PDA

View Full Version : Brandon Lloyd to Rams... What it means for us


broncocalijohn
10-17-2011, 09:58 AM
What does Brandon Lloyd going to the Rams over other contending teams like the Patriots and 49ers? Easy. Rams, at 0-5, are going to picking in the top 10 and probably top 5 regardless of adding Lloyd or not. Rams and our Top 5 pick in the first round (assuming we are getting a high 2nd round from Rams...hopefully) is going to be part of a packaged deal to go after Andrew Luck. If the Lloyd draft pick is that high, I have no doubts about where the F.O. of the Broncos is headed. Also, for the Rams side, McDaniels also needs a Pro Bowl type receiver for his offense. As of right now, the Average Joe method is not helping one iota for the worst offense in the league. Tebow will have his chance this season but I am doubting it will make much of a defense to Elway, Xanders, Bowlen or Fox. Only tough part is getting around the Colts who seems they would love to have their follow up to Manning. What a crappy year for the league to have Manning go down. In my opinion, the Suck for Luck campaign has begun.

The Joker
10-17-2011, 10:01 AM
You're going to be very disappointed if you're expecting a 2nd for Lloyd IMO.

broncocalijohn
10-17-2011, 10:08 AM
You're going to be very disappointed if you're expecting a 2nd for Lloyd IMO.

I know and I would figure that something else is in the package. Knowing other teams were interested in Lloyd, I just had the feeling that Suck for Luck would fit better with a trade to a ****ty team like the Rams. Sure enough who gets the Lloyd sweepstakes but the 0-5 Rams. We won't know until the draft and our end of year record but it is lining up for a possibly Luck campaign.
If we are getting a 3rd or worse, then I am not sure what type of package gets us the #1 pick. Our #1 (which is to say a top 5 for argument sake) plus a very high #3 will do it. Either our #2 or future high pick will need to be thrown in there.

DrFate
10-17-2011, 10:10 AM
You're going to be very disappointed if you're expecting a 2nd for Lloyd IMO.

very

missingnumber7
10-17-2011, 10:12 AM
If we get a 4th or 5th for Lloyd I would be happy. I am willing to bet it will be a 6th more than likely.

Pick Six
10-17-2011, 10:12 AM
You're going to be very disappointed if you're expecting a 2nd for Lloyd IMO.

Why? They are desperate for WR help...

Tombstone RJ
10-17-2011, 10:12 AM
What does Brandon Lloyd going to the Rams over other contending teams like the Patriots and 49ers? Easy. Rams, at 0-5, are going to picking in the top 10 and probably top 5 regardless of adding Lloyd or not. Rams and our Top 5 pick in the first round (assuming we are getting a high 2nd round from Rams...hopefully) is going to be part of a packaged deal to go after Andrew Luck. If the Lloyd draft pick is that high, I have no doubts about where the F.O. of the Broncos is headed. Also, for the Rams side, McDaniels also needs a Pro Bowl type receiver for his offense. As of right now, the Average Joe method is not helping one iota for the worst offense in the league. Tebow will have his chance this season but I am doubting it will make much of a defense to Elway, Xanders, Bowlen or Fox. Only tough part is getting around the Colts who seems they would love to have their follow up to Manning. What a crappy year for the league to have Manning go down. In my opinion, the Suck for Luck campaign has begun.

I disagree. There's no way the Broncos will have the ammo to get Luck. The Broncos cannot say they are going to build through the draft and then trade away a huge package of draft picks for Luck.

What about the defense?

ScottXray
10-17-2011, 10:13 AM
We are not getting the Rams #2, and probably not their 3rd either.

Josh didn't make the trade although he probably sold the Rams that Lloyd was going to be their best receiver and would be a #1WR for them, and help
their offense a LOT. And he probably will.

If we do get a 3 or 2 then we will have got a great deal for a receiver that
was not in out plans for the future.

Dr. Broncenstein
10-17-2011, 10:15 AM
I hope it means that the mythical beast "Bay Bay" is possibly ready to contribute again. Chuck it deep to Snuffy.

Agamemnon
10-17-2011, 10:15 AM
I know and I would figure that something else is in the package. Knowing other teams were interested in Lloyd, I just had the feeling that Suck for Luck would fit better with a trade to a ****ty team like the Rams. Sure enough who gets the Lloyd sweepstakes but the 0-5 Rams. We won't know until the draft and our end of year record but it is lining up for a possibly Luck campaign.
If we are getting a 3rd or worse, then I am not sure what type of package gets us the #1 pick. Our #1 (which is to say a top 5 for argument sake) plus a very high #3 will do it. Either our #2 or future high pick will need to be thrown in there.

Trading up for Luck, especially if we don't at least have the #2 or #3 pick is going to take more than I care to even think about. The level of incompetence it would take to make that trade boggles my mind...

Pick Six
10-17-2011, 10:15 AM
What about the defense?

Oh, yeah. That's going to be ignored, again...

Gort
10-17-2011, 10:17 AM
I disagree. There's no way the Broncos will have the ammo to get Luck. The Broncos cannot say they are going to build through the draft and then trade away a huge package of draft picks for Luck.

What about the defense?

i think 0-6 Indy is in the tank for the #1 pick. they've already lost to CIN, CLE, and KC.

the Broncos would also have to beat out 0-4 Miami, 1-5 Jacksonville, 0-5 St. Louis, 1-4 Arizona, 1-5 Carolina, and 1-5 Minnesota in the race for the #1 pick.

it's a longshot at best.

Agamemnon
10-17-2011, 10:17 AM
Why? They are desperate for WR help...

Because, by all reports, Lloyd's market value was sitting at a 6th rounder before this trade went through. Just because they need a receiver doesn't mean they are going to overspend to that degree.

DarkHorse
10-17-2011, 10:23 AM
If the Broncos want Luck they better start thinking Mike Ditka/Ricky Williams type deal.

oubronco
10-17-2011, 10:25 AM
It means they are putting all there eggs in the basket that their oft injured WR's can stay healthy......Good luck

broncocalijohn
10-17-2011, 10:37 AM
Just for the record, I put in the poll last week that we win at least 4 games more this season. That puts us probably right outside the Top 5 draft picks. With Lloyd gone and who know what Tebow will do with our present wideouts, it might cost us a game or two. Hopefully the Rams win some games with an added player. McDaniels has got to be feeling the heat. We were going to get decent compensation for Lloyd so for those that state that we are getting a 4th or 5th might not add up to a sandwich pick in 2013.... unless we want the players now and not wait another year.

Rohirrim
10-17-2011, 10:39 AM
Following the Broncos' FO is starting to feel like following the Rockies' FO.

Hercules Rockefeller
10-17-2011, 10:41 AM
i think 0-6 Indy is in the tank for the #1 pick. they've already lost to CIN, CLE, and KC.

the Broncos would also have to beat out 0-4 Miami, 1-5 Jacksonville, 0-5 St. Louis, 1-4 Arizona, 1-5 Carolina, and 1-5 Minnesota in the race for the #1 pick.

it's a longshot at best.

The Jags and Colts still have to play twice, and both Miami and Minnesota have Denver at home.

Carolina's been in close in numerous games, they're not going 1-15.

Arizona and StL are in the NFCW and will beat up on each other along with Seattle.

Denver's not in a great spot since they've already won a game, but they're not a longshot either with their remaining schedule, especially if they lose @Miami this weekend.

yerner
10-17-2011, 10:42 AM
Remember when Joshy gave up a 4th for Lawrence Maroney? That was awesome.

ghwk
10-17-2011, 10:42 AM
I hope it means that the mythical beast "Bay Bay" is possibly ready to contribute again. Chuck it deep to Snuffy.

He's a unicorn, wonderful to think about but doesn't really exist to actually do anything for you.

Hercules Rockefeller
10-17-2011, 10:44 AM
I know and I would figure that something else is in the package. Knowing other teams were interested in Lloyd, I just had the feeling that Suck for Luck would fit better with a trade to a ****ty team like the Rams. Sure enough who gets the Lloyd sweepstakes but the 0-5 Rams. We won't know until the draft and our end of year record but it is lining up for a possibly Luck campaign.
If we are getting a 3rd or worse, then I am not sure what type of package gets us the #1 pick. Our #1 (which is to say a top 5 for argument sake) plus a very high #3 will do it. Either our #2 or future high pick will need to be thrown in there.

3rd overall, 2nd round pick (#36 overall), future 1st and 2 players

That's what it took the Chargers to move up from #3 to #2 just to get whoever the Colts decided not to take out of Manning and Leaf.

If you want to think about what it would take to acquire Luck through trade, start with a similar package and add a lot more.

Rohirrim
10-17-2011, 10:44 AM
The Jags and Colts still have to play twice, and both Miami and Minnesota have Denver at home.

Carolina's been in close in numerous games, they're not going 1-15.

Arizona and StL are in the NFCW and will beat up on each other along with Seattle.

Denver's not in a great spot since they've already won a game, but they're not a longshot either with their remaining schedule, especially if they lose @Miami this weekend.

My nightmare: Tebow wins just enough games to take us out of a shot for Luck and in three years, Luck is going to his first SB and we're still arguing about Tebow's "development."

Agamemnon
10-17-2011, 10:45 AM
Denver's not in a great spot since they've already won a game, but they're not a longshot either with their remaining schedule, especially if they lose @Miami this weekend.

Denver has a game against Miami, two games against KC, a game against Minnesota, and a another game against a Raiders team that just lost their starting QB. If we're going to look at various teams' schedules, I'd say ours is pretty favorable for not having the worst record in the league. Especially when compared to teams like St. Louis and Indianapolis.

Agamemnon
10-17-2011, 10:49 AM
My nightmare: Tebow wins just enough games to take us out of a shot for Luck and in three years, Luck is going to his first SB and we're still arguing about Tebow's "development."

My nightmare: we trade away Tebow prematurely, use a ton of picks to acquire Luck, and in the process gimp our rebuilding process in every other area. And then in a few years, a team that had the patience and foresight to give Tebow a chance to develop goes to the Super Bowl, while we still argue over how to fix the gaping hole at DT.

Eldorado
10-17-2011, 10:49 AM
My nightmare: Tebow wins just enough games to take us out of a shot for Luck and in three years, Luck is going to his first SB and we're still arguing about Tebow's "development."

Solution?

Trade away wide receivers.

?? ? ?

Profit

Rohirrim
10-17-2011, 10:51 AM
My nightmare: we trade away Tebow prematurely, use a ton of picks to acquire Luck, and in the process gimp our rebuilding process in every other area. And then in a few years, a team that had the patience and foresight to give Tebow a chance to develop goes to the Super Bowl, while we still argue over how to fix the gaping hole at DT.

Oh, don't worry. We'll still be arguing about the gaping hole at DT years from now, no matter what else happns. ROFL!

Gort
10-17-2011, 10:51 AM
The Jags and Colts still have to play twice, and both Miami and Minnesota have Denver at home.

Carolina's been in close in numerous games, they're not going 1-15.

Arizona and StL are in the NFCW and will beat up on each other along with Seattle.

Denver's not in a great spot since they've already won a game, but they're not a longshot either with their remaining schedule, especially if they lose @Miami this weekend.

if any of the 0-for teams decide to just lose the rest of their games, there's nothing we can do to catch them. that's what i mean by longshot. i think Indy is willing to go 0-16 because this is their one shot at getting a top QB replacement for Manning. also, Irsay is a POS and i can completely see him privately conspiring with his GM and HC.

Agamemnon
10-17-2011, 10:52 AM
Oh, don't worry. We'll still be arguing about the gaping hole at DT years from now, no matter what else happns. ROFL!

Then it probably doesn't matter who our QB is...

cabronco
10-17-2011, 10:54 AM
Dang, what were we thinking..put Orton back in there !! ;D

Hercules Rockefeller
10-17-2011, 10:57 AM
if any of the 0-for teams decide to just lose the rest of their games, there's nothing we can do to catch them. that's what i mean by longshot. i think Indy is willing to go 0-16 because this is their one shot at getting a top QB replacement for Manning. also, Irsay is a POS and i can completely see him privately conspiring with his GM and HC.

No team's management is going to tell its players to lose games and no player who is playing for his next contract is going to play any less hard for the hopes of acquiring a rookie.

