We need a defensive tackle that is ready to play, not one that may be ready in a year or two. ..

This is the dilemma that many don’t seem to understand. Oddly, you have to already have an adequate DT before you take a ‘lesser ranked’ DT because you can’t rely on most DT draftees to hold down the position initially. This dilemma is emblematic of our situation as a whole during the last two years. It’s a compromise between short term value and long term value. Teams must also maximize their value in the draft rather than reach because of position.

It’s not that the FO wouldn’t have liked to draft a DT recently but in the Broncos’ situation the ‘can he help your team’ draft criterion is limited rather than expanded, which seems counter-intuitive. DTs who are high picks and project well (scheme-fit-wise, which is often ignored in the push to the take any defensive player), and can contribute early in their careers, are scarce. Players who can’t contribute to the DT rotation are luxuries that you can’t afford precisely because you’re weak at the position.

This idea isn’t about only the DL but the DL provides a good example of the principle. Moreover, the DL has become a trope for all of our problems on run defense whereas areas such as ILB have given somewhat of a ‘free ride.’ McClain would have been drafted by us in 2010 and Raji in 2009 if they’d still been available — IMO. None of the other alternatives were close enough to our pick nor attractive enough to warrant their selection, even though they (may have) held some attraction.

Here’s our opening DL rotation: McBean (DE); Williams (NT); Bannan (DE); reserves: Thomas, Fields, Vickerson.

People can complain all they want but it would have been hard for us to find a “starter potential” caliber DL in the 2010 draft who would have been an upgrade, and thus replace one our existing DLs. What people seem to forget is that our defense jumped from #30 in 2008 to #12 in 2009 and we’d also added Green, Bannan & Williams, so there was a reasonably high standard that a DT draftee had to surpass. By the same token, we had a hole at WR left by Marshall’s trade and obvious room behind Orton, who was in the last year of a contract and never was considered — by most — to be more than an interim starter.

2011’s draft re-opened the old wounds. It’s hard to argue against the Miller pick (especially since I argued for it beforehand), but we’d all have loved a DT pick shortly after that. A trade-up in order to select Fairley was declined because of price and negotiations to move-up for Liuget ceased when he went off the board. There were others. too, such as Jenkins, but it was a small window and our remaining candidates were snatched up by other teams.

It may not be satisfying to repeatedly miss out on DTs but it’s consistent with a good draft strategy.