Pete: I think we should get that guard who is a freaking sutd in the 1st round... Sua'Filo
Scott: I hate going OL in the first unless it's a Left Tackle or Center (has to be a stud). Like RB's, you can get good guards in the mid-late rounds.
Pete: Good yes, but Chris Clark is "good"... I want greatness, and Sua'FIlo is GREAT! He's like Ryan Clady; Draft his ass and don't worry about that position ever again until the day he retires. He'll be an All-Pro. I'd be fine with drafting an All-Pro in the first round regardless of position (outside of punter).
Scott: Sua is a stud, but it depends on who's available.
Pete: So question: Would you take a good inside linebacker (knowing we have Nate Irving and Steven Johnson) at #31 because it may or may not be a position of need? Or do you draft a stud guard knowing that there is currently nobody slotted as our starting left guard? Because personally, I'm of the opinion that you can never have too many All-Pro's on the team, so I'm drafting for greatness.
Scott: I'd take Shazier over Sua'Filo
Monty: BPA (best player available) baby! That's why I picked Xavier (Sua'Filo). He was BPA. It just happened to fit a need really well. Lucky for us.
Scott: It really depends on how they have Sua graded compared to everyone else.
Scott: He's a good pick Kyle. It's not a sexy pick, but it fills a need.
Pete: Xavier Sua'Filo is the pick all freaking day baby! All freaking day if he's there at #31.
Scott: Why the sudden love for Sua'Filo Pete?
Pete: Because middle linebacker isn't a need. Guard is, and he's the best guard in the draft and MIGHT be there at 31. I'd rather have the best guard in the draft than a good linebacker, wide receiver, or defensive end.
Scott: Why not Jason Varrett, Dee Ford, Bradley Roby, Kyle Fuller, Kony Ealy possibly, or one of the wr's? There's going to be a lot of good talent available.
Pete: Because I'm of the philosophy that you don't pass up on All-Pro talent. Sure you can find a guard later, but this dude is plug and play. You don't have to develop him because he's ready to go! He talks like Tim Tebow talks. He wants to start, he wants to earn his money, he won't be out worked and he won't be an off the field distraction; But unlike Tebow, he has the talent to back those words up. (full disclosure, I love Tebow and wish he were still a QB on the Broncos roster because I think the talent is there, he just needs to polish it, and learning for 3-5 years under Manning is one great polishing tool.)
Scott: Lots of guys have those traits.
Pete: Manning already has WRs. Sure the Broncos will draft or sign a few undrafted guys, but there is no reason to draft high unless a Randy Moss player slips to #31.
Pete: Regardless, it's probably a pipe dream that Sua'Filo falls to #31. Most have him going in the top 15-20 overall. I'd say that's reason enough for me to want that cat to fall to #31.
Scott: He could go higher or he could last until the second round. The Broncos already have their LG in Franklin anyways ;)
Pete: I'm not going there Scotty!!! And for the record, I'd love to draft a cornerback in the first if possible too.
Scott: I wouldn't be upset with Sua, but he's not first on my list of players I'd like to see drafted.
Ian: If we draft a guard in the first, I will not be happy. I will scathe at this administration's drafting ability!
Pete: If it's Sua'Filo in the first, I will be VERY happy!
Scott: Yeah, it would be a little disappointing.
Pete: I'm for guys who will be All-Pros. They don't have to be sexy picks, they need to be players who help the team win a championship. Offensive line was our biggest weakness last year. It's the biggest reason why we weren't hoisting the Lombardi Trophy. Offensive Line is NEVER a sexy pick, but its a pick that is as vital to success as oxygen is to life!
Scott: I'm looking at terms of value.
Pete: And in my opinion, he's the guard I'd target. If he's gone (likely), then I'm looking elsewhere.
Scott: Taking a guard in the first is usually not the greatest value. Your pass rushers, corner backs, left tackles, quarterbacks go earlier because they're valued more. I'd rather see us go that route before a guard.
Pete: I'd like to see us address needs in the following manner, ranked on what I deem is the most important (thus valued) hole to fill: Guard, CB, DT, WR, LB, S, QB. And hey, look at that, that's exactly seven holes. Seven rounds. Coincidence? haha
Scott: You don't draft by need.
Pete: That's right, you draft by BPA that fits a need.
Scott: You draft by value and grade.
Pete: And if Sua'Filo is sitting there at #31, he's gonna be the best player available at a position of need. Even if Mosley or Shazier were sitting there, he'd still be the best player available, period!
Scott: If player A is graded higher than player B, you take player A. But if Player A and B are graded the same, you go towards the need.
Pete: Yeah, and Sua'Filo would be graded higher than anyone who could possibly be at #31
Scott: Pete, you can't say that!
Mike: This is why I hate the draft, or the lead up anyways.
Scott: I hate it when people speak like things are set in stone, like Pete is doing.
Pete: He's a slam dunk top 15 pick unless he has an Aaron Rodgers type slide, so yeah, I'm pretty confident in saying that he'd be by far the BPA at #31
Scott: We have no idea how the Broncos have Sua graded.
Pete: Why am I even giving a crap about this? This is why I HATE mock drafts.
Scott: Mock drafts are fun Pete, people ruin them though. And by the way, Zack Martin is the only guard I'd take in the first round.