****, teams throw a fit if somebody rests their starters in the final game, if it got out that someone had told their team to straight tank for Luck over multiple games, the League would step in.

bendog
10-17-2011, 10:57 AM
Den's only chance for Luck is if they lose to Mia, which I doubt they do even with Adam Weber at qb. Nobody likes to play for a losing team, in any endeavor in any profession, and Fox wants WRs who block, and both Lloyd (who has a history of pissing off coaches) and Royal they aren't in the longterm plans.

Houshyamama
10-17-2011, 11:00 AM
If we get a 3rd for Lloyd I'll be ecstatic. I bet we get a 5th though. If St. Louis can lock him into a modest 3 year contract, they'll make out like bandits.

Rohirrim
10-17-2011, 11:00 AM
No team's management is going to tell its players to lose games and no player who is playing for his next contract is going to play any less hard for the hopes of acquiring a rookie.

****, teams throw a fit if somebody rests their starters in the final game, if it got out that someone had told their team to straight tank for Luck over multiple games, the League would step in.

Didn't Irsay announce that he would retire when Manning retires?

Hercules Rockefeller
10-17-2011, 11:02 AM
As bad as Miami is, Denver has never won there in franchise history and they traditionally aren't that good when playing the early game on the East Coast.

Agamemnon
10-17-2011, 11:04 AM
As bad as Miami is, Denver has never won there in franchise history and they traditionally aren't that good when playing the early game on the East Coast.

When was the last time the Broncos starting QB was from Florida and worshipped there as a demigod though? With how bad Miami is and Tebow starting I really don't put much stock in the Broncos past there.

Houshyamama
10-17-2011, 11:04 AM
As bad as Miami is, Denver has never won there in franchise history and they traditionally aren't that good when playing the early game on the East Coast.

The Florida humidity and heat have really affected us from what I've seen, hopefully it is a bit cooler on Sunday. I think it was in 2006 we opened the season there and gone our ass kicked before going 13-3. The fans were blasting on our sideline and the players looked downright gassed from almost the moment the game started.

Gort
10-17-2011, 11:06 AM
No team's management is going to tell its players to lose games and no player who is playing for his next contract is going to play any less hard for the hopes of acquiring a rookie.

****, teams throw a fit if somebody rests their starters in the final game, if it got out that someone had told their team to straight tank for Luck over multiple games, the League would step in.

notice is said Owner, HC, & GM. i didn't mention the players.

bendog
10-17-2011, 11:06 AM
As bad as Miami is, Denver has never won there in franchise history and they traditionally aren't that good when playing the early game on the East Coast.

Thank you. Seriously.

Hercules Rockefeller
10-17-2011, 11:11 AM
When was the last time the Broncos starting QB was from Florida and worshipped there as a demigod though? With how bad Miami is and Tebow starting I really don't put much stock in the Broncos past there.

QB Jesus is 1 player, and last I checked, he lives in the Mountain Time Zone like the rest of the team.

Denver's not a good East Coast team, as much as you'd like to look past it.

Their 2 losses in '98 on an absolutely loaded team was an early East Coast game and a MNF game in Miami in December.

This Denver team is clearly not that good either and will probably have traded at least their best WR.

Pony Boy
10-17-2011, 11:13 AM
The Florida humidity and heat have really affected us from what I've seen, hopefully it is a bit cooler on Sunday. I think it was in 2006 we opened the season there and gone our ass kicked before going 13-3. The fans were blasting on our sideline and the players looked downright gassed from almost the moment the game started.

Hummmm ..... I wonder if Tebow can play in the Flordia hunidity? ;D

bronco militia
10-17-2011, 11:13 AM
a 6th rounder...yawn.

there's no doubt I'll have to google the players name on draft day.

Hercules Rockefeller
10-17-2011, 11:14 AM
notice is said Owner, HC, & GM. i didn't mention the players.

Again, no team is going to conspire like that to acquire Luck. The League isn't going to allow someone to throw the competitive balance like that because everyone who doesn't have the Colts on their schedule is going to throw a fit.

UberBroncoMan
10-17-2011, 11:17 AM
(assuming we are getting a high 2nd round from Rams.

You think we're a baller FO?

We traded him for a ****ing 6th.

http://kansascity.sbnation.com/2011/10/17/2495361/nfl-trade-rumors-eddie-royal-brandon-lloyd-could-bring-interesting

bendog
10-17-2011, 11:18 AM
Again, no team is going to conspire like that to acquire Luck. The League isn't going to allow someone to throw the competitive balance like that because everyone who doesn't have the Colts on their schedule is going to throw a fit.

People need to face it that the only way Den gets close to Luck is if Tebow lays a steaming turd out there for the rest of the season and makes us wish for Orton.

ColoradoDarin
10-17-2011, 11:18 AM
The Florida humidity and heat have really affected us from what I've seen, hopefully it is a bit cooler on Sunday. I think it was in 2006 we opened the season there and gone our ass kicked before going 13-3. The fans were blasting on our sideline and the players looked downright gassed from almost the moment the game started.

I'm in NE Florida and we're supposed to get a big cool front on Wednesday, but I don't know how long it will last. Whatever it is, it won't be like that game in2006 or the opener here last year, fall might just be arriving this week.

Rohirrim
10-17-2011, 11:18 AM
Again, no team is going to conspire like that to acquire Luck. The League isn't going to allow someone to throw the competitive balance like that because everyone who doesn't have the Colts on their schedule is going to throw a fit.

Looking at the rest of the Colts' schedule, they should have no problem losing all of those games without raising any suspicions.

bronco militia
10-17-2011, 11:19 AM
People need to face it that the only way Den gets close to Luck is if Tebow lays a steaming turd out there for the rest of the season and makes us wish for Orton.

if we still had Larry Coyer coaching this defense the broncos would be a lock

bendog
10-17-2011, 11:22 AM
Looking at the rest of the Colts' schedule, they should have no problem losing all of those games without raising any suspicions.

Funny thing is ... I googled and didn't find any mention of Payaton having a no trade clause, and even found some stuff about how trading or even cutting him would save a boatload of money and cap.

Gort
10-17-2011, 11:23 AM
Again, no team is going to conspire like that to acquire Luck. The League isn't going to allow someone to throw the competitive balance like that because everyone who doesn't have the Colts on their schedule is going to throw a fit.

what do you think they do in those closed door meetings between the coach and GM? they talk about the needs of the team and the deficiancies on the roster and what sorts of moves they can make to fix those problems. it's very easy for the GM to decide NOT to go and find a high level replacement for QB if there is a silver lining come draft day. these are the Colts. i know that franchise. i knew the elder Irsay's mindset. his son is like him in some ways. Bob Irsay packed up the team in Mayflower vans and fled Baltimore in the middle of the night, all the while swearing that he was NOT in negotiations to move the team. i'll tell you with absolute certainty that both Irasy and Polian are capable of meeting privately and deciding that it's not a bad option to play a young and inexperienced QB in Manning's place this year because they may end up with a chance for Luck and their fans would be willing to tolerate a down year after all of their recent years of success. not every owner and GM in the league would be on board with this sort of thinking, but Irsay is one who would.

broncocalijohn
10-17-2011, 11:23 AM
You think we're a baller FO?

We traded him for a ****ing 6th.

http://kansascity.sbnation.com/2011/10/17/2495361/nfl-trade-rumors-eddie-royal-brandon-lloyd-could-bring-interesting

What is in it for us except to tank. I really thought we would package something to get a 2nd from a team. This looks like we are dumping just for the sake of sucking. Here is a quote form the above link that could have been stated for the Broncos. I hope I hear something of an excuse better than "This will make our team better in the future." Yeah, so many 6th (and outside chance for a 5th) round picks become someone with Lloyd's potential.

"...The interesting thing is that if St. Louis allows Lloyd to walk after this season and he signs a nice deal elsewhere, they will likely receive a compensation pick around the same rounds anyway. If things play out that way, that means the Rams didnít lose much at all and grabbed a solid target for Sam Bradford. "

UberBroncoMan
10-17-2011, 11:24 AM
What is in it for us except to tank. I really thought we would package something to get a 2nd from a team. This looks like we are dumping just for the sake of sucking. Here is a quote form the above link that could have been stated for the Broncos. I hope I hear something of an excuse better than "This will make our team better in the future." Yeah, so many 6th (and outside chance for a 5th) round picks become someone with Lloyd's potential.

"...The interesting thing is that if St. Louis allows Lloyd to walk after this season and he signs a nice deal elsewhere, they will likely receive a compensation pick around the same rounds anyway. If things play out that way, that means the Rams didnít lose much at all and grabbed a solid target for Sam Bradford. "

They raped us in the trade. The End.

broncocalijohn
10-17-2011, 11:25 AM
if we still had Larry Coyer coaching this defense the broncos would be a lock

Of all the D.C.'s Shanny had and tossed during his last part of his tenure, Coyer was probably the best of the bunch. He had done a pretty good job in Indy.

TheReverend
10-17-2011, 11:25 AM
(assuming we are getting a high 2nd round from Rams.

:spit:LOLROFL!Ha!

bendog
10-17-2011, 11:28 AM
hey it may be the second pick of the fifth round.

BroncoBuff
10-17-2011, 11:29 AM
This offense is ridiculously young ... substitute Demaryius for Lloyd and we must be approaching a record.


OL: Youngest in franchise history, starters avg = 3rd year
WR: Decker and Demaryous in 2nd year, Royal and Willis 4th
TE: Fells 4th, Thomas R
RB: Knowshon 3rd, Larsen 4th, old man McGahee in his 9th
QB: Tebow 2nd


These 15 regulars have 35 years played plus current season = 50 years.

50 divided 15 = 3.33 year average. That's crazy young.

Rohirrim
10-17-2011, 11:30 AM
"...The interesting thing is that if St. Louis allows Lloyd to walk after this season and he signs a nice deal elsewhere, they will likely receive a compensation pick around the same rounds anyway. If things play out that way, that means the Rams didnít lose much at all and grabbed a solid target for Sam Bradford. "

That's why the only logical excuse for this is if the Broncos wanted him out of the lockerroom this week, for some reason.

bendog
10-17-2011, 11:31 AM
That's why the only logical excuse for this is if the Broncos wanted him out of the lockerroom this week, for some reason.

yep. Wonder what that could be...... (jeopardy music)

broncocalijohn
10-17-2011, 11:32 AM
Buff, who is going to lead us for the rest of the year as a #1? Royal? Hurt Thomas? Come on. Youth is great but I would like one dude to stick around that will take the leadership role and literally run with it. Lloyd did that.
I was asking a lot for a package deal for a 2nd with Lloyd involved but that was on the basis of Suck for Luck. This is more laughable as we get raped for a 6th round pick for what? That has nothing to do with Luck except to suck now. That pick is barely a deciding factor on draft pick trades.

eddie mac
10-17-2011, 11:35 AM
Let's just see how long Thomas lasts. I give it 2 games max.

broncocalijohn
10-17-2011, 11:44 AM
Let's just see how long Thomas lasts. I give it 2 games max.

Last before getting injured or last before the front office trades him for a 5th round pick?

bronco militia
10-17-2011, 11:44 AM
Compensatory Draft Picks

The term "compensatory picks" is used to describe extra picks that teams are awarded at the ends of rounds three through seven in the NFL draft. The rules state that a team that loses more free agents than it signs will be given one of these compensatory picks. Where these picks are placed in regards to which round of the draft they can be made during is based on a complex formula. Teams that lose and then sign an equal amount of players but suffer the loss of higher valued players than the ones that they had the ability to sign will receive one of these picks, but these choices will always come in the last round of the draft. Compensatory picks are determined in March at the NFL meetings, which take place approximately one month before the draft.


Read more: NFL Draft Rules & Regulations | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/about_4760063_nfl-draft-rules-regulations.html#ixzz1b3utQNgV

bendog
10-17-2011, 11:47 AM
So... so wait. Like you're saying we could ALSO get compensatory picks?

Pick Six
10-17-2011, 11:51 AM
This offense is ridiculously young ... substitute Demaryius for Lloyd and we must be approaching a record.


OL: Youngest in franchise history, starters avg = 3rd year
WR: Decker and Demaryous in 2nd year, Royal and Willis 4th
TE: Fells 4th, Thomas R
RB: Knowshon 3rd, Larsen 4th, old man McGahee in his 9th
QB: Tebow 2nd


These 15 regulars have 35 years played plus current season = 50 years.

