New Broncos Mock Draft, Part Four

by Sayre Bedinger on Dec 15, 2009 1:05 PM MST

For my first few mock drafts this offseason, I have projected the Broncos to make a trade. This particular mock will not feature a trade, though I feel it could be in Denver's best interest to do so. They would not have to cope with the cost of a top ten pick, though they might be forfeiting some talent in the prospect they acquire. While it may in fact be wise to trade down and acquire picks, the Broncos can do well with the six selections they currently possess.

This is a very deep draft, especially at the top end. During the 2009 draft, the Broncos traded their own 2010 first round pick to the Seattle Seahawks for a second round pick which was used on cornerback Alphonso Smith. Critics thought the Broncos to be idiotic for doing that, especially after trading away quarterback Jay Cutler. They thought the Broncos' first round pick was sure to be a top ten pick, and the Bears' pick would be in the 20's or later.

Looks like Josh McDaniels was and is smarter than them, and the Bears are currently 5-8 and projected to send Denver the eighth overall pick in the up-coming draft. Here's how I would project Denver's draft if they decide to stay put with all of their picks.

First Round: Rolando McClain, LB, Alabama

It is clear after three seasons that the 6'4" 245 pound linebacker on the nation's top defense is the best linebacker in this draft if he decides to come out. The All-American has recorded 266 tackles, eight sacks, five interceptions, and a fumble forced in his time at Alabama. McClain is smart, durable, and a great defensive leader. If the Broncos selected him, they would have one of, if not the best linebacker group in the NFL. McClain would pair in the middle with D.J. Williams, while emerging star Elvis Dumervil and 2009 first round pick Robert Ayers man the outside spots. McClain has excellent range against the run and takes great angles. He is one of the best pure tacklers in the draft, and projects as a three down linebacker at the next level. The prospect of adding him has to be exciting for the Broncos, whose only real defensive weakness is against the run.

Second Round: Dan Williams, DL, Tennessee

Williams would be a great value pick here for the Broncos. He adds good size and athleticism to the front line, and would make a great eventual replacement for Kenny Peterson, Vonnie Holliday, or Ryan McBean. He has great versatility as a lineman and is a run stopping force. He has imposing size at 6'3" 327 pounds, and has the ability to get in the backfield on a very consistent basis. Williams is an ideal potential fit for the nose tackle position in the 3-4, and would be great insurance up front for Denver's linebacker core.

Third Round: Adrian Clayborn, DL, Iowa This would be another great value pick. As I have stated in previous mock drafts, I am really high on Clayborn and if he declares for the draft I think he would be a steal at this point. He is an excellent run stuffer and a relentless pass rusher. He is very athletic for his size, and has good burst off the line of scrimmage. Clayborn is versatile enough to play inside or outside in the 4-3, or as a five technique or rush linebacker in the 3-4. The Broncos will love his versatility and burst.

Fourth Round: Mike Johnson, OL, Alabama The Broncos need some size and depth on the offensive line, and Johnson gives them just that. He has been a very versatile performer for the Crimson Tide, playing both tackle and guard in his time there. This season proved that the Broncos are somewhat weak in depth at offensive tackle, and they lack the size on the interior line (left guard and center in particular) to effectively run their offense. Johnson can play tackle or guard, and if Seth Olsen can transition to center, Johnson could be the eventual starter at the left guard position.

Sixth Round: Dexter McCluster, RB/WR, Ole Miss I'm going with another SEC player here in McCluster, one of the most versatile players in the draft. He has blazing speed, and can help the Broncos in many different areas. He can line up as a return man, catch passes in the screen game, carry the ball, or line up as a wide receiver. He is a jack-of-all-trades who is vastly undersized, and he could end up being a big steal.

Seventh Round: Zoltan Mesko, P, Michigan Mesko has a booming foot, and Mitch Berger clearly isn't the Broncos' long term answer at the punter position. This kid was one of the few bright spots for the Wolverines in 2009, and should have a long future punting on Sundays.

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

Tweet Comment 43 comments | 5 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

If

We pick McClain, who do we cut loose in the off season? That would leave us with five inside linebackers. Dan Williams most likely will be taken in the first round. I’d rather increase the talent along the D-line because sometimes we have no pass rush or penetration. I think our direction in the draft will depend on the development of Baker and if E-Ped is healed and continues to progress.

"Pleased? We are excited about the proposition of going forward from where we are right now. Pleased? I don't know if you want to say pleased. You may want to hang your hat on pleased. I don't want to hang my hat on nothing right now."

-Brian Dawkins, on the play of the defense

Once he gets his hands on you, there's not much you're going to do. Then you can't outrun him, you can't run around him, you can't really run him over -- so you've just got to deal with it."

Elvis Dumerville, on Ryan Clady

by milehighnation on Dec 15, 2009 1:30 PM MST reply actions

Great Question

One I have never thought of before. I can’t see ridding of Larsen or Woodyard, though I didn’t think I’d see Jack Williams go either, because they are great special teams players. I’d love for Andra Davis to mentor McClain as well. That would mean that one of the OLB’s would be cut in hopes that McClain is versatile enough, which he is, to fill in out there as well.

