The Denver Broncos Draft Snapshot Under Josh McDaniels and Brian Xanders
by Jeremy Bolander on Sep 5, 2010 12:12 PM MDT
in Strictly My Opinion
Email
Print| 2009 Draft: | 1/12 Knowshon Moreno | Starting RB | Tremendous Upside |
| 1/18 Robert Ayers | Starting LOLB | Tremendous Upside | |
| 2/37 Alphonso Smith | Fell on depth chart | Traded after 1 year for a draft pick | |
| 2/48 Darcel McBath | Backup FS | Safety of the future | |
| 2/64 Richard Quinn | #2 TE | Questionable future | |
| 4/114 David Bruton | Backup SS | Safety of the future | |
| 4/132 Seth Olsen | No show on depth chart | Cut after 1 year | |
| 5/141 Kenny McKinley | Bubble WR | To IR in 2nd year | |
| 6/174 Brandstater | Waived before TC | Cut from 2nd team in 2 years | |
| 7/225 Blake Schlueter | longshot OL | Cut after 1st TC | |
| 2010 Draft: | 1/22 Demaryius Thomas | Injured at start of career | Unknown future |
| 1/25 Tim Tebow | #2 QB | Tremendous upside | |
| 2/45 Zane Beadles | Backup G/T | Will be a gameday active every week | |
| 3/80 J.D. Walton | Starting Center | Tremendous upside | |
| 3/87 Eric Decker | #4 WR | Tremendous upside | |
| 5/187 Perrish Cox | #4 corner/return man | Tremendous upside | |
| 6/183 Eric Olsen | Backup interior OL | Takes Seth Olsen's spot on roster | |
| 7/225 Syd'Quan Thompson | Longshot CB | Makes 1st year roster | |
| 7/232 Jammie Kirlew | Longshot OLB | Cut after 1st TC |
- In two years, McX have hit the draft hard, selecting 10 players in 2009, and 9 players in 2010. In a rebuilding phase, they clearly feel that the draft is the locus of team building.
- Out of 19 selections, 14 are still with the team, a retention rate of 74%, three quarters of their selections. That will likely continue to drop due to several factors: 1)More draft picks will be added, but at a likely slower rate (i.e. perhaps only 7-8 picks in 2011) 2)We will continue to see development or lack thereof in players who are not clear starters at this point.
- Of the five draft choices that are no longer with the team, only two never made the 53-man roster. 4 never contributed in a game, and one was traded for another player and a draft selection.
- In McX's second year, they will see a little over 50% of their overall draft selections contributing on gameday, as either starters or critical STers. Over 60% of them will be on the 45-man active roster.
With two roster cutdowns now under McX's belt, they appear to have a solid grasp on using the draft to build the core fo the team. They are retaining and developing what I believe to be a slightly above-average number of draft choices, while manipulating their roster moves to acquire far more than their allotted share of draftees during the rebuilding process.
I don't get too excited by where a player was drafted, or what it took to acquire them: the longview doesn't support the thesis that only high or numerous draft picks help the team. It is like saying that money is the root of evil. Money is just money, and draft picks are just draft picks. Individual players and their development will determine whether or not the team has helped itself. In five years, no one is going to give a wahoo whether Perrish Cox was a 1st rounder or a 5th rounder if he is producing, just like no one cares when Dumervil was drafted.
One last quick point: we can't have our cake and eat it too. The "player evaluation problem" that is being blamed for the departure of players like Smith, Green, and even Kirlew, is the exact same process that netted us Cox, Ayers, Decker, Walton, etc. Left unchecked, the attitude that tries to combine the two phenomenon under one heading (i.e. a "player evaluation problem") will eventually try to resolve the contradiction by splitting the heading into what is known as a false dichotomy, which simply means that an unreal alternative is invented to allow them to maintain a contradictory position on an issue. What I am seeing right now is the ressurection of the "McD is rash and arrogant" line, but any number of false dichotomies could be endorsed. As anyone can see, this contains the seeds of its own undoing, in that it just creates a second contradiction that must be straddled as well. If it was rash and arrogant to draft or trade Smith, then it must have been rash and arrogant to draft Cox, or Squid, or Walton... You see how that works? If you humor someone engaging in this kind of self-deception, even if you do it in the form of rebutting dichotomy after dichotomy, eventually you will face them on the battlefield of pure subjectivism, the position that contradictions are a valid form of knowledge. You are the only one who has something to lose in such a face-off, so it is best to just ignore it.
125 comments
|
37 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Jeremy, you never cease to intrigue me
What a fascinating individual you are. Very well put and a very important point that needed to be injected right now.
Thank you and highly Rec’d!
"Change is inevitable - except from vending machines."
by EastCoastBronco on Sep 5, 2010 11:44 AM MDT reply actions
Jeremy is a stud. I've come to that conclusion a long time ago.
Verbose in style, dispersion of thought, procrastination in life.
The guy formerly known as ZAPPA
I am not willing to give them a pass however...
The body of works for the past 2 years is not that bad. What makes it bad is giving up so much for Smith.
I hate second guessing things but Phonzie was a HUGE mistake and a very poor use of a draft resources.
Most of us learn from out mistakes, and hopefully MCX will remeber this lesson.
To play devils advocate
let’s imagine Phonzie develops and ends up being a starting CB for years, maybe even sqeeking into a Pro Bowl game or two. Does that redeem McD. Even if all his success comes in Detroit?
Excuse me, do these effectively hide my thunder?
by T.Dot_Bronco on Sep 5, 2010 12:02 PM MDT up reply actions
I dont think so
The resource of the pick was wasted. And either they belived he does not have talent to develop or they dont want to develop it.
The bottom line is they traded the 14th pick in the draft for a back up TE. There is no amount of justification and examples of other teams mistakes that will take the sting out of it. They screwed up.
The new regime is about accountability, I want to hear exactly what MCD has to say about Phonz and the decision to move him.
when is it appropriate to move on? not to incite anything, but I’m just asking at what point would you be willing to “turn the page”?
Mistakes have been made by geniuses and goats alike, it’s the law of probability.
Always remember Goliath was a 40 point favorite over David.
-- Shug Jordan
by Orange and Blue on Sep 5, 2010 3:22 PM MDT up reply actions
move on hmmmmm
Well considering it hasn’t even been 72 hours since the error I think it’s still ok to talk about the bad move. If I am still talking about it weeks from now then yes, a moving on comment would be justified.
The only thing I ask for as a fan for 25+ years is consistency and accountability. I don’t think you have to support or justify blindly every move good or bad to be a fan of a team.
Management felt that Vaughn was more of an asset to the team than Phonz. So the argument of a numbers game is flawed.
I am a huge fan of MCD and what he is doing, but does that mean I should turn my head and not bash a horrible mistake? His style is accountability, why should he get a pass?
by BRASO on Sep 6, 2010 9:28 AM MDT up reply actions 1 recs
Well said. Make him run laps!
"On the Plains of Hesitation bleach the bones of countless millions, who, at the Dawn of Victory, sat down to wait, and waiting--died!" - George W. Cecil
by Bronco Billy on Sep 6, 2010 11:25 AM MDT up reply actions
"horrible mistake"
this is where we differ. Many “1st round” picks fail…..the Jags just cut this years first round pick without ever getting on the field for a regular season game. Let’s look at trends, not get hung up on a single error.
was it a good mistake?
come on folks, it was a piss poor move. Nothing more nothing less. They wasted a resource. In the past 15 seconds I have moved on…… wont hear another mention of Phonz ever again.
MCD runs his ship with accountability and results. That includes everyone. This team has been .500 since elway retired(give or take). I just want to win, dont care if Mickey Mouse is our QB and Goofy is our HC. I just want to win…….
Too few alternatives!
The most believable alternative is that they hit big on Cox, Thompson and Vaughn. The numbers game caught up with them. Phonz, who as T.Dot_Bronco suggests, could end up being a pro-bowl for some other team. He was simply the most tradeable of the four (or five, if you include Nate Jones). He’s the only one anyone would trade for because of his “upside”.
To continually harp on the “Phonz mistake” is not an especially intelligent thing to do, as Bolander points out.
by ivanthenotsobad on Sep 5, 2010 4:04 PM MDT up reply actions
When we drafted A Smith we had no idea we would hit big with CBs this year
At this point he obviously can play in the NFL. its just we know have better alternatives that we did not have when we drafted him in the second round. Its not like he did not have a good draft grade coming out of college either.
It's always a gamble
in the draft - wonder what the Dolphins are saying about Pat White right about now, and we all know about JaMarcus-so I say, hey, look at the overall draft and then give a grade. In this instance, you have some unbelievable talent that is starting (Walton, Beadles), some outright steals that will have immediate impact, like Perrish Cox. So I would agree that the X man has a “solid grasp” on using the draft for team building as stated in the post, and you will always have the “one that didn’t work out.” Did I mention Leinart . . .
It's the dashes that create that strikethru
Pain in de butt….
by AllBroncsallday on Sep 5, 2010 3:35 PM MDT up reply actions
yes, dashes that touch the text -- remember to put in a space in and use preview
"the megalomaniac view of oneself as the Elect, wholly good, abominably persecuted, yet assured of ultimate triumph; the attribution of gigantic and demonic powers to the adversary; the refusal to accept the ineluctable limitations and imperfections of human existence, such as transience, dissention, conflict, fallibility whether intellectual or moral; the obsession with inerrable prophecies…systematized misinterpretations, always gross and often grotesque." – Norman Cohn - quoted in The Paranoid Style in American Politics
+1
I’m curious to know what is the going percentage of other teams retention via the draft. According to the NFL Network, the Steelers in the past with Swan and co ranked as one of the best drafts. It’s always a hit and miss.
Sometimes the desire to excel and “the relentless pursuit of perfection” so stated by Lexus is not exemplified by these “professional” athletes. That’s why I believe in Tebow and his motto that is displayed in his room. It goes something like this…Talent can only get you so far, you have to work at it to become the best.
I believe the motto is: Hard Work Beats Talent, When Talent Doesn't Work Hard.
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts... for support rather than illumination."
- Andrew Lang (1844-1912)
by c_style on Sep 5, 2010 10:51 PM MDT up reply actions 1 recs
Sounds like someone should send that to Jay Cutler Brandon Marshall and Tony Scheffler
might help them out a bit as all three were never known for their pre season and practice time work ethics
Good post and thanks Jeremy
Some folks believe they are more intelligent when they are being negative. The reality is, changes that they do not understand scare them. And the only way to handle it is to spew venom, like that will somehow change things for the “better.”