50 divided 15 = 3.33 year average. That's crazy young.

So, we have a diaper offense to go with a defense that just smells like ****? That makes sense...

NFLBRONCO
10-17-2011, 11:56 AM
We must go 0-11 to even have any shot at Luck imo. The Colts and Miami are front runners for Luck.

NFLBRONCO
10-17-2011, 11:58 AM
This offense is ridiculously young ... substitute Demaryius for Lloyd and we must be approaching a record.


OL: Youngest in franchise history, starters avg = 3rd year
WR: Decker and Demaryous in 2nd year, Royal and Willis 4th
TE: Fells 4th, Thomas R
RB: Knowshon 3rd, Larsen 4th, old man McGahee in his 9th
QB: Tebow 2nd


These 15 regulars have 35 years played plus current season = 50 years.

50 divided 15 = 3.33 year average. That's crazy young.

We are young but, are we good or scary for teams umm NO.

txtebow
10-17-2011, 12:00 PM
What does Brandon Lloyd going to the Rams over other contending teams like the Patriots and 49ers? Easy. Rams, at 0-5, are going to picking in the top 10 and probably top 5 regardless of adding Lloyd or not. Rams and our Top 5 pick in the first round (assuming we are getting a high 2nd round from Rams...hopefully) is going to be part of a packaged deal to go after Andrew Luck. If the Lloyd draft pick is that high, I have no doubts about where the F.O. of the Broncos is headed. Also, for the Rams side, McDaniels also needs a Pro Bowl type receiver for his offense. As of right now, the Average Joe method is not helping one iota for the worst offense in the league. Tebow will have his chance this season but I am doubting it will make much of a defense to Elway, Xanders, Bowlen or Fox. Only tough part is getting around the Colts who seems they would love to have their follow up to Manning. What a crappy year for the league to have Manning go down. In my opinion, the Suck for Luck campaign has begun.


try a 6th or conditional 5th round pick there guy........


http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/10/17/rams-gave-up-conditional-sixth-round-pick-for-lloyd/

UberBroncoMan
10-17-2011, 12:06 PM
We must go 0-11 to even have any shot at Luck imo. The Colts and Miami are front runners for Luck.

This week's game will pretty much determine if we're in or out of it.

DeuceOfClub
10-17-2011, 12:09 PM
If the Rams are still ahead of us comes draft day, and we get their 5th rounder, and Luck drops all the way down to the 5th round, and Tebow doesn't prove he's our long-term solution.
This trade can mean a lot.

broncocalijohn
10-17-2011, 12:09 PM
try a 6th or conditional 5th round pick there guy........


http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/10/17/rams-gave-up-conditional-sixth-round-pick-for-lloyd/

I think we already have gone over that part of the trade.

txtebow
10-17-2011, 12:10 PM
I think we already have gone over that part of the trade.

then delete your now meaningless thread. BF7

Captain 'Dre
10-17-2011, 12:17 PM
You're going to be very disappointed if you're expecting a 2nd for Lloyd IMO.

No schidt! I hear it's a 6th! ugh!~

broncocalijohn
10-17-2011, 12:18 PM
then delete your now meaningless thread. BF7

I twas discussed a few pages ago. Your post was far from the first of knowing what we got. It is the internet age, we find out the goods quicker now. As for deleting it, the discussion has still be on topic of the trade so no need to do it. It makes my hope of a package deal for a 2nd far fetched but a hope and a dream and a possible scenario didnt materialize.

oubronco
10-17-2011, 12:20 PM
Let's just see how long Thomas lasts. I give it 2 games max.

If we're lucky

BroncoBuff
10-17-2011, 12:23 PM
Buff, who is going to lead us for the rest of the year as a #1? Royal? Hurt Thomas? Come on. Youth is great but I would like one dude to stick around that will take the leadership role and literally run with it. Lloyd did that.
I was asking a lot for a package deal for a 2nd with Lloyd involved but that was on the basis of Suck for Luck. We get raped for a 6th round pick for what? That has nothing to do with Luck except to suck now. That pick is barely a deciding factor on draft pick trades.

You're right of course. It's probably a 5th-rounder, conditional potential 4th, maaaybe 3rd, but that's only if he leads the team and goes to the Pro Bowl, that kind of unlikely stuff. So you're right, just check the draft pick points chart, this trade is zero help.

Still, you guys who are so sure we won't have the ammo to trade ... you're just wrong. Lots depends also on who is above us:

I'm hoping Vikings, Panthers, Rams, Colts. They suck mule, but already have their QBs
On the other end Chefs, Dolphins, Jaguars, Seahawks, Cardinals, couple-three ahead of us and we're probably out of it.


Our ammo:
PLAYERS: We only have three guys worth a 3rd or better (Miller and Clady, Elvis less)
PICKS: If we're sitting 4, 5 or 6, that's big bang (even though it means Tebow wins just 3 or 4)


A guy like Ryan Clady could be the key. Painful to think about, but if the Rams are #1, a proven All-Pro LT like Clady to protect Bradford would be very enticing. Add our 1st and 2nd, that might do it. Of the list above, looks like only the Dolphins could match that.

Personally, I'd rather keep the picks (and Ryan Clady), and just go with Barkley or Landry Jones. Or if Tebow kicks ass (obviously best scenario), defense and more defense. Or the RB from Alabama ... good grief, he's everything Knowshon is not.

TheReverend
10-17-2011, 12:26 PM
^ Buff you continually seem to be forgetting about Blaine Gabbert...

BroncoBuff
10-17-2011, 12:40 PM
^ Buff you continually seem to be forgetting about Blaine Gabbert...

That's cause the b!tch tripped Boulder informally, and wouldn't talk to staff. He's dead to me.

Landry Jones on the other hand, he narrowed to 7 schools halfway through senior year, then to two when the season ended: Oklahoma and Colorado, and he announced the week before LOI day. We know who he picked, but I ain't mad at him, he handled the entire process like a man, he really did. Very impressive.

NFLBRONCO
10-17-2011, 12:44 PM
We can sweeten the pot for Luck now

BroncoBuff
10-17-2011, 12:50 PM
Not really. I don't know the points chart offhand, but let's say the #1 pick is worth 500 points. If so, the 5th rounder we'll get is worth maybe 18. It's that big a spread.

Sim Pilot 4.0
10-17-2011, 12:51 PM
It means that Fox is being forced to shape the team around TT right now. Not sure if we want to do this until we find out what Tebow has but our WR's are young and can possibley fit Tebows style.

cabronco
10-17-2011, 12:53 PM
We must go 0-11 to even have any shot at Luck imo. The Colts and Miami are front runners for Luck.


Thats why I dont buy the S4L theory. There's too much sucking competition..lol. Plus even if we were close, with this teams lack of luck, another team would bounce us out of contention.

Agamemnon
10-17-2011, 12:56 PM
It means that Fox is being forced to shape the team around TT right now. Not sure if we want to do this until we find out what Tebow has but our WR's are young and can possibley fit Tebows style.

How does it mean that in any way?

Agamemnon
10-17-2011, 12:57 PM
Not really. I don't know the points chart offhand, but let's say the #1 pick is worth 500 points. If so, the 5th rounder we'll get is worth maybe 18. It's that big a spread.

It's more like 3000 to 30 or the like.

BroncoBuff
10-17-2011, 01:03 PM
^ Buff you continually seem to be forgetting about Blaine Gabbert...I looked at it, you're right but you might be wrong. How does Luck compare with Cam Newton coming out? Because just as the Panthers kicked Claussen to the curb, so might the Jags with Gabbert. Heck, the Vikings might kick Ponder. And the Colts ... how old is Manning?

I guess I'm wondering whether Luck is a mega-force guy like Newton.



So, we have a diaper offense to go with a defense that just smells like ****? That makes sense...
Yeah, but I LIKE IT! I've been a Broncos fan 40 years (good grief :oyvey:), and I've never seen anything like this. This is the mother of all rebuilding years, and we really must embrace the pain. I would've let Champ and Dawkins go, too ... I'm embracing, I'm embracing.

Agamemnon
10-17-2011, 01:04 PM
I looked at it, you're right but you might be wrong. How does Luck compare with Cam Newton coming out? Because just as the Panthers kicked Claussen to the curb, so might the Jags with Gabbert. Heck, the Vikings might kick Ponder. And the Colts ... how old is Manning?

I guess I'm wondering whether Luck is a mega-force guy like Newton.




Yeah, but I LIKE IT! I've been a Broncos fan 40 years (good grief :oyvey:), and I've never seen anything like this. This is the mother of all rebuilding years, and we really must embrace the pain. I would've let Champ and Dawkins go, too ... I'm embracing, I'm embracing.

Luck >>>> Cam Newton as a college prospect. But then again Blaine Gabbert >>>> Jimmy Clausen.

Sim Pilot 4.0
10-17-2011, 01:11 PM
How does it mean that in any way?

Some things should not need explanation.

TheReverend
10-17-2011, 01:35 PM
I looked at it, you're right but you might be wrong. How does Luck compare with Cam Newton coming out? Because just as the Panthers kicked Claussen to the curb, so might the Jags with Gabbert. Heck, the Vikings might kick Ponder. And the Colts ... how old is Manning?

I guess I'm wondering whether Luck is a mega-force guy like Newton.

Is it possible they'd kick him to the curb? Sure.

But Gabbert was a MUCH larger investment than Clausen. They spent their first and second round picks to get him and have thrown away a season to develop him.

Also they'll win too many games in the 2nd half to be in on Luck anyway.

But regardless, how do you say Jacksonville is in the race due to QB but say Minnesota is OUT of the race due to QB? Backwards thinking.

Agamemnon
10-17-2011, 01:36 PM
Some things should not need explanation.

And this is not one of those things genius...

BroncoBuff
10-17-2011, 03:24 PM
They spent their first and second round picks to get him and have thrown away a season to develop him. But regardless, how do you say Jacksonville is in the race due to QB but say Minnesota is OUT of the race due to QB? Backwards thinking.

Vikings already have their guy (their own Tebow), though I did forget the Jags gave up the extra pick for Gabbert, that was Shanahan (who undoubtedly wasted the pick trying to be clever as always). Like everybody, I'm just looking at supply-demand: More teams ahead of us that don't need him (Rams, Panthers, Jaguars), the better. More teams that do need him (just about every other team), the worse.

I've watched lotsa Luck, he's on here every week. He looks like an NFL quarterback now, a man among boys. He should have come out last year, we all wish he had. Yes, I think we COULD muster the ammo if we land #4 or 5, especially with a proven All-Pro LT like Clady to offer. But with this roster, why? He'd be an "all eggs in one basket" player, a Walter Payton. You want to trot him out there the next four years with Lance Ball? With Demaryous "hope he finishes this route before he snaps something else" Thomas? With Knowshon "hope he finishes this route before he THINKS he snaps something else" Moreno? We give up two #1s and two #2s, and that's what I think we'd be looking at.

All we friggin' do around this place is b!tch about how godforsaken bare this roster is, and now we should take out a third, fourth, fifth mortgage for Luck?

TheReverend
10-17-2011, 03:32 PM
Vikings already have their guy (their own Tebow), though I did forget the Jags gave up the extra pick for Gabbert, that was Shanahan (who undoubtedly wasted the pick trying to be clever as always). Like everybody, I'm just looking at supply-demand: More teams ahead of us that don't need him (Rams, Panthers, Jaguars), the better. More teams that do need him (just about every other team), the worse

O_o

With that 1st rounder Redskins took Kerrigan who is one of the DROY front runners at this point, and with their 2nd rounder that trade gave them the freedom to take Jenkins (starting rookie DL for them until hitting the IR)

cutthemdown
10-17-2011, 03:35 PM
LOL so now that people know it's a low low pick I bet they are really pissed. LOL you aren't going to get anything for a 30 yr old WR with one good yr who is in the last yr of his deal.

peacepipe
10-17-2011, 03:38 PM
i think 0-6 Indy is in the tank for the #1 pick. they've already lost to CIN, CLE, and KC.

the Broncos would also have to beat out 0-4 Miami, 1-5 Jacksonville, 0-5 St. Louis, 1-4 Arizona, 1-5 Carolina, and 1-5 Minnesota in the race for the #1 pick.

it's a longshot at best.

carolina already has newton
jags have gabbert
minn has ponder
stl has brafford
that leaves miami & indy as the main frontrunners

Gort
10-17-2011, 03:42 PM
carolina already has newton
jags have gabbert
minn has ponder
stl has brafford
that leaves miami & indy as the main frontrunners

yes, but under the new CBA, all of those teams would still have an interest in a Luck pick if only for his trade value on draft day or immediately after.