I’d love to see Baker and Pedescleaux get on the field next year too, but only time will tell. Pedescleaux was a great athlete at UNI, and Baker looked great at training camp.

by Sayre Bedinger on Dec 15, 2009 3:48 PM MST up reply actions

My guess

If we really did get McClain would be that they would move Larsen to full time FB, and cut/trade Hillis. But the question of who to get rid of is part of why I don’t see us spending the pick on an ILB.

by Fan in Exile on Dec 15, 2009 4:04 PM MST up reply actions

Easy - lose Woodyard

by Bustafluff on Dec 15, 2009 5:11 PM MST up reply actions

as much as I love woodyard

He would appear to be the odd man out there. His role can be replaced as a LB and we’ve got quite a few who can fill in his contributions on ST. Still love to watch him play though (not the last game) but most of the time he’s quite serviceable and a danger on ST.

by BroncoInExile on Dec 16, 2009 12:13 AM MST up reply actions

Interesting Sayre

I don’t think Denver will be as defense heavy in the first few rounds as you and others have projected. Not that I disagree, but, after what we saw from McDaniels in the draft last year, he’s going to be very hard to read on what direction or whom he is really looking at…..

I think you were more correct previously in offering up the first pick to gain more picks, but we’ll just have to wait and see.

Overall that’s a bunch of great picks and I like the logic behind each one.

"A great pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do" Walter Gagenot
"Hope sees the invisible, feels the intangible and achieves the impossible."

by bchiper on Dec 15, 2009 1:30 PM MST reply actions

You may be right

At times I had Gerhart penciled in for our 2nd round pick, but thought Williams was too good of value, especially at a position that rarely comes along, to pass on. That’s another thing. It’s probably major wishful thinking on my part to think Williams will fall to the 2nd. I think Gerhart is more likely to be available, but these are meant to be a little of wishful thinking at this point :D

I still think we will trade down, for the record. This is just to see what could happen if we decide to stay put with a top ten pick.

Thanks for your comment, and I agree that picking McD’s draft is going to be tough. Still fun :)

by Sayre Bedinger on Dec 15, 2009 3:50 PM MST up reply actions

I like the Williams pick,

more than the Mclain pick ( and I love Mclain). Gerhart would be fun to have, but don’t see it possibility. Maybe we can trade down to a low first round and get Williams and maybe have another third rounder to use.

Yup this is going to be fun, and you know McDaniels isn’t going to tip this hat to what he’s doing very easily.

"A great pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do" Walter Gagenot
"Hope sees the invisible, feels the intangible and achieves the impossible."

by bchiper on Dec 16, 2009 9:50 AM MST up reply actions

I just can't warm up to an ILB.

D.J.‘s efforts against NY, KC and Indy certainly don’t help. Thats not to say that I’d be upset if McClain was the guy, but I think bigger problems can be addressed.

From your descriptions of the rest of the guys, that’d be a heck of a draft.

The selfish, they're all standing in line
Faithing and hoping to buy themselves time
Me, I figure as each breath goes by
I only own my mind-- Pearl Jam, "I am Mine"

by PredominantlyOrange on Dec 15, 2009 2:37 PM MST reply actions

I agree

There’s certainly not a glaring need for a middle linebacker, but McClain reminds me a lot of Brian Urlacher. We wouldn’t be able to pass that up in this situation, lest we felt we could wind up getting a top dollar player later in the first like Terrence Cody, Brandon Spikes, Maurkice Pouncey, or someone like that. What are your ideas for the first round?

by Sayre Bedinger on Dec 15, 2009 3:52 PM MST up reply actions

If we stick with the pick...

…I’d be all over Taylor Mays. I understand his ‘playmaking’ limitations, but intimidating S’s have a way of being effective in coverage by shutting down the middle of the field in the passing game. I can’t count the times I watched Atwater in his prime inside the stadium and saw the opponent abandon even trying to work the middle because the receivers lost their will and concentration. The power intimidation is as powerful at the NFL level as any other. You worry about questions about his instincts, but his skill set provides quite the canvas for a good coach . I think we have a keeper at one S in McBath, but I’m not certain that the other slot is already taken by Bruton.

My ideal scenario would be to trade back to the low 20’s to snap up Mike Iupati. There isn’t a single thing I can find about the guy that doesn’t make him an ideal fit for Denver. He has all the intangibles that McX desires, plus he can easily gap or zone block. He’s a freak and a guy that could do much to shore up the Broncos biggest weakness, IMO. I think the best thing you can do for this defense right now is help the offense become more dynamic and effecient, and shoring up the interior is a huge step in that direction. Having Clady and Iupati manning the left side of Denver’s line for the next decade makes me salivate at the thought.

The selfish, they're all standing in line
Faithing and hoping to buy themselves time
Me, I figure as each breath goes by
I only own my mind-- Pearl Jam, "I am Mine"

by PredominantlyOrange on Dec 15, 2009 4:33 PM MST up reply actions

I love McClain!

And i would like to get McCluster as well..is he going to be available that late?