My take is, unless they’re losing a lot of money betting on the Broncos, they do need to get a life.
"All credibility, all good conscience, all evidence of truth come only from the senses." Friedrich Nietzsche
Negativity
is a poor way of masking vulnerability and uncertainty. That’s why you hear so many no-talent hacks in the MSM spew their vitriol every which way
Brad James
by the new Bradfather on Sep 5, 2010 7:17 PM MDT up reply actions
I read a lot of posts
and a lot of comments and it never fails that when debates are raging at their peaks, you are the voice of rational thinking and reason. Always a good read for one looking go gain perspective.
Excuse me, do these effectively hide my thunder?
Jeremy......I am impressed.......
An eloquent way to make a statement. Any one who thinks that every draft pick is going to be a success should not be commenting on football. There is so much personal anomosity behind most of these supposed objective obversation that they are irrevelant. GREAT post rec’d Semper Fi
McD's first NFL job was a personnel coach with a focus on the draft
I believe he does an above average job when evaluating players, but I also believe that he has a tendency to pick his guy, no matter the cost. Had Smith been taken lower, the problem wouldn’t have been nearly as big, but because of the draft day move we did to acquire him, that is where the problem came from. Also, when you said “If it was rash and arrogant to draft or trade Smith, then it must have been rash and arrogant to draft Cox, or Squid, or Walton…” You need to take into account cost of those picks, the three you listed were mid to late round picks, whereas Smith was pretty much the cost of a first rounder. I believe in McX, but they haven’t been perfect, no coach really is.
I am a bear of very little brains and big words bother me.
Exactly
A pick can be ‘good’ or ‘bad’ independently of the results of that pick.
The resources (draft picks/trade value/signing bonus/etc.) that are used to acquire a certain player absolutely impact the evaluation of that particular player’s selection – both in the immediate aftermath of the draft and in the long term evaluation of the organization’s personnel department.
This will also be relevant in evaluating the selection of Tebow since they had to move up in order to select him.
Even though Ricky Williams ended up being a productive NFL running back and Herschel Walker was awful good as well the trades that were made to acquire each of them are still criticized to this day simply because so much was given up in order to acquire them.
A good player CAN be a bad acquisition and attaching appropriate value to players (in the draft, via free agency and via trade) is one of the most important aspects of player evaluation.
I think this is only true
when you are talking aboutthe higher first round picks who cost significantly more than 2-7th round picks (the salary difference outside of the 1st round isn’t really all that significant), and when you’re talking about draft pick trades. On the money side: Smith was a late first to second round prospect taken in the second round and paid second round money. Cox was a second to fifth round prospect taken in the fifth round and paid fifth round money. One didn’t pan out, one looks like he will. Because neither is a first round pick with a huge contract, it doesn’t really matter which. Just looking at those two picks, that’s about average performance.
On the trade side, they gave up a future first rounder for a current second. I think a lot of people just disagree with this on principle as giving up too much, but that is the clearly established market rate. I have no problem with it, particularly if it’s not your only first round pick you’ve got the next year. But if you think it’s too much, then I agree with what I think you are saying that it should be considered a bad deal no matter how good the player you get turns out and should never be done.
Sort of
I would not go so far as to say that trading a future first round pick for a current second round pick should NEVER be done but you are correct in guessing that I find the practice unwise and poorly conceived. Even accounting for the greater present value of an immediate pick there were very few people outside of the Broncos draft room who thought that ANY player drafted at Smith’s position in the draft was likely to provide the same value as the Bear’s 2010 pick (which most speculated would be a high or mid-round pick).
While good or even great players can be found later in the draft these ‘steals’ are the result of extenuating circumstances (injuries, character concerns, lightly scouted players at small schools, etc.) and impact players drafted after the first couple of rounds should be considered bonuses or the result of good fortune rather than as a repeatable and reliable process.
With a mid first round pick there are still going to be a couple of dozen players left who will go to be quality starters in the NFL and the drafting team basically only needs to avoid making a poor choice. With later round picks the teams basically have to take a shot (or multiple shots) and hope that they get lucky in terms of acquiring impact talent.
First and second round picks are vital to adding quality starters to a team and as a result trading them or using them on high risk prospects is a questionable decision which deservedly results in a lot of scrutiny and second guessing. If you do it then you darn well better be right or you will be crucified for it.
by MADness on Sep 5, 2010 1:18 PM MDT up reply actions 1 recs
About Smith...
If Smith had been taken with a second round pick that the Broncos already possessed I would have endorsed the move and most people would not have blinked an eye at the selection.
This isn’t just a matter of people using hindsight to question the selection because the player ended up not working out here. Smith was considered to be worth a selection around the point that he was picked and I personally am surprised that he didn’t have more success here.
I question the idea
that
there were very few people outside of the Broncos draft room who thought that ANY player drafted at Smith’s position in the draft was likely to provide the same value as the Bear’s 2010 pick (which most speculated would be a high or mid-round pick).
Well not a regular practice, plenty of other teams have traded a future first for a second, particularly where it is a second right at the top of the round, which some studies have shown actually provide greater value than a high or mid-round pick due to the current salary structure. Carolina did it the same year as the Broncos did for Smith. And teams do it all the time with future second round picks for a current third, which doesn’t seem that much different in reality to me (like you said, there are usually a lot of starter quality prospects available in the second round, just like the first), only in perception because of the almost magical quality attached to the phrase “first round draft pick.”
As to this
First and second round picks are vital to adding quality starters to a team and as a result trading them or using them on high risk prospects is a questionable decision which deservedly results in a lot of scrutiny and second guessing. If you do it then you darn well better be right or you will be crucified for it.
I’d say it’s not worth analyzing in regards to a single pick, only over the course of time. If you take high risk picks and hit on half of them and win a super bowl, then it doesn’t matter that the other didn’t pan out. The Saints last 4 first rounders haven’t made a pro bowl, and the pro bowler they took the year before that missed the entire super bowl season.
This is untrue.
Had Cox or Thompson or Vaughn not been good, Smith would still be here. But in your world, in order to be considered successful, all McD had to do was hold on to Smith at the expense of one of the others, then play him, even if he wasn’t the best for the position or roster. He need only insist that yes, Smith was. And voila! It’s a successful pick!
Smith did not live up to his billing or the price paid for
I think he’ll make a fine CB, but he wasn’t worth the price we paid for him. I think you are misunderstanding my “world.” I am extremely against playing a player cause you drafted him, and McD showed today he was a bigger man for not doing that, I have never, ever said anything like
in order to be considered successful, all McD had to do was hold on to Smith at the expense of one of the others, then play him, even if he wasn’t the best for the position or roster.I don’t believe that, I didn’t say that, and I don’t think that’s the right way to run a team. I think that a player has to live up the price that was paid for them, had Smith been taken in the 3rd round, I wouldn’t feel so bad about losing him, and I wouldn’t blame him nearly as much as some have.
I am a bear of very little brains and big words bother me.
I'm feeling a little slow this morning, so I'll take your comment in small bites...
And hopefully I don’t butcher it…
McD’s first NFL job was a personnel coach with a focus on the draft
I believe he does an above average job when evaluating players, but I also believe that he has a tendency to pick his guy, no matter the cost.
I would say above average as well, which puts him in the upper percentile I think, in the league, since I can’t think of any GM on the verge of perfection (not even the great Ozzie Newsome). My question would be, what is your assumed alternative to “his guy, no matter the cost?” Since you are reasonable, I’ll assume you are not debating the “his guy” part (because the only alternative is someone else’s guy…which won’t be much help to a Bronco’s team built under McD’s direction and scheme) so we will leave the “his guy” element out, since it is only inflammatory. I’ll assume you are indicating that sometimes he should not pay the premiums he pays to acquire targets in the draft. (as an aside, I’ll note that your particular phrasing (“his guy”) implies (softly, of course, as you are wont to do) that you think he needs a modicum of humility…i.e. the subjugation of his valuations to someone else’s). To a point I do agree with this, however what I see seems to stem from fear, as in, they pay the premium because they are afraid that the player will be gone if they don’t move far enough, or completely out of reach if they don’t move at all. There is two elements of this, to me: the first is that they are inexperienced as the final authority on these types of decisions, and they need to not only gain experience as the heads of their own warroom, but also in evaluating in situ the conditions of the warrooms around the league, of knowing how and when to work the phonelines, who to trust, etc. The second element is that I like that they don’t view last year’s record as the determining position of who and where they will draft. They have the audacity to believe they have control of where they will draft, and they have exercised some great creativity in seeing that through, especially this year compared to last. Part of that is opportunity, and part is experience. The Smith pick falls under “uncreative solution” for me, but it was fortuitous that our shallow TE depth and deficient draft position in 2011 could both be addressed by a creative solution born of that mistake. It is proof that McD stands by his assertion that “all teams make mistakes, and they have a responsibility to make bad decisions into good decisions for as long as they have the opportunity.”
Had Smith been taken lower, the problem wouldn’t have been nearly as big, but because of the draft day move we did to acquire him, that is where the problem came from.
And what was this “problem” exactly? I’ll assume it is the “premium paid” from item one. I think we agree that the “premium” has both good and bad connotation, and in the sense of defining Smith as a problem pick, the connotation is bad, and I agree. But we can’t throw out the baby with the bathwater, since it is part of a philosophy have having some control over your draft spot destiny. Perhaps, on a deep level, you feel that teams don’t actually have that control, and that McX are spitting in the eye of fate and paying the price… I wouldn’t presume to know your feelings on this, but I think it would be an interesting topic come draft day. Maybe all the tinkering is for nothing, and teams can’t escape their predetermined rankings since the past year’s success or failure must have tangible results manifest somewhere… Predeterminism isn’t my cup of tea, but some people fight it on a daily basis.
