The Broncos - The Naked Truth
Warning! This is going to be a long read!
A lot has changed between the end of the '08 season and today. We knew we had 8 draft picks, and we knew our needs. We also knew that Denver would avoid expensive FAs and go for a "youth core building" approach.
However, Denver has made quite a few FA moves, picking up several mid level talent players as stop gaps, and several of them are actualy improvements in the positions they are in.
We also let an offensive lineman go who provided depth at two OL positions in exchange for yet another pick. If Denver trades down in the draft (as most MHR members seem to predict), we may end up with 10 or 11 picks.
Let's analyze the naked truth about where we stand as a team and figure out our future in '08.

I'm going to take a slightly different approach to the draft than the many draft experts at MHR. I'm not a draft expert, but I know a little about football. What I want to do with this article is to pretend I'm the head coach of Denver, while you the reader are the general manager. I'm going to give you my assesment as a coach (being ignorant of what is available in the draft), and I want you to make the adjustments to get what you can based on my input.
Remember, this isn't the Mike Shanahan show. You alone will make the final call on how we draft. I'm just going to give you my input as a coach. You are free to accept or reject my input in different areas because in our pretend world I only run the team, while you have complete control over the front office and personnel.
I'll give my current report on the state of the depth chart below the fold, and tell you what I advise. Just click on the "read more" button below. Ready? Let's have some fun!
Let's start with my favorite team in all of football: The Defense!
Safeties
At the end of the season I really wanted Phillips in the draft. His stock has fallen a little, but more importantly we made some key additions in FA.
Starting with free safety, we have Manuel to compete with Hamza for the starting position. Both players are coverage guys and are expected to play deep zone. Denver thought enough of Manuel to give him a 3 yr contract, even with Hamza showing flashes of brilliance.
Over at strong safety we picked up McCree to play along with Lynch. McCree (like Lynch) is a box safety who won't play much deep zone coverage, but has better speed than Lynch. Lynch still has the edge in football smarts (perhaps the best in the league) and is still a hard hitter. I expect Lynch and Mcree to rotate (with Lynch playing on expected run plays).
My opinion - Don't get any more safeties. We finally have depth at the position, and finally have true safeties playing the position instead of SAF/CB hybrids. I rate the SAF position right now as a "B"
Cornerbacks
Two of the best CBs in the league are in Denver. Bailey and Bly got burned a couple of times, but the also didn't have a reliable front seven and didn't have much help with only one SAF behind them (Lynch was mostly in the box). I think the front seven will be improved, the system will be more aggressive for the front seven, and despite still having a SAF in the box, our SAF position will be better too. This means more production for the dynamic duo.
Add in Paymah and Foxworth for depth (and allowing Foxworth to concentrate on CB instead of pulling double duty at SAF) and we have an excellent group at CB.
My opinion - Don't get anymore CBs. We have an elite and deep crew as it is. I rate the CB squad as an "A+"
Defensive Ends
Doom is the real deal, and may well be one of the top five DEs in the league right now. Lurking in the shadows is Jarvis Moss, a first round pick that sat out his first year with an injury. If he shows the production that matches his potential the Broncos are in for a treat in the pass rush. Add in solid players like Crowder, Engleberger, and Ekuban and the Broncos have a great group of very young and very talented DEs, both in terms of pass rush and run stopping specialists.
An added benefit is the Broncos ability to rotate DEs without losing an edge in talent on the field.
My opinion - Don't get anymore DEs. The level of talent and the depth is something to be excited about. "A"
Outside Linebackers
There is no doubt that DJ Williams will tear up the weakside. His speed and agility are gifts in blitzing the blindside of right handed QBs, and SD (who oddly loves the weakside run) will have to deal with a former MLB who was second in the league in tackles last year. His speed also allows him to play the common weak zone of WILL linebackers effectively. If he hadn't been bumped by Gold (who was returning from TB at the time), Williams would have been a monster at WILL.
On the other side, Denver decided to take the SAM linbacker position seriously and obtained a linebacker in FA who is built for the position. Again, Denver went with speed. Boss Bailey doesn't dominate the position, but he can hold his own with most TEs in coverage (relieving of us of the slow, box strong safety problem). With his brother already on the team, this may help Denver with the team identity problem they have faced, and might serve to bring the defensive team together.
Winborn has the speed to be an adequate back-up at WILL for Williams. Webster was a punching bag for many pundits last year (including me), but he seemed to improve enough to stay on as a back-up player. He is a reasonable, if not great, back-up with starting experience.
My opinion - Don't get anymore OLBs. We have two good starters, and two back-ups with starting experience. (Those back-ups should be a help on special teams too). "B+"
Middle Linbacker
K2 (no, I'm not going to try to spell his name) comes in as a mystery to most people. A lot of folks (including your truly) wanted to leave DJ at MLB. But K2 (sounds like a mountain huh?) has a terrific resume if you check it out. According to MHR's famous sports writer Styg50, Seatle hated to part with K2 because they considered him a true starter stuck in a depth position. K2 is also more of a vocal leader than DJ, and a speedster as well. Is he an improvement over DJ? Probably not. But if he is even close to being a good MLB (and I think he will be), the overall improvement of the LB crew should be excellent.
Our problem? Depth. Who in the heck is "Beck"? Some folks may think DJ could cover for an injured K2, with Winborn covering for DJ. While possible, this is a nightmare scenario for midseason. All of DJ's preparation will be for WILL, and a midseason switch is tougher than one might think. We really need someone who can back up K2 and hold his own.
My opinion - K2 will be a good addition for the team. At worse he will fill in pretty well until a draft pick pans out. At best, he will be the MLB that Seatle thinks he can be, and give us a return to the "three speedster LB" crew Denver fans used to enjoy. What is killing us is the lack of depth if K2 went down or doesn't work out. We need to pursue a MLB in the draft. "B-"
Defensive Tackles
Here comes our first major problem. The hope is that young Thomas at left DT will prove to be an effective DT. He isn't a dominating force, but he is decent and expected to improve as he ages. McKinley is a decent rotational DT on the right, but it is questionable if he should start. The jury is out on Peterson, Mallard, and Harris.
As in most 4-3 systems, one dominating DT makes the other DT look good. You don't have to have two supermen at the position (though it would be nice). But you really need to have one, and Denver doesn't. You really can't put all of your (Easter) eggs in one basket in this critical position, so...
My opinion - Spend at least two high draft picks on this position. It is the weakness of our defense right now, and it killed us last year. We must get this position right. "D"
Ok, time for another famous hoosierteacher intermission:

Now you may think that I am being a sexist pig by putting up this picture, but I assure you that I am not. This picture is a very important part of the article at hand. These lovely ladies were the defensive tackles for Denver in '07. Note the shoes, which didn't help much. This may be why we got ran over in running yards allowed. In fact, I think the '07 DTs deserve to get spanked, and I should be the guy to do it.
Ok, I'm a little off topic I guess. On to the offense.
Quarterbacks
Cutler is clearly the future of this franchise. Ramsey is a decent back-up. Hackney may have blown his job by getting in a little trouble recently, but he may have dodged a bullet because he hasn't been fired yet.