"Really, I'm a high-motor guy. Tough, hard-nosed, a hard runner, can make you miss at times. And just competitive. I love to play the game and I bring that energy to my team. So, we'll see how that goes." - Knowshon Moreno

Knowshon Moreno=ROY

by stedtfeld on Dec 15, 2009 2:37 PM MST reply actions

Same here!

I doubt McCluster lasts to the sixth, but I’ve seen weirder things. I think we’ll pick up a fifth at some point in a trade anyway.

by Sayre Bedinger on Dec 15, 2009 3:53 PM MST up reply actions

Love the Draft Sayre

I would love a center but don’t want to get rid of one of the guys you picked.

by Fan in Exile on Dec 15, 2009 3:04 PM MST reply actions

Thanks

I would love Maurkice Pouncey, C, Florida, but he has yet to declare. The other guys available are really lacking, and like last year when we all wanted a NT, it would be a huge reach to go after one very early. Mike Johnson is very versatile, and may be able to play center. He is, after all, an All American.

by Sayre Bedinger on Dec 15, 2009 3:54 PM MST up reply actions

I really like this

McClain would be a great fit in our 3-4 and Williams would be an amazing steal if he was sitting there for us in the 2nd round (Our pick might be in the early to mid fifties in the second-FYI)

I think I would try to just sign a FA punter and use the draft pick trying to find a hidden gem. Remember in 2008 we got both Peyton Hillis and Josh Barrett in the seventh round so there is value there. I would try to find a 3-4 E who migh fit well into our system in the seventh but hasn’t been discovered. 7th round is also good chance at finding a rush olb like Packers did with Brad Jones.

I like McCluster because he could let Eddie Royal focus on being WR and not KR/PR He could eventually be our Wes Welker.

"No more my bad just make the play"-McJedi

by RockyMountainThunder on Dec 15, 2009 4:26 PM MST reply actions

Thanks RMT

I like McClain too, and I think Williams will probably go before we pick in round two. Just don’t see that many nose tackles fall very far. Good point on the seventh round pick. I think there is a chance there will be a solid player available in the later rounds, and if not Mesko we could go for a different player like Hillis or Barrett, guys who should not have slipped that far.

by Sayre Bedinger on Dec 16, 2009 9:26 AM MST up reply actions

I am a huge fan of this mock draft.

The last one with McCoy I was a little concerned about, but this one I can get behind 100%. It addresses all of our needs. What was your motivation to take someone other than a QB?

If Taylor Swift were to try and tackle me, I'd let her.
Girl, you don't need to be a 10, as long as you have a good smile and smell like bacon.

by Troy Hufford on Dec 15, 2009 6:26 PM MST reply actions

Thanks

My motivation was any QB was too big a reach at 8, and none that I felt were good fits were available theoretically with my other picks. I would still like to trade down and get Colt McCoy because I think he is the perfect fit for this offense. If not, I’ll be behind a draft 100% anyways.

by Sayre Bedinger on Dec 16, 2009 9:28 AM MST up reply actions

I would be in favor of

A strong dominant presence in the ILB spot. I was high on Rey and Cushing and think a LB with emotion would be healthy for our defense. Whoever McX decides to pick up in the FA market will decide which direction they will go in the draft. This draft looks good to me.

Character may be manifested in the great moments but it is made in the small ones -- Philip Brooks

by KaptainKirk on Dec 15, 2009 6:56 PM MST reply actions

Me too

I really wanted Brian Cushing, and included him in my final Broncos mock. I thought it was almost a lock, but I am wrong a lot. Cushing is going to be the defensive rookie of the year, not coincidentally. I agree with you, a lot of what we do in FA will depend on our draft. I think especially with our own FA’s.

by Sayre Bedinger on Dec 16, 2009 9:29 AM MST up reply actions

WHERE TO DRAFT -- here's how I would put it

Many people argue about the strengths and weaknesses of players and areas of the team but I simply follow the depth chart for guidance. It’s an easy way to gauge where we might draft.

Let me illustrate — Moss is the only 3rd string OLB (9th LB overall) so his position is an obvious choice for an upgrade.

We haven’t seen much from the bottom of RB depth chart so it’s another position that we could upgrade. Hillis is last on the depth chart but Jordan is equally vulnerable.

Brandon Lloyd hasn’t been active very much (or at all) so WR is another position where we could use a draft pick.

CB is a position where every other team carries more players than the Broncos. Moreover, the waiving of Jack Williams and the signing of Law, who was out of football, indicates that we’re missing some depth at CB.

Acquisitions late in pre-season at DE speak to a weakness there. The bottom of the depth chart is Le Kevin Smith and Vonnie Holliday. Smith is vulnerable and Holliday is late in his career. At least one DE draftee might be in order but the depth here can also come from the current NT group.

Nose tackle is three deep because it’s an important position but it’s not a strength yet. I like Chris Baker but the position is still an obvious area where we could use an upgrade. As I said in the last paragraph, increasing our depth here could allow us to move one of the three current NTs over to DE.

Bringing Hochstein late in the pre-season and the in-season demotion of Hamilton tell the story. Guard is another position we could bring in a draftee.

Center is another area we could draft. We know Wiegmann is old and lacks a backup so it’s an obvious area we could draft, without knowing anything other than basic details from the depth chart.