Also, when you said "If it was rash and arrogant to draft or trade Smith, then it must have been rash and arrogant to draft Cox, or Squid, or Walton…" You need to take into account cost of those picks, the three you listed were mid to late round picks, whereas Smith was pretty much the cost of a first rounder.
asdqqq is making some good points on this part below as I type this, and they are points I agree with. My point in the post above is that whether you factor in costs, picks, resources whatever, McX has a certain nature that gets defined as rash and arrogant by some, despite the lack of those qualities in their decisions on a consistent basis. The idea needs to be distilled still. The issue you seem to be taking with it, is that McD is rash and arrogant (not that you endorse that position, but that you are defending it) but that their are certain decisions which don’t allow him to be himself, i.e. that the Cox 5th round pick was so low in value that there was no opportunity to be rash and arrogant with it. Well, first off, any pick at any level still equals one player once it is spent in the draft (the extra value often attributed to high picks tends to come from the idea that you could trade down and take multiple players from the mana of a trade, which is true to a point. The real value comes from what order they allow you to pick in, with your competitors, which is a huge decision-tree type of network that I wouldn’t dream of trying to map out…). So I would disagree with any notion that the 5th pick is several magnitudes of value less than a top pick, which would be like saying that the POTUS is significantly more valuable than an average person. Put me and the POTUS on a deserted island or alone in a room and I think you will find that we are very nearly of equal value, with minor pros and cons in both directions. I would certainly disagree with the idea that a 5th rounder has so little value that the person wielding it can’t influence it in any way… In short, he is either rash and arrogant, which means that is what he does on the most consistent basis, despite surprising flashes of patience and humility, or he isn’t. To put it another way, I don’t see why draft pick “cost” is factored in, since it doesn’t translate to value in the draft, except by correlation.
Bear Claw Chris Lapp: You've come far pilgrim.
Jeremiah Johnson: Feels like far.
Bear Claw Chris Lapp: Were it worth the trouble?
Jeremiah Johnson: What trouble?
by Jeremy Bolander on Sep 5, 2010 1:24 PM MDT up reply actions 16 recs
Good response. There are subtle and specious arguments disguised as reasoned evaluations of McDaniels as a inexperienced evaluator of talent.
We must be careful to see our inherent bias as the root of our position when we are faced with disagreement.
Imagination is more important than knowledge. A. Einstein
good pickup
I could do a longer piece on this subject but I’m lazy.
A typical rhetorical technique is to use contentious framing while adopting a conciliatory tone. And I’m not attempting to attack any particular poster here.
Sweeping generalizations and unprovable conclusions are common. There’s often a subtle character assassination that’s executed through loaded adjectives. The argument is carried through description.
There’s far more I could say but I’ll leave it at that, for now.
"the megalomaniac view of oneself as the Elect, wholly good, abominably persecuted, yet assured of ultimate triumph; the attribution of gigantic and demonic powers to the adversary; the refusal to accept the ineluctable limitations and imperfections of human existence, such as transience, dissention, conflict, fallibility whether intellectual or moral; the obsession with inerrable prophecies…systematized misinterpretations, always gross and often grotesque." – Norman Cohn - quoted in The Paranoid Style in American Politics
Love your work, Jeremy. Thanks for being a Bronco fan so I can read you read here.
Always remember Goliath was a 40 point favorite over David.
-- Shug Jordan
by Orange and Blue on Sep 5, 2010 3:28 PM MDT up reply actions
Styg
How I’ve missed you, man. It was the podcast that brought me to MHR in early 07. But it was this kind of post and comment that’s kept me here. HOF-worthy breakdown. Good to have you back from the Alaskan summer.
In good times and bad times, I'm a Bronco fan. Sucka.
by broncosmontana on Sep 5, 2010 3:39 PM MDT up reply actions
Styg
You are one of the very best. Thanks for all you do here!
I would hope you would support who we are. Not, who we are not. Coach Norman Dale "Hoosiers"
ugh
did I say 07? I meant winter/spring 08. Missed out on most of that Let Plummer Play fun. ; )
In good times and bad times, I'm a Bronco fan. Sucka.
by broncosmontana on Sep 5, 2010 6:43 PM MDT up reply actions
Thank you for taking the time to respond so thoroughly
I do have a few thoughts, most stem form wording rather then actual belief.
For my phrasing of “his guy” I fully believe that McD and Xanders, like other coaches and GM’s go into the draft with some players they’d like to pick up. These may be players that aren’t as valued by other GM’s or teams, but are seen higher by another. They have their draft boards, but some names are brightly highlighted, ever coach and GM does this I’m sure. Some can come and go without ever picking that player just due to their passive natures, other “reach” to get the player they want. I use that term cautiously, because it has a negative connotation to it, but because draft predictions are set not by the coaches but by the media, it doesn’t allow for us to see what priorities the coaches had for their boards. Jacksonville taking Aluala at 10 seemed like a huge “reach.” He was a guy supposed to be taken in the 2nd or 3rd round, but he was taken in the upper half of the 1st round. Obviously the coach, GM and scouts had an eye on this guy, really, really liked what they say, and took him. I believe McX did the same thing with players like Tebow or Smith, they and their scouts say the player, really liked what they saw, felt that the player would be worth the draft pick placement. Other coaches do it, some are more aggressive in the draft movements and picks, others are more passive, and because of that, they trust their scouts, and make decisions according to the info they have. They will use the draft board to move around to get the players they want, and fill the needs they have, some are better at it then other. Manipulating the board has pros and cons, possibly wasting placement on a player that may fall to you without moving up, but since this is based on speculation, its hard to know. But along with a few other coaches, I fully believe McX go into a draft with players they don’t mind “paying” a higher price to get. They don’t mind moving up to get this player.
As for my usage of the word problem, you are reading a bit to much into it. Problem refers to the discontent surrounding Smith’s pick among the media. It may have not been a problem for Xanders or McDaniels, but for the teams image, it was a negative mark. He was hardly a “problem pick” he was hardly a low character player, he just didn’t live up to the placement he was taken in the eyes of the media and fans. I do feel coaches and GM’s can’t fully control the draft board if they could, that team would rule the draft every year, but because these men are human, and have different priorities, different views, and differing ideas on how a team should be run, you can’t predict where a player will fall to. And because of this, McX and other teams, will manipulate their picks, moving up and down as the draft moves forward to fill needs or pick a player they want, but feel may be taken soon. They aren’t alone in this, other teams do it as well, but aggressive styles yield high rewards, but because of the style of their drafting, will often have high risk, which is expected with this stance.
As for “value” I do think McX are rash, but that is their style, as stated above, and they aren’t the only one. Rash has a negative connotation, but it is in essence an aggressive way of drafting, with little care for what others may be thinking, focusing rather on the needs of their team and the high priority players they have highlighted. McD is also stubborn, which is also negative in connotation, but I’m stubborn, most people are, and there is nothing wrong with it, but McD stands by his choices and decisions till he is proven wrong, then he will make a correction or apology, but only if he feels it’s necessary. This, like I said above, will net players higher then may have gotten, but will also yield high rewards as well. It is their style, my personal way of life isn’t, so naturally, on a base level, I’m against it, but logically, I can understand, and support such decisions. I would not make such decisions, but I’m not getting paid and am no expert in draft theory. In the later round, it isn’t quite like you said.
but that their are certain decisions which don’t allow him to be himself, i.e. that the Cox 5th round pick was so low in value that there was no opportunity to be rash and arrogant with it.I don’t believe it bothers McX’s nature to be plain or cautious, I believe that he doesn’t mind being aggressive. Because of the fact that he doesn’t need to be so aggressive in the later rounds, so he doesn’t. The Cox pick wasn’t as much of a stretch because he went around where the media predicted he’d go, maybe he was high on the draft board for McX, but they felt confident they could wait, or maybe he wasn’t even on their radar, but felt he was a good pick for his location. That is why it’s rare to see anyone call a late round pick a “stretch” or a “reach” because those late round picks rarely carry the weight that a 1st or 2nd rounder would carry. I have little problem with the Smith problem, I feel he was taken prematurely, but McD and Xanders took him when they felt it was right, and they had more info then me, so I trusted them.
Lastly, your comment
In short, he is either rash and arrogant, which means that is what he does on the most consistent basis, despite surprising flashes of patience and humility, or he isn’t.I feel is black and white, where McD is largely gray. I do think McD is rash and stubborn, but he is humble enough to be corrected or change when necessary. McD has passion, he acts passionately, and because of this, at times he is rash, he makes rash decisions, but if he is wrong, he will correct what he did wrong. He takes responsibility, he is proud, rather then humble, when wrong, he doesn’t submit, he changes. He rarely apologizes, and he stands fast to his actions. He is both rash and smart, proud and accountable, a leader. I hope that explains my meanings.
I am a bear of very little brains and big words bother me.
THE FORGOTTEN..Big Picture
IMO What is missed in all this inane whoppla about “dead money”, high draft picks cut or traded, Over priced FA that don’t work out… is the premise that this is the way the NFL is structured.
Every team (coach/GM) is allocated seven Draft picks each year, the ability to trade players & picks, sign FAs college and pro; to fill only a 53 man roster
The Big Picture idea is that every year you have the ability to bring in players that you believe WILL BE better than the players you currently have on your team. The FINAL result is to put together a group of 53+ players that will win the Super Bowl.
Mistakes will be made!!! In the long run it does not matter where the players on the team came from 5th round of the draft, CFA or from some other teams scrap heap.
The end result is putting a winning team on the field. And then trying to repeat that phenomenon every year. And every year the Coach/GM gets the challenge of finding new players that he believes (Beforehand) will be better then what are currently on the team.
IT is and annual process of Attrition & Renewal. And as coach McD has shown again and again “May the Best Man WIn”.
TIME TO BELIEVE. BRONCO Champions are being forged as we speak
by Broncobh on Sep 5, 2010 12:28 PM MDT reply actions 11 recs
Yes, tranparent yellow journalism
The joke is that we’re pretty well off in the dead money department, and it’s primarily an issue under a salary capped year — which doesn’t currently apply.
This is a classic example of the DP attempting to ‘push a narrative.’ There was another obvious attempt by the DP to push a narrative, here. As with the dead money theme, it was the subject of two columns, which tells me that it was dictated by the editor.
"the megalomaniac view of oneself as the Elect, wholly good, abominably persecuted, yet assured of ultimate triumph; the attribution of gigantic and demonic powers to the adversary; the refusal to accept the ineluctable limitations and imperfections of human existence, such as transience, dissention, conflict, fallibility whether intellectual or moral; the obsession with inerrable prophecies…systematized misinterpretations, always gross and often grotesque." – Norman Cohn - quoted in The Paranoid Style in American Politics
Great job.
One last quick point: we can’t have our cake and eat it too. The “player evaluation problem” that is being blamed for the departure of players like Smith, Green, and even Kirlew, is the exact same process that netted us Cox, Ayers, Decker, Walton, etc.
This point of view is espouse by people who assume that it is possible to have a raft class where every single player is a spot on success. McX have shown themselves to be imperfect but astute evaluators of talent, which is more than could be said of the front office of at least a third the teams in the league.
They clearly understand the value of building long term success through the draft and before we jump to hard on them for Jarvis Green, do I need to post the list of McX free agent signings that have panned out?
The jury is still out my friends but I firmly believe we are quickly building the nucleus of what will one day soon be an extremely solid ball club.