My opinion - Are you kidding me? "A"
Running backs
Henry kept his promise and hasn't been in trouble since joining the team. He dominated opponents before being injured, and a false positive drug test made fans suspicious of Henry's value. As the only power back on the team, Henry is important for a team that loves to change up power and speed and play a "run by committee" approach. Henry showed a lot of class by being a team player, and took a pay cut to stay with the coach who stood by his side during the test fiasco.
Young and Hall are both speedy runners who stepped up when Henry went down.
My opinion - Don't get more RBs. Denver has the right type of runners, and has them in spades (if you count our RB/FB hybrids, we have even more depth). "A"
Fullbacks
Sapp was resigned because he fits Denver's plans. Denver doesn't believe in true FBs. Griffith was the closest thing, and even he wasn't a true FB. Denver (like many teams), is getting away from the FB position and transitioning slowly to depth at TE. Denver likes to use RBs who are not starters for use at FB. The best blocker in the non-starting group of RBs gets the "honor". Used primarily to block or go out for screens (and rarely for a "dive" play), Denver has no need for FB depth. They would rather have five or six RBs and count the last one or two as FBs on the depth chart.
My opinion - No way in heck should Denver pursue a FB in today's NFL (or in Denver's system). "n/a"
Wide Receivers
Problem area number two. We have an excellent #1 possession WR in Brandon Marshall. He will only continue to improve. His strengths are run blocking, yards gained after contact with a defender, and great hands. Our slot receiver is in the same mold as Marshall, but older. Stokely is perhaps the best slot receiver in the NFL, and his only weakness is that he is not an every down player (so he can't play at #2). Martinez gives us adequate depth.
Denver signed question marks with Colbert and Shepherd. Colbert may work out, but Shepherd is probably an experiment for special team returns.
The issue is really the #2 spot, which is vacant. Marshall is revered by Denver fans, and rightly so. But from this coach's perspective we need to be careful. Marshall will now face the #1 CBs of opposing teams instead of #2s. And if we don't have a threat at #2 receiver you can bet that Marshall will get double coverage. oakland has recently aquired Deangelo Hall, a CB that is a real threat twice a year for Denver. If Denver doesn't get this position right for '08, Marshall will have to carry a heavy load for the team.
My opinion - Just like the DT position, spend two high picks on WR. I'm not the draft guy that many of our terrific readers and regular contributers are, but I'm prepared to throw in my endorsement for Bennet in this year's draft.
Current players - "A"
With the void at #2 - "C-"
Offensive Center
Nalen might have retired last year, but he is sticking around for another year. He was injured for just about all of '07, and is a potential injury risk in '08. However, he has been the heart of this O-line and I expect him (if healthy) to give us one more good year.
Denver made a terrific move getting Wiegmann from KC. KC had a terrible O-line last year, but I don't believe Wiegmann was at fault. Wiegmann was a key part of previous years when KC had a good line, and I think he is a better fit for Denver than KC at any rate. He is an older player, and is signed for 2 years as an effective (but temporary) stop gap.
My opinion - We have two older guys (but good guys) right now. One may get injured, and both are near retirement. We should spend two late round picks to get the type of O-linemen that fit our system that other teams overlook. Keep in mind that zone block linemen benefit from learning the system for one to three years before starting in most cases.
"B+"
Offensive guards
Hamilton is a great guard, but a very high injury risk with the potential for concussions. He has good support with Kuper as a probable starter and Holland backing up both players.
My opinion - Denver could use youth to push the vets here. I expect Hamilton to retire at year's end (if he doesn't get forced out by injury before then). Two late round picks may end up as effective starters in the next two to three years.
"B+"
Offensive Tackle
Here's a weird problem. According to word from the team, Harris is a superstar and a quick study. The team is eager to get him on the field. And Pears will be the other starter. Some are critical of Pears, but I share Styg's assesment of Pears being a decent starter. There is no real depth behind these guys. The problem? You really don't want to draft someone to be a young back-up to two young starters. Remember the importance of staggering ages for purposes of timing retirments, as well as spreading out salary packages.
My opinion - Do not draft an OT. Instead, sign a decent FA that is reasonably priced to back-up. We could go for Clady in the first round (and it wouldn't grieve me), but I would rather get the extra picks and address our needs that way.
"B+"
Tight Ends
Graham is perhaps the best blocking TE in the League. He had decent hands in limited pass opportunities this year, but he is said to look better in practice. Whether or not his catching catches on, he is a very valuable weapon on the line. Scheffler is a terrific receiving TE, and a common target for Cutler. Mustard is well rounded (leans towards blocking), and in my opinion he is very underrated. He'll back up Graham. Jackson is a convert from receiver, and not an effective blocker. He can back-up Scheff, but is average.
My opinion - We have an awesome set of starting TEs. Our depth is also good. No need to add to this group.
"A"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
We have the following picks:
1,2,4,4,5,5,6 (recent trade with HOU; We gave up Myers),7,7 for 9 picks.
Let's say we trade our 1 for a lower 1 and (perhaps) a 3. This gives us 1,2,3,4,4,5,5,6,7,7 which is 10 picks.
We might also go with something like trading our 1 for a high 2, a 4, and a 5 for 11 picks. Who knows what will really happen? (Not being educated on the reality of who is available to draft, and all things being equal, I would pick WR and DT with our 2s; DT,WR, and MLB with our 4s; MLB, OC, and OG with the 5s; OG at 6; and OC, K/P at 7s. I know this is oversimplifying, but I'm counting on the general manager to put it into a workable model.
We may even trade our multiple low picks for a few mid rounders.
A few members are hoding out hope that we trade up to get a favorite player, and given Shanahan's reputation for aggressively trading to get what he wants, this is a possibility.
My desire (from a coaching standpoint) is to see us get 2 DTs and 2 WRs early in the draft because these positions will kill our team if we don't get at least one DT and one WR right.
In the middle of the draft, we need one MLB to shore up the LB crew in case of an unforseen injury.
We also need guards and centers in the near future, and we better be getting them now and getting them a couple of years in "zone block" school. If we wait until we really need them it will be too late. We can also spend any extra picks on a kicker or punter.
I'm only guessing, but playing the odds (and most likely worst case scenario) I think we get four very good players out of a draft of 10 or 11 picks. 2 or 3 additional players may end up as special teams types that won't start. Again, it is critical that at least two of those be a DT and a WR (in my opinion).
A general manager can take this analysis and look at the draft point card and the players available and come up with a plan. It may match the coach's desires closely, but more likely the effective manager will have to make some major modifications to do the best for the team, and the coach needs to take what the general manager can do for him.
By firing Sundquist (we all know that is what really went down), Shanahan has an opportunity with multiple draft picks to build a long term, youthful, core group of players that can rise to the top and stay there for a long time to come, and to take all of the credit for it as well. I like Mike, and I liked Sundquist too. The Sundquist move surprised me. But the timing was brilliant on Shanahan's part. It's a gamble, but Mike's record show he is right more often than wrong.
With the stop gap players Shanahan has brought in, he has freed up the many picks we have to target fewer key positions. Again, brilliant. Perhaps Sundquist was the one building for a winning team every year, and Shanahan really wanted to go this route all along (build a core group in the draft and be more patient). Again, who knows?