RT Harris went out with an injury and we know that an UDFA Polumbus and a mostly unused Brandon Gorin are backups. It’s an obvious area to draft for.

There have been other moves during the season, such as acquiring a new punter, and any move indicates that the coaching staff is looking for an upgrade. I like Berger but he was out of football and is old.

Analysis — some positions don’t have depth, such as CB, so a little bit of knowledge helps. In most cases, the depth chart itself tells as much as you need to know. OLB is another interesting case since Moss’ vulnerability might be interpreted as an indication to draft another OLB. I think McClain could easily take Moss’ spot even though he’d add another ILB. Many teams do carry 5 ILBs, and Larsen is only a ‘half’ ILB so carrying one more isn’t really an issue. Also, I really believe McClain has potential as a pass rusher, and that’s easy to conclude because he’s listed at 258 lbs. and runs ~4.6 in the 40yd.

My point here is that it doesn’t take much more than a depth chart to figure out who we should draft. The bios and team moves fill in added details but it could be said that NOT being too familiar with the players and thus also not being biased allows one to make objective, quality decisions about who to draft.

no goats, no glory.

by Colinski on Dec 15, 2009 7:41 PM MST reply actions

not to mention we still have free agency to navigate

I’m working on a 3 dimensional index that i am tentatively calling a “Positional Stability Index”. it is meant to be an at-a-glance graphical representation of depth chart stability over time, which will be Xander’s focus, in my opinion.

If last year was nay indication (and as our continued roster moves and McD’s comments illustrate) this team will not hesitate to acquire whatever available pieces are necessary in order to balance this team out. From averaging the camp numbers of last year’s Broncos, the 2006-2008 Patriots, and the 2002-2004 Nolan defensive rosters for the Ravens, I think we can establish some very solid target numbers for the 80 man roster limit of training camp. to me that is our current job (outside of familiarizing ourselves with college players and NFL Free agents): get an 80 man roster built in Denver.

The trick is weighting the post season early cuts. Last year was a significant part of Bronco’s history, due to the vast number of cuts, but the number had a dual motivation that is not necessarily true for this year: changing system meant that some players (especially #2s) were simply not going to be worth consideration for the new team. Also, salary cap issues and contract no-no’s represented a large motive for a number of cuts. Whether the players fit or not, they simply didn’t fit anywhere on a business with a healthy bottom line.

While we may be able to isolate a small handful of at-risk players (nothing compared to last year), overall i would say our attention should be on salary issues where they exist. Beyond that I don’t see McXanders getting ahead of themselves with cutting anyone before training camp.

Your point about depth at CB may indicate an area where depth charts may be misleading. Outside of our starting three (24, 21, 26) and Smith, I don’t know that we could be expected to really carry much depth, especially when McD seems to value the extra safeties. We carry two DBs on the practice squad, and Vernon Fox’s addition shows a bit of McXander’s offseason hand at safety, where we may see very little action. That said, I could see us trying to bring as many as four new CBs into camp, and likely keeping, at most, two of them. But those two are almost guaranteed to be practice squad players. In that scenario, the end result looks much the same as it does right now, and the depth chart remains unchanged.

Precision in thought, concision in style, decision in life.

"That's MR.Styg..."

by Jeremy Bolander on Dec 15, 2009 8:43 PM MST up reply actions

more on CBs

I believe that Law has an undisclosed contract, but it is probably safe to assume it was a one year deal. [double checked, he was givena one year deal for $600,000) I have liked what I have seen so far, but outside of a significant playoff run, I don’t know if he has a place on this team after this year. that will be an interesting development as it unfolds.

And if it results in Law not being at the 2010 training camp, than there is a glaring need for a quality depth player, far from what I was saying about doing some musical chairs on the practice squad.

Precision in thought, concision in style, decision in life.

"That's MR.Styg..."

by Jeremy Bolander on Dec 15, 2009 8:49 PM MST up reply actions

No way Law will be in camp and I think they are going to groom A Smith for the Nickle DB.

We will need a decent CB for thfure and I look for one to be picked sometime during the draft. Not sure if it will be in the first 3 rounds but, one is coming.

by bfree2bronc on Dec 16, 2009 12:17 AM MST up reply actions

re: roster moves & CBs

The scale of this year’s influx will be less (fi we assume no trades) but the principle of ‘where’ you go is the same. We should expect that it’s harder to supplant players on the current roster, and we should also expect that the chances of draft picks being cut is higher.

However, the players/positions I identify in my post above are clearly vulnerable. And that’s where you want competition. Another guideline is to look at contracts and the level of commitment. Minor players who were signed to short contracts or minor players who are entering their free agent year should not be expected to have long tenures. More positions are targeted than we have picks, though. Six picks barely covers the most important needs let alone all that i’ve listed.

Re: CB. I think it’s unlikely we’ll go without another young CB, because they’re too numerous and we need to find eventual replacements for Bailey and Goodman. It could lead to keeping ten DBs eventually but you can never count on keeping everyone un-injured. Nolan kept ten DBs several times according to a source I trust.

