team is free to sign them to their 53 man roster (assuming the player chooses to go). Teams cannot sign players from another practice squad onto their own practice squad.

by MattR on Aug 28, 2008 3:05 PM MDT to parent up   0 recs

A detail I forgot to mention

Is that Polumbus has to go through waivers because he has four years or fewer seasons in the league. Veterans with more than four years of service time, like Sammie Parker, immediately become free agents. (unless they are released after the trading deadline, but that comes with a different set of rules)

by MattR on Aug 28, 2008 3:08 PM MDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: how many

Probably a few. The problem with exposing Polumbus is his status as a LT, which makes him much more valuable than any other OL. And even if he only projects as a reserve LT, since finding a reserve LT is important, too, because it’s a hard-to-fill niche, and he comes cheap which makes him especially attractive.

I think the possibility of — either — keeping Polumbus over Pears, or, keeping them both, are stronger than people believe. There’s also other possibilities — keep Mustard, or move Kuper back for emergencies, which may play in the decision. One criterion is how Polumbus grades versus Pears. The other criterion is experience — Polumbus loses, but they used Pears as a rookie, so it’s hardly out of the question. Another decisional input is Pears’ current back problems. It may be a choice between an injured/impaired Pears V. Polumbus. The other criterion is likelihood of injury to Clady/Harris. Kuper can backup Harris but Clady is the real concern. If they feel reasonably secure in Clady playing without injury then Polumbus is less of a concern, too. Also, they can fill RT and move Harris over. I think he can perform adequately at LT at this point, at least temporarily., and there are other possibilities, too. And it’s not static, Polumbus can become a more viable replacement as the season progresses, so, will Clady get injured earlier in the season? — is the question they’ll be asking themselves when they make the decision.

by Colinski on Aug 28, 2008 4:15 PM MDT to parent up   0 recs

Pears

Actually, I don’t think Pears played as a rookie. His rookie year was 05, and he mostly rode the pine (he was an undrafted free agent out of Colorado State – he’d been projected as a mid round pick, but a back injury kept him from being drafted). He took over for Lepsis at LT in mid 06, then played all of last year at RT.

while yet unspoken, you are master of the word. After it is spoken, the word is master of you.

by bradley on Aug 28, 2008 5:34 PM MDT to parent up   0 recs

Yes

I overstated my case somewhat, you’re correct on Pears. He did play quite early in his career though, he started 10 games in 2006, which is surprising for a CFA. I also recall him coming out of HS, so I agree that he was underrated as a draft prospect. Polumbus followed a similar trajectory — he was rated very high coming out of HS. #4 OT in the country (Rivals or Scout), and he also played in a higher level of competition in college.

My point was simply that It wouldn’t be out of the question to keep Polumbus over Pears, especially if Pears is struggling physically and they’re afraid of losing Polumbus to another team, which is plausible given the interest showed after the draft and his ability to play LT. My initial projections had Pears as the clearcut backup OT but things have changed somewhat since then. I think there’s still a moderately high possibility they’ll keep him, but I think they’ll also take steps to protect themselves from having to rely on him too much as the backup — like using Kuper as an additional backup, etc.

by Colinski on Aug 29, 2008 6:24 PM MDT to parent up   0 recs

added comment

I seem to recall Pears being on the active list for games in 05, especially late in the season, so he may have been counted on as a backup OT, which made his situation similar to what they’d be asking of Polumbus. However, as I’ve said before, it’s a risky move, although they may have an alternative backup plan to lessen some of the risk.

by Colinski on Aug 29, 2008 6:43 PM MDT to parent up   0 recs

Pears/Polumbus

I like Pears. I think he’s played quite well for the Broncos the last two years, especially considering the O line has been in a lot of flux, with the injuries to Lepsis, then Hamilton and Nalen. I mean, it’s not like Pears got put into a veteran line with just one vacancy. That said, I’m sure the Broncos will keep Polumbus over Pears if it comes to one or the other, and if Polumbus has shown enough potential to beat out a very steady and already experienced tackle. And assuming Pears’ back problem is minor.

while yet unspoken, you are master of the word. After it is spoken, the word is master of you.

by bradley on Aug 29, 2008 7:25 PM MDT to parent up   0 recs

tomorrow at 2:00PM

We’ll know what they’ve decided soon enough. I thought the Holland trade might have made the decision easier — they could keep the 9 OLs I predicted, including two backup tackles. it still makes more sense to keep only one, though, but we’re mostly guessing about what the coaching staff thinks about these guys.

If they keep both Pears and Polumbus it should tell us they see potential in Polumbus. If they keep Pears alone it may signal that they just don’t feel comfortable keeping more than 8 OLs. I’m sure they’d love to put Polumbus on the PS but it’s a little risky. I’d be all in favor of the move if it means some of my other favorites make it. And we have to face the fact that we don’t have enough roster spaces for all the players we want. I’d be happy if some of these guys get their opportunity elsewhere, if they can’t play here.

by Colinski on Aug 29, 2008 8:44 PM MDT to parent up   0 recs

I think we try and sneak Erickson through waivers!

" He goes against Champ everyday." -Jay Cutler

Davis to the Hall!

by Jon Tollerud on Aug 28, 2008 2:23 PM MDT to parent up   0 recs

This wouldn't be difficult.

He is raw and has a long ways to go. he is too small to be an extra body for other teams to beat up on, so few teams would value him as much as we would…

Mountains, forest, sea: these render man fierce, but yet do not destroy the man.

by styg50 on Aug 28, 2008 3:04 PM MDT to parent up   0 recs

from what I have seen (very little)

he looks like a good fit for a pure ZB team (Denver/ Houston)

" He goes against Champ everyday." -Jay Cutler

Davis to the Hall!

by Jon Tollerud on Aug 28, 2008 3:47 PM MDT to parent up   0 recs

exactly

He’s a real good fit for ZB teams, from what I gather.

And @ 6’8 & 310 lbs. he works in other schemes pretty well, too. Polumbus was the top OL on the board when the draft ended, it’s not like teams didn’t see some potential in him. He was the #4-OT prospect coming out of HS but he played at Colo. at a poor time to enhance his value.

by Colinski on Aug 28, 2008 4:25 PM MDT to parent up   0 recs

Erickson 6'6 290

and that is being generous. I think we got our Lions crossed Colinski :)

Agree about Polumbus. Instant depth, just add deep water…

Mountains, forest, sea: these render man fierce, but yet do not destroy the man.

by styg50 on Aug 28, 2008 7:45 PM MDT to parent up   0 recs

P