But by throwing the real coach out for a moment, and looking at my analysis, you can do a couple of fun things.
- Discuss what you agree or disagree with. (My thoughts are just opinions here, and I know some of you can improve on what I wrote up).
- Or you can take my thoughts and develop a draft plan.
- Or you can argue the grades I gave.
0 recs |
69 comments
Comments
Say...
A lot of good promoted diaries can get the naked guy bumped off of the front page pretty quick. Get to work gang!
by Steve Nichols on Mar 23, 2008 11:25 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Plummer
by Jack on Mar 24, 2008 7:10 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, it would have been perfect!
by Steve Nichols on Mar 24, 2008 8:02 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
hot d-tackles
by davecheffy on Mar 24, 2008 1:34 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Good stuff dave
Thomas was probably our best looking DT all season, even though it took awhile for the team to figure out that the big name FAs were busts so that Thomas could get a chance.
Moss is a question mark, but he is going to get a shot to compete for a starting position. In his case it is kind of like getting a first round pick all over again, just a year late. As I alluded to in the article, if he works out that is awesome, but we should have terrific depth even if he is a bust.
I think Crowder has already established himself. He is more of a run stopper, and those guys don't get the kind of stats that get fans excited. But he serves a valuable role in rotation, and I believe he did well enough for some fans to speculate that he may even switch to DT (which I respectfuly think is a terrible idea).
Ekuban was absent as you point out, but is considered a strong enough player to have received an extension recently. Like Crowder he is a run stopper, so he doesn't look pretty with blitzes and big plays. But he ties up the line effectively and limits run routes for the opposition when he is on the field.
It's fair to question Hamza, but he did have a good first year. He was one of our leading tacklers, and had the rare ability to be an effective tackler against large runners as well as having the speed to play pass coverage. While you can't be sure if his first year was a true indication of his future, He did all he could to establish himself. Even if he is a false flash, we still have Manuel to compete for a starting position in camp. The back-up should be a boost on STs coverage teams.
Winborn will be a back-up to DJ, and should be a non-factor unless DJ goes down. He should be a boost to STs coverage units, but he did get enough starting time to be an "adequate back-up" (which is why one is a back-up in the first place).
While you may not be as comfortable with K2 as I am, we both advocate the same plan; we both want a MLB in the fourth round.
At receiver more than any other position (save DT) I am looking at actual game planning and play options. I strongly feel that people will blame Marshall for a poor season if we don't get him the help that he needs. Martinez is not a #2 receiver, and Colbert is an untested quality "in Denver". In the common sets with one TE our man Scheffler will help Marshall, but his routes will more often be on the same side of the field as Marshall's. Also, they are both going to threaten the same range (short to midfield). The addition of a WR in the draft with potential star power not only makes Marshall look good, it gives us a 1, 2, 3 punch the likes of which only INDY has had (with the same Stokely in slot).
If we don't trade our first (and from your post it looks you aren't) I doubt an elite DT falls to 12th. In that case, we should go with OT Clady if available. OT C. Williams (from Vandy) looks enticing, but I don't know what kind of feet a 320 pound guy can have for the ZB. I think there would be several DT options in the 2nd round.
I really like how you went about planning your picks. While I may be scheming based on too much optimism, I really like a coach (or general manager) who makes their plans based on "worst case scenario" thinking. You very well may be the voice of reason during a reloading season when many of us can get caught up being too hopeful. I wouldn't want a "yes" man for my general manager. Great job!
by Steve Nichols on Mar 24, 2008 6:28 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
What about the return game?
The bushel of 2nd day picks should be enough to find a returner or two. If the returner is good enough, we could even draft one at a position that is well stocked, like CB. Drafting 2 LBs should really help the coverage teams and at least one of the 2 WRs drafted should be able to make a contribution to special teams.
by Arctic Bronco on Mar 24, 2008 3:02 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Special teams
The catch (and I left this out of the article) is our "wonderful" STs coach, who is supposed to have a good rep, but I haven't seen good STs play yet. I almost thought about jokingly requesting a new STs coach in the draft. I feel that Bates at defensive coord deserved more time to prove himself than our STs guy.
by Steve Nichols on Mar 24, 2008 5:47 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
you know that...
by mdierk on Mar 24, 2008 9:33 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I definitely
Burns goes on to say that Obrien changed that and that his most impressive quality was that he ALWAYS knew what was going on and when and how and why. If true (and I wouldn't call Kieth Burns a liar, not to his face anyways) than that is a quality in a coach we should be grateful for. Our ST play picked up, but without a dangerous returner it never really impressed.
It went bad again after Burns left the field. Maybe it was because Burns and obrien thought alike, and Burns was the critical link between what obrien was instructing and the players executing on the field. I'm not saying that we need a leader on the field during special teams plays. I think it is more about having a REASON to believe on the field. Burns attitude and the fact he was out there with the unit probably made them BELIEVE that what they were doing was going to have an impact, because he never let them forget it and did his reminding on the field. I think a similar effect could be had with a great returner, since everytime the unit goes on the field they have a REASON to believe they are about to do something great. I think Saurbraun was not appreciated by his teammates last year, and that it had a reverse effect on them from the above situation. When you feel like, despite your best effort you will still be let down by your leader, it is hard to give everything you've got.
I'm with Arctic in doing our best to acquire a dangerous skillset for kick returns. By dropping saurbrun we lose the ill-performing leader, so our gunners probably need to step up, but at least it is better than a step backwards....
by Jeremy Bolander on Mar 24, 2008 3:37 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Special Teams
by dardarsh on Mar 24, 2008 4:44 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good points
In fact, many of our games this year where won and lost by STs.
But I still hold to my dislike of O'Brien. While he is considered a quality STs coach, I didn't see it translate to the team. The same could be said of Bates on the defense, but I had assumed that the transition to his system would take place fully a little over halfway through the season. We dropped his scheme before then, and dropped him before a second season. It was hard to watch us lose those games, but a major transition (like one to the Bates system) requires more patience than most fans (and apparently Mike) can endure. But O'Brien's people weren't executing in any facet of the game (coverage or returns), and (other than the Toro plays) seemed sloppy at best.
by Steve Nichols on Mar 24, 2008 7:02 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Using Drafttek
49ers get #12 and #140
Denver gets #29, #39 and #103
First thing's first, let's trade down in the 1st. I think our best fit is to deal with San Fran. The Niners should be looking to snag an OT with their top choice and they could have their pick of the litter (sans Jake Long) if they moved up to our spot, so I think it's a reasonable move for them. For us, it helps me target more of the guys I really like. Of course, this is fair by the universally recognized draft pick Value Chart. And now, on to the picks (using the most recent DraftTek.com mock as a guide)
#29 - Curtis Lofton, ILB, Oklahoma
Call me crazy, but I can't get over this guy. He's going to be DeMeco Ryans all over again and I want that. K2 could well be a reasonable starter, but what's the harm in bringing in some solid competition that, at worst, gives us great depth? Other options here are Jerod Mayo (Al Wilson version 2.0?) and Dan Connor, both ILB that could play outside in a pinch.