My solution is to see Larsen as a FB, which also justifies bringing in another, such as McClain. Barrett and Woodyard are essentially ‘big nickels,’ which I’ve referred to before as SS/LB hybrids. We could simply cut Moss and add McClain and our numbers don’t change, even though it becomes an 8 man group in the process (10 DBs, 8 LBs, 7 DLs = 25).

Our current offensive roster is: OL (9), TE (3), QB (3), WR (6), RB (5) = 26, but we haven’t added another CB yet so considering Larsen an offensive player adds one more than we currently have. Simply removing Jordan would bring us down to 25 but it’s hard to say where the final cut will come from. One part of the math may be Harris, since he’s going to be on the roster if he’s recovered but he may start the season on the PUP list, which doesn’t count against the limit.

no goats, no glory.

by Colinski on Dec 16, 2009 2:39 AM MST up reply actions

further reply to Jeremy on roster numbers, CBs, etc.

This is a better time for a ‘clear-headed’ response.

Roster numbers are truly fuzzy numbers that approximate eventual needs, given the uncertainty over who will actually be available at the time of the final cut.

My intuition tells me that CB is a position that we’ll probably draft. And that’s despite the fact that there aren’t obvious cuts to be made at DB. There is a difference between preparing yourself (which necessarily entails higher roster numbers than you can carry) and predicting final numbers. Teams have to engage in contingency planning, which means that a greater number of candidates is carried into camp even though a quality player is often cut in the end. It’s impossible to predict whether all of the players will be available at the time of the final cut, so the only solution is to carry more than you need.

Having 10 DBs on the roster at the time of the 53 cut-down will force us to make a decision, but it’s better to make that decision at that point than not have the appropriate personnel going into the season.

The idea of carrying 10 DBs isn’t that unsound — actually. M.U.G., a high-quality poster, has studied the issue as it relates to Nolan’s rosters while at S.F. and found that the 49ers frequently carried 10 DBs going into the season. Part of the justification would seem to be to defend against multiple receiver packages that are now common. The other justification (or one of them) is to carry a higher number of ST-appropriate players.

One consequence to carrying 10 DBs would be a ‘condensing’ of functions under fewer players at other areas on the defensive team. This is the ‘versatility effect’ that allows fewer (often) players to wear more hats. For instance, 8 LBs could be carried if that 8 can perform more assignments (or as many) than 9. This also why I focused heavily on the question of whether McClain could perform adequately at the duties required of OLBs. It’s an assignment criteria rather than a home position criteria. If McClain is versatile enough to add to our pass rushing capacity then he should be considered under the logic that says that ILBs aren’t too valuable but OLBs are, because they perform the ‘impact’ function of rushing the passer. This is ‘hybrid’ logic, in which those who can do more are often more valuable (partly because of the 45 man active squad) than players who do one thing very well.

I can still see a usage for 5 Safeties because Barrett (and Woodyard) are SS/LB hybrids who perform LB pass coverage duties. The point is that it’s an ‘assignment roster number’ rather than a ‘home position roster number.’ We would only be carrying less LBs in the sense of home position designation; not assignment duties. The apparently fewer LBs is an illusion. Larsen can still cover ILB. And Barrett would be, for all intents and purposes, a Safety playing at LB (Big Nickel). The apparently high number of Safeties is an illusion, since one of them is a de facto LB. And some of the depth at Safety are really CBs in disguise (McBath, etc.). However, despite this enhancement of CB numbers because of ‘borrowing’ from Safety, we appear to still need a young CB to groom besides Smith, We can cut down to fewer if necessary (maybe cut Law) but we can’t use a young CB if we never draft him.

As I’ve said before — this dynamic creates BOTH greater roster versatility (i.e., more assignments) and well as specialization. One trick ponies still have a place on the team, and can be accommodated because of the roster room created by the generalists because certain functions are still quite valuable. New England used specialists to perform niche duties but they were expected to perform at a high level at those duties. I also assume that these one trick ponies lacked bargaining power to negotiate for higher salaries because they lacked something in other areas of the game. Call this platoon logic, in which the value of a specialist is determined (in part) by how well he can perform a specialized task rather than what he can’t do.

no goats, no glory.

by Colinski on Dec 16, 2009 3:24 PM MST up reply actions

out of curiosity

as long as you’re sharing your view on roster makeup, how do you go about classifying and addressing need in the area of a return man? I felt like we did a decent job of targeting the job with collateral fallout from many of our signings last year: Buckhalter, McBath, McKinley, Smith…throw in Royal and Hillis and may the best man win, right?

But now the feeling (I haven’t tried to objectively validate this) is that we may want to address it again. Do we view it as a position with depth, but treat the “cuts” differently, since the player still is depth for their primary job? Do we view it as a “discount” roster position, similar to Larsen and Barrett?

If it is a position with depth, it reminds me of our OLB or RB depth: the lower rungs remain unused, and therefore are vulnerable for turnover. If we view it as a “discount” or “bonus” position, their seem to be a number of contributors available, and valuing the skillset may take a backseat.

I would like to objectively quantify the need, if not the numbers. For other positions, it is relatively easy: look for gaps and lack of utility on the depth chart. Return man has been a bit of an apparition….