Good job, Jeremy, and rec’d.
You're either a fan or you're not.
Apparently....
The “D” key was busted on my keyboard. I have replaced it. I swear I have a brain….LOL
You're either a fan or you're not.
by TheMastermind on Sep 5, 2010 12:37 PM MDT up reply actions
numbers
The problem with expecting ALL the draftees and FAs to succeed is that it’s a near mathematical impossibility. You’d merely be replacing previously acquired talent with new talent, which doesn’t say much good about about that previous talent.
The other problem with expecting ALL the new talent to succeed is mathematical, too. There’s not enough roster slots. We hope that some of the players who aren’t part of the core (i.e., 53 leading roster candidates), since there’s generally a player or two coming in as FA or UDFA that wins a spot. It’s not a bad thing that an unexpected candidate wins a job. In fact, it’s quite common. The whole point of holding a competition among 80 players for 53 spots is to let the best candidates win. The expectation that the staff would know who the final roster will be in advance is akin to expecting omniscience. Moreover, injuries also play a role in the composition of the roster.
"the megalomaniac view of oneself as the Elect, wholly good, abominably persecuted, yet assured of ultimate triumph; the attribution of gigantic and demonic powers to the adversary; the refusal to accept the ineluctable limitations and imperfections of human existence, such as transience, dissention, conflict, fallibility whether intellectual or moral; the obsession with inerrable prophecies…systematized misinterpretations, always gross and often grotesque." – Norman Cohn - quoted in The Paranoid Style in American Politics
A little confused
What have you seen that indicates Beadles won’t be starting at either guard or tackle (until Clady rounds into form) this year? He’s listed as a starter on the current depth chart. And why no “tremendous upside” for him? Just curious.
He should have tremendous upside based on his name alone
Making sense of it all takes a whole lot a concentration
Dan Gronkowski is the guy who should have a tremendous upside based on his name alone
Every time I see that name I think Vince Lombardi and Bart Starr and the Monsters of the Midway.
Gronkowski , now thats a football players name.
good question
I think Beadles is a starter in this league and I am glad to have him. Not listing him as the starting guard was oversight on my part. I don’t know who I thought was the starting LG, but he certainly deserves to be there. I think the best fit for him on the line is actually RT (looking purely at his skillset), but after he has been here for a few years that is very likely to change as he gets more experience at LG. Overall, I think that Walton is actually the more talented between him and Beadles, but market dynamics affected the order that they were taken in. I see Beadles with a lower overall talent level, but far more versatility, probably than anyone on the line. He’ll be with us for a long time. He does have great upside, but I thought the more accurate description would be that we would rely on him, in multiple roles, for years to come. Walton is the kind of guy I see being a 15 year starter for one team, one of the two or three centers every year who come out in the draft and go someplace where they are a perfect fit and almost no ceiling. Beadles is part of the group of talented OTs that come out every year, who isn’t in the elite part of the group, but has so much versatility that teams will look at him as an immediate starter if they lack depth.
Bear Claw Chris Lapp: You've come far pilgrim.
Jeremiah Johnson: Feels like far.
Bear Claw Chris Lapp: Were it worth the trouble?
Jeremiah Johnson: What trouble?
by Jeremy Bolander on Sep 5, 2010 1:37 PM MDT up reply actions
One man's dog may not hunt for another man and vice-versa.
Alphonso Smith was an enigma to most of the followers here at MHR and the pundents over at DP. I mean how can an arrogant conceeded head coach pilth away a future first round draft pick for a short talented 2nd round prospect? This has frustrated more than a few (McGeorge, etal.) including me at the moment of conception, but over time I have seen the reasoning behind the move and accepted it as one of those things that happens nearly every year in the draft selection process. A Smith may turn out to be a beast over at Detroit and let’s face the facts, he will have ample opportunities to intercept the Cutler ( at least 2 times a year) and that will give me some pleasure to watch if it happens…On the other hand, we got Gronkowski and if he can help us in the running game and protect Kyle’s backside plus a 6th rd pick to boot, then it looks like we win…Any way you chose it McD/ has done an outstanding job so far in drafting…You can’t pick a winner with every pick, it’s not possible…
to intercept the Cutler ( at least 2 times a year) and that will give me some pleasure to watch if it happens
LOL actually ROFLMAO LOL
I actually thought about that last night after all the hoopala and watching John Bena on the MHR radio cast.
I have to admit last year I paid attention to the Chicago games for Schadenfreude reasons and indeed took pleasure in watching the interception machine.
For the sake of precision
Tebow is listed as #3 QB on the official depth chart. He’s never made it to #2 spot.
good to point out
I figure it is so close that it comes down to how one views it long term, since the short term doesn’t appear to have much difference between Quinn or Tebow, at least to the naked eye…
Bear Claw Chris Lapp: You've come far pilgrim.
Jeremiah Johnson: Feels like far.
Bear Claw Chris Lapp: Were it worth the trouble?
Jeremiah Johnson: What trouble?
by Jeremy Bolander on Sep 5, 2010 1:27 PM MDT up reply actions
Well said Jeremy.
That is what the draft is all about. Getting guys you want to help make your team better. Too much emphasis gets placed on where they were picked. If a team wants a certain player then go get him…..period. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn’t….that’s the draft.
Floyd Little: HOF Class of 2010.
2009-10 back-to-back NBA Champions L.A Lakers
2009-10 NBA Finals MVP Kobe Bryant
by weazel on Sep 5, 2010 1:00 PM MDT via mobile reply actions
Take away the Smith draft pick
and most people would agree that Josh and company are doing an outstanding job.
My feeling, and that of quite a few others is given his short time as coach prior to the draft, and the risk involved with that particular draft move, why didn’t he just relax and keep a 1st round pick in what proved to be a REALLY deep draft in 2010.
Overall, you can’t win em all, and I’m really excited about our 2010 draft picks.
So I see you rolled your way into the semis?
by OutOfYourElement on Sep 5, 2010 1:06 PM MDT reply actions 1 recs
Exactly
Under McX the Broncos have made intelligent and measured free agent acquisitions (something that Shanahan seemed incapable of) and they have moved around in the draft pretty deftly if you exclude the few seemingly emotional selections that have garnered so much scrutiny.
Trading back in the draft when they don’t see a player that they REALLY like in order to pick up value is a smart play.
Giving up a ton of value to move up and pick a specific player is less wise and also results in a lot of pressure both for the player (Smith and Tebow specifically) and on the organization.
Another way to look at it
At the spot where Alphonso Smith was selected a reasonable argument can be made that he was the best player remaining on a ‘neutral’ draft board and even if he was not it was close enough to expected draft position that the benefit of the doubt can be given to the drafting team (who obviously had him rated that highly).
At the 14th spot in the 2010 draft can anyone sane make the argument that Smith’s 2009 draft ranking/position/value (which reflects his value at the time of the trade, not his value in hindsight) was anywhere close to the draft value of the players available?
They paid Cadillac prices for a Buick which is simply poor decision making. If they had paid Buick prices for that Buick (or better yet – paid Chevy prices for the Buick) then it would have been acceptable decision making.
You are making some good points MADness...it has got me thinking
Trading back in the draft when they don’t see a player that they REALLY like in order to pick up value is a smart play.
I think it is only a matter of time until we see this strategy in use MADness, and I think it will put a lot of people’s worries about the McX method to rest. I think that right now, and throughout the rebuilding process, you will see a lot of picks acquired, a lot of picks traded, and a lot of moves up to get valuable players. But once the roster math starts settling down from its current formidable froth, we will see a much more patient strategy that defers draft decisions to later years. That means lots of trades back, and lots of picks acquired and held, which should make a lot of folks very happy.
I don’t fully understand the phenomenon, but it is common on a lot of levels. My inlaws love to hoard valuables. They love “good deals”. But their isn’t a lot of logic or context to what they acquire. They certainly don’t need much, or most, of it, and they don’t have a lot of space or time to devote to what they DO need as a result. But they are VERY happy with all of their “good deals”….
It kind of reminds me of pirates… fans want the plunder of draft picks, and they tend to know what positions and what order we will select those positions in, before they know WHO those draft picks will be… Count me as one who doesn’t really understand that.
Bear Claw Chris Lapp: You've come far pilgrim.
Jeremiah Johnson: Feels like far.
Bear Claw Chris Lapp: Were it worth the trouble?
Jeremiah Johnson: What trouble?
by Jeremy Bolander on Sep 5, 2010 1:59 PM MDT up reply actions
The Patriots
The Patriots do this which is probably why so many people expected it from McDaniels.
Trading back and acquiring valuable picks (2nd and 3rd round picks especially) has been instrumental in allowing the Patriots to replace players whose salaries have exceeded their on field performance or to simpy play a comparable player while paying them much less and enabling the team some salary cap flexibility.
With the salary cap and with a controlled draft like the NFL has value and efficiency are absolute musts when it comes to personnel decisions if an organization wants to field a roster that possesses both talent and depth.
It was this inefficiency that really killed the team under Shanahan’s watch as the team became top heavy and roster depth and flexibility was severely limited due to the trading away of draft picks and the rash of expensive (and often failed) free agent signings.
agreed on all points
I would say that even the fans who had trouble accepting McD when he arrived probably still looked forward to just what you are talking about, especially those fans that had their finger on the pulse of Shanny’s drafting and how it affected the team structure long term.
Like I say, I think we will see it, but only after we have really solidified the core of the team and earned some room to be patient. Who knows, maybe next year!
Bear Claw Chris Lapp: You've come far pilgrim.
Jeremiah Johnson: Feels like far.
Bear Claw Chris Lapp: Were it worth the trouble?
Jeremiah Johnson: What trouble?
by Jeremy Bolander on Sep 5, 2010 2:47 PM MDT up reply actions
my two bits
The assumption people are making regarding draft strategy is that strategy is neutral in regards to the amount of talent on your roster. In other words, New England should draft like Detroit or Saint Louis despite the fact that their needs are different.
The reason New England can trade away picks and move up at will is because New England has an excess of draft picks, which is the result of having fewer needs and an excess of veteran talent that they can trade away for more picks. On the other hand, teams like Detroit are have many needs and not enough picks, even though their picking early in each round. New England is trading in a buyers market, in which they can bargain hunt or move up if they want, whereas teams like Detroit have an overly expensive 1st pick (the ’winner’s curse’) and lack the flexibility to move about at will.
