we need a hammer at mlb. we had wilson and lynch-2 hammers(and great tacklers), and now, webster and mccree don’t bring that. i say we go force over speed here, we have plent of speed on the d, already. we lack intimidation, pop, tackling ability, and leadership. i believe laurainitus brings that, and is fast enough for the position. i think he is the perfect fit, and i hope he slips in the draft to where we could trade up and nab him, keeping more of our picks for other d needs. i’m sure this is our #1 priority next draft, and it may come down to value, so i’ll take any blue-chip prospect at the position, so long as he can bring it.

To get Maluga, but I could see denver trying to get Cushing who also from USC. I dont know its such a long way off

if that is what you are thinking, and even then I don’t think they really knew they wanted him until much closer to the draft than this.

That being said I think our scouting department is exponentially better and productive than it has been, including when we picked up Cutler, so who knows what the Goodman’s are telling Shanny right now.

But Jon makes a good point. We pretty much can’t go wrong with some extra picks to target a good defensive draft. And I am SURE that the Goodman’s know that they can get a number of defensive playmakers that will be no brainers.

Don’t be too dismissive of our need for a DT. One dominant DT would make his partner look good, would be a hell of a lot of time for the LBs (improving all three), help stop the run, and tie up the OL for the pass rush.

A MLB improves a very key player on the defense. A DT can improve multiple positions. I would fix our DT position first (fixing the foundation).

Although I know that we will pick up guys for offense, I see this as our D Draft. Might be wrong – anyone?

The two that I assume we would be targeting are Maulauga from USC and Mayes from USC, both are freaks of nature, and both will be all-pros at the next level very soon. But I would be happy to try to add depth at WR, DL, LB, and CB also if the price is too high for those players. Also I wouldn’t mind seeing us take another QB and kick Ramsey to the curb.

In the 2006 & 2008 drafts, we took 12 offensive players and 4 defensive players. Of these 12 offensive players, there are at least 5 that could eventually make the Pro Bowl (Jay-C, BM, Tony S, Royal, Ryan Clady) and a couple more with that potential (Ryan Torrain (if you believe the hype), perhaps Hillis). In the 2005 & 2008 drafts, we took 6 defensive players and 2 offensive players. Of these defensive players, only Darrent Williams (RIP) seems to have had Pro Bowl potential. The way Harris is playing, he might be the only player from these two draft years to accomplish the feat. So shouldn’t our strategy be to draft offensive players and trade them for defensive players from teams that can draft defense (aka the Champ Baily strategy).

It’s too early to project 2009 in more than general terms. Two of the positions of need — Safety & ILB — are going to be well stocked but that doesn’t mean our current draft position (you can make your own projections, I’d say ~ #20) will yield one of the MLBs many of us are targeting, namely, Maualuga or Laurinaitis. Denver probably could move up to take one of them, which appears to be a good idea since both look like can’t miss prospects.

If for some reason the Broncos staff decided to stay put there would be a number of dominant Safeties available near Denver’s projected draft position. However, almost all of next year’s spectacular crop of Safeties are SSs, and that may an important distinction. 2010’s crop of Safeties tips strongly towards the FS position, so the difference between the two classes is pronounced enough to consider that fact when they’re planning their draft. And, as always, juniors declaring can change the shape of the crop.

Drafting strategy is an important issue in this discussion. And here’s my take — drafting for need is a necessity. Oddly, taking the Best Player Available is, too. Also, because talent intervals between player are often large early in the draft it’s often necessary to move in order to avoid giving up value. Farther into the draft, intervals are small and scheme compatibility diverges so teams are relatively free to focus on position. I prefer a grocery cart strategy.

Most of what I’ve been saying on draft strategy pertains to early picks, and Denver has a need for some elite players on defense. Since early picks come at a high cost it’s preferable to have more picks in the middle range, i.e., ~ 3-4th rounds. This is partly because of the math, early picks are still important because a few elite players can turn a defense (or squad) dominant and are thus essential, but it’s also because the salary cap has shaped teams’ salary structure. Picking more early to middle round picks is also a hedge strategy, more low risk / lower return prospects are preferred over high risk / high return prospects — in general. And there are many caveats to this strategy, such as when a team already has ample depth and needs a few impact players, but team needs are still the guiding principle. Also, there is a presumption here that the team is scouting meticulously, and Denver appears to be doing that lately.

The Broncos still need to focus on the DL in the 2009 draft, and I don’t think they should be afraid of taking a DE early if he’s a high value choice. They also can take an OLB under similar conditions. Some of the OLBs are able to play to play MLB so the real question should be talent. There are some positions on offense, such as WR or OL (it’s a very strong OC crop) that might not occur to people and have talent we may want to take. However, our needs dictate taking mostly defensive players in next year’s draft.