Precision in thought, concision in style, decision in life.

"That's MR.Styg..."

by Jeremy Bolander on Dec 17, 2009 1:58 AM MST up reply actions

interesting question

It’s an important consideration even though I haven’t spoken of it much.

Some people have cited a comment by McDaniels about seeking a full-time KR but I doubt there is room. KR ability is an important trait when considering many of the prospects at other positions. We picked up Marcus Thigpen (RB) during the pre-season, whose main asset is exceptional KR ability, so the indication is that they’re still looking. Alphonso Smith’s brief and unsuccessful effort there means it’s still on the table, especially since Royal’s performance hasn’t been up to expectations.

Many of the prospects we’ve mentioned project as KRs, so we should probably emphasize this attribute more since it’s a big part of why they’re being suggested. However, I haven’t produced a complete rankings list of KRs so it’s hard to compare players’ abilities on this aspect alone. It’s a question of ‘how well’ they can return kicks and not merely if they ‘can’ return kicks.

Here’s some of the players we’ve mentioned who might factor as KRs:

Joe Haden (CB)
Dez Bryant (WR)
Donovan Warren (CB)
Dexter McCluster (RB/WR)
Javier Arenas (CB)
Perrish Cox (CB)
Kyle Wilson (CB)
Jordan Shipley (WR)
Joe McKnight (RB)

There’s no criteria here, it’s just some who’ve come up in posts.

Some others:

Noel Devine (RB)

I’m really not sure about some of the prospects. Some aren’t well positioned, such as Mardy Gilyard (WR), but size is the overriding concern for most of the KRs I’ve looked into. It may not be a concern for some draftniks but it worries me since their value in their home positions drops thus their value as depth for non-KR duties diminishes.

Some more names:

Jacoby Ford (WR)

I think the WRs are worth looking into, and that’s even though I’d prefer the KR be at CB.

Golden Tate (WR)

I’ve left out players such as Jahvid Best, RB, who are obvious candidates, so it’s an incomplete listing. There’s a lot of players who don’t appear to be potential draftees for us. I haven’t figured all that out yet. It’s a subject I’ve paid attention to but the main problem — again — is size and therefore utility at their home position.

no goats, no glory.

by Colinski on Dec 17, 2009 12:57 PM MST up reply actions

With that in mind

Which former Patriot are we more likely to target in free agency: Logan Mankins or Vince Wilfork? They can’t franchise both of them, though they do have first rights to re-sign. I could see Wilfork walking more easily than Mankins I suppose.

Do we even have enough cash to pursue those guys? We need to look at Marshall, Dumervil, Scheffler, Orton, and Kuper as priority free agents this offseason. They are going to go from fourth round money to big money, and fast, so which one is the odd man out. We probably won’t be able to sign all five. My money is on Scheffler leaving Denver.

Also, in regards to the corners: Do you think we are more likely to go for a vet or another high draft pick. I really don’t know who is available in free agency at all this year, but I do like a few prospects. I like Joe Haden (UF), Walter Thurmond, Perrish Cox, Javier Arenas, among others. I don’t know that Law has much more in him, so do you think he will be a priority because he is inexpensive and effective?

by Sayre Bedinger on Dec 15, 2009 8:53 PM MST up reply actions

Between Wilfork and Mankins

I see Mankins as the less valuable of the two, but he may also cost less. What is interesting about Wilfork is that before he came around, the Patriots were not shy about carrying extra NTs on their roster. Once Wilfork arrived, they consistently carried only Wilfork and a developmental guy. Is that still true? Not sure, but Fields, Thomas and Baker are all tied up untill at least 2011, and all are performing relatively well (not sure about Baker, actually). The benefit of carrying a guy like Wilfork is that you can release someone else (if he is still that caliber of player), but we have no one who would be a “smart” or obvious cut at NT if Wilfork came on board, so i don’t know that he would be a clear cut target for the Broncos. By acquiring that quality you lose one of the benefits of having that quality on the roster. We seem to be more sturctured to acquire developmental prospects at DT, most likely draft, but also guys like Fields, who don’t cost much ($2mil per year thereabouts). Mankins on the other hand would fit nicely into a cruddy and cloudy interior offensive line picture. I need to take a closer look at Mankins to decide if I actually like the guy or not, but between the two, I think he makes the most sense.

I can see scenarios where we sign all of the Bronco FAs you mention, but I like your instincts on this one. I too feel that Scheffler might be the odd man out. I think our priorities are DOOM, Kuper and Orton, in no particular order. Doom will get paid handsomely, Kuper will get paid solidly, and Orton will get paid smartly (perhaps good upfront money with voidable years or something). Next up is Marshall, who should get paid like Doom, but that may be much more of a bidding war that we need to ride out. He is worth paying, but NOONE is worth overpaying. TE needs more depth, but we have a realtively solid 2 of 3 if we don’t have Scheff anymore. With someone on the PS and 2 more available training camp slots to find a replacement, McXanders have to like those odds….

