Its hard to swallow taking an End based on our great depth at the position.  That said, I think Jarvis Moss is a bust (zero technique, he'll be off the team in free agency and out of the league once he loses his speed).  I wouldn't be opposed to Denver grabbing Mendenhall here.  Although, I think RB's are commodities and don't believe in paying top dollar for them.  Its much more important to have a great scheme and a great line.

Clady scored a 17 on the Wonderlic (dead last among consensus first rounders).  There are also some concerns about his passion for the game.  I like Williams a lot and wouldn't scoff if Denver grabbed him.

Shanahan appears to be very impressed with Kuper and Pears.  I was surprised to learn that Harris is third on the depth chart.  Overall, I think we are a lot deeper at the position than the media seems to think.  Guard looks to me like a more distinctive need at this point.

I'd like to trade down as well.  A DT is an indispensable need for us.  Pat Sims would be great.  I could even stomach Kentwan Balmer if we grabbed him closer to the bottom of the first round.

In round two I have my heart set on Curtis Lofton but think he'll be long gone by the time we get to him in the 2nd round.

It is a tough spot for Denver and I think you made the most of it.  It might not be the choice that some of us would have made, but your logic makes sense.  If anything, it will probably piss off those of us who wanted Reggie Nelson over Jarvis Moss last year.

I should have added three words to my logic....

New York Giants...

Having all that D-line depth, especially at end, didn't hurt the Giants, that's for sure.

only because you needed a third option on the poll.  The third option would have been, yes its a solid pick but it will never happen. ;)  You should have taken Rashard Mendenhall.  I would actually love this pick if we hadn't already invested an entire draft last season on your DL.  We don't want to become the Detroit Lions of Defensive Ends.  ;)  You did screw over about 5 or 6 teams behind the Broncos that probably were looking forward to picking up Harvey though.  lol

it looks like Denver is positioned better than most teams in the top 10 to trade down.  There are at least 4 teams behind Denver that are in the top 20 that want Harvey.  The competition to get a deal struck would greatly benefit our team.  We may even get more in return than what we would be giving up for the #12 pick. :)

I like our position now as it pertains to trading the #12 pick to another team.  Unless, Shanny truly desires a franchise running back...then all this discussion is moot.  :)

I highly agree with you on Ryan Clady (scored a 12 on the wunderlicht<RETARD>) and Chris Williams. But do you really think that Pat Sims would be a better DT selection in the second round than Trevor Laws?

Trevor Laws not only has the physical traits necessary to excel at his position, but the guy is brilliant on top of that. He has tremendous agility, motor, strength and pretty good speed for a DT.

What do you like about Pat Sims so much?

When I first opened the page, I was shocked, a DE??? Aren't we set there? I don't know much about college football or the players, so as I kept reading, I grew to like this pick.

One of the things I want in players that we draft is motor & performance on the field. I think the NFL combine with the 40 times, bench presses, shuttle runs, etc is just good theater but nothing more than "is he still in shape" (aka, pulling a LenDale White).

So give me the guy who put up good numbers in college games, who has a bit of a mean streak, and has the attitude that he won't ever give up. Plus it gives us some flexibility to make a deal to trade him to drop down in the draft if we want to.

First, the reasoning is sound.

Second, while I might not have gone the same route as Guru, my first inclination is to say, "No way do we pick at 12!"  I want to trade down because I don't WANT an OT at 12.  I firmly believe that Denver can get a ZB lineman anywhere in the draft.  It is not a matter of how good the OL has been in college, but more an issue of if he would fit our system.

If I HAD to pick at 12 I might take an OT (Clady or Williams), but then I would have to deal with the fact that I have a lot of young guys on my OL who will have salary increases at about the same time and will leave at about the same time (which goes against my staggered retirement concept).

I'm very much intrigued with the idea that others have mentioned about getting this solid DE, and then offering him up as trade bait.  Worse case scenario is that we are stuck with a good player and no trade, while we STILL fix OT later in the draft.

If Mike is just blowing some pre-draft propaganda about Harris not being a starter, then Guru's idea makes even more sense.

The idea of taking Mendehall is a shocker, but I hadn't heard Shanahan's latest quote on Henry.  If that is what Mike said (and really means), then my only question would be is whether or not Mendenhall is indeed a one cut runner.

So I'm not sure whether or not I would go Guru's route, but the reasoning he lays out is solid enough that I am willing to reconsider the "conventional wisdom".  At this point (combining some of Shanahan's cryptic talk with some of the good reasoning from folks above, including Guru) I am rethinking a lot of things.  It annoys me to have to do so, but I guess the mark of a good fan (or coach or blog contributer) is being willing to face new facts and ideas and perhaps having to "go back to the drawing board".

Excellent reasoning, and very persuasive work Guru!

is WHY couldnt I have that pickture for our Draft? That is much better than the one of him lying on his back after the grab!

The last paragraph of your post is what I really like.

• Trade down in the first, the pick OT Williams
  
• Pick DT Sims with our early 2nd
  
• Pick WR Bennett with the extra pick we got from trading down.

There is only one problem. We have two trade down strategies:

1. Trade for a late 1st and a late 2nd round pick.
   
2. Trade down only a few spots in the 1st and get a mid 3rd round pick.

In the first case, we won't be able to draft C Williams, since he will not last into the 20's. But we could use the late 2nd on WR Bennett.

In the second case, we could get Williams, but we will not be able to get Bennett with a mid to late 3rd round pick. I have looked everywhere, and there is no one that thinks Bennett will get past the first 10 picks in the 3rd round. Just not possible.

Basically what I am saying is that the Broncos are going to need a lot of luck and some inventive moves to get those 3 guys the way we want them to.

only because we have 3 young d-ends, already, from the past 2 drafts. what is with this approach anyway, with mike assigning blame to a particular position(s), and then getting like 3 guys to fill the "lacking" area. we did this with cornerbacks after the colts killed us, receivers, the browncos, skill positions in the offense(cutler, walker, henry), this year in free agency w/a bunch of linebackers, now we are going to draft a slew of linemen? i don't see any other team do this, and maybe that is why denver has the fewest drafted players on its own roster in the nfl. i would like to see more balance in the drafting positions this year, not just a bunch of ol and dl, so the problem appears "fixed". each year there is a new unit (or 2), and a new coach for it. how about drafting 1 player at each level of the defense, a tackle and a guard, a receiver, returner, kicker, and punter(yes, we need it all on special teams). done! we don't need anybody at qb, rb, or te, at all. that takes care of our "needs", and this way we have some cohesion for THIS year, and good competition across the board for the starters. are we going to draft 5+ linemen, now?

The we are talking about a team that draft 3 straight corners in the same draft.  Standard logic need not and does not apply.