#39 - Pat Sims, DT, Auburn
This is probably my favorite DT in the second tier. He's an active, big body with great upside. If he passes the interview test, he'll be a great choice. Another way to go here is Trevor Laws (DT, Notre Dame) but I personally like Sims more.
#43 - Earl Bennett, WR, Vanderbilt
On his own, Bennett is worth a high pick. He was the lone star on a mediocre team and managed to shine despite all that. That said, he has a history with our young, franchise QB and that's for the better.
#103 - Josh Barrett, SS, Arizona State
I tend to fall for triangle numbers and measurables, so I'm torn about this pick. I think I might instead go with Craig Steltz (S, LSU) who is quite the opposite. With Lynch on the verge of retirement and McCree on a one-year deal, getting a potential future starter that can contribute on special teams in the meantime seems reasonable.
#104 - DeMario Pressley, DT, NC State
As pretty as those DTs were last year, I think we'll need some more beef up front if we expect to contend anytime soon. Pressley certainly fits that bill. He might be more of a boom or bust type prospect, but considering the rest of this draft, I think that's a fair gamble.
#115 - Dexter Jackson, WR/KR, Appalachian State
With Bennett in tow to compete for that #2 WR spot with Colbert, Jackson would push Glenn Martinez for the 4th/5th slot at WR and on kick returns. Special teams is where he can really pay off, as I think he could be the next big thing back there.
#130 - Ezra Butler, OLB, Nevada
I know we don't need an OLB, but this guy may be too good in terms of value to pass on. At worst, he can be a heat-seeking missile on special teams. He's awfully raw, but he's a physical freak and at this point in the draft, why not?
#140 - Erik Ainge, QB, Tennessee
OK, here's a real curveball. Yes, we have our franchise QB, so we can pretty much forget this spot. And yes, we have a decent veteran back-up to boot. But here's the thing, Cutler is now on his own and the training wheels are off, so perhaps we should look for a more permanent solution behind him. My big thing with this pick is simple: can you really get better value than this guy at this spot?
#174 - Frank Okam, DT, Texas
If one is needed, two is good, three is better, no? Sims and Pressley have their question marks, as does Okam. My theory here is, with enough question marks, we're bound to get the right answer at least once! Here's yet another guy that was in the first round mix just last year (Pressley was another), but they've fallen for dubious reasons.
Alright, I'm going to stop there because I have to run and I don't think there are any wonderful picks left to be made. Steve Justice (OC, Wake Forrest) looks to be gone in the third, so he's trapped in our no-pick land. He'd be a great fit and I hope we can do something to get him. I agree that OT is best adressed in free agency (this year's Montrae Holland?) and OG is a toss up. So, what do you think?
by ejruiz on Mar 24, 2008 8:01 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Nice, ej
If they could swing 3 DT's and still get those 2 WR's, I'd be pleased as punch.
by MN Bronco on Mar 24, 2008 9:15 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Great job!
I only have one tiny quibble. I like getting Ainge to replace Hackney (and maybe even Ramsey down the road), but how do we trade away the 140th pick to the 49ers and still get to use it? Your reasoning convinces me that the idea is sound, but we don't end up with the 140th, or do we?
by Steve Nichols on Mar 24, 2008 10:14 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nice stuff
I would probably go with J Goff instead of Butler at MLB since we have to give K2 a chance... Picking Lofton so early would go against the signing of K2. But I do love Lofton.
I would use #29 to get Phillips if he were available.
I am not sure if all the guys you have listed are realistic choices for those picks, but it isn't a big deal.
by amirebram on Mar 24, 2008 2:54 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good to see you again amir!
OOMPA LOOMPA, DOOMPADAH DEE
It's JaMakus Fail, RRRRRUUUUNNNN!!!!!
by Tim Lynch on Mar 24, 2008 3:04 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks
What if we were to give up #12 for a late 1st this year and another first next year? Let's say a #25 this year, and the 1st round pick next year? It could even be made fancy by saying that if the 1st was a top 10 pick then we get the 2nd round or something like that. I think it is worth it.
Do you think that's a good idea, or does everyone want to get more picks this year.
by amirebram on Mar 25, 2008 9:21 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Persia
She was a ballet instructor/dancer, so I also scored some pretty cool tickets to some nice fine arts events she was associated with.
She and her family left Iran about the time of the American Embassy crisis, and she had some interesting stories about problems they encountered trying to leave the country.
by Steve Nichols on Mar 25, 2008 6:17 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
And...
by Steve Nichols on Mar 25, 2008 6:18 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
re. your trade-down scenario w/49ers
by dardarsh on Mar 24, 2008 3:19 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Excellent article, HT
by MN Bronco on Mar 24, 2008 9:06 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Ah, !#@&%$@$
by MN Bronco on Mar 24, 2008 9:08 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Lots of good stuff in there MN
Clearly he was a better FB than a HB. I agree that Griffith was one of the best, and never got the credit he deserved except amongst hard core fans like us.
I agree on Hamilton. Like Lynch, I respect him and would rather he retire than take a chance because some things (health and family) mean even more than winning ball games.
I also like the idea of trading up our lower picks, but have mixed feelings. There are good arguments both ways.
Terrific thoughts as always MN. You rock!
by Steve Nichols on Mar 24, 2008 10:23 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fullback thoughts
What about a guy like Jacob Hester from LSU or Owen Schmitt from West Virginia in round 5? I guess it would depend on the fundamentals of their blocking, but they are guys who can catch the ball and could be a good short yardage runner.
by MattR on Mar 24, 2008 10:53 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Griffith
by MN Bronco on Mar 24, 2008 2:33 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
If you watch the
In the segment they are looking at some of the players Denver acquired, including Griffith. It shows Griffith going to Shanny's office and Shanny reviewing some tape with him and talking about the FB position.
It also had a small segment from training camp where Shanny is watching Griffith run and catch passes, and he comments to one of his coordinators, something along the lines of "Oh yeah. Classic fullback look. He really looks like a FB doesn't he?"
That being said, I think HT has nailed Denver's current RB philosophy. If the fullbacks job is primarily to block and be an outlet receiver, why use someone with rushing skills? In 2006 we consistently lined up with a TE going in motion and moving to the FB spot, or with a TE in the FB spot, going in motion. We started 2007 with some plays like that, but injuries took away our depth, and without Scheffler at the start of the year, I think the plan was to just use TEs in the strongside blocker rotation, and Sapp and whoever at FB.
Injuries really took a toll on the Bronco's offense last year. I remember only one game where we started our 6 main offensive weapons, Walker, Marshall, Scheffler, Graham, Young, Stokely. And in that game Walker shouldn't have even been out there yet. Take that game out and we never had our offense on the field all at the same time last year.
by Jeremy Bolander on Mar 24, 2008 3:08 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just a terminology peeve
by dardarsh on Mar 24, 2008 4:04 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
No problem
by Jeremy Bolander on Mar 24, 2008 5:07 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Very nice work on terminology!
In simple terms (for the sake of most of our readers), Styg's point about the "TE motion" is accurate (even if the terminology isn't technicaly correct, just as a layman calls abdominal pain "stomach" pain).