Dedhed
10-17-2011, 03:46 PM
carolina already has newton
jags have gabbert
minn has ponder
stl has brafford
that leaves miami & indy as the main frontrunners

With the hype Luck is getting I wouldn't be at all surprised to see ANY of those teams take Luck with the #1 pick and then trade Newton, Gabbert, Ponder, or Bradford.

None of those guys are franchise players at this point, and everyone is acting like Luck is a surefire franchise guy.

Agamemnon
10-17-2011, 03:48 PM
With the hype Luck is getting I wouldn't be at all surprised to see ANY of those teams take Luck with the #1 pick and then trade Newton, Gabbert, Ponder, or Bradford.

None of those guys are franchise players at this point, and everyone is acting like Luck is a surefire franchise guy.

I hope no one actually thinks Luck will look like a franchise QB less than half way through his rookie season. They're going to be disappointed.

Dedhed
10-17-2011, 03:59 PM
I hope no one actually thinks Luck will look like a franchise QB less than half way through his rookie season. They're going to be disappointed.

Of course they are.

BroncoBuff
10-17-2011, 04:05 PM
With that 1st rounder Redskins took Kerrigan who is one of the DROY front runners at this point, and with their 2nd rounder that trade gave them the freedom to take Jenkins (starting rookie DL for them until hitting the IR)

That's just sad ... you're actually defending Mike Shanahan's draft and free agent wisdom?

Please just sit down, I'm embarrassed for both of us.

Agamemnon
10-17-2011, 04:07 PM
That's just sad ... you're actually defending Mike Shanahan's draft and free agent wisdom?

Please just sit down, I'm embarrassed for both of us.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure Shanny isn't the guy making the draft decisions in Washington. I'm sure he has input, but he's not the GM.

oubronco
10-17-2011, 04:15 PM
With the hype Luck is getting I wouldn't be at all surprised to see ANY of those teams take Luck with the #1 pick and then trade Newton, Gabbert, Ponder, or Bradford.

None of those guys are franchise players at this point, and everyone is acting like Luck is a surefire franchise guy.

If that's true the Broncos better be on the phone with St. Louis for Bradford

Drek
10-17-2011, 04:16 PM
That's just sad ... you're actually defending Mike Shanahan's draft and free agent wisdom?

Please just sit down, I'm embarrassed for both of us.

Bruce Allen is the GM in Washington and while Shanahan has been given final say on all personnel decisions Allen is definitely running the show 99% of the time.

This is the kind of role Bowlen needed to push but was too milquetoast and cheap to force on Mike following the SB years. If he'd shown a real financial commitment to having a top tier GM on staff to handle scouting and player acquisition in collaboration with Shanahan we probably have at least one other championship (in 2005, when a few better players here and there was all we needed) and Shanahan is still running the show here.

Its sad that Daniel Snyder is running his club better than Bowlen is right now.

bowtown
10-17-2011, 04:19 PM
With the hype Luck is getting I wouldn't be at all surprised to see ANY of those teams take Luck with the #1 pick and then trade Newton, Gabbert, Ponder, or Bradford.

None of those guys are franchise players at this point, and everyone is acting like Luck is a surefire franchise guy.

I would actually be very surprised to see any of those teams do that.

TheReverend
10-17-2011, 04:20 PM
That's just sad ... you're actually defending Mike Shanahan's draft and free agent wisdom?

Please just sit down, I'm embarrassed for both of us.

No, specifically his past draft. Criticizing it is actually the height of stupidity. They hit homeruns in that draft class already.

But since you brought up FA... Cofield and Atogwe and Josh Wilson were 3 AMAZING gets that would've made worlds of difference here in Denver.

...and I'd be embarrassed if I were you too.

Agamemnon
10-17-2011, 04:22 PM
No, specifically his past draft. Criticizing it is actually the height of stupidity. They hit homeruns in that draft class already.

But since you brought up FA... Cofield and Atogwe and Josh Wilson were 3 AMAZING gets that would've made worlds of difference here in Denver.

...and I'd be embarrassed if I were you too.

Shanny isn't Washington's GM though, so it doesn't really matter...

TheReverend
10-17-2011, 04:24 PM
Shanny isn't Washington's GM though, so it doesn't really matter...

He wasn't the "GM" here either.

Agamemnon
10-17-2011, 04:36 PM
He wasn't the "GM" here either.

Yes, but in this case he really isn't. Washington has a true GM. Not to say Shanny doesn't have significant input into the draft and FA, but it's not a one man show this time.

elsid13
10-17-2011, 04:50 PM
Yes, but in this case he really isn't. Washington has a true GM. Not to say Shanny doesn't have significant input into the draft and FA, but it's not a one man show this time.

Shanahan has the final say on all personnel matter. The arrangements is similar to what he had with Goodman and Sandquest (spelling) in Denver. He wasn't the one man show in Denver, like some make him out to be.


And Buff, Shanahan hit a home run with FA and the Draft this season for the Skins.

TheReverend
10-17-2011, 04:53 PM
Yes, but in this case he really isn't. Washington has a true GM. Not to say Shanny doesn't have significant input into the draft and FA, but it's not a one man show this time.

It's all speculation. We assume he ignored everything everyone in Denver said, but now completely differs to Bruce.

Okay ::)

DarkHorse
10-17-2011, 05:03 PM
Like I said earlier - we're going to have to sell the farm and the future to have any shot at Luck.

Chris
10-17-2011, 05:15 PM
Like I said earlier - we're going to have to sell the farm and the future to have any shot at Luck.

What future? ;)


Just being dramatic.

Hercules Rockefeller
10-17-2011, 05:17 PM
Like I said earlier - we're going to have to sell the farm and the future to have any shot at Luck.

What is selling the farm and the future in your mind?

It's 11 games for 15 years at the most important position on the field.*

I'd prefer to see them win the Suck 4 Luck sweepstakes "naturally" and have no desire to see them trade up if they don't, but what do you think it'll cost to get him if someone were to trade out and at what point does the cost of acquiring him become too much?

*Obvious caveats of being a bust or not living up to his potential

Dedhed
10-17-2011, 05:19 PM
What is selling the farm and the future in your mind?

It's 11 games for 15 years at the most important position on the field.*

I'd prefer to see them win the Suck 4 Luck sweepstakes "naturally" and have no desire to see them trade up if they don't, but what do you think it'll cost to get him if someone were to trade out and at what point does the cost of acquiring him become too much?

*Obvious caveats of being a bust or not living up to his potential
The price will be astronomical for any team that doesn't get the #1 pick naturally.

Hercules Rockefeller
10-17-2011, 05:21 PM
The price will be astronomical for any team that doesn't get the #1 pick naturally.

And I'm asking, what do you think astronomical will be and where compared to the astronomical, does it become too much?

BroncoBuff
10-17-2011, 05:27 PM
So many factors ... most importantly, where we slot.

TheReverend
10-17-2011, 05:28 PM
And I'm asking, what do you think astronomical will be and where compared to the astronomical, does it become too much?

If Tebow doesn't show SERIOUS potential, nothing is "too much"

Hercules Rockefeller
10-17-2011, 05:30 PM
So many factors ... most importantly, where we slot.

We'll say Top 5, which even with Tebow in there is pretty realistic with who is left on the schedule.

maven
10-17-2011, 05:31 PM
Swap 1st round picks, and two future #1's is a good start to try and grab Luck.

Dedhed
10-17-2011, 05:31 PM
And I'm asking, what do you think astronomical will be and where compared to the astronomical, does it become too much?

Multiple first round picks and other high round picks. The price will be too much immediately.

Even if we get the #2 overall selection, and the team at #1 doesn't want Luck the price will be too high for my taste. There will be a bidding war between all teams in the top 10.

bowtown
10-17-2011, 05:32 PM
Swap 1st round picks, and two future #1's is a good start to try and grab Luck.


If Tebow is not the answer, I'd do that in a heartbeat.

bowtown
10-17-2011, 05:33 PM
Multiple first round picks and other high round picks. The price will be too much immediately.

Even if we get the #2 overall selection, and the team at #1 doesn't want Luck the price will be too high for my taste. There will be a bidding war between all teams in the top 10.

Please. No there won't.

Dedhed
10-17-2011, 05:35 PM
If Tebow doesn't show SERIOUS potential, nothing is "too much"
So the difference between Luck and say Landry Jones is worth giving up a first round DT, a first round LB, a first round CB, a 2nd round WR, a 2nd round OL, and a 3rd round S?

BroncoBuff
10-17-2011, 05:37 PM
Not too popular, but I'm still thinking a guy like Ryan Clady could make the difference.

Picks are great, first rounders especially, but they're still just picks. A 'bird in the hand' like Clady - a proven young All-Pro LT who walks in and starts - and the Rams might think it too good to pass up. Of course the Dolphins could do the same thing.

Dedhed
10-17-2011, 05:38 PM
Please. No there won't.
The #1 selection this year will be more valuable than in any draft in the last decade, and probably far more than that given the new CBA. There really hasn't been a QB prospect has hyped as Luck in a long, long time. Maybe even since Elway.

TheReverend
10-17-2011, 05:39 PM
So the difference between Luck and say Landry Jones is worth giving up a first round DT, a first round LB, a first round CB, a 2nd round WR, a 2nd round OL, and a 3rd round S?

If I were EFX and Tebow wasn't the answer and we didn't end up #1 overall but WERE in the top 5, I would go:

2011 1st
2011 2nd
2012 1st or Dumervil or Champ

+ some mid round selections/mid round value players like DJ, Kuper, Moreno, etc

Without blinking for sure.

DrFate
10-17-2011, 05:43 PM
There will be a bidding war between all teams in the top 10.

This entire concept is really interesting to me. At this point, I'm just not sure how much is media hype and how the real NFL talent evaluators would look at the situation.

I've seen some who say that the Rams would draft Luck at #1, even with Bradford in the fold. Same with the Jags/Gabbert, the Vikings/Ponder, etc.

Miami, Indy, and the Rams are all winless. Miami is obvious. My personal opinion is that the Rams would not draft Luck as a replacement for Bradford, and the Colts thing really confuses me. Manning is 35, and if he came back healthy, would they kick the most iconic player in the NFL to the curb? They couldn't trade Manning with his current contract (although I've read they have an out and wouldn't owe him anything if they cut him after the season).

If you look at the 1-win teams - Jags just drafted a QB. Vikings just drafted a QB. Panthers just drafted a QB. And the Cards just signed a QB via FA. Which of those teams would do a 180 at the most important position on the field?

How many of these teams would be involved in a bidding war?

Agamemnon
10-17-2011, 05:44 PM
If I were EFX and Tebow wasn't the answer and we didn't end up #1 overall but WERE in the top 5, I would go:

2011 1st
2011 2nd
2012 1st or Dumervil or Champ

+ some mid round selections/mid round value players like DJ, Kuper, Moreno, etc

Without blinking for sure.

How does a team make a proper assessment of a guy like Tebow in 11 games, where they can say he is or isn't the answer? I don't get that. Taking Luck if we somehow get the #1 pick I get. Trading the farm to get him I really don't.

Agamemnon
10-17-2011, 05:47 PM
This entire concept is really interesting to me. At this point, I'm just not sure how much is media hype and how the real NFL talent evaluators would look at the situation.

I've seen some who say that the Rams would draft Luck at #1, even with Bradford in the fold. Same with the Jags/Gabbert, the Vikings/Ponder, etc.

Miami, Indy, and the Rams are all winless. Miami is obvious. My personal opinion is that the Rams would not draft Luck as a replacement for Bradford, and the Colts thing really confuses me. Manning is 35, and if he came back healthy, would they kick the most iconic player in the NFL to the curb? They couldn't trade Manning with his current contract (although I've read they have an out and wouldn't owe him anything if they cut him after the season).