I won’t pretend that I’ve adequately described the situation but I’ve made these points in the past. New England has more capital to work with and that allows them to find bargains or pay excessively for favored players. Most teams don’t. The funny thing is that is that having a lot of ‘capital’ to throw around is exactly what our situation has been lately. In other words, Smith wasn’t an extravagant pick because we had money to burn. It didn’t matter whether we paid more for him (we didn’t, because everyone pays interest when you pay tomorrow for what you get today), it only mattered whether we had a lot of picks to use. We could afford to go after a highly rated CB because we were rich in picks.
Nearly every team is looking for a top-flight CB. And that’s the point that people seem to miss. You look for them high in the draft, too. it’s not that you don’t occasionally get lucky, but you can’t bank on that. The CB position has become very important and the staff went after a highly rated CB who showed great ball skills and the ability to sight the ball (which is now rare). Like many teams, they went after a shut-down CB prospect. And we’ve been trying to find one for the last 11 years, had used numerous high picks (#1s in 2000 & 2001), and we had failed every time. And it’s hardly usual to fail, since it’s one of the hardest positions for college CBs to transition to in the NFL.
Saving pick value doesn’t help much in the effort to find a shut-down CB. You may actually want to pay a premium and move up if you see a good prospect and have a need at CB. And penny-pinching may merely result in finding a number of players that you later cut — but nobody seems to notice this. Excessively attending to the trade terms of an individual trade and ignoring the big picture of inputs and outputs is myopic. To be honest, my expectation was that we’d be looking for a while and have to take repeated shots at CB in order to fix the position. The “CB Project” (as I"ve dubbed it) is league-wide. Everyone is accumulating CB talent but only a few are successful in finding shut-down CBs, because they’re so rare. Teams continue to spend the picks in the hope that they’ll find one because it’s so important.
"the megalomaniac view of oneself as the Elect, wholly good, abominably persecuted, yet assured of ultimate triumph; the attribution of gigantic and demonic powers to the adversary; the refusal to accept the ineluctable limitations and imperfections of human existence, such as transience, dissention, conflict, fallibility whether intellectual or moral; the obsession with inerrable prophecies…systematized misinterpretations, always gross and often grotesque." – Norman Cohn - quoted in The Paranoid Style in American Politics
by Colinski on Sep 6, 2010 12:55 AM MDT up reply actions 4 recs
Great post The CB spot is one where individual talent matters
One of the considerations for moving and getting him at the top of the second round was that he was probably not going to be available later (of course) , Since every draft choice is a gamble, you just have to accept that some work out and some don’t.
But with rare elite CB prospects, you have to risk a bit more than for other positions. In any case, A Smith looks at lest that he has the skills to play CB in the NFL, which means that the evaluation of him was accurate in some degree.
Its just people fixating on the cost of a 1st round draft pick to acquire him thats the big sore spot.
reiterating the point re: Smith
I think there would have been much less controversy if we had drafted Darius Butler instead. Butler had moved slightly past Smith on many charts and possessed better metrics. He’s also a tad taller, and height was one of the knocks on Smith. The fact that a single inch was enough to — purportedly — generate bitter criticism against Smith tells you something about the thinking process involved. In other words, there was an emotional reaction to the pick that belies the rational reasons that were proffered as reasons for not liking the pick.
One of the underlying emotional reasons for disliking the trade for the pick that yielded Smith was a feeling that we were going to be a terrible team that would eventually benefit from keeping what was expected to be a very high pick. In essence, there was no reason for the trade because the best strategy was to accept our fate.
One problem with this losing philosophy is there’s always a justification for enjoying the fruits of your dis-merit if you assume that your team is hopelessly bad. If you think that, there’s even a justification for shedding your best players (say Champ) and ‘enjoying’ high picks for a number of years while you go through a complete rebuilding mode. What many people framed as a value argument (i.e., never trade next year’s 1st for a high 2nd this year) was really about taking our lumps and liking it.
Let’s review: we had two 1st rounders before we even took Smith in 2009, and we had (through trade) two more 2nds afterwards. Since then, we’ve traded Marshall and acquired even more picks. You can argue about the terms of the Smith trade but the point is — albeit subtle — that we’ve enjoyed an influx of a large volume of talent. Criticism of McDaniels’ prodigal ways (it was actually Xanders’ idea) is based on the idea that wasting pick value is bad, but it doesn’t look at the total bottom line and focuses instead on a single transaction.
The overall picture of our personnel decisions shows a very active staff that has repeatedly addressed a number of position but also the CB position in particular. D. J. Johnson and Tony Carter were the best of the UDFA crop and the strength of the highest ranked UDFA group in the NFL. This year’s later round draftees, Cox and Thompson, were highly unusual in that both were considered potential 1st rounders earlier in the process. The lesson that we can learn from all this is that there never was a single strategy to fill the CB position, and that’s because they knew — IMO — that they couldn’t rely one strategy to accomplish the task.
"the megalomaniac view of oneself as the Elect, wholly good, abominably persecuted, yet assured of ultimate triumph; the attribution of gigantic and demonic powers to the adversary; the refusal to accept the ineluctable limitations and imperfections of human existence, such as transience, dissention, conflict, fallibility whether intellectual or moral; the obsession with inerrable prophecies…systematized misinterpretations, always gross and often grotesque." – Norman Cohn - quoted in The Paranoid Style in American Politics
by Colinski on Sep 7, 2010 2:36 AM MDT up reply actions 2 recs
In essence, there was no reason for the trade because the best strategy was to accept our fate.
What many people framed as a value argument (i.e., never trade next year’s 1st for a high 2nd this year) was really about taking our lumps and liking it.
Well said, and quite incisive
Bear Claw Chris Lapp: You've come far pilgrim.
Jeremiah Johnson: Feels like far.
Bear Claw Chris Lapp: Were it worth the trouble?
Jeremiah Johnson: What trouble?
by Jeremy Bolander on Sep 7, 2010 11:07 AM MDT up reply actions
This is exactly the argument about Smith that I think misses the point
I say that because of the position that McDaniels was in when he was hired. I don’t think waiting is a good idea in the NFL. I don’t think it’s the smart or the prudent move, because there are many reasons people say that NFL stands for Not for Long.
If he hadn’t demonstrated the desire to win now through all of his off-season moves then the players in the league, and the fans would not have the respect for him that they do.
You don’t get a Dawkins by saying we’re going wait and see what the next draft might bring. You get Dawkins by saying we’re going to do what it takes to win now.
Some of the results of that type of win now full speed ahead philosophy is paying a premium for Smith. Some of the result is bringing in guys like Dawkins. I firmly believe that what other people call rash, and arrogant is exactly what it takes when you are dealing with the NFL.
by Fan in Exile on Sep 5, 2010 3:11 PM MDT up reply actions 3 recs
Well said
"It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood..."
Side note: Love your Teddy Roosevelt quote! “Man in the Arena” is one of my favorite speeches!
"On the Plains of Hesitation bleach the bones of countless millions, who, at the Dawn of Victory, sat down to wait, and waiting--died!" - George W. Cecil
by Bronco Billy on Sep 5, 2010 11:49 PM MDT up reply actions
Nicely said
One thing about the Smith draft choice was that it was a bit of a reasonable priced gamble that also implied a winning attitude and an willingness and ability to make gambles. I do not think Pat Bowlen minds that at all
Fantastic Post
Glad to see more from you Styg. I very much enjoy the depth and perspective you share with us on posts like this. I hope people give this a good read and don’t get scared away by big words like “dichotomy” (you are on the Internet…google the word if you don’t know what it means). :)
"Bombs dropping down overhead. Underground. It's instilled to want to live." -EV
If you objected to the pick originally
then you are entitled to say, “I told you so.” The proof will be in the won-loss record.
If you draft an injured Thomas over the more highly rated Bryant, who is available at that pick, then you will be legitimately criticized if it doesn’t work. If you draft Tebow significantly higher than most rate him, you will also be criticized if it doesn’t work. The same logic applies to Quinn who was arguably not at a position of highest need and was taken higher than most rated him. Guys like Cox were rated at or above their pick, so they are not comparable. If you can criticize other team’s draft choices, why can’t you criticize your own team.
Exactly
Cox is lauded specifically because of his draft position. If he had been drafted in the third round it would not be a pick that garnered such praise – it would be the kind of pick that SHOULD be made (appropriate value for the pick).
Picks can and should be criticized for this very same value issue if there is a similar difference between the value of the pick and the value of the player.
Elvis Dumervil was a great 4th round pick but his ability and performance are expected (though not gauranteed) from a first round pick.
My only problem with this is that when you say
…Thomas over the more highly rated Bryant
and
…Tebow significantly higher than most rate him
and
…(Quinn) was taken higher than most rated him
you are primarily relying upon the ratings of:
These ratings you refer to are nothing more than these guys’ guesses.
The value of something is the price that someone is willing to pay for it. Was Tebow worth the #25 pick? Maybe not for a team with only one 1st round pick and minus a surplus of draft picks from trading players and trading back twice from a high first. But for a team that just drafted their primary target in the first round and does have said surplus of draft picks from said moves, yeah Tebow is worth a #25 pick. It doesn’t matter where other teams would have taken Tebow since no other team was in the unique circumstance that we were in. A circumstance that McD manufactured perfectly and executed upon.
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts... for support rather than illumination."
- Andrew Lang (1844-1912)
by c_style on Sep 6, 2010 12:43 AM MDT up reply actions 1 recs
The way McD/Xanders manipulated the draft in the first round was Beethovenish!
They swam to the point they wanted to be with drafting precision like no other…It was an awesome sight as a Bronco fan to watch, I wish I would have taped the show just to rewatch it…
by bfree2bronc on Sep 6, 2010 1:29 AM MDT up reply actions 1 recs
Thanks for the post - Agree 100%
Personally, I like the aggressive approach McX have taken to the draft, and I love the fact that they have the luxury of trading last year’s mistake on the strength of this year’s haul. Not to mention they look to be right about Tebow, and he may well save this season if god forbid, Orton gets hurt.
I don't have a problem with the drafting of the front office, except for....
the movement in last years draft. I can give the front office (FO) a pass for missing on high draft players as they admittidly didn’t have time to truly prepare. My biggest issue was how they could detemine they had to move up to grab individuals. If you have no idea what value the player has compared to others in the draft, then it doesn’t make sense to move up to me. To say they had Smith rated as a 1st round talent doesn’t seem logical to me if they didn’t evaluate >90% of the players. Having said that, I think they are doing pretty darn good and getting better so I am more and more pleased with our direction and our leaders.
I will always find areas of concern and point them out as it is my nature, perfection is impossible to achieve in something as complex as running an NFL team….I will continue to point them out (as I perceive them) and many here will continue to justify them and so we dance :)
"Pain don't hurt" - Swayze (Road House) -- We miss you man!