He's refering to a common practice in Denver a couple of years ago where an eligible TE in a twin TE set would motion back into the position normaly associated with the "FB position". This was (is) a legal motion since one of the off scrimmage players simultaneously steps forward to scrimmage. The forward moving player is not considered a second player in motion as long as his move coincides with a motion player leaving scrimmage to go into motion, and as long as the move is simultaneous. But in Denver's case, I believe the motioning end began the formation off scrimmage, thus not neccessitating the forward movement of a second player. I know that you know all of this, but it's a good learning opportunity for the readers. I wouldn't fault Styg for his choice of wording, since I know he is considering his audience.
There's an awful lot of professional terminology that could be corrected in most conversations regarding the game (the recent zone block "debate" being an example). For me, the standard is conversing with and teaching a wide audience. With new members constantly coming on board, and with most members being casual fans, I try to aim more for technical appreciation and awareness rather than fully comprehensive and definitive knowledge. Kind of like teaching EMT students to an EMT standard without getting into accurate (but physician level) elements of biology, chemistry and physiology. I typicaly let most terms go by if the higher value of learning is achieved without scaring anyone off.
With the knowledge you have you could put out some terrific diaries for the readers wanting a little bit more than they get with the University series (kind of like a "post-graduate" series!).
Keep up the great comments!
by Steve Nichols on Mar 24, 2008 6:53 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
You are correct...
What I should have said is that he wasn't a true FB in the sense that he was converted from being a RB in college (whomever converted him). Still, given the comment made by Shanahan according to Styg below (awesome find btw) it sounds like Mike was impressed by Griffith as a "classic" FB in the sense that he (Mike) considers the position dated for the most part.
I would prefer Denver pursue a true FB. By this I mean that Denver always fills the position by giving it to the best blocker/receiver in the lower depths of our RB chart instead of pursuing a player born and bred to play the position. They should do this until they finally go over the hump and convert to a more futuristic (or ancient, depending on your view) total TE system. But I just don't think Mike likes to do it this way.
by Steve Nichols on Mar 24, 2008 7:15 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not to pick nits...
by MN Bronco on Mar 25, 2008 9:55 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
(Slapping my head)
There's no nitpicking involved if I'm just plain wrong. Thanks for the correction!
He (Griffith) went from Southern IL Univ to being drafted by the Colts. He didn't play for them, and spent two years with the Rams and then two with the Panthers. He played five seasons with us as a FB.
He seldom ran, but he was a standout blocker and (as Denver is prone to have FBs do) went out for quite a few receptions out of the backfield (including setting up th final TD of the SB against GB with a 23 yard catch). He also scored two rushing TDs in the SB against ATL.
One thing I learned (that I don't recall) is that he was nicknamed "The Human Plow" because of his run blocking magic powers. : )
He retired due to a neck injury.
by Steve Nichols on Mar 25, 2008 6:31 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Speaking of the "coffin corner"
by dardarsh on Mar 24, 2008 3:33 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dilts
It really baffles me that the corner kick has gone out of vogue. It's one of the things I used to hate Ray Guy for the most, besides just being a fader. He was constantly taking Upchurch out of the plan by kicking it out of bounds inside the 20. Nowadays, there's too much emphasis on the supposed "backspin" and bouncing the ball in the middle of the field. It doesn't make much sense to me, the other way seems way more deadly.
by MN Bronco on Mar 24, 2008 4:11 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I voted to trade up.
I also disagree with your FB grade, let's bring back Griffith.
And I would like to see Early Bennet or Dexter Jackson on this team.
Everything else, solid. And I vote to have ME be the guy to administer spankings.
;)
OOMPA LOOMPA, DOOMPADAH DEE
It's JaMakus Fail, RRRRRUUUUNNNN!!!!!
by Tim Lynch on Mar 24, 2008 9:25 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
It is Early over here, but I meant to
OOMPA LOOMPA, DOOMPADAH DEE
It's JaMakus Fail, RRRRRUUUUNNNN!!!!!
by Tim Lynch on Mar 24, 2008 9:25 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with you on Griffith...
Good thoughts as always Zap!
by Steve Nichols on Mar 24, 2008 10:09 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good Assessment - a few thoughts
STARTERS:
We need 3 starters (maybe 4 in my opinion):
MUST HAVE:
+DT - 1 starter: Given the depth at DT in the draft this year, Denver would be crazy not to take a DT early and a 'project' later in the draft.[Kentwan Balmer,Pat Sims,Dre Moore]
DEPENDING ON THE TALENT AVAILABLE:
+OT - 1 starter: If Denver thinks a first or second rounder can come in and start over Pears or Harris, then, by ALL means, take one. We're talking about our bread and butter (the running game) and protecting our biggest investment (Jay Cutler). Harris has had back problems and Pears (although highly regarded by some of us locals) isn't a noteworthy player nationally. I'd rather choose between Harris or Pears and a top tier talent rather than not have the ability to choose. [Ryan Clady, Chris Williams, Jeff Otah]
DEPENDING ON WHAT NEEDS YOU'VE ALREADY ADDRESSED AND WHAT TALENT IS AVAILABLE:
+WR - 1 starter: Again, if we think a 2nd or 3rd rounder can come in and compete for a starting spot over Colbert, then absolutely bring one in. Colbert is not a defense-stretching player, at least not in the NFL, unless Carolina was making him wear very heavy pads. In my opinion, Denver needs some speed to pair with Brandon Marshall. Marshall isn't the best at getting a clean release (he's getting better) and if we had the threat of speed on the other side, he'd get more favorable matchups more often. Also, Marshall will draw more attention this year and with speed, you can't roll the safety his way very often if you're worried that your CB may get beat deep. [Eddie Royal, Andre Caldwell, Lavelle Hawkins, Earl Bennett]
+K - Face it, Matt Prater's not the answer. The Broncos were smart not to spend money chasing Elam around when he's 50/50 from beyond 35 yards. [Alexis Serna, Arthur Carmody, Jeremy Ito]
DEPTH:
We need depth at RB, LB, and Safety some of these positions are a must for this year, some are for next year, but that's what the draft is for.
DEPTH FOR THIS YEAR:
+LB - 1 to 2 players: I really like what Denver's done in FA so far this year, but let's be honest: Boss has been injury plagued throughout his career and Niko has never started in the NFL. If you don't think Denver's gambling on the LB position in 2008, you're wrong. Denver needs to look at a middle and outside linebacker in the draft. This won't be addressed until 4th round or later, but LB depth looks great on special teams and can help Denver avoid the situation they were in all year last season.
DRAFT THIS YEAR FOR NEXT YEAR:
+S - 1 player: Lynch and Mcree aren't spring chickens. I like the addition of Mcree, but Denver is missing an athlete and leader at safety. What happens if Lynch goes down? Will Mcree step up? Do we have any depth at 'Box Safety'? Denver's had success when they've had great leadership and ability at safety, and to continue that trend, Denver's going to need to look to the draft. This year's draft isn't big on talent at safety, so this pick depends on what Denver's already drafted and what's still available.
