McX draft theory. BPA at position of need

by DLMyers on Mar 20, 2010 3:20 PM MDT

Lets say that Brandon Marshall decides to stay with Denver.

Denver has 5 (five) picks in the 2010 player selection. Two players to select in the top 50.

Top needs are OC OL DL RB WR

Logic tells us that at #11 a DE/DT/OL would be the selection because CB, QB and RB are not a priority.

But at #11 the reach (-2) for McClain is minimal. And the reach (-11) for Iupati maybe too much.

Then logic tells us that at #45 maybe the center is available. If not then BPA from the rest.

Now if we use McX’s logic from last year (best player available at position of need) then we

Could end up with two OL in the first two picks. BUT you must find two impact players with the picks at #11 and #45.

As you can see, the ‘area’ for slotted players is top 10 then top 20 then top 50.

Example for DT is 2 in the top 10, none in the top 20, and 3 in the top 50. Meaning that after the two ‘sure’ picks in the top 10, the drop-off is 3 from 30 to 50. None rated in the 20’s.

Center: 1 in top 50 at #40 Pouncey

CB: 1 in top 20 and 4 in top 50

DE: 2 in top 10, 1 in top 20, and 2 in top 50

DT: 2 in top 10 and 3 in top 50

ILB: 1 in top 20 at #13 McClain and 2 in top 50

OLB: 1 in top 20 and 4 in top 50

OG: 1 in top 50 at #22 Iupati

OT: 2 in top 10, 3 in top 20, and 2 in top 50

QB: 2 in top 10

RB: 1 in top 10 and 3 in top 50

S: 1 in top 10, 2 in top 20, and 1 in top 50

TE: 2 in top 50

WR: 1 in top 20 and 5 in top 50

This is a very deep draft and I would mortgage next year

to get two-three more players in rounds 3-5.

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

Tweet Comment 12 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Denver has 6 picks

by rg2247 on Mar 20, 2010 4:28 PM MDT reply actions

Only 5

DEN 6 1.11 (from CHI), 2.13, 3.16, 4.16, 6.14, 7.13
and of course we lost 6.14 for Quinn

by DLMyers on Mar 21, 2010 1:13 PM MDT up reply actions

The 6th round pick

is for 2011, and then another, conditional pick might get lost in 2012.

So we are still at 6 this year, and needing more… :)

There's a big hard sun, beating on the big people, in the big hard world.

formerly Styg-like

by Jeremy Bolander on Mar 21, 2010 3:16 PM MDT up reply actions

Denver’s theory as I understand it is a little different than other teams, They identify about 100 players that they want on the team. Then they group them into where they believe they would go in the draft. They rate each in the group.
Last year I think the would have taken Jackson, Sanchez, or Raji with the #12 if they were available. Then they went to the next group Ayers and Moreno. they knew Moreno wouldn’t last till18 and that Ayers might, so they chose Moreno. Even though he was lower on there draft board.
Ayers lasted till 18 but Denver said they were considering Alphonso Smith there. As maybe he was at the top of the next group of players. Obiously he was much higher on Denver’s list than anybody elses. So when it comes to picking ranking Denver is in their own little world. It is why I don’t have a clue as to who Denver wants.

If Iupati or Pouncey is the guy they want and feels they can get him later they will listen to trade offers but if there is no trade offers, they will take the guy they want even if others think it is a reach.

Derek Anderson is just as much a probowl quarterback as Jay Cutler

by 3nS on Mar 20, 2010 10:49 PM MDT reply actions

Come on MAN!!!!

We have SIX picks in the 2010 player selection.

by numeraluno on Mar 20, 2010 11:59 PM MDT reply actions

to NE for Le Kevin Smith and #6 to Cleveland for Brady Quinn.
Where am I wrong.

by DLMyers on Mar 21, 2010 12:56 PM MDT up reply actions

sorry, this word thing, that should be #5 to NE

by DLMyers on Mar 21, 2010 12:57 PM MDT up reply actions

The #6 to Cleveland for Brady Quinn

is for 2011 and a conditional pick for 2012

by numeraluno on Mar 21, 2010 3:23 PM MDT up reply actions

Iupati got pushed a round at the Senior Bowl!

and thats a tell-tale sign of the smaller school makes you look great illusion. I’m not saying Iupati isn’t a very good athlete, but he hasn’t proven his worth with the big boys and that does make a difference. I look for his draft stock to drop on draft day to Rey Maulualga’s area (2nd rd). With Marshall still with us and a possible trade on draft day or before, we may hold 2 or 3 picks in the second rd and be in the right spot to pick Iupati. That would be a good pick for us around 37-45. I don’t foresee the coach reaching for him.

by bfree2bronc on Mar 21, 2010 9:20 AM MDT reply actions

bfree

Iupati did struggle when they changed his position. When he returned to the slot that he normally played, he dominated again. Somehow the second part of this didn’t get much press, and many folks came away with an inaccurate belief.

It all starts with the lines

by Doc Bear on Mar 22, 2010 11:20 AM MDT up reply actions

Just askin

Why do you see Running Back as a high priority?

by WYO(MF)BRONCOBOY on Mar 21, 2010 4:51 PM MDT reply actions

The more I think about the first and second round, I think Denver might go with Pouncey (maybe dropping back and adding another pick) and then going with Ducasse in the second. I don’t think there is a huge dropoff in athleticism from Iupati and Ducasse. Iupati has a lot more experience. If Denver could get another pick in the “meat” of the draft it would be gravy.

by MileHighFlyr on Mar 21, 2010 6:39 PM MDT reply actions