…and so we dance :)
amen. :)
Bear Claw Chris Lapp: You've come far pilgrim.
Jeremiah Johnson: Feels like far.
Bear Claw Chris Lapp: Were it worth the trouble?
Jeremiah Johnson: What trouble?
by Jeremy Bolander on Sep 5, 2010 2:48 PM MDT up reply actions
Teach Kizla
Jeremy and Madness great discussion perhaps you should teach clueless Kizla from the "Post: how to logically think through what is obviously a very complex issue. This problem will continue as long as contracts are front loaded with guaranteed money, but it could be the NBA where you pay lifetime contracts of millions for player with two bum knees like K-Mart the Nuggs would love to get rid of their problem for a few mil. That why the draft witch is never an exact science should just be evaluated on weather or not players can play not where they are taken if DT gets healthy this may go down as one of the best drafts in Broncos History a possible 6 starters by year 2 and that doesn’t include TT but does count a nickel DB as a starter. IMO the broncos will surprise a lot of people this year.
I don’t get why people call McD arrogant he admitted that he had very little time to prepare for the 1st draft and our recieviers are going to be fine without B-Marsh, and Cry baby J continues to throw to the wrong colored uniforms. Who say she is a franchise QB he is Jeff George Jr. GO MCX GO BRONCOS!!!!!!!
oldcoachB
Beyond the dichotomy
For what its worth I’m certainly on board with the idea that any evaluation of these drafts will need to happen a bit further down the road.
But, I did just want to throw out the idea that it seems to me that the false dichotomy problem really only undoes an argument that assumes that "good" drafters only pick good players and "bad" drafters only pick bad ones
If someone is making the argument that McDaniels’ personality (brash, arrogant, whatever) leads him to make exclusively bad picks, then they would indeed have no way to explain the good picks. (But that would be a pretty silly argument in the first place.)
On the other hand, it seems reasonable that someone could make the case that some problem (be it personality, talent evaluation, or some other kind of problem) led these drafts — in the aggregate — to produce less talent than they should have, given the number and quality of picks available.
It’s not that the drafts will produce both good and bad players – of course they will. The issue is the ratio of them, and there’s no particular reason why, say arrogance, or anything else, couldn’t bring about a poor draft that’s made up of both good (but too few) and bad (too many) players.
As I said at the beginning, this all remains largely unknown, since we only know for sure about the picks that didn’t work and have to wait and see about the ones that will. Here’s hoping someone looks back at this post a few years from now and chuckles about the idea that there was any doubt!
Sorry to see Baraka Leave...but we need help at tackle.
Broncos claim offensive tackle Christopher Clark and cut Baraka Atkins.
Last Name: Ever, First Name: Greatest
Nobody Runs On The Denver Broncos
Xbox360 gamertag: SnipeMeHarder
a backup from the Vikings that was cut by the bucs… went undrafted a year ago?
I can’t imagine that he will be much better than what we have really. I had hoped we would find a person with experience.
Beggers can't be choosers I guess..
we were likely going to have to sit at least 1 LB out during the regular season anyone so now we get more depth at OT
Last Name: Ever, First Name: Greatest
Nobody Runs On The Denver Broncos
Xbox360 gamertag: SnipeMeHarder
I don’t really have any issue with letting go Atkins [besides having a sweet name].
I just want more established depth for our tackles. It looks like we will be starting Clady and Beadles, I haven’t heard about Harris’s status really. I have no issue with Beadles at RT, he looked fine there in the PS. With Quinn back, either tackle will get the support they need, but I would just rather have someone who has played games in the NFL.
i don't know if there is many options out there
I went over to the Vikings SB natio nblog and look at their opinions of Chris Clark getting cut. Apparently he was just terrible in pre season. Commited a ton of penalties and got beat a lot. Doesn’t exactly inspire confidence.
Last Name: Ever, First Name: Greatest
Nobody Runs On The Denver Broncos
Xbox360 gamertag: SnipeMeHarder
This could be a temporary move
until Harris is healthy again.
by Horse Head Bookends on Sep 5, 2010 3:35 PM MDT up reply actions
We had to cut Atkins though?
couldn’t have cut Batiste?
Last Name: Ever, First Name: Greatest
Nobody Runs On The Denver Broncos
Xbox360 gamertag: SnipeMeHarder
When Harris is healthy
Cut Clark and resign Atkins. Is Atkins really going somewhere else? He likely wont even leave town.
by Horse Head Bookends on Sep 5, 2010 3:38 PM MDT up reply actions
I would have rather claimed
Herman Johnson from the Cards though.
by Horse Head Bookends on Sep 5, 2010 3:37 PM MDT up reply actions
How do you know what you know?
When I acquired my undergraduate degree in Argument and Rhetoric, I spent a full semester studying Epistomology, which is the science studying the question of “how do people know what they know.” After diving in the deep and and reading a whole bunch of heady stuff, it became clear to me that there was a simple answer: People Know something because they Believe it.
Though all the arguments in this thread are beautiful in form and content, they still are all fundamentally biased by the starting beliefs of the posters. Hence I think they are all preempted by Jeremy’s pithy closing statement:
If you humor someone engaging in this kind of self-deception, even if you do it in the form of rebutting dichotomy after dichotomy, eventually you will face them on the battlefield of pure subjectivism, the position that contradictions are a valid form of knowledge. You are the only one who has something to lose in such a face-off, so it is best to just ignore it.
So whether it’s accountability or closure you’re seeking in the Great Phonz Debate, good luck finding it here. Despite the precise and largely accurate logic being advanced by both sides, this issue has transcended reason. It’s become emotion. And that, my friends, is a scary place to try and find converts
God I love the fact that I’ve found a place to be a football fan and rhetorician both at once!
First they ignore you.
They then laugh at you.
Then they fight you.
Then, you win.
--Gandhi
by Santa Fe Bronc on Sep 5, 2010 3:25 PM MDT reply actions 1 recs
Sure is good to have you here, Santa Fe
Looks to me like you’re gonna fit in perfectly! lol
In good times and bad times, I'm a Bronco fan. Sucka.
by broncosmontana on Sep 5, 2010 3:43 PM MDT up reply actions
Wait a minute!
Who let in a rhetorician? Pretty soon they’ll let in all kinds of theoretical philosophers and epistomologists. Then what will we discuss? Quantum mechanics and String Theory?
Imagination is more important than knowledge. A. Einstein
Maybe we could discuss
Cheerleader mechanics and G-String Theory.
"This signature intentionally left blank" Josh McDaniels
Col Lawrence Chamberlain, the hero leader of the 20th Maine at Gettysburg, was a Professor of Rhetoric IIRC
Some of those rhetoric types can really kick ass when they need too. So be easy on him now.
Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain
Col. Chamberlain & the 20th Maine Infantry
http://www.nps.gov/archive/gett/getttour/sidebar/chambln.htm
No ammo left? Fix bayonets and charge anyway! We need to keep this hill in Union hands.
Nice reminder of one of the more courageous moments at Gettysburg. I’ve visited the site by the way. Very moving.
Imagination is more important than knowledge. A. Einstein
It's great to have you SF
Though all the arguments in this thread are beautiful in form and content, they still are all fundamentally biased by the starting beliefs of the posters.
Which is part of the draw I suppose. I’ll add this: if we view our own knowledge, not as a static collection of immovable concretes, but as a dynamic arrangement of concepts, we leave ourselves open to wider and wider integrations of new data. Underlying your statement is the well-known danger of having a Belief override all our control, even those controls we desire, and force us to endorse things we don’t want to, if we attempt to remain consistent.
My favorite part of these debates is finding ways of reorganizing the concepts involved: value of draft picks, Smith’s actual production, role of the front office decisions, etc. Sometimes, if you reorganize concepts you already have, you can come up with structures that allow new unit integration that don’t threaten to tear down your overarching beliefs. I have found that to be exceptionally common on a fan blog like this, where there can be so many different views, all united by a common goal: Enjoy Broncos football. Often we need to reorganize our knowledge, the arrangement of concepts we have acquired, in an effort not to pissed off at our friends and allies!
I will note, however, that we don’t often press into the issues that are truly fundamental to our beliefs: I think that is a good thing. This is behind the idea that we don’t let political or religious talk go far, and members are quick to politely decline such conversations. There is a limit to our unity, and it isn’t a detriment to the community to identify that limit and civilly insist on its recognition. i think it is a statement about how much we care about the limit itself, which is a flat-out love of Broncos football…
Bear Claw Chris Lapp: You've come far pilgrim.
Jeremiah Johnson: Feels like far.
Bear Claw Chris Lapp: Were it worth the trouble?
Jeremiah Johnson: What trouble?
by Jeremy Bolander on Sep 5, 2010 4:23 PM MDT up reply actions 2 recs
Nice work, Jeremy..
…you’ve very closely skirted the vast wasteland of debate on the merits of relativism…and yet have done well in tying your thoughts/perspective back into the Broncos (while apparently getting a rhetorician very excited).
For that alone, I believe you deserve a Rec, sir!
A man can fail, but he is not a failure until he blames someone else. - J. Paul Getty
by SteveAssassin on Sep 5, 2010 6:33 PM MDT up reply actions
Invention is the Conclusion
One of the five canons of ancient Roman rhetoric Invention. One interpretation of this is that folks engaging in an argument spend time thinking up the ideas they’re going to use to make their point. I think it has a deeper meaning. During a few extremely exciting times I’ve been in discussion, the back and forth of the debate yielded an entirely new point of view that was inconceivable before both of us started the debate. I think this is the kind of invention that the higher level Roman rhetoricians were hinting at.
I think Jeremy has captured this possibility quite beautiful when he spoke of beliefs spinning out of control and suddenly whole new organizations of the argument appears, such as the value of draft picks and the structure of front offices.
Sadly, these kind of Ah-Ha! moments can be rare, especially since numerous cable TV channels model debate as diatribes of twisted facts or else dueling prognosticators shouting over each other. I’ve yet to see a MSM program where ideas are developed, rather than simply propagandized and then repeated.
Here at MHR, we often mimic such long term frozen brain syndroms. The Great Phonz Debate has raged so long, that many posts are simply a defense of a poster’s original opinion—only dressed up with more and more clever turns of a phrase. Though witty and wonderful, rarely does a poster transcend his or her original point of view and make a leap to a conclusion so wonderful that people on both sides of the argument stop and take pause. Though thankfully I’ve seen a few posts that wowed me! And to make things even more confusing for my frazzled brain, one of them was even on the other side of the debate from my obviously correct position.