If you look at the 1-win teams - Jags just drafted a QB. Vikings just drafted a QB. Panthers just drafted a QB. And the Cards just signed a QB via FA. Which of those teams would do a 180 at the most important position on the field?

How many of these teams would be involved in a bidding war?

I would imagine the bidding war would be between only two or three teams, and only if the team with the #1 pick was a team with a QB they already like.

TheReverend
10-17-2011, 05:47 PM
How does a team make a proper assessment of a guy like Tebow in 11 games, where they can say he is or isn't the answer? I don't get that. Taking Luck if we somehow get the #1 pick I get. Trading the farm to get him I really don't.

I didn't say a proper assessment.

I said he had to show serious potential.

DrFate
10-17-2011, 05:51 PM
only if the team with the #1 pick was a team with a QB they already like.

I believe this is self-evident

I would imagine the bidding war would be between only two or three teams, and

That's what I find interesting - which teams would stick with the guys they have? Which ones start bidding?

Entirely hypothetical - Rams get the #1 pick, decide to trade it. Who are the bidders (other than Denver)?

Agamemnon
10-17-2011, 05:51 PM
I didn't say a proper assessment.

I said he had to show serious potential.

He's already shown serious potential in the limited action he's seen. That doesn't mean he's the answer. Basically there's no way to know if he's the answer barring letting him play a few seasons. So let's just call a spade a spade: give up on Tebow prematurely to go for a guy that many believe has better odds of panning out ultimately. Which again I get, as long as it doesn't involve handing over a ton of picks we could use on our many other needs (needs that don't have potential answers already on the roster).

Agamemnon
10-17-2011, 05:55 PM
I believe this is self-evident



That's what I find interesting - which teams would stick with the guys they have? Which ones start bidding?

Entirely hypothetical - Rams get the #1 pick, decide to trade it. Who are the bidders (other than Denver)?

Miami and Denver seem like the most likely candidates (as much as I don't like it, Elway has a hard on for Luck). Indianapolis as well, especially if they feel Manning is done by then. I don't see any of the teams that just took a QB in the 1st or Arizona getting involved. They might pick him if they get the pick straight up, but I seriously doubt they try to trade for it.

eddie mac
10-17-2011, 05:59 PM
Even if the Broncos were lucky/unlucky enough to have the first pick in 2012 EFX will **** it up, it's a god given fact that these 3 ****s will never do anything for this franchise. In Elway's case anything of note off the field.

TheReverend
10-17-2011, 06:04 PM
He's already shown serious potential in the limited action he's seen. That doesn't mean he's the answer. Basically there's no way to know if he's the answer barring letting him play a few seasons. So let's just call a spade a spade: give up on Tebow prematurely to go for a guy that many believe has better odds of panning out ultimately. Which again I get, as long as it doesn't involve handing over a ton of picks we could use on our many other needs (needs that don't have potential answers already on the roster).

You're correct. He's shown potential in the limited action he's seen.

Now let's see if he can do that consistently over 11 games and show significant improvement.

This isn't that complicated. He's going to play his way into a job, or play us into Luck.

Agamemnon
10-17-2011, 06:08 PM
Even if the Broncos were lucky/unlucky enough to have the first pick in 2012 EFX will **** it up, it's a god given fact that these 3 ****s will never do anything for this franchise. In Elway's case anything of note off the field.

If by messing it up you mean drafting Luck, not hiring a true QB coach, and then letting him develop bad habits in an offense not designed to maximize a QB's potential, I agree. They'll definitely pick Luck if they get the chance, but whether or not they develop him properly is a whole different story.

eddie mac
10-17-2011, 06:12 PM
If by messing it up you mean drafting Luck, not hiring a true QB coach, and then letting him develop bad habits in an offense not designed to maximize a QB's potential, I agree. They'll definitely pick Luck if they get the chance, but whether or not they develop him properly is whole different story.

Has Fox ever developed a good QB on any team???

bowtown
10-17-2011, 06:29 PM
Has Fox ever developed a good QB on any team???

Fox doesn't develop QBs.

NUB
10-17-2011, 06:47 PM
People, realize that it will take a mega trade to get Luck if you are not the #1 pick.


For comparable trades:

To move from #3 to #2 in 1998, the Chargers traded: #3, #32, 1999 1st Rd pick (#8), players Eric Metcalf, Patrick Sapp. This was, of course, the infamous Ryan Leaf selection, also a no-brainer at the time.

To get #5 and draft Ricky Williams, Ditka traded 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th; next year's 1st and 3rd.


Luck is twice the prospect Leaf was, or Manning for that matter, and carries a "can't miss" grading by virtually everyone. People have not been this stoked for a QB in forever, noted by the "Suck for Luck" campaigns going around. If you are not choosing #1 and want to get Luck you will probably have to trade everything plus a few players. I don't think Miami or Indianapolis will even accept trades if they are at #1; that's how good Luck is perceived to be.

DarkHorse
10-17-2011, 07:08 PM
And I'm asking, what do you think astronomical will be and where compared to the astronomical, does it become too much?


Anything outside of top 5 pick for us will be astronomical considering the current state of the franchise.

We need talent. Much talent.

Blueflame
10-17-2011, 07:22 PM
He's already shown serious potential in the limited action he's seen. That doesn't mean he's the answer. Basically there's no way to know if he's the answer barring letting him play a few seasons. So let's just call a spade a spade: give up on Tebow prematurely to go for a guy that many believe has better odds of panning out ultimately. Which again I get, as long as it doesn't involve handing over a ton of picks we could use on our many other needs (needs that don't have potential answers already on the roster).

Look, we all know that if you were the person making the decisions, there's no chance the Broncos would be in the Luck sweepstakes, Agamemnon. We know you're every bit as much in love with Tebow as Elway reportedly is with Luck. The question that still remains is this: Can Tebow convince Elway that it's not necessary to "do whatever it takes to get Luck"? From what I've seen, that's going to be difficult if not impossible.

baja
10-17-2011, 07:31 PM
How many more years will we suck is we sell the farm for Luck and he sucks?

baja
10-17-2011, 07:33 PM
What if we trade Tebow in the package we put together for Luck and he goes on to be the best QB to ever play the game?

DarkHorse
10-17-2011, 07:35 PM
What if we trade Tebow in the package we put together for Luck and he goes on to be the best QB to ever play the game?

Then we will be the new Cleveland Browns

BowlenBall
10-17-2011, 08:38 PM
Remember when Joshy gave up a 4th for Lawrence Maroney? That was awesome.

And remember when he traded the 14th overall pick in the draft for Alphonso Smith, then got rid of him the next season? Good times.

Drek
10-18-2011, 04:35 AM
It's all speculation. We assume he ignored everything everyone in Denver said, but now completely differs to Bruce.

Okay ::)

Its not speculation. Shanahan has said its completely different from how it was in Denver, he lets Bruce Allen run the show the majority of the time but gives his input when he feels its appropriate and has veto power/final say over all decisions.

Just so happens that Shanahan presented with a very good, experienced GM is willing to give up some of the decision making. Too bad Bowlen didn't have the will power to keep the horse in the barn following the two titles. Or the balls to push Goodman as the GM on Shanahan instead of firing him.

MacGruder
10-18-2011, 05:06 AM
What if we trade Tebow in the package we put together for Luck and he goes on to be the best QB to ever play the game?

Are you getting that vibe, baja? Or is this just a hypothetical?

I am guessing it's a hypothetical on your part.. but I have felt for a while that if a team uses Tebow to his full capabilities (I don't know if any coach is bright enough and ballsy enough to do this) that he could be the "Michael Jordan" of QBs - the GOAT.

bowtown
10-18-2011, 05:38 AM
Are you getting that vibe, baja? Or is this just a hypothetical?

I am guessing it's a hypothetical on your part.. but I have felt for a while that if a team uses Tebow to his full capabilities (I don't know if any coach is bright enough and ballsy enough to do this) that he could be the "Michael Jordan" of QBs - the GOAT.

No... you don't say... YOU feel that way? So weird, I never would have guessed that.


You think you know a person...

MacGruder
10-18-2011, 05:51 AM
No... you don't say... YOU feel that way? So weird, I never would have guessed that.


You think you know a person...

I just wanted to state my exact position to see what Baja's position was... see.. if you were as smart as you like to think you are you would have realized that instead of assuming I am the idiot.

But hey.. that's what makes people idiots isn't it.. they don't know they are idiots.. how could they?

TheReverend
10-18-2011, 06:57 AM
Its not speculation. Shanahan has said its completely different from how it was in Denver, he lets Bruce Allen run the show the majority of the time but gives his input when he feels its appropriate and has veto power/final say over all decisions.

Just so happens that Shanahan presented with a very good, experienced GM is willing to give up some of the decision making. Too bad Bowlen didn't have the will power to keep the horse in the barn following the two titles. Or the balls to push Goodman as the GM on Shanahan instead of firing him.

Links?

orinjkrush
10-18-2011, 06:57 AM
Tebow may end up like Rothlisberger, but with wheels.

Ben has how many rings?

MacGruder
10-18-2011, 07:04 AM
Tebow may end up like Rothlisberger, but with wheels.

Ben has how many rings?

The amazing thing about the Steelers is that when BigBen was suspended the Steelers won literally without a QB. It makes you wonder how ANY decent QB would look on that team.

bowtown
10-18-2011, 07:09 AM
I just wanted to state my exact position to see what Baja's position was... see.. if you were as smart as you like to think you are you would have realized that instead of assuming I am the idiot.

But hey.. that's what makes people idiots isn't it.. they don't know they are idiots.. how could they?

Trust me, nobody on these boards have any doubt about what your exact position is. In fact, moving forward if you could state it a little less, that would be awesome.

Tom A Hawk
10-18-2011, 07:18 AM
I know and I would figure that something else is in the package. Knowing other teams were interested in Lloyd, I just had the feeling that Suck for Luck would fit better with a trade to a ****ty team like the Rams. Sure enough who gets the Lloyd sweepstakes but the 0-5 Rams. We won't know until the draft and our end of year record but it is lining up for a possibly Luck campaign.
If we are getting a 3rd or worse, then I am not sure what type of package gets us the #1 pick. Our #1 (which is to say a top 5 for argument sake) plus a very high #3 will do it. Either our #2 or future high pick will need to be thrown in there.

you can win the Luck campaign by trading Orton, your 1st, and a whole host of other picks to Miami. It is clear that they or Indy are in the front running for Luck. Won't that be a bad day, luck in Indy.

Drek
10-18-2011, 07:39 AM
Links?

Heard it in an interview on Sirius when they were both first put together. Shanahan explicitly stated that it was Bruce Allen's FO, then Allen quickly added that Shanahan is the Exec though and has veto power on all moves. Shanahan followed it up by adding that he believes they'll always come to consensus and he'll never need to pull rank.

Shanahan is involved but all the ground work is done by people Allen has selected and supervises.

Even when Shanahan was here it wasn't like he ran the scouting department, or did a ton of his own scouting. He looked at what the scouting department put together for him, got informed on the players they were high on, and made a choice from there.

This was why we suddenly started drafting so much better with the Goodmans. Jim Goodman was running our southeastern scouting program when we drafted Cutler (Vandy, SEC team), Marshall (Central Florida), Doom (Louisville), Woodyard (Kentucky), Hillis (Arkansas), and Royal (Virgina Tech).

Jim Goodman became Shanahan's go to scout for information he could trust. We can see that in the sudden heavy emphasis on drafting guys from Goodman's region. Not long after Shanahan first identified the one real talent in our scouting department Sundquist was shown the door and Goodman was promoted.

The only other consistent success we had in the draft came at OL from the mid-90's to early 2000's and at RB from the mid-90's to 2008.

Why? Because Shanahan had his positional coaches go over the potential selections at their position and Alex Gibbs and Bobby Turner were standout positional coaches who knew how to identify talent. They were targeting different tools from everyone else and knew how to identify them.

This is the problem with the Broncos. We lack real personnel evaluators in the front office. Shanahan gets too much hate for his bad drafts in particular when the real problem was an unwillingness to clean house of all the nepotism and long term hanger ons who aren't getting the job done identifying talent. Now with Allen that is not an issue, as Allen handles it.

Unfortunately for us we still have most of the same scouting department that walked Shanahan into bad drafts year after year, sans Goodman, and worked with McDaniels. We added a few overseers in Kidd and Russell but neither has a ton of experience and hasn't proven themselves worthwhile to this point.