Regarding corners, we will probably target at least one or two veterans, but probably not any young, high quality names, unless there is a good deal associated with them. We paid very well for Goodman (approx $4mil/year) and invested heavily in Smith. Law was signed to a relatively inexpensive deal, though when we factor in that it isn’t for a full season, I think it is actually better than it looks. If we push into the playoffs and he plays well, I see no reason to not re-up him and let training camp sort things out. As to whether the prospect we bring in (and I think we will bring in some young CBs) that comes down to specifically WHO we are looking at. of the ones you name, Arenas is the one I have seen the most of, and I like him, but need to see a lot more. Can’t wait. :)

Precision in thought, concision in style, decision in life.

"That's MR.Styg..."

by Jeremy Bolander on Dec 15, 2009 9:14 PM MST up reply actions

Interesting...

Those are some good thoughts. The thing that I take from that is what you said about our FAs. Dumervil will be a top priority, there’s no doubt. Kuper will be number two, of course. Orton NEEDS the Broncos, and he and his agent will know that. They are certainly his best chance to succeed/keep a job in the NFL. There is less pressure on him here than any team looking for a QB in the offseason, and we are essentially guaranteeing him a starting spot with some of the best offensive talent and a great defensive unit in the league.

Orton will re-sign, and we won’t have to force it, in my opinion.

As far as Marshall, the only thing I might point to is the fact that Pat Bowlen himself said he is in for a big pay raise. Does that mean he is going to be tagged and re-signed? I think that is the smartest thing. If he is going to be overpaid, it will be by another team and we will receive a first and third round draft pick in return, though after this season I’m not so sure how effective our passing game can be without him…

I am excited about the prospect of adding another tight end, and have previously discussed Anthony Moeaki of Iowa. Though he is injury prone, he is the most versatile tight end in the draft, and he reminds me a lot of Daniel Graham in terms of his style. He is a good pass receiver and has good vision with the ball in his hands. He is a great athlete with good leaping ability. If we lose Scheff, I like the prospect of letting Branson and Moeaki battle it out for the last TE spot.

I think you’re right about CB. There is a lot of money tied up there, and Champ is a free agent in 2011. We need to have the cap to bring him back. I hope he retires a Bronco.

I could certainly see a scenario in which Walter Thurmond falls to us in the third or fourth round. I would love to bring him in. One of the things I stress in my mock drafts is versatility. Thurmond is versatile. He brings a huge weapon to the return game. That’s also why I like Arenas, though people have made good points in the past about our CB tandem of the future being too short with him and Phonz. Arenas is a nickel in the NFL IMO, as he is more quick than he is fast and a phenomenal blitzing CB (five sacks in 09 already).

Also, what do you think about adding Myron Rolle. This statement might not get great reviews, but I think he is a poor man’s Taylor Mays. He has ideal size, good speed, and obviously he is instinctive, smart, and coachable. He is going to be an interesting player to watch for, as I have been following his career since I bought a high school recruiting mag with him on the cover four years ago. I am really excited to see where he ends up.

by Sayre Bedinger on Dec 15, 2009 9:28 PM MST up reply actions

don't forget it's an uncapped year

Unless a CBA is agreed upon by March (?), we’ll be entering an uncapped year, which changes the terms of the contracts for players who have less than 6 years accrued. PLAYER LIST

Potential RFAs: OLB Elvis Dumervil*, OG Chris Kuper*, WR Brandon Marshall*, QB Kyle Orton*, TE Tony Scheffler*, DT LeKevin Smith*

John Bena may be right in saying that a new CBA is in the offing but Adam Schefter may also be right in saying that it won’t be negotiated in time to prevent the uncapped rules from applying for 2010. The major change is that many of the player we’ve discussed won’t be able to enter 2010 as UFAs but will become RFAs instead.

Here’s who will become UFAs under any circumstances:

Potential UFAs: P Mitch Berger, OT Brandon Gorin, OLB Nick Greisen, OG Ben Hamilton, OG Ross Hochstein, CB Ty Law, WR Brandon Lloyd.

I can foresee signing Hochstein because of our depth situation on the OL but everyone else is ‘iffy.’ And this is also why my post regarding “where we draft” (also sign FAs and UDFAs) is pertinent, since we’re not contractually obligated beyond 2009 and can re-sign players as we see fit, assuming they’re available, which seems likely.

In other words, our range of options is much greater in the “uncapped” scenario. We may decide to tender some of the players in lieu of reaching agreement, an option that allows us to entice other teams into trade offers (perhaps) or allows us more time to negotiate. “Cap hits” becomes a moot point although a new CBA might become an obstacle. We may also be able to spread the cap hits (assuming the cap eventually comes into play), too. The only pressing concern for “uncapped scenario” is sound financial management, which tends to be a forgotten factor. Moreover, delaying many of these negotiations (which all teams are doing) makes sense, since players lose leverage under the uncapped scenario. Why negotiate now if the uncapped scenario is going to depress wages? And why contractually obligate yourself if the eventual CBA is going to make certain salaries unaffordable or ‘cap breakers?’