I loved that we drafted Phonz, not because I thought it was a good move. I was ignorant as to his skills or our needs at the time. I loved the move because it was bold! And I loved that he got traded so quickly, as well. It made me proud to see brass balls on the coach who humbly exposes is character flaws and shouts out for all to hear that talent rules above all in roster decisions. So what if McX is caught saying, “Er, Mr. Bowlan, ahhhh about that $2.6 million and future draft potential I blow. Ahem. Ah, hem and haw. Well that should about cover it, eh?”
I’ve learned a lot in this debate. Risk analysis and game theory on spending present and possible greater future potentials; player development trajectories; present needs vs. future opportunities; and some stop loss theory as well. What a mighty debate this has been! That’s why I’ve loved it. And despite my call for transcendence, I really haven’t changed my crumudgeony original point of view. I liked both the draft and trade moves. Think how boring MHR would have been over the past year and a half without them!
So thank you Jeremy and thanks to every poster on this topic—expect for maybe McGeorge, as I wouldn’t want the smile of appreciation across his face for my thanks to break the tough guy mask he wears around here.
Onward to the next round of grousing!
First they ignore you.
They then laugh at you.
Then they fight you.
Then, you win.
--Gandhi
by Santa Fe Bronc on Sep 5, 2010 8:47 PM MDT up reply actions 3 recs
I agree about what the whole episode says about the coach
I loved that we drafted Phonz, not because I thought it was a good move. I was ignorant as to his skills or our needs at the time. I loved the move because it was bold! And I loved that he got traded so quickly, as well. It made me proud to see brass balls on the coach who humbly exposes is character flaws and shouts out for all to hear that talent rules above all in roster decisions. So what if McX is caught saying, "Er, Mr. Bowlan, ahhhh about that $2.6 million and future draft potential I blow. Ahem. Ah, hem and haw. Well that should about cover it, eh?"
I’ve learned a lot in this debate. Risk analysis and game theory on spending present and possible greater future potentials; player development trajectories; present needs vs. future opportunities; and some stop loss theory as well. What a mighty debate this has been! That’s why I’ve loved it. And despite my call for transcendence, I really haven’t changed my crumudgeony original point of view. I liked both the draft and trade moves. Think how boring MHR would have been over the past year and a half without them!
There is a book you may enjoy Santa Fe, “The Philosophy of Analysis”, by Richard J Williams Jr (I believe). He’s a former head of one of the CIA’s Intelligence Units. The book discusses the thought process, how we store information and turn it into intelligence, etc. The gem of the book (for my line of work as an Crime Analyst) is the section on testing Alternative Competing Hypothesis to determine the most likely outcome of future events (i.e. preventing future terroist attacks by studying what is happening today.)
"On the Plains of Hesitation bleach the bones of countless millions, who, at the Dawn of Victory, sat down to wait, and waiting--died!" - George W. Cecil
by Bronco Billy on Sep 6, 2010 12:02 AM MDT up reply actions
Looks like McDaniels did a lot better second time around
Overall I’ve really liked a lot of the players we’ve brought in via the draft (Ayers, Moreno, Tebow, Thomas, etc.) but I do question the process in which we have obtained them. Seemed like we gave up a lot that we didn’t have to to get Tebow. Like the post mentions, nobody’s complaining several years down the road when somebody pans out, but you forget the potential draft picks we could have had that might have turned into a Pro-Bowl player as well.
Stiff 4 Life
Seemed like we gave up a lot that we didn’t have to to get Tebow.
They did have it. The picks traded were those acquired by trading down, so the Broncos didn’t actually “lose” any… i.e. Tebow (e.g.) could theoretically be the #11 pick, just much cheaper.
"All the world's indeed a stage, and we are merely players."
"God I'm excited for those two to fail miserably." - SBNation writer Andrew Sharp on Josh McDaniels and Tim Tebow.
Quitter's People United Member #18
by Tempestuous Binary on Sep 6, 2010 2:18 AM MDT up reply actions
Nice piece styg...
and a great reminder for me to not interact with the circus folk as they pass through, on their way to the DP msg board. Point taken.
How anyone could give them anything but a big fat INCOMPLETE is beyond me.
Moreno and Ayers are unproven. For some perspective, do you think any team, right now, would offer us a first round pick for either? Phonz turned into a huge draft bust. But..but he might turn into a pro bowler. Yes, this is why McD of all people is willing to trade him because he thinks he will turn into a pro bowler. If Phonz does, then McD has made two big mistakes, taking him and then giving up on him. This year DT and Tebow are both unproven. The thing is Krislz is right and I don’t like most of what he writes. In 5 years if Tebow is exciting the fans, DT is catching passes, Moreno is making sure teams can’t focus on Tebow and Ayears is part of a stifling defense, then he will be hailed as a draft guru. If these guys don’t come through, it will be a disastrous use of 5 first round draft choices.
Some of his other picks do look good, no doubt about it. They will be judged on how he used 5 first round choices in two years.
Let’s look at last year’s top 11 picks ahead of the Broncos:
Stafford: ranked 45 of 46 QBs per Football Outsiders in 2009
Jason Smith: terrible 1st yr
Tyson Jackson: not good 1st yr
Aaron Curry: not good 1st yr
Mark Sanchez: awful stats
Andre Smith: hurt/overweight
DMB: bad 1st yr
Eugene Monroe: pretty good
BJ Raji: fair 1st yr
Michael Crabtree: Sat most of yr, then played pretty well
Aaron Maybin: hurt
So when you say if any team would offer us a 1st rd pick for Moreno or Ayers, I would say that is a wrong comment…eleven teams AHEAD of us have wayyyyy bigger “concerns” about getting a 1st rd pick for their player.
Looking at the rest of last yr’s 1st picks Moreno and Ayers are probably in the top 8-10 after their 1st yrs. So if want to say “unproven”, that’s fine. They are already ahead of most of the picks ahead of them.
“Tebow and DT are both unproven.” Well, yeah. But how can you not see the “potential” each could bring (DT based only on TC scripts, granted). But compared to every other team’s 1st rd picks, I like ours.
Based on your way of “critical” thinking, you would have waited until this coming year to determine that Dumervil was a great pick. It just doesnt work well in this kind of sport.
As far as Phonz being a Pro Bowler elsewhere and it compounding McD’s mistake…not true IMO. You are likening the next situation (in this case Detroit) to be comparable to his situation in Denver. Impossible. Champ and Goody are not in Detroit. Cox and Squid are not in Detroit. If Phonz gets to play right away and/or gets many more chances to play, his chance to improve rises. The “chip on his shoulder” also doesnt hurt. Too many variables as well in the type of defense Detroit plays could make Phonz a Pro Bowler…hell Suh could cause Phonz to intercept 10 passes just b/c it’s Suh.
Always remember Goliath was a 40 point favorite over David.
-- Shug Jordan
by Orange and Blue on Sep 5, 2010 10:00 PM MDT up reply actions
I disagree with Curry and Crabtree
Curry had a pretty good first season with 60 tackles and two sacks, not bad for a rookie, who wasn’t expected to start. as for Crabtree, he only sat out six games, and still managed over 600 yards and two touchdowns. I would take either of those, not the point, but both of them had solid rookie seasons.
I am a bear of very little brains and big words bother me.
See ESPN article on Curry:
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=clayton_john&id=5267648
BTW, how was the #4 pick (not a QB) in the draft “not expected to start”? HE WAS THE #4 PICK!
Always remember Goliath was a 40 point favorite over David.
-- Shug Jordan
by Orange and Blue on Sep 5, 2010 10:54 PM MDT up reply actions
I never said a #4 pick was supposed to start, the media did
Moving on, Seattle was looking to put him into rotation, but he wasn’t supposed to be the starter. But due to injury, he got a lot more playing time. Your article actually makes points for why Curry suffered, but still produced despite having little around him. It was stated in the article, and by me, that his struggles were due to a poor squad surrounding him rather then personal failure. Sam Bradford will struggle this season, but it won’t be largely his fault, it will be the talent around him. The whole point of the article is that it’s a team game, and one player can’t do it himself. Like the article states
Bad teams get the choice picks in the draft, but none of those teams are one player away from winning.and here
Suddenly, the prized rookie was asked to be a leader before he was ready on a defense that had too many holes.Curry didn’t play great, but had he been on a better team, with experienced players around him, he would have done much better.
I am a bear of very little brains and big words bother me.
bringing it around full circle, Moreno didnt have an O-line providing him any holes but he still scored 9 TDs and ran for almost 1000 yds.
Now, if you really believe that a top 4 pick LB wasn’t going to start at some point in the season, then whatever. But Curry still did not produce more than Moreno (who was never likely 100%). And if you are giving the benefit of the doubt to Curry and his circumstances, I recommend you apply it to Moreno as well and project how much better he could have been.
Always remember Goliath was a 40 point favorite over David.
-- Shug Jordan
by Orange and Blue on Sep 6, 2010 9:38 AM MDT up reply actions
I agree
If you put Moreno behind the Jets or another team with a great line, he’d have done better. He personally made mistakes, but the poor play of the offensive line had a hand in his struggle in production as well. I do apply it to Moreno, I am a huge supporter of taking circumstances into account, because they have a big effect in how a player develops and plays. I believe David Carr could have been a good NFL quarterback on almost any other team if he’d been allowed to develop behind an actual offensive line, same can be said for a number of talented players who were drafted by bad teams with poor coordinators who misused and abused the players abilities.
Curry, like Moreno, Carr, Stafford and likely Bradford this season, will see negative effects because of their team.
I am a bear of very little brains and big words bother me.
A request for Jeremy
Is it possible to do a breakdown of the UFAs they have brought in, and who were on the team for at least a while? I am intrigued what happened with Chris Baker. He was a man-child in 2009 preseason, even played a bit last year if I remember correctly, and then obviously failed this year. How about the aggregate story on him and some of the other UFAs who have stuck around for a while (taking up a roster spot)?
The simple short answer on Baker
They found an upgrade in Jamal Williams and the depth behind him (Ron Fields) made Baker expendable. with a deeper rotation at the DL positions, the team ran out of time and space to continue his development.
Character may be manifested in the great moments but it is made in the small ones -- Philip Brooks
My ship finally came in, but it was the Kobayashi Maru.
Better options in front of him and not enough roster spots to keep him around
They may even still like him but tough choices have to be made in getting to that 53 man roster.
I don’t even know if Baker would have been eligible for the practice squad. I think so because he did not make the 45 man game day rosters last year, Maybe he makes it there still if better options for the last two spots don’t come around.