+RB - 1 player: Let's talk long term. Denver's 'franchise' RB (if there is still such a thing) is not on the roster. I agree that T-Henry is a bruiser, but he really can't stay healthy. He is effective, but not every week. He has great games and bad games. Selvin Young is a great back, but not likely a full time starter unless Denver goes into the Brian Westbrook offense, which they won't. He had a top 5 yards per carry and top 11 yards after catch rankings last year, in just his rookie season. That's an index putting Young in with the top 6 or 7 backs in the NFL (Westbrook, LT, Jones-Drew). Andre Hall's great depth here as well, but he's more of a change of pace back as well. Unfortunately we don't have a back that can catch the ball, stay healthy, run big in the redzone, and has enough speed/elusiveness to make people miss. I'm not sure Denver will find him this year, but mark my words, they'll be looking for one next year or the year after.
by super7 on Mar 24, 2008 10:26 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Good stuff super!
With two additions in FA at SAF, two current SAFs, and the hybrid Foxworth on the roster I feel ok with the depth (though I still wish we would count on our front seven to do their job and allow us to have a SS that plays back).
I feel a little better about RB than you do, but I wouldn't be surprised if Denver followed your advice and picked up both a SAF and RB this year.
Much agreed with the need for a speed WR to stretch the field.
by Steve Nichols on Mar 24, 2008 7:24 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
'08 Bronco draft/trading down
ejruiz: Nice draft w/the trade down scenario w/SF. Using approximately the same numbers, how about this? #29=Gosder Cherilus T BC; #39=Trevor Laws DT ND; #42=Mike Pollack C Az.St.; #103=Dexter Jackson WR/KR App.St.; #104=Beau Bell LB UNLV; #115=DeMario Pressley DT NCSt.; #130=Jeremy Zuttah OL Rutgers (I see him as an NFL G); #140=Owen Scmitt FB WVA; #174=Dorien Bryant WR/KR Purdue; #202=Mike Dragosovich P NDak.St.; and, #209=Taylor Mehlhaff K Wisconsin. It's somewhat likely they will be there at those spots. Pardon my paranoia about the OL, but it's so deep this year, why not rebuild it and get it over with now? With th picks you listed, there are: 3OL, 2 DTs, 2 WR/KR, 1 LB, 1 FB, 1 P & 1 K.
by dardarsh on Mar 24, 2008 11:17 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Very well done!
I agree with your assement of Nalen and Hamilton. I wrote last year that I expected both of them and Lepsis to retire. I caught a little bit of flack for including Lepsis, but of the three he was the only one to go. I still see Nalen and Hamilton leaving at the end of the season (or earlier if a key injury occurs).
While Harris had an injury, I don't think the team has been concerned. After his injury there where still reports that the team is excited at the prospect of him starting, and it sounds like he has already beaten out Pears before camp even starts.
While Wiegmann is old, I think he is just a stop gap to buy us time (and depth) until we add a rookie (or two) this year or next.
Thanks for the acknowledgment on Mustard. Like I said in the story, he is really undervalued by a lot of fans. He is a decent blocker, and he made some solid catches last year when pressed into service.
I agree also with the benefit of picking up a speed WR to stretch the field.
I actually agree with you on FB (and very much agree on the play scenario you lay out), but I just can't picture Mike pulling the trigger on a true FB in the draft.
by Steve Nichols on Mar 24, 2008 7:39 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
RE: Pears v. Harris
It sounds as if no such battle will take place, and in hindsight I think that is a wise move by the Denver coaching staff. We don't have enough depth at T right now to risk creating conflict instead of competition. Instead I would expect that the plan at Dove Valley centers around getting a good tackle prospect that can challenge Pears at RT, and be insurance at LT. In terms of contracts, Pears would be the odd man out, and the one slotted for being staggered out if we can get a young T found, either this year or next, and I am fine with that. All I ask is that the jury withhold their verdict on Pears until the evidence comes in for this year, and to understand how significant last year and this reloading season are to his overall development. I expect him to play much different from last year to this year. Whether it will be better or worse is up in the air though.
by Jeremy Bolander on Mar 24, 2008 10:39 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
We agree on Pears
by Steve Nichols on Mar 24, 2008 10:47 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Pears has unusual size for a Denver lineman
Although Pears wasn't drafted several months after Shanahan's Pro Bowl experience, he was one of the first really big linemen picked up in quite a long time. I assumed that Shanahan was experimenting with larger linemen and was willing to invest time in Pears' development of agility and footwork. It is not unusual for extra large young men to need longer than others to grow into their body.
His first year was on the practice squad, then he surprised a lot of us by starting at OLT as a 2nd year player when Lepsis went down. Last year, his 3rd year, I watched him every chance I had and he seemed like a capable ORT. I have been wondering if Pears was the start of a new era of bigger linemen for Shanahan, but the subsequent acquisitons, Kuper, Holland and Harris weren't as big, so not sure what the long range preference is or if Pears was just an aberation.
I definitely think Pears is a keeper, but I am also enthusiastic about getting a top notch OL with pick #12. I don't think that a team that expects to make playoff runs in a year or two can afford to put up with weak psyches from tackles that are upset with having to compete for the privilege to start (remember Lelie?).
The factor that has made Shanahan such a great coach over the years is that he makes every Bronco earn every accomplishment, there are no "gimmes" for high priced FAs or 1st day picks. This work ethic will lead to more playoff victories in the years to come.
by Arctic Bronco on Mar 25, 2008 1:02 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Erik Pears et al.
Holland is a departure from most previous Bronco Guards. At 6'2" & 322, he is a little shorter and heavier than previous players. I was curious to see how he would fit in and he seems to have done well. Montrae can move for a big guy. He hits hard and doesn't get overpowered in pass pro by big NFL DTs. He's a keeper unless he is a negative influence in the lockerroom, which I doubt. I would really like to see the Broncos draft Zuttah and groom him for G, a position he played at Rutgers. He can also play RT and could even be a C. Shanahan has said that he thinks Kuper did well at G and could play any OL spot. When he came from college, he was also listed as a LS and I think he still is on the Bronco's depth chart. That would indicate C skills. With the signing of Wiegmann and the uncertainty surrounding him, Nalen and Hamilton, maybe the Broncos can skip drafting a C. I see the previous three as centers. Nalen is unbelievable and Hamilton is a great football player in the mold of Bronco OL. But, they are both getting their butts kicked way too often now and I don't see it being much different with Wiegmann. Too bad about losing Eslinger.
by dardarsh on Mar 25, 2008 10:10 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hmmm...
Or is it that most of us just love mocks? I certainly do!
OOMPA LOOMPA, DOOMPADAH DEE
It's JaMakus Fail, RRRRRUUUUNNNN!!!!!
by Tim Lynch on Mar 24, 2008 11:49 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
When it comes to mocks, speculation and the like
And for a brief moment we can have our cake and eat it too :)
by MattR on Mar 24, 2008 1:20 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Zap
Guru has told me before that the heart and soul of MHR is the readers and the comments section.
