PDA

View Full Version : Elway explains slide down draft board


Bronco Rob
04-26-2012, 11:07 PM
Elway explains slide down draft board



April 27 1:16 AM ET By Bill Williamson | ESPN.com



After reading the transcript from John Elway’s press briefing Thursday night, it is clear to see why the Broncos traded down twice and eventually out of the first round.

They didn’t think anybody was worthy of a first-round pick where they were picking and they wanted to add picks. Denver now has the No. 36 pick in the second round and added No. 101, in the fourth round. Denver has two picks in the second round, one in the third round and three in the fourth round. I would be surprised if the Broncos don’t try to add another third-round pick and get four picks on Friday.


I think Denver decided to trade down once defensive tackles Dontari Poe, Fletcher Cox and Michael Brockers were off the board by the 14th pick. Denver originally had the No. 25 pick, then traded to No. 31 before going to No. 36.

“Everyone else saw the talent that we saw too,” said Elway, Denver’s top decision-maker. “When those guys started going like that, they went in a hurry. We thought we were going to have to get a little bit lucky for them to fall to us anyways. They’re good football players and when they didn’t get to us that gave us the opportunity to start moving back a little bit.”

Elway made it clear that the Broncos would rather stockpile picks than make a reach, thus the trades with the Patriots and the Buccaneers.

“When we looked at where we were, obviously we had some guys targeted that didn’t quite make it to us in 25, so we had some opportunities to move back with New England to pick up a fourth. We liked that, thought that was great,” Elway said. "Then, when we had a chance to move back from 31 to 36 with Tampa again, our board looked the same. We thought we’d be able to get the same people at 36 that we could at 31 -- or have the same pool of players there at 36 as we did at 31. By doing that we moved up 25 spots to the top of the fourth, which we really believe this is a deep draft. It’s not real thick at the top, but it’s pretty deep through the middle rounds. We thought by adding another good pick it gives us more options going into tomorrow. Plus, we’ll still be able to get the same people that we had targeted that made it to us at 25 at 36. We’re excited about the day. Obviously it’s a little bit of a downer when you don’t have a new player. But, we’re excited about where we sit and the next two days are going to be exciting.”

Among the players Denver could target at No. 36 with their top pick Friday are Michigan State defensive tackle Jerel Worthy, Connecticut defensive tackle Kendall Reyes, Georgia Tech receiver Stephen Hill, LSU receiver Rueben Randle, North Alabama cornerback Janoris Jenkins, Cincinnati defensive tackle Derek Wolfe and Nebraska linebacker Lavonte David. I think we could see Denver try to get a quarterback Friday as well.





http://espn.go.com/blog/afcwest/post/_/id/43290/elway-explains-slide-down-draft-board

Agamemnon
04-26-2012, 11:10 PM
I think most people get this. What we don't get is why they lubed themselves up for other teams in the process.

DBroncos4life
04-26-2012, 11:14 PM
I think Alshon Jeffery is a target. That SC video was of the O not the D.

BowlenBall
04-26-2012, 11:16 PM
http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2012/0320/nfl_a_elway_d1_576.jpg

"I got confused. I panicked. Everyone was talking all at once, Pat was walking around in his underwear, Brian kept asking us what we wanted on our pizza, John Fox wanted to take a fullback in the first round.... I didn't know what to do, all I knew is I HAD to get out of that draft slot and try to get my **** together on day 2."

Agamemnon
04-26-2012, 11:18 PM
http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2012/0320/nfl_a_elway_d1_576.jpg

"I got confused. I panicked. Everyone was talking all at once, Pat was walking around in his underwear, Brian kept asking us what we wanted on our pizza, John Fox wanted to take a fullback in the first round.... I didn't know what to do, all I knew is I HAD to get out of that draft slot and try to get my **** together on day 2."

Hilarious!

errand
04-26-2012, 11:18 PM
I think most people get this. What we don't get is why they lubed themselves up for other teams in the process.

What do you care douche? The Jets got their man, and yours too.....

Agamemnon
04-26-2012, 11:20 PM
What do you care douche? The Jets got their man, and yours too.....

Move along Bobby, the adults are talking...