I forgot how much I love this site!!!!
Jeremy, excellent job on your review. This may be my favorite Broncos/football blog ever for the fantastic debate over this issue. Rather than replying individually, I’ll just give my general thoughts…
The scrutiny over Alphonso Smith being traded is deserving IMHO. McX did give up a future 1st rounder for him. That said, I have come to appreciate McDaniels’ arrogance to a degree. More so, I applaud him for not being afraid to admit his own failure to make the Broncos a better football team. How many coaches would swallow their pride to keep Thompson (a 7th rounder) and cut their 2nd rounder from a year ago when they gave up a first round pick to get him? Though I never liked the draft pick from the beginning, I applaud him for not keeping Alphonso Smith on the team to protect his image.
Overall, I am happy with McDaniels’ draft selections. Looking back last year, I was hoping B.J. Raji would fall to us. When he didn’t, I was hoping we would use our two picks to draft from the following: Matthews, Cushing, or Maualuga to address our needs at LB. When we traded up for the #37 pick last year, I was sure we were going to take Maualuga. When we didn’t (and we lost a first round pick), it automatically put more pressure on Smith to be a stud for the Broncos than most non-1st round players. While I believe Moreno and Ayers have strong upsides and will contribute to the Broncos, those were my thoughts on draft day. (Although being the Mayock homer that I am, I embraced Moreno as soon as Mayock gave his endorsement on how great of a RB he may become.)
For 2010, I loved McX’s decision to keep moving down the board. I agree with taking the best player available, even if it doesn’t address a team need. In one of his interview’s, McDaniels mentioned having their Top 100 on the board and that’s who they would take in the draft. If they feel they can move down and still get “Their player”, then they will move down.
We will drive ourselves crazy analyzing past drafts. Was Shannahan stupid for taking Ryan Clady when we could of taken Chris Johnson? Was that a bad draft choice? Personally, I wanted Taylor Mays over Beadles in the 2nd round even though I knew we were deep at Safety.
As for the notion of a 1st round pick being more important than a 5th and so forth. I agree to an extent. 1st and 2nd rounders are expected to produce. They are the top players at the collegiate level and we are paying them more than some of our starters to have an impact on the team. More is expected of them, and deservedly so, they are being paid more.
The biggest question I always ask myself is this: how much fault is to be placed on the player drafted vs. the coaching staff? In 2007, we took Jarvis Moss in the first round, where Pittsburgh took LaMarr Woodley, a Pro-Bowl LB, in Round 2. If we take LaMarr Woodley, is he still a pro-bowler? If Pittsburgh drafts Moss? Is he a Pro-Bowler? Going back to Alphonso Smith, I place the blame on Smith as we have done well developing CBs/DBs.
Without doing the research, it appears to me we draft better by positions, rather than rounds. For the most part, we’ve done well at WR, RB, OL, and DB, but we fall short time and time again drafting at DL with the exception of Dumervil.
To end, being from Chicago and following Big Ten football, I am very excited about Eric Decker and what he will bring to the team.
"On the Plains of Hesitation bleach the bones of countless millions, who, at the Dawn of Victory, sat down to wait, and waiting--died!" - George W. Cecil
by Bronco Billy on Sep 6, 2010 12:53 AM MDT reply actions 1 recs
I am surprised
I am surprised that there are so many positive reviews of McDaniels’ and Xanders’ draft skills over the first 2 years. To be honest, other than Knowshon Moreno, I am not sure how anyone could declare the 2009 draft a success. And the jury is still out on just how successful a pick Moreno actually was.
Let’s review the rest of that draft:
Ayers:
Zero sacks and hardly any tackles in 2009. “Tremeondous upside?” I hope so, but that’s certainly not warranted from what we’ve seen from Robert Ayers in the past.
Alphonso Smith:
What a huge, sad, tragic mistake. Traded away after one year for the Lions’ 4th string TE. After signing Goody, McDaniels spends a future first round pick on a corner that has virtually no chance of beating Goodman or Bailey for a job for at least 2 years, and most likely 3. Why trade a first rounder for someone who can only contribute as a nickel corner? What a disaster.
Darcel McBath:
The jury is definitely still out on McBath. I won’t trash McBath at all, since after all, we’ve hardly seen him. But again, McDaniels had just signed Dawkins and Renaldo Hill to muli-year deals prior to drafting McBath. So obviously he was going to be a 3rd safety for at least two years. Why use a 2nd rounder here when he could’ve used this pick for bodies on the defensive front.
Richard Quinn:
Lousy skills, lousy character. Poor use of a 2nd round pick. Unlike McBath, the jury isn’t out on Quinn. The verdict? Guilty of a poor pick. Any 2nd round player who is still 3rd on the depth chart going into his 2nd season is a bust, plain and simple.
David Bruton:
Special Teams assassin, but can’t cover his mother. He is definitely not a “safety of the future,” but he definitely has value on special teams. Based on special teams alone, Bruton has been McDaniels most effective draft pick other than Moreno. Yes, that includes a first round pick and three seconds—beaten out by a special teamer….yikes!
Seth Olsen:
When we first drafted Seth, I wondered why a 1st team All-American guard had slipped so far in the draft. Then I saw Olsen try to block NFL defensive tackles and try to pick up blitzes. A bust for sure.
Kenny McKinley:
I won’t badmouth Kenny, but he is out for the year this season and his days as a Bronco are likely over for good. Because of that alone, the pick can’t be applauded.
So you see, it’s surprising to me that anyone thinks this draft can be called a success. Alphonso Smith alone tarnishes it. And the jury is still out on Ayers and McBath, and like I said, even Moreno. Moreno has yet to have a 100 yard game and has had injury issues sandwiched in between his successes. Granted his yardage was hampered by an interior O-line that couldn’t block and Orton’s inability to stretch the safeties, but still, it’s too early to even call Knowshon a home run.
McDaniels spent all of his free agent dollars revamping the secondary in 2009—and he did a good job. Going into the draft, I along with the western world, thought they would next address the front 7…at least in some fashion. Granted the draft was short on DL talent, but it was chalk full of linebackers. McDaniels and Xanders could’ve made the proper moves to grab any number of them, but instead chose to draft backups in the secondary they had just revamped. Then they went ahead and tried to fill the front 7 with bandaids like Ryan McBean, Ronald Fields, Andra Davis and Mario Haggan. In the end, the only front 7 help the draft supplied was Ayers, who was a ghost other than one play against the Steelers. The result? An absolutely awful run-defence.
As for 2010:
I think we should be happy that McDaniels woke up and spent some money on guys like Jamal Williams and Justin Bannan. If those two are healthy, the run-defence will be vastly improved. I also think we should applaud McDaniels for addressing needs in the draft…WRs, O-linemen, nickel corners and punt returners. Even Tebow’s pick can be considered a need-pick for not only the future, but for 2010 as well. No not for those tricking Wild Stallion plays that everyone thinks Tebow will run (which we’ve seen no indication of by the way), but because the backup QB situation needed to be improved from 2009. Chris Simms straight cost us the Washington game last year and played one of the worst quarters of football ever against San Diego the following week.
It is disappointing that McDaniels again completely ignored the LB situation, but I guess we can say that he had enough things to address.
It’s obviously too early to call the 2010 draft a success, but at least it appears that McDaniels didn’t just try to draft backups again. I half expected him to draft a 340 lb NT even though he had just signed Jamal Williams. Hopefully these players can impact this season in a positive way, because they will all be given the opportunity to do so.
2009 Draft Grade: C- or D+, though we’ve been given a chance at a make-up assignment (2010) to improve on it.
2010 grade: Still being graded.
I don’t so much approve of 2009, I really wanted Maualuga or Matthews at LB. I’m more looking at 2010 and how the later draft picks looks (to date) with Walton, Decker, Cox, and Thompson. They all look good heading into their first season.
Bottom line, if Cox is a stud and Tebow becomes a great NFL QB and not another Tommy Maddox, then all will be forgiven with Alphonso Smith. We all know McD’s legacy is now tied with Tebow’s, in the public perception. No matter how many more drafts days he has ahead of him, and regardless of how successful he is in those drafts, the majority of the public ridicule or praise in terms of drafting success will be based solely on Tim Tebow. Personally, I wish Ozzie Newsome (Baltimore) were handling our drafts!
"On the Plains of Hesitation bleach the bones of countless millions, who, at the Dawn of Victory, sat down to wait, and waiting--died!" - George W. Cecil
by Bronco Billy on Sep 6, 2010 10:55 AM MDT up reply actions
A big part of the reach for Alphonso Smith was his potential as a returner
Thats something that Bailey and Goodman could not should not would not do.
That did not turn out, but that was one other factor that he had some potential to be an elite return/special teams guy. Thats where he really busted. But that also helps in understanding why he was picked.
The 09 draft was average. 2 starters (Moreno, Ayers), one potential started (McBath) and 2 role players (Bruton, Quin).
It is only bad or below average if you look at the missed opportunies (trading away the 1st, not every single pick working out).
Smith was also not a “bust” in the sense that he’s out of the league or will be shortly. If Cox/Thompson/Vaughn didn’t hit this year, he’d still be on the team as a role player/back-up. For whatever reason, he didn’t respond to the pressure of how he was acquired. I think he can develop into a decent starter but clearly it wasn’t working here. Hopefully a fresh start is what he needed because he seems like a great guy.
Is this about McD's Legacy, or demise?
I guess you could go either way depending on how long McD stays and or if he can bring a Championship back to Denver. If less than a few playoff years, I would start with his demise based on Cutler. Alphonso would certainly follow soon after as his biggest player mistakes early on.
If the likes of Syd Q, Bruton and Cox turn into Pro Bowl Players, then maybe Alphonso will be forgotton, whether McD lasts of falls short. (just kidding) How can anybody forget the Alphonso Smith debacle? Im sure I wont. But thats just me, I’ve never forgotten Reeves picking Ted Gregory either… LOL, it’s still just football. Enjoy the season!
About playing against Joe Namath "He's the best in the Business, he can do everything, but I've never seen a Quarterback yet that can throw on his back." - Dave Costa 1969
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Getting Social With MHR
Web Stuff
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Radio Row Video: Marcell Dareus of the Buffalo Bills
- Not to be outdone, Tecmo Bowl also predicts a Giants win
- Shutdown Corner previews and predicts Super Bowl XLVI
- With help from a police escort, Giants get their hometown pizza in Indianapolis
- ‘Why Is This News’ podcast: Doug Farrar on Super Bowl XLVI
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