I think the comments sections are almost always where the real fun and meat of the story lies. The editors might try to get a discussion going, but the readers take it and run with it and, more often than not, they end up surpassing the original story entirely. We are in total agreement.
by Steve Nichols on Mar 24, 2008 7:45 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nice Analysis.
I believe the best option would be to trade down and get DT Balmer or DT Sims with a late 1st or early 2nd.
We can get WR Bennett in the 2nd.
Doubling up on DT in the 4th or 5th with a guy like Okam might be a good idea too.
I really want us to take Lofton or Henderson in the 2nd round, but given the FA signings at LB, this isn't going to happen. However we should take a LB in the 4th or 5th. Goff seems like an outstanding late pick.
I agree with the need for an experianced backup at OT, but we should draft an OT too. A 4th or 5th makes sence to me.
This is Lynch's last year, we signed McCree to a 1 year dea, and Abdullah will be a FA next year. So the only real saefty we have for 09 is that FA signee Manuel. We need to draft someone, and spending the last of our 4 mid round picks on safety seems like the best option to me.
Spend the sixth on a Kicker or Punter. Sad thing for Elam to go.
Use the our 2 7th round pick to get another DL, OL, WR or S.
You might ask, what about the extra pick we get by trading down in the 1st? Well, I think we should get an extra pick next year. Taht way we get a better pick in return, and in the long run help the team.
Also keep roster limitation in mind. Too many picks can be as bad as too few picks. What if we have 9 young guys we want to keep and not enough roster spots? After all, these rookies are seldom ready to perform right out the gate, yet they hold more promise than the old veterans on the roster.
by amirebram on Mar 24, 2008 3:15 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Glad to see you back!
If we don't take a SAF this year, I've been led to believe that there will be several good SAFs in the '09 draft. I was big on Phillips, and it wouldn't kill me if we traded down and still managed to get him. SAF has always been my favorite position, and it kills me that Denver has been a box SS team. But I am at least happy to see four SAFs on our roster right now, none of whom are hybrids. McCree looks like a stop gap until we get an answet his year or next in the draft. If he pans out somewhat, he might get an extension (but I don't think that is the intent).
I also like all of the names you mentioned.
I understand the "too many draft picks" idea. But it remains a nice "problem" to have. I would hope that the staff would have the wisdom to know who to keep and who to bump as the cut deadlines come and go. Some of the key positions of need (like DT and WR and the OL positions) might be easier to weed out than we give the team credit for.
by Steve Nichols on Mar 24, 2008 7:56 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
More on Safety
Spending a 5th or 6th round pick on a Safety is pretty good investment as far as I am concerned. I know how we all talked about taking a top notch safety in 09, but how can we be suer that we have a shot? And if we get one, can the guy start from day 1?
On the other hand, let's say that we draft a safety in round 6. If he actually turns out to be a good player (5% chance), then our need for a safety next year won't be as acute... we will have options.
If he just turns out to be a backup or special teams player... well we would have lost nothing.
Keep in mind what I said about our current players. Lynch, McCree, and Abdullah will all be FAs in 09. What if we can't get any of them back? Then we will have Manuel as our only returning safety... the pressure it puts on the team is huge.
Taking a chance on a 5th or 6th round is just good gambling.
by amirebram on Mar 25, 2008 9:30 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Safeties
by dardarsh on Mar 25, 2008 10:43 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm thinking a great number...
I'm thinking (unless we make a pick for SAF) that McCree, Manuel, Abdullah, and Lynch will make the team. Rogers and Cargile will compete with each other (or with a potential draft pick) for the last spot.
Regardless, I expect Lynch to retire at season's end, and for us to pick up one or more SAFs next year to seriously compete with the "stop gap" guys to start. The SAFs have a lot to play for this year to protect their jobs going into next year.
by Steve Nichols on Mar 25, 2008 6:41 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Also, consider
Abdullah was being called a future star two seasons ago.
Underwood was already cut once. Ferguson is gone. Rogers and Cargile are special team players.
I don't know much about Vaughn.
by amirebram on Mar 27, 2008 2:22 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Okam may play O-Line at the next level
"Okam weighed in 12 pounds lighter than he did at the combine, tipping the scales at 335. His 40s were in the 5.2 area, a full .15 faster than his dash across the floor of the RCA Dome. He later participated in position drills, which included work on the offensive line. Okam's size, strength and mentality has a number of league decision-makers feeling he may be better as a blocker at the next level than on the defensive line."
by super7 on Mar 25, 2008 9:55 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Frank Okam
by dardarsh on Mar 25, 2008 10:53 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was
by Jon Tollerud on Mar 25, 2008 1:39 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I am very thoroughly confused
As just an example, look at the safety position. Sure there is plenty of depth for this year, but nothing is set for the future. The only player under contract for 2009 is Marquay Manuel and the cost to cut him after 2008 is minimal. Is Abdullah out of the long term picture after Denver failed to sign him to a long term deal? Is McCree intended as a stop gap for this year or is he someone Denver intends to bring back for a couple more years? Will McCree want to come back as a FA? The answer to all those questions affects where safety falls on the team's priority list.
Similarly, the cornerback position is defined by what Denver plans to do with Foxworth and Paymah when they become unrestricted free agents after 2008 . Denver won't place the franchise tag on their #3 CB so there is a pretty decent chance they could lose both of them. Or Denver may have an idea of what those guys are looking for and they think they can afford to keep one or both. It's possible that Denver has no idea, so there is just no way for even the most involved fan to know. If Denver expects to lose both Foxworth and Paymah, I can see them using a mid round pick on a CB who can return punts and kicks. If they are confident they can keep one or both, then they have no need to draft a CB this year.
About the only thing I would be willing to bet on is that Denver will draft at least one DT. There may be other positions that I am uncomfortable with, but I could live with the players on the roster if the season started tomorrow. If we had to start the 2008 season with our current DTs, we would be royally screwed. (I understand your feelings about a #2 WR, but I think that is hard to fill with a rookie WR. Of course that doesn't mean we shouldn't draft one this year to be our #2 next year, but I don't think we can expect to get much help in 2008 from any rookie WR we draft)
by MattR on Mar 25, 2008 5:51 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
You're right
You hit the nail on the head with the CB positions. I don't see Fox or Pay being regular #1 or #2 CBs in the future (with us), but they are both solid at nickle and dime positions. They are also about the same age, and playing behind two CBs that are near each other in terms of time left with the team. If we want to stagger retirements or cuts, this isn't a good position to be in. When Bailey and Bly go, we are left with Fox and Pay (and not for much longer).
They are just good enough that you would want to keep them both, but not quite good enough that you wouldn't pull the trigger for a nice trade.
I feel I have a better handle on SAF though. I think Manuel and McCree are both temporary stop gaps until we pursue the SAFs expected to be in the '09 draft (and perhaps a FA or two). One of them (McCree/Manuel) may work out enough to get an extension. I think Hamza is safe, and is just being pushed to prove himself with some competition. Lynch will retire, and the rest of the SAF depth is in danger of getting cut or traded before the regular season (including demoted Ferguson).