A certain ‘pre-uncapped year’ mindset still exists and is apparent in the comments that many posters are making about the prospect of losing FAs. It’s possible that a few teams will open their wallets and go after FAs but most teams appear intent on reducing salaries (total outlay) rather than increasing them. The economic picture is poor right now and most teams are looking to do more with less. And one of the biggest influences leading to constraint is the dropping of the revenue sharing plan, which should have a chilling effect on the negotiating climate. Another salary-depressing factor is the lack of movement brought about by the change in FA rules. Fewer available FAs means fewer bargaining competitions for players. A few hot properties may still draw interest but the general effect should be — (I predict) — a depressing effect on salaries.

One more factor — the minimum salary is going to be dropped (I believe) so cheaper players may become more important. The focus — oddly — may be on reaching agreement with affordable players who can competently perform but not break the bank. I see it as the Patriot negotiating strategy extended to the entire league.

We may still offer substantial contracts to some of the players (such as Marshall) but it’s prudent to show restraint now. We don’t want to insult a player and motivate him to leave as a UFA in 2011 but we have a mechanism for delaying his departure and another year to re-negotiate. Tender offers to some may become a mechanism for enticing trade talks. For instance, Scheffler is a possible candidate for a tender offer (partly because of an agent named Cook). I don’t expect that things will be any different than the current bargaining climate for RFAs.

no goats, no glory.

by Colinski on Dec 16, 2009 1:39 PM MST up reply actions

nice draft

I’m not really sold on McClain tho even if he jumps. I’d consider Earl Thomas if he does leave UT, as much as I love Dawk, he’s old and needs a rookie to mentor. Sergio Kindle also from UT would be nice too. Patrick Robinson from FSU would be a good pick as Champ’s replacement needs to picked sooner or later. P Rob can start opposite of Champ and learn until he retires.

by nolesbroncos3456 on Dec 15, 2009 7:45 PM MST reply actions

Hey Sayre

Great post – I’m recommending just coz of the interesting discussion this has good. Deserves some props.

"Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind- bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space."

"It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems just with potatoes" Douglas Adams

by orange&blue_aussie on Dec 16, 2009 2:25 AM MST reply actions

"this has good"????

My Engrish good not…

I don’t even know what word(s) intendedd to put in there…

"Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind- bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space."

"It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems just with potatoes" Douglas Adams

by orange&blue_aussie on Dec 16, 2009 2:28 AM MST up reply actions

Thanks

I love draft discussion too. Thanks for the rec!

by Sayre Bedinger on Dec 16, 2009 9:30 AM MST up reply actions

I have about 1% the knowledge of y'all when discussing these issues...

But, just a thought, even though the Chargers are supposedly starting to slip some (though I am not so convinced of this as others), their main attack weapons are (young and many) big, tall and physical receivers…As our main competition for the Division each year, are there natural considerations on how building our Team should be targeted (at least to some degree) to deal with the Chargers??

-Richee
-Measure your performance against your best competitors and consider how you can use it to beat them the next time!
-Your concious mind can only hold one thought at a time, positive or negative. Which is it going to be???

by BroncoSense72 on Dec 16, 2009 7:03 AM MST reply actions

Good question

I think the biggest thing from that second game was we just needed to stop the run. We have the DB’s to contain them, and they might lose Vincent Jackson after this season, though he will probably get franchised. That means they could be losing Merriman and Sproles. We will see.

by Sayre Bedinger on Dec 16, 2009 9:32 AM MST up reply actions

I'm still torn

If we don’t trade up, I’m still torn between McClain and Haden. With the age of Andre Davis and our CB, both make too much sense for me to try to choose.

And I still want to draft Riley Cooper if he picks the Man’s sport. ;) Imagine Marshall, Cooper, w/ Royal in the slot…

Quit drinking the Kool-Aid and start drinking the good stuff, and everything is always alright.

by Chuck "DeadDrunk" Breedlove on Dec 16, 2009 10:20 AM MST reply actions

And I also think.

Either this year or maybe next year we will draft another QB. I’m guessing anywhere from the 3rd+ round.
Maybe a Pat Devlin, Jonathan Crompton, or (and I would HATE for this to happen) a Colt McCoy if he goes into the 3rd-4th round.

Quit drinking the Kool-Aid and start drinking the good stuff, and everything is always alright.

by Chuck "DeadDrunk" Breedlove on Dec 16, 2009 10:30 AM MST up reply actions

Top 10 or higher

I think its ways too early to determine if we keep or trade a top 10 pick. Keep or trade up if the player we covet is still available when our pick comes. If the player[s] is gone trade down and receive additonal picks. At this stage of the season my guess would be we need a NT or MLB. My gut says we trade down to top 20 and get additonal 2nd & 3rd picks b-coz this draft is rich with talent into the 4th round. Said another way we need quality young depth to develop while players like Champ, Davis, Hill, and Dawkins still have 1 to 3 years left to mentor them.

oc60

by oc60 on Dec 18, 2009 8:39 AM MST reply actions

I love the Dexter McCluster pick

The only college game I saw this year was Tennessee v. Old Miss and it’s the only game I saw McCluster play in his career. Wow the whole thing is on youtube everyone should check it out. I hope the Broncos do pick up this guy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yp3RL2s5BV0&feature=related

by Lisa FB on Dec 30, 2009 11:26 AM MST reply actions