We needed to replace Xanders. We still do. DeCosta (Baltimore) or Grigson (Philly) would both be excellent options. You can hire either one an assistant with two masters in accounting and business management for less than what we pay the cheapest guy on our entire roster. You can't hire a DeCosta or Grigson level evaluator to work under Xanders.

TheReverend
10-18-2011, 07:44 AM
^ He would've, and has, said the same thing about the "GM's" he worked with in Denver.

fontaine
10-18-2011, 07:49 AM
This is the problem with the Broncos. We lack real personnel evaluators in the front office. Shanahan gets too much hate for his bad drafts in particular when the real problem was an unwillingness to clean house of all the nepotism and long term hanger ons who aren't getting the job done identifying talent. Now with Allen that is not an issue, as Allen handles it.

Unfortunately for us we still have most of the same scouting department that walked Shanahan into bad drafts year after year, sans Goodman, and worked with McDaniels. We added a few overseers in Kidd and Russell but neither has a ton of experience and hasn't proven themselves worthwhile to this point.

We needed to replace Xanders. We still do. DeCosta (Baltimore) or Grigson (Philly) would both be excellent options. You can hire either one an assistant with two masters in accounting and business management for less than what we pay the cheapest guy on our entire roster. You can't hire a DeCosta or Grigson level evaluator to work under Xanders.

Excellent post.

I completely agree with you. The problem is there are really very few genuine personnel evaluators high up the food chain and the bottom line is that the guys that do the hiring have to be able to trust and work with the guys that highlight the talent.

I will say though that the problem in Denver is more rooted in the complete and utter overhaul in defensive/offensive philosophy over the past three years.

Teams like the Steelers/Pats have good talent evaluators, yes, but those guys have the benefit of knowing EXACTLY the kind of players they want (just like we did with Turner/Gibbs/Dennison when we wanted OL/RBs).

More than anything else we need to stick to a defensive/passing/ground game philosophy so that the talent evaluators/scouts actually know what kind of players they are looking for.

In hindsight is it any wonder that guys like Jarvis Moss completely washed out here when every season he was changing from a two point stance to down in the dirt?

You can't accurately evaluate performance when the requirements keep changing year to year.

baja
10-18-2011, 07:59 AM
Are you getting that vibe, baja? Or is this just a hypothetical?

I am guessing it's a hypothetical on your part.. but I have felt for a while that if a team uses Tebow to his full capabilities (I don't know if any coach is bright enough and ballsy enough to do this) that he could be the "Michael Jordan" of QBs - the GOAT.

I don't know but I do think that potential does exist with Tim. Can't say that about very many players.

fontaine
10-18-2011, 08:02 AM
I don't know but I do think that potential does exist with Tim. Can't say that about very many players.

What potential? Take away his mobility and he doesn't seem like a high ceiling guy purely in his passing game ability.

bowtown
10-18-2011, 08:05 AM
ENTER MACGRUDER!!!

baja
10-18-2011, 08:25 AM
What potential? Take away his mobility and he doesn't seem like a high ceiling guy purely in his passing game ability.

Just in watching the short sampling of his play he seems to be able to rise to the challenge in crunch time and he seems to find a way to get done even while he is still learning the pro game. I put a lot of stock in the "it" factor. That is what made players like Jordan or Elway so special. They seemed to have an ability to will the team to wins.

I guess it comes down to what you value in a player.

For example Cutler has all the talent in the world but IMO he will never be an elite QB because he lacks that special mental aspect.

I think that is why both Cutler & Tebow are so controversial on this board. Some place a higher value on the physical talent while others value the intangibles ( the 'it' factor) more.

Elway had both. Cutler seems to be rounding into a decent QB. Tebow remains untested. I do know this I am sure more excited about watching the rest of the season with Tebow taking over than if we were still starting Orton.

Requiem
10-18-2011, 08:44 AM
Potential exists in all NFL players, whether they live up to it is another story.

fontaine
10-18-2011, 08:59 AM
Just in watching the short sampling of his play he seems to be able to rise to the challenge in crunch time and he seems to find a way to get done even while he is still learning the pro game. I put a lot of stock in the "it" factor. That is what made players like Jordan or Elway so special. They seemed to have an ability to will the team to wins.

I guess it comes down to what you value in a player.

For example Cutler has all the talent in the world but IMO he will never be an elite QB because he lacks that special mental aspect.

I think that is why both Cutler & Tebow are so controversial on this board. Some place a higher value on the physical talent while others value the intangibles ( the 'it' factor) more.

Elway had both. Cutler seems to be rounding into a decent QB. Tebow remains untested. I do know this I am sure more excited about watching the rest of the season with Tebow taking over than if we were still starting Orton.

I get all that baja, his intangibles, plus his mobility but you could be talking about a RB.

I'm talking about pure passing ability. What's his potential there? I'm open to being corrected but I don't see Tebow the QB as having a very high ceiling in his passing ability.

Can he read/recognize/exploit complex defensive fronts?
Can he run a timing based passing offense i.e. throwing the ball in tight windows where WRs are expected to be?
How is he passing the ball accurately under pressure/3rd downs?
Does he look off safeties/coverage and/or use a pump fake correctly to bait DBs?

Obviously we don't know the answers yet, but based on potential no, I don't see him as having that kind of skill. Maybe, hopefully he develops them.

baja
10-18-2011, 09:03 AM
I get all that baja, his intangibles, plus his mobility but you could be talking about a RB.

I'm talking about pure passing ability. What's his potential there? I'm open to being corrected but I don't see Tebow the QB as having a very high ceiling in his passing ability.

Can he read/recognize/exploit complex defensive fronts?
Can he run a timing based passing offense i.e. throwing the ball in tight windows where WRs are expected to be?
How is he passing the ball accurately under pressure/3rd downs?
Does he look off safeties/coverage and/or use a pump fake correctly to bait DBs?

Obviously we don't know the answers yet, but based on potential no, I don't see him as having that kind of skill. Maybe, hopefully he develops them.

I can't fault your logic. I am just happy we are going to get to evaluate him for the 11 games that proceed the next draft.

fontaine
10-18-2011, 09:12 AM
I can't fault your logic. I am just happy we are going to get to evaluate him for the 11 games that proceed the next draft.

And that's the problem we have. Sure QBs take a while to develop like gaining experience against different coverages, being able to digest a complex set of plays in a very short time but it takes a lot less time to determine whether a young QB can handle the speed of the game.

Whether a young QB can take in a complex set of circumstances in a presnap look, use his knowledge of the game/his offense to make adjustments and then isolate where the high percentage play is and complete the pass accurately while 4 or more bigger defenders are looking to take him down all in a matter of 4-5 seconds.

You can look at Andy Dalton in just the few games he's played and say he can do that (maybe not consistently or at a high level yet, but he can do that and get better at it).

Whereas it only took one season for people to look at Brady Quinn and know that he doesn't have that ability.

I don't know if Tebow does or not, but it's a far more important quality, probably the MOST important one, compared to his mobility, toughness, intangibles etc which are all good traits to have also.

Drek
10-18-2011, 09:36 AM
^ He would've, and has, said the same thing about the "GM's" he worked with in Denver.

Thats kind of my point.

In Denver he had poor executives with mediocre at best staff and Shanahan was forced to intervene and make the big moves he thought needed to be made.

Bruce Allen is not mediocre, he's at least above average and has a plethora of good connections to pull talented staff from.

This is why the moves in Washington look so much better out of the gate than they did for almost his entire time in Denver. He's got a good GM running crap in the office so all Shanahan needs to do is drop in, paint the big picture of what he wants to see on the field, and look forward to the extremely well compiled list of targets that fit his big picture vision.

When he did that in Denver he got crap handed back to him. The FO here was horrible at talent evaluation and at least as bad at projecting how the other teams in the league would view our targets. As a result we over drafted guys routinely.

Shanahan called the shots come draft day but he wasn't scouring the nation for prospects. He was given "to watch" lists from scouts coupled with expected draft range. The fact that those lists were absolute dog crap here and now are high quality in Washington is the difference we're seeing.

*edit* honestly, its about time sh!t is removed from the language filter. You can say it on network television.

TheReverend
10-18-2011, 09:38 AM
Thats kind of my point.

In Denver he had poor executives with mediocre at best staff and Shanahan was forced to intervene and make the big moves.

Bruce Allen is not mediocre, he's at least above average and has a plethora of good connections to pull talented staff from.

This is why the moves in Washington look so much better out of the gate than they did for almost his entire time in Denver. He's got a good GM running **** in the office so all Shanahan needs to do is drop in, paint the big picture of what he wants to see on the field, and look forward to the extremely well compiled list of targets that fit his big picture vision.

When he did that in Denver he got **** handed back to him. The FO here was horrible at talent evaluation and at least as bad at projecting how the other teams in the league would view our targets. As a result we over drafted guys routinely.

Shanahan called the shots come draft day but he wasn't scouring the nation for prospects. He was given "to watch" lists from scouts coupled with expected draft range. The fact that those lists were absolute dog **** here and now are high quality in Washington is the difference we're seeing.

So your point is that he has the exact same set up in Washington, but with Allen being so superior to a Sunquist, for example, he doesn't have to be nearly as involved?

Drek
10-18-2011, 09:45 AM
So your point is that he has the exact same set up in Washington, but with Allen being so superior to a Sunquist, for example, he doesn't have to be nearly as involved?

Pretty much. I wouldn't say less involved in general, just less involved in specifics during the process. Instead he can give directives and show up when the work is done and make the big decisions, knowing he isn't being handed **** on a stick.

Again, notice how in '06 we were southeast centric through the draft and shortly thereafter Sundquist was out and Jim and Jeff Goodman each got big bumps in their roles within the organization? It screams of Shanahan identifying the one source of competent scouting information he had and pushing it up the ladder.

*edit* The set up in Washington is the same in that Shanahan has effectively the same titles and power, but the execution is wildly different because he is clearly more comfortable with Bruce Allen in particular and his FO in general than he ever was here in Denver.

TheReverend
10-18-2011, 09:52 AM
Pretty much. I wouldn't say less involved in general, just less involved in specifics during the process. Instead he can give directives and show up when the work is done and make the big decisions, knowing he isn't being handed **** on a stick.

Again, notice how in '06 we were southeast centric through the draft and shortly thereafter Sundquist was out and Jim and Jeff Goodman each got big bumps in their roles within the organization? It screams of Shanahan identifying the one source of competent scouting information he had and pushing it up the ladder.

*edit* The set up in Washington is the same in that Shanahan has effectively the same titles and power, but the execution is wildly different because he is clearly more comfortable with Bruce Allen in particular and his FO in general than he ever was here in Denver.

So what you're saying is that you actually agree with what I've been saying throughout this thread? Ha!

Drek
10-18-2011, 10:01 AM
So what you're saying is that you actually agree with what I've been saying throughout this thread? Ha!

In part, which is why I pointed out to Buff that he wasn't correct in his assessment of the situation either.

The hierarchy in Washington is not vastly different from what we had here in Denver.

I think a good analogy here would be NASCAR. Its stock car racing and everyone has to meet the same criteria before and after every race. So it should be all about the driver right? But why do the same owners and teams frequently dominate the sport, and why do the best drivers constantly maneuver themselves onto specific teams and ownership groups?

Because even though its all technically "stock" there is a world of difference between what these drivers are being given to work with.

Shanahan in Denver was an all world driver being asked to not only make due with a well below field-average car, but to also spend as much time as possible making said car work.

Shanahan in D.C. is an all world driver given an above average car for the field and being allowed to just focus on driving, but let us know if there are any tweaks or changes you prefer.

Maybe Bowlen gave Shanahan a reality check that allowed a more powerful FO manager to join him in Washington, but I'm very doubtful of that. I'm becoming more and more convinced that Bowlen was the reason for our absolute crap FO and that if Bowlen would have opened up the pocket book and gotten a real GM Mike Shanahan would've been the first guy to shake his hand and welcome him to the organization.

TheReverend
10-18-2011, 10:04 AM
^ I tuned out at NASCAR. Still stunned people can watch that.

Drek
10-18-2011, 10:12 AM
^ I tuned out at NASCAR. Still stunned people can watch that.