I agree that an immediate impact WR is not likely from the draft. But this is probably a rebuilding year (aiming for '09), and a rookie is the only likely option we have at this point. With Scheff and Marshall on the strong side (and Stokely in 3 WR sets), a rookie may get a little better chance to shine than normal. He also adds to our core youth offense that could be around for some time to come.
by Steve Nichols on Mar 25, 2008 6:55 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
FYI - Ferguson is a Free Agent
by MattR on Mar 25, 2008 7:30 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Some Giant Considerations
I've been thinking about what you said concerning CBs & Safeties. You convinced me of the necessity of drafting a S. However, I disagree w/your assessment of Foxworth and Paymah. I see them starting on other teams (in fact, Foxworth has already started at CB for the Broncos as far back as his rookie season). I think Shanahan low-tendered them to see if another team would be willing to surrender 3rd round picks. The Broncos need to figure out a way to keep both of them as Bailey and Bly are getting older now (Champ missed a game or two). They are five years younger than their counterparts. That's very high quality depth at CB. Only four guys needed there.
It may have been at this site that I saw a salary breakdown of the Broncos relating to the cap. I was shocked to see the amount of $ being paid to players no longer w/the team. When business scolds education and says it needs to be run like a business, is this what they're talking about?? No wonder Bowlen fired Sundquist and sacked a bunch of others!!
In the '07 draft, the Giants had eight picks. They all made the team and almost all of them played in the Super Bowl. They were a team in turmoil headed into the '07 season. Coughlin was on the hot seat, Barber had just retired and written a critical book, Strahan held out, Shockey acts like an idiot, etc. The Broncos find themselves in similar circumstances and have nine picks next month. Denver can do what the Giants did, but they have to help their rookies by giving them a decent chance of earning a roster spot. We all seem to agree that it won't be necessary to draft DE, OLB, C, QB, RB or TE ( see "the naked truth"). I don't see the necessity of drafting CB for the previously mentioned reasons. The draft must be structured to address needs with the best possible player available with special attention to the 7th round. Ahmad Bradshaw was the 250th player selected in '07. Remember him in the Giants' Wild Card Playoff run and in SB XLII? What did the Giants see in him not only to draft him, but to send Ryan Grant to the Packers just to make room for him on their roster?
Here is a mock draft using Denver's nine picks w/approximate #s:
#12=Chris Williams will be there or even Ryan Clady...maybe. It is imperative to draft the best possible LT.
#42=Trevor Laws. It is essential to draft two DTs. One with a motor and one big two-gap guy to keep the OL off the backers. Here's your motor guy who is really taking the draft seriously and putting his best into it.
#104=OK, S. You got through to me about draftng one, but it needs to be a guy who can compete and make the team. Let's try Craig Steltz, LSU. He's more of a SS, but the guy is a playmaker and a possible worthy replacement for Lynch who you think will retire after '08. He would be ST, too.
#115=Jeremy Zuttah OL Rutgers. In addition to the best LT available, the Broncos must have one other OL who is versatile like Chris Kuper. Zuttah has played G at Rutgers and RT the past two seasons. He is fast, very strong and was academic All-American at Rutgers. He could probably play any OL spot in the NFL.
#130=Owen Schmitt FB WVA. We have discussed FB relative to the Broncos before. If the Broncos get a FB, he must be a blocker. That's Schmitt. He broke ten facemasks at WVA and he wasn't even there all four years. The guy is a vicious blocker and can play TE/HB, run (Oklahoma remembers him running) and catch. He would help the running game and be a ST player, too. The Beast from the Big East.
#140=Frank Okam. See #42. Here's your two-gap guy to keep the OL occupied. I hear he is also being considered as an OT in the NFL. Shanahan greatly values versatility. Don't forget the Patriots playing Brown and Vrabel both ways. These guys all played both ways in HS. He would complement Marcus Thomas and Trevor Laws and would rejoin his former teammate, Tim Crowder. Big Franklin..soakin' up the blocks.
c.#177 (from Houston)=Ben Moffitt MLB So.Fla. He would not only be a worthy backup to Koutouvides, but would even challenge to start maybe even during his rookie season. I watch a lot of Big East football and this guy is a big hitter in the classic MLB mold. His stock is rising and he would be ST, too.
c.#202=Steve Johnson WR Kentucky. Check this guy out. He is a clutch receiver. I really think the Broncos could keep a couple of rookie receivers and this one has playmaking ability. Besides bonehead Marshall and Stokely (not getting any younger), who is there? Martinez, Colbert, Hamilton, Jacobs, McDaniel, etc.? Precisely! How about five WRs? Marshall, Stokley, Colbert and two rookies. Or you could make it six WRs due to only needing four CBs.
c.#209=Pierre Garcon WR Mount Union. Here's my other rookie WR. Check out his combine workout measurables plus his college production. Yes, I know he's Div.III, but he is the best athlete available at this spot of the draft. That's athlete, pronounced ATH-UH-LEET! I really think Steve Watson could coach this kid because he wants to be coached.
Which brings us to the beauty of all those rookies. You have their attention. They want to learn. Not a bunch of jaded FAs who have had several position coaches already. The free agent experiment has been tried and has yielded mixed results. Give the rookies a chance. The 4th, 5th, 6th & 7th rounders are relatively inexpensive, too. Don't forget CFAs. The Broncos currently have nine mostly pretty young ones and this year should be no different. '08 could have Giant implications!
by dardarsh on Mar 26, 2008 11:33 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I like your list...
I'd like to keep both of them too, but I think Denver will have a tough time keeping them both with the FA bloodbath predicted by MattR in the near future. We may have to give up starter potential (but current back-up) players for picks in order to stave off a salary cap disaster in a few years.
by Steve Nichols on Mar 26, 2008 12:50 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think the
Look at the positions that seem confusing, and then note the corellation with players who are FAs next year. Basically, Denver can't afford to sign anyone to a multi year deal right now unless it is bottom of the barrel. Almost none of those players are that worthless, so Denver's strategy seems aimed more at not drawing to much attention to the predicament.
Denver really values Hamza, Foxworth and Paymah. Denver also (correctly) recognizes that they will have to get lucky (in the form of no offers) if they want any of them on the roster in the future. From a salary cap position and from a contract leverage position, Denver is screwed, and so are any Broncos who are not tied up with rookie contracts, veteran contracts that extend past next year, or incoming rookies. This year and next year look to be the "thinning of the herd" that our free agent sprees have been leading to. The only way we keep some of these pivotal Broncos is if we get lucky and no one makes them an offer. Next year, we will probably try to sign one or two key guys, and wait for the rest to get sniped.
It sucks, but its coming...
by Jeremy Bolander on Mar 25, 2008 7:19 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's not just those two positions
I do agree with you about the Broncos situation regarding Hamza, Foxworth and Paymah, although part of me wonders if it was a bad omen that Hamza and the team could not come together on a long term deal this offseason.
by MattR on Mar 25, 2008 7:48 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ray of hope
by MN Bronco on Mar 26, 2008 11:31 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
True. True.
by MattR on Mar 26, 2008 12:52 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Solid point
by MN Bronco on Mar 26, 2008 2:15 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just for fun
by MattR on Mar 25, 2008 6:02 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs

by 






