Pete: No, mock drafts are people talking like things are set in stone, until they change their minds and draft someone else in a mock, thus completely contradicting everything they said in the previous mock. Freaking lunacy!
Scott: No, mock drafts are just showing what could happen. Not one person who makes a mock will say that this is what's going to happen.
Pete: Then why bother? The sun could go black tomorrow and all of the human race will die. Shall I write about that? Yellowstone could erupt tomorrow, or it couldn't. How about I write an article about that too? We know the player pool. We know who generally has 1st round grades on them. Why mock unless you want to speak in semi-absolutes and defend your mock, only to completely contradict what you've been defending the very next day/week when you come out with another mock draft?
Scott: LOL. Your analogies are always so extreme.
Ian: Teams do mock drafts. They do hundreds of them. It's like chess.
Ian: If you can't see what's happening next, you didn't do enough mock drafts.
Pete: And come draft day, not a single one will have successfully mocked jack squat, thus making mock drafts completely worthless. Not at the #31 position I should say.
Ian: Last year D-Mac had Sylvester Williams in the first.
Pete: I have a sneaky feeling that Houston will get their mock draft correct though ;) haha. And I know he did. I was listening to it live. (regarding D-Mac calling Sylvester Williams to the Broncos last year)
Scott: Mock drafts aren't worthless!
Pete: The only time they aren't 100% worthless is if you want to trade up and in a bunch of your mocks, you generally think that team X wants player Y and they draft that player over and over and over again. Then and only then are mocks of any minuscule value.
Scott: Pete, you're wrong. You've been wrong all day.
Pete: Because if BPA and then BPA at a needed position are really what drives a draft pick, then mocks are useless because whatever you mocked means jack freaking squat because BPA trumps whatever one million mocks you did says.
Say the Broncos do one million mocks. How many have Jadeveon Clowney dropping to #31? ZERO, right? So tell me how useful any of those mocks re if for some reason Clowny drops to #31? Do the Broncos not jump on him as their pick simply because he was never mocked? Cause hey, mocks rule supreme, right?
Scott: Again with an extreme analogy that proves nothing. Try again!
Pete: No, extremes point out b/s weaknesses in philosophy. If you can take your philosophy and draw a bunch of ridiculous extremes from it, then you have a bunch of weaknesses in your philosophy. If you can't, then you have a sound philosophy.
Scott: Well, go tell 32 teams that mocks are worthless.
Ian: You can always have Clowney drop.
Pete: So let me ask you this, I can very easily pull extremes out of your mock draft philosophy. Tell me a weakness in mine that you can take to a ridiculous extreme? Cause if you can't, then I'm proven right!
Ian: Let's say Clowney gets some type of charge right before the first round, maybe a day or two prior, I bet he'd be there at #31.
Scott: Mocks aren't about accuracy, they're about showing all sorts of possibilities to create discussion. Teams do it to be prepared for all sorts of scenarios.
Pete: I'm saying mocks are only useful for trading up because you mock a team taking a player over and over and over again. Outside of that, it's useless because BPA and BPA at a position of need trump anything a mock could possibly tell you. So there you have it. Find me an extreme you can extrapolate from that to make what I said look foolish and wrong. GO!
Scott: Pete, you're wrong. Simple as that. :) I have given many examples of why you're wrong.
Pete: I never claimed to know what Houston is doing. The only time I mentioned Houston is when I said that they are the one team who's mock draft will be correct.
Ian: Well, if you don't know what Houston is doing, that changes your mock draft every time.
Scott: Yup, Houston doesn't even know what they're doing.
Ian: If we really want Blake Bortles and Houston takes him, that changes our whole strategy.
Scott: Need to be prepared for every scenario.
Pete: So you think that if Elway wants Bortles and he isn't there that he'll literally have a panic attack and crap himself in their war room because he didn't mock it enough? GET THE F OUT OF HERE WITH THAT WEAK STUFF!
Scott: Pete, you're the only weak stuff in here ;)
Ian: Well, you mock several scenarios, one where Houston doesn't draft him.
Pete: And how is that useful to Elway?
Ian: We would have to make a move with someone, who would Oakland want for their pick? What about St. Louis? Does Bortles last past Cleveland, etc.?
Pete: You really think that if Elway fails to ever mock Clowney to #31 that if Clowney is there it won't change how Elway drafts? BECAUSE IT WILL! I don't care if Clowney tears his ACL, I'd take him at #31. Anything less than being incarcerated for years, I'm taking him at #31 regardless of what any mock draft in the history of NFL mock drafts say! And Ian, you're proving my point! I said that mock drafts are only useful for potential trade up scenarios!
Monty: Did you ever read Ted Sundquist's blogs on DenverBroncos.com? If I recall correctly, he would reference Mel Kiper to defend a bunch of the Broncos' actual selections. I was embarrassed by that.
Mike: lol. He writes as if his views are still relevant.
Scott: Oh goodness, that's terrible.
Pete: So you guys think Teddy is foolish because he used mock drafts to justify something the Broncos did wrong, yet here you all are saying mocks are useful? SMH
Scott: Speaking of mocks, we could use one on MHR soon.
Sound off Broncos Country! Are mock drafts completely worthless in all things besides "trade up" scenarios? Can you not get enough of them? Does BPA trump all? Lets hear it!