McDman
04-26-2012, 11:21 PM
I think most people get this. What we don't get is why they lubed themselves up for other teams in the process.

Probably because that's the best we could get. If we don't take those deals then we have to draft a player at #25 or #31 that we could have at #36. Get what you can.

Pseudofool
04-26-2012, 11:27 PM
It's better to give other teams a bargain then keep the pick, if you believe you can get the same players at 36 that you could at 25. If we didn't take these deals, we end up with a similar player and no 101 pick. Not rocket science. But haters gonna hate.

Player from Group A* < Player from Group A + Pick 101

*A list of players at the top of the Broncos draft board whom the Broncos rate equally.

Agamemnon
04-26-2012, 11:29 PM
Probably because that's the best we could get. If we don't take those deals then we have to draft a player at #25 or #31 that we could have at #36. Get what you can.

Apparently it was the best EFX could get, but the Ravens clearly demonstrate much more could've been gotten by people who actually know what they are doing.

Rolandftw
04-26-2012, 11:29 PM
I think most people get this. What we don't get is why they lubed themselves up for other teams in the process.

I don't get this at all.

The Vikings accepted a trade by going down in the draft 1 spot, that was the equivalent of a late 2nd rounder SHORT of fair value based on the outdated draft value chart.

The Jaguars traded down two spots and got back in trade 104 points short of fair value... an early 4th round selection.

The Cowboys moved up and would have had to give up a late 4th rounder for it to have been fair compensation.

Only the Bengals and Ravens were able to move down and get good compensation for their picks. It wasn't just a Broncos problem, but many teams were accepting trades that were short of the trade value chart.

I don't really get how being a 4th rounder short was really a more terrible move then what happened throughout the draft. If they would have selected someone at 25, that they could have got later... doubt too many people would have complained about it. They get an early 4th rounder, when they should have got a mid 3rd and everyone freaks out.

McDman
04-26-2012, 11:30 PM
Apparently it was the best EFX could get, but the Ravens clearly demonstrate much more could've been gotten by people who actually know what they are doing.

Different pick. Different time. Had nothing to do with ours. We know nothing of the circumstances.

Agamemnon
04-26-2012, 11:32 PM
I don't get this at all.

The Vikings accepted a trade by going down in the draft 1 spot, that was the equivalent of a late 2nd rounder SHORT of fair value based on the outdated draft value chart.

The Jaguars traded down two spots and got back in trade 104 points short of fair value... an early 4th round selection.

The Cowboys moved up and would have had to give up a late 4th rounder for it to have been fair compensation.

Only the Bengals and Ravens were able to move down and get good compensation for their picks. It wasn't just a Broncos problem, but many teams were accepting trades that were short of the trade value chart.

I don't really get how being a 4th rounder short was really a more terrible move then what happened throughout the draft. If they would have selected someone at 25, that they could have got later... doubt too many people would have complained about it. They get an early 4th rounder, when they should have got a mid 3rd and everyone freaks out.

Because other teams made bad trades it's okay that EFX did? Is that what you are arguing? Teams make bad trades every draft, that doesn't make bad trades not bad.

Agamemnon
04-26-2012, 11:34 PM
Different pick. Different time. Had nothing to do with ours. We know nothing of the circumstances.

True enough. But at this point are people not seeing a pattern with pretty much all EFX trades? Each and every one of them has been for poor value. In fact, at this point I'm willing to bet the rest of the NFL sees the Broncos as easy marks, because well they are.

Bacchus
04-26-2012, 11:36 PM
True enough. But at this point are people not seeing a pattern with pretty much all EFX trades? Each and every one of them has been for poor value. In fact, at this point I'm willing to bet the rest of the NFL sees the Broncos as easy marks, because well they are.

I'm going to guess your a fan that is still butt hurt over Tebow leaving?

Rolandftw
04-26-2012, 11:42 PM
Because other teams made bad trades it's okay that EFX did? Is that what you are arguing? Teams make bad trades every draft, that doesn't make bad trades not bad.

What's more likely? A number of general managers made terrible trades that just happened to coincide with it being the first draft under the new rookie wage scale? Or that the rookie wage scale, has made the obsolete draft value chart even more obsolete?

I tend to think it's the latter, but that's just me