Not a fan myself, but I grew up with it and understand the concept well enough to see how comparable it is to Shanahan's change.

Shanahan didn't suddenly become a better talent evaluator in Washington, but they've been doing very well in their draft selections for two years now. In his entire time here I can't think of a time when he had two excellent drafts back to back. He does it year 1 and 2 in Washington.

Something about his situation is dramatically different than what he had in Denver, and it isn't Mike Shanahan himself.

TheReverend
10-18-2011, 10:20 AM
Not a fan myself, but I grew up with it and understand the concept well enough to see how comparable it is to Shanahan's change.

Shanahan didn't suddenly become a better talent evaluator in Washington, but they've been doing very well in their draft selections for two years now. In his entire time here I can't think of a time when he had two excellent drafts back to back. He does it year 1 and 2 in Washington.

Something about his situation is dramatically different than what he had in Denver, and it isn't Mike Shanahan himself.

That's largely my point. People claim he had some power tripping do everything himself complex here and just about every indicator shows that wasn't the case. In fact, there literally isn't enough time throughout the year for him to have possibly been able to accomplish a feat like that.

bowtown
10-18-2011, 10:27 AM
That's largely my point. People claim he had some power tripping do everything himself complex here and just about every indicator shows that wasn't the case. In fact, there literally isn't enough time throughout the year for him to have possibly been able to accomplish a feat like that.

I think it was actually the opposite. I think Shanahan's downfall in Denver was that, over the years, he delegated more and more and relied on others. You have to learn to do that as HC or you'll burn out fast. I just think he was often not the greatest at choosing which people he relied on. A more hands-on micromanaging ego Shanahan was actaully probably a more effective Shanahan than the one we fired, not the opposite.

TheReverend
10-18-2011, 10:29 AM
I think it was actually the opposite. I think Shanahan's downfall in Denver was that, over the years, he delegated more and more and relied on others. You have to learn to do that as HC or you'll burn out fast. I just think he was often not the greatest at choosing which people he relied on. A more hands-on micromanaging ego Shanahan was actaully probably a more effective Shanahan than the one we fired, nit the opposite.

Completely agree but I think that problem was solved and behind us when he fired Sunquist and we were in greener pastures. 2/3 of his last drafts were nothing shy of homeruns.

broncocalijohn
10-18-2011, 11:38 AM
I think it was actually the opposite. I think Shanahan's downfall in Denver was that, over the years, he delegated more and more and relied on others. You have to learn to do that as HC or you'll burn out fast. I just think he was often not the greatest at choosing which people he relied on. A more hands-on micromanaging ego Shanahan was actaully probably a more effective Shanahan than the one we fired, not the opposite.

Two things that cannot erase what happened here for Shanahan. He wasnt drafting defense (or quality when we did) as many wanted and he canned 4 D.C. in 4 years. If he is given a list of talent and it fails, it still partially on him. Obviously, he is in a great situation now in Washington. No Head Coach should have too much power or positions in the NFL. There are so many specialty guys that work in the F.O., let them do the bulk of that work.

Drek
10-18-2011, 11:39 AM
I think it was actually the opposite. I think Shanahan's downfall in Denver was that, over the years, he delegated more and more and relied on others. You have to learn to do that as HC or you'll burn out fast. I just think he was often not the greatest at choosing which people he relied on. A more hands-on micromanaging ego Shanahan was actaully probably a more effective Shanahan than the one we fired, not the opposite.

The problem is that neither your head coach nor your VP of Operations should be hiring your scouting department. If thats the same guy not only is the wrong guy doing it, but he's got a ton of things he's more qualified for he should instead be working on.

That is what the GM is supposed to do, but Bowlen has continually saddled this team with POS front office staff.

Completely agree but I think that problem was solved and behind us when he fired Sunquist and we were in greener pastures. 2/3 of his last drafts were nothing shy of homeruns.

I wouldn't consider it behind us. Jim Goodman didn't want to be the GM of this club, so we were leaving a power vacuum. He was too close with the rest of the scouting staff that hadn't been doing their job for much of the last decade. And ultimately at the point when we fired Shanahan Joe Ellis had already planted his first seed within the organization, getting Brian Xanders in at a high level opposite Jeff Goodman.

Bowlen had allowed an unsustainable hierarchy to develop in Denver. It needed to be resolved. Bowlen just made the absolute worst decisions at each point along the way.

Joe Ellis who will make you a lot of money or Mike Shanahan who will win you football games? He chose Ellis.

Jeff Goodman as GM who might not be qualified but will have a more than qualified mentor in his own father, or Brian Xanders another bean counter who will help you pinch pennies? He chose Xanders.

An older, established DC in Spagnuolo or a younger, less established OC in McDaniels as the next HC? McDaniels signed for 4/$8M, Spags got 4/$11.5M so in Bowlen's mind that decision made itself.

Jim Harbaugh, the "next big thing" collegiate HC who your new VP of Ops is buddies with at 5/$25M or John Fox, a coach who just had a worse record than the guy you fired at 4 years and somewhere around $12-$14M. Another choice Bowlen didn't hesitate on.

Thats the common thread with the Broncos now. Bowlen has put money above winning. It ruined the relationship he had with a HoF head coach, it chased off what little real talent we had in the front office, it led to choosing a less experienced offensive coach over a defensive coach who would work with what we had out of the gate, and now its led to us taking a retread coach versus the guy who somehow has turned the 49ers around rather dramatically this season and could actually develop Tebow or Luck, either one.

bowtown
10-18-2011, 11:41 AM
Completely agree but I think that problem was solved and behind us when he fired Sunquist and we were in greener pastures. 2/3 of his last drafts were nothing shy of homeruns.

Well, I think you may definitely be right in terms of personel and scouting, but the fact that he wanted to retain Slowik and seemingly could not find an answer legitiamte answer at DC, points to the fact that he may not completely have had it all figured out yet.

TheReverend
10-18-2011, 12:43 PM
I wouldn't consider it behind us. Jim Goodman didn't want to be the GM of this club, so we were leaving a power vacuum. He was too close with the rest of the scouting staff that hadn't been doing their job for much of the last decade. And ultimately at the point when we fired Shanahan Joe Ellis had already planted his first seed within the organization, getting Brian Xanders in at a high level opposite Jeff Goodman.

Bowlen had allowed an unsustainable hierarchy to develop in Denver. It needed to be resolved. Bowlen just made the absolute worst decisions at each point along the way.

Joe Ellis who will make you a lot of money or Mike Shanahan who will win you football games? He chose Ellis.

Jeff Goodman as GM who might not be qualified but will have a more than qualified mentor in his own father, or Brian Xanders another bean counter who will help you pinch pennies? He chose Xanders.

An older, established DC in Spagnuolo or a younger, less established OC in McDaniels as the next HC? McDaniels signed for 4/$8M, Spags got 4/$11.5M so in Bowlen's mind that decision made itself.

Jim Harbaugh, the "next big thing" collegiate HC who your new VP of Ops is buddies with at 5/$25M or John Fox, a coach who just had a worse record than the guy you fired at 4 years and somewhere around $12-$14M. Another choice Bowlen didn't hesitate on.

Thats the common thread with the Broncos now. Bowlen has put money above winning. It ruined the relationship he had with a HoF head coach, it chased off what little real talent we had in the front office, it led to choosing a less experienced offensive coach over a defensive coach who would work with what we had out of the gate, and now its led to us taking a retread coach versus the guy who somehow has turned the 49ers around rather dramatically this season and could actually develop Tebow or Luck, either one.

You're putting FAR too much stock in formal titles.

Well, I think you may definitely be right in terms of personel and scouting, but the fact that he wanted to retain Slowik and seemingly could not find an answer legitiamte answer at DC, points to the fact that he may not completely have had it all figured out yet.

A show of support the day after the end of the season before he could do a formal evaluation of his staff? ::)

Drek
10-18-2011, 01:02 PM
You're putting FAR too much stock in formal titles.

I'd argue Bowlen is the one who made too much of the title. He's the one who decided he wanted a person in-house with the General Manager title writ large, supposedly providing checks and balances over the organization.

Bowlen's comments after firing Shanahan about wanting a division of power proves that to us. He then followed it up with non-football related choices leading us to a young first time head coach being given the exact same level of power and autonomy he claimes to have fired Shanahan over. But regardless, Bowlen's own words show that he perceived a power vacuum within the organization, one that Shanahan was filling in addition to his head coach and VP duties.

Now I'd be willing to bet a large part of Bowlen's issues there stem from an inability to stand up to Shanahan and no one else in the organization able to work as a buffer. But regardless, that perception is what triggered all this dysfunction.

TheReverend
10-18-2011, 01:04 PM
I'd argue Bowlen is the one who made too much of the title. He's the one who decided he wanted a person in-house with the General Manager title writ large, supposedly providing checks and balances over the organization.

Bowlen's comments after firing Shanahan about wanting a division of power proves that to us. He then followed it up with non-football related choices leading us to a young first time head coach being given the exact same level of power and autonomy he claimes to have fired Shanahan over. But regardless, Bowlen's own words show that he perceived a power vacuum within the organization, one that Shanahan was filling in addition to his head coach and VP duties.

Now I'd be willing to bet a large part of Bowlen's issues there stem from an inability to stand up to Shanahan and no one else in the organization able to work as a buffer. But regardless, that perception is what triggered all this dysfunction.

Anytime someone brings it back to Bowlen's fault and also includes complimentary opinions towards Shanahan, I'm not going to argue anything.

Drek
10-18-2011, 01:13 PM
Anytime someone brings it back to Bowlen's fault and also includes complimentary opinions towards Shanahan, I'm not going to argue anything.

Honestly, my opinion on this has changed pretty dramatically in the last several months.

I wanted Spagnuolo but still liked the McDaniels hire and at the time was glass half full enough to not even question the loss of Jim Goodman and the promotion of Xanders.

If you look at it in hindsight though every single move Bowlen has made since firing Shanahan has been taking the cheap options through everything. After a while its just damn hard to ignore.

Maybe its a temporary thing and with the new CBA bringing more money to the owners and a couple seasons of going cheap he'll cast off whatever shackles have him playing Ebenezer Scrooge. But as of right now all of the Broncos problems land squarely at his feet because he's chosen profit margins over winning at every turn.

fontaine
10-18-2011, 01:26 PM
An older, established DC in Spagnuolo or a younger, less established OC in McDaniels as the next HC? McDaniels signed for 4/$8M, Spags got 4/$11.5M so in Bowlen's mind that decision made itself.

Jim Harbaugh, the "next big thing" collegiate HC who your new VP of Ops is buddies with at 5/$25M or John Fox, a coach who just had a worse record than the guy you fired at 4 years and somewhere around $12-$14M. Another choice Bowlen didn't hesitate on.

Thats the common thread with the Broncos now. Bowlen has put money above winning. It ruined the relationship he had with a HoF head coach, it chased off what little real talent we had in the front office, it led to choosing a less experienced offensive coach over a defensive coach who would work with what we had out of the gate, and now its led to us taking a retread coach versus the guy who somehow has turned the 49ers around rather dramatically this season and could actually develop Tebow or Luck, either one.

I think you're placing too high an emphasis on the $$$$ side of the FO/Staff.

It's not about scouting the best talent available, it's about scouting the best talent that fits your team.

For years we had an assembly line of OL/RB picks that routinely outperformed their draft status because during the college season/combine etc the scouts knew exactly what qualities the team was looking for in those positions.

So ofcourse they focussed on guys like Portis/Anderson instead of 230+ lb bruisers that went in the first round.

But what exactly were they supposed to focus on when every offseason we changed DCs and defensive philosophies from 4-3 one gap attack to read and react, zone coverage vs man. No scouting department, no matter how highly paid is going to be able to evaluate 200+ defensive prospects in depth when they have no idea who they are looking for?

A simple example of this was when we drafted Paymah, Foxworth, Dwill all in one draft. Two zone coverage types and one pure cover corner. That reeks of having absolutely NO IDEA what coverages you want to play so they were hedging their bets.

And even if the Goodmans were top notch talent evaluaters, what did it get us on D for the years of crappy defenses and wasted picks?

If we just stick to the same philosophy on defense for the next three years then it gives the scouting department the chance to work with the same requirements for specific players and looking for specific qualities.

Right now, we're no different than 16 other teams that have struggled every season and change their system every few years just to try something different.

THAT'S far more important than money spent and the perennial playoffs teams are testament to that. Pittsburgh, New England etc all have lost OCs/DCs/Assistants and other staff but they still do usually do well in the draft because the staff that take over know what they're looking for and were trained by the guys that left.

Bowlen didn't change the system year in year out. Guys like Shanahan/McDaniels did. The money aspect doesn't have any bearing on that.

fontaine
10-18-2011, 01:36 PM
Nick Eason is a great example of the above. He lasted just one season here and then Pittsburgh picked him for a season, and gave him another two year contract and got more play out of him than we though possible and he played well for them as a backup DE.

Their system didn't change every season, so he had a chance to develop and show what he could do. He's not in their team now but they got every bit of work out of him that was possible purely due to having a system that works and being able to isolate talent, even backups that fit that system and actually allow them to develop.

You can't say the same thing about Denver.

How much better would Robert Ayers be right now if he didn't spend his entire rookie season shedding weight and learning a new position at OLB, only to then add more bulk to play DE this season? Same with DJ, Beadles, Royal etc etc.

fontaine
10-18-2011, 01:45 PM
I don't know if Bowlen is spending less on purpose, but who can blame him?

I mean, what kind of self respecting owner would be happy to spend offseason after offseason signing checks for the next Gardener, Lionel Dalton, Jamal Williams, Bannan, LeKevin Smith, Gerrard Warren, Luther Ellis, Ellis Warren, Jarvis Green, Boss Bailey, Nate Webster, Ian Gold only to watch the god awful product on the field and have those guy cut a year or two later and in the process sign more checks for a different DC?

Screw that. I'd wait and see if the current staff/FO actually has the competence to do well with what they have and spend resources allocated wisely before I loosen the wallet again.

Agamemnon
10-18-2011, 01:51 PM
I don't know if Bowlen is spending less on purpose, but who can blame him?

I mean, what kind of self respecting owner would be happy to spend offseason after offseason signing checks for the next Gardener, Lionel Dalton, Jamal Williams, Bannan, LeKevin Smith, Gerrard Warren, Luther Ellis, Ellis Warren, Jarvis Green, Boss Bailey, Nate Webster, Ian Gold only to watch the god awful product on the field and have those guy cut a year or two later and in the process sign more checks for a different DC?

Screw that. I'd wait and see if the current staff/FO actually has the competence to do well with what they have and spend resources allocated wisely before I loosen the wallet again.

Too bad he stopped spending the year FA was flush with genuinely good and young players. That was brilliant...

ZONA
10-18-2011, 02:19 PM
This whole suck for luck thing is comical. Having a great young QB is a good thing but in no way does that guarantee you any success. Just look at Bradford and how those Rams are doing. I say drafting a good young QB is smart but it doesn't have to be Luck and you don't have to give up the farm to get him. Take at look at Cincy who got themselves a good young QB even though he wasn't the best from his class. I don't care how good that QB is, if they don't have alot of other great players on that team, the team is going nowhere. Even the great Peyton Manning has won only a single superbowl so far even though that offense was high powered and pretty much unstoppable.

If we don't get the #1 pick and grab Luck, I'm fine with that. Get some more defensive players and a super fast and shifty scat back and let Tebow have a few years to see what he can do. I'd still get rid or Orton and Quinn and draft a young QB this year to start grooming just in case Tebow doesn't work out.

But I'm not on this Luck bandwagon. If you get him, great. If not (which is most likely to happen), fine.

fontaine
10-18-2011, 03:08 PM
Too bad he stopped spending the year FA was flush with genuinely good and young players. That was brilliant...

Yes it was great. We got McGahee, Bunkley and Warren didn't pan out only because of injury.

I would choose that kind of offseason any day over Maroney, Jamal Williams, Bannan, Ayodele, Jarvis Green, Hochstein and other garbage with only Dawkins to show for it.

TheReverend
10-18-2011, 03:11 PM
Yes it was great. We got McGahee, Bunkley and Warren didn't pan out only because of injury.

I would choose that kind of offseason any day over Maroney, Jamal Williams, Bannan, Ayodele, Jarvis Green, Hochstein and other garbage with only Dawkins to show for it.

Does not apply to last year's FA crop...

Bob's your Information Minister
10-18-2011, 03:17 PM
It's pretty funny how your front office has shown almost no interest whatsoever in supporting Tebow.

bowtown
10-18-2011, 03:43 PM
It's pretty funny how your front office has shown almost no interest whatsoever in supporting Tebow.

It's pretty funny how you show almost no interest whatsoever in supporting your giant man tits.

fontaine
10-18-2011, 04:13 PM
Does not apply to last year's FA crop...

Fair enough but are why folks only look at the FA class as an indicator of spend and calling Bowlen cheap?

This offseason, before anyone was signed Bowlen had to pay half of Shanahan's salary, McD for settling the rest of his contract, and Fox plus his new staff.

That brings costs of HC changes/staff alone to what? $10 million roughly?

Then there's the combined salary of the QBs, only looking at Tebow/Orton, that's another $15million at least?

That's a whopping 25+ million at least, more than Bowlen has EVER had to pay on those respective positions.

Ofcourse that has a knock on effect on everything else, including FA signings.

I'm not ready to label Bowlen cheap like others have based on an offseason aberration based around extraordinary circumstances when he's had a decade or more prior in being generous with his cash flow.

Chris
10-18-2011, 04:19 PM
It's pretty funny how you show almost no interest whatsoever in supporting your giant man boobies.

Yea like... a bra... or something...

TheReverend
10-18-2011, 04:33 PM
Fair enough but are why folks only look at the FA class as an indicator of spend and calling Bowlen cheap?

Because being 25 million under the cap is actually the definition of cheap?

This offseason, before anyone was signed Bowlen had to pay half of Shanahan's salary, McD for settling the rest of his contract, and Fox plus his new staff.

That brings costs of HC changes/staff alone to what? $10 million roughly?

Whose fault is this?

Then there's the combined salary of the QBs, only looking at Tebow/Orton, that's another $15million at least?

That's a whopping 25+ million at least, more than Bowlen has EVER had to pay on those respective positions.

That combined QB salary is reflected in the cap number.

The same cap number that's still 25 MILLION DOLLARS UNDER THE CAP, regardless of what % of that is going to QBs (talk about a completely irrelevant "point")

Ofcourse that has a knock on effect on everything else, including FA signings.

I'm not ready to label Bowlen cheap like others have based on an offseason aberration based around extraordinary circumstances when he's had a decade or more prior in being generous with his cash flow.

Also false.

Bronco Yoda
10-18-2011, 04:43 PM
Heard it in an interview on Sirius when they were both first put together. Shanahan explicitly stated that it was Bruce Allen's FO, then Allen quickly added that Shanahan is the Exec though and has veto power on all moves. Shanahan followed it up by adding that he believes they'll always come to consensus and he'll never need to pull rank.

Shanahan is involved but all the ground work is done by people Allen has selected and supervises.

Even when Shanahan was here it wasn't like he ran the scouting department, or did a ton of his own scouting. He looked at what the scouting department put together for him, got informed on the players they were high on, and made a choice from there.

This was why we suddenly started drafting so much better with the Goodmans. Jim Goodman was running our southeastern scouting program when we drafted Cutler (Vandy, SEC team), Marshall (Central Florida), Doom (Louisville), Woodyard (Kentucky), Hillis (Arkansas), and Royal (Virgina Tech).

Jim Goodman became Shanahan's go to scout for information he could trust. We can see that in the sudden heavy emphasis on drafting guys from Goodman's region. Not long after Shanahan first identified the one real talent in our scouting department Sundquist was shown the door and Goodman was promoted.

The only other consistent success we had in the draft came at OL from the mid-90's to early 2000's and at RB from the mid-90's to 2008.

Why? Because Shanahan had his positional coaches go over the potential selections at their position and Alex Gibbs and Bobby Turner were standout positional coaches who knew how to identify talent. They were targeting different tools from everyone else and knew how to identify them.

This is the problem with the Broncos. We lack real personnel evaluators in the front office. Shanahan gets too much hate for his bad drafts in particular when the real problem was an unwillingness to clean house of all the nepotism and long term hanger ons who aren't getting the job done identifying talent. Now with Allen that is not an issue, as Allen handles it.

Unfortunately for us we still have most of the same scouting department that walked Shanahan into bad drafts year after year, sans Goodman, and worked with McDaniels. We added a few overseers in Kidd and Russell but neither has a ton of experience and hasn't proven themselves worthwhile to this point.

We needed to replace Xanders. We still do. DeCosta (Baltimore) or Grigson (Philly) would both be excellent options. You can hire either one an assistant with two masters in accounting and business management for less than what we pay the cheapest guy on our entire roster. You can't hire a DeCosta or Grigson level evaluator to work under Xanders.

Good post. How is it that Xanders has kept a job with the Broncos this long?

fontaine
10-18-2011, 05:12 PM
Because being 25 million under the cap is actually the definition of cheap?



Whose fault is this?



That combined QB salary is reflected in the cap number.

The same cap number that's still 25 MILLION DOLLARS UNDER THE CAP, regardless of what % of that is going to QBs (talk about a completely irrelevant "point")



Also false.

Fair enough. You want to look at the cost paid per player/coach etc in isolation then that's up to you.

I don't think it's that simple ie if Bowlen doesn't have to spend $15 million on two extra HCs + extra QB then he spends some of it on other FAs and he wouldn't look so cheap, even though the overall spend is the same, but distributed differently.

Only looking at it from cash spend (compared to actual cash revenue/budget) is just one side of the coin, no pun intended.

TheReverend
10-18-2011, 05:28 PM
Fair enough. You want to look at the cost paid per player/coach etc in isolation then that's up to you.

I don't think it's that simple ie if Bowlen doesn't have to spend $15 million on two extra HCs + extra QB then he spends some of it on other FAs and he wouldn't look so cheap, even though the overall spend is the same, but distributed differently.

Only looking at it from cash spend (compared to actual cash revenue/budget) is just one side of the coin, no pun intended.

Why are you still lumping QBs in? They're STILL including in the absurdly low cap number now matter how much of that number goes to them. In fact, it's indicative of how much the rest of the team has been sorely and needlessly neglected!

And coaches? HE'S THE ONE THAT FIRED THEM!

TheReverend
10-18-2011, 05:30 PM
I'll help you out bud, focus your argument specifically on the money he's spending on coaches and what was formerly termed "dead money" and you can grasp at a better point that way.

Still not an acceptable one, but definitely a better one.

bendog
10-19-2011, 08:47 AM
STOP PICKING ON JOSH! He's gonna be unemployed again soon.

http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_19143504

Drek
10-19-2011, 08:55 AM
STOP PICKING ON JOSH! He's gonna be unemployed again soon.

http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_19143504

Sure thing.

Take it from someone who actually watches the Rams, Legwold's article completely misses the problems St. Louis has on offense.

No one in St. Louis is talking about firing McDaniels. They're talking about how to get WRs and TEs who actually catch the ball when Bradford hits them in the hands with it, and linemen who don't commit penalties every single drive.

Hence why they traded for Lloyd.

BroncoSexyDaddy
10-19-2011, 12:12 PM
I know and I would figure that something else is in the package. Knowing other teams were interested in Lloyd, I just had the feeling that Suck for Luck would fit better with a trade to a ****ty team like the Rams. Sure enough who gets the Lloyd sweepstakes but the 0-5 Rams. We won't know until the draft and our end of year record but it is lining up for a possibly Luck campaign.
If we are getting a 3rd or worse, then I am not sure what type of package gets us the #1 pick. Our #1 (which is to say a top 5 for argument sake) plus a very high #3 will do it. Either our #2 or future high pick will need to be thrown in there.Personally,i think its gonna take at least 2 #1 draft picks for Luck,2012 and 2013.

MacGruder
10-19-2011, 03:11 PM
There is something that I think has been missed in all this Brandon Lloyd business.. was Lloyd wanting to go to another team the dumbest financial move he could possibly make?

I mean here you have Tebow who is a potential financial gold mine and you want to get away from that? They seemed to have good chemistry, too. Lloyd could have had a national spotlight like nothing he could get anywhere else. By the end of the season he could have made himself integral to this organization. Tebow is also great deep passer Bradford is not.. he's a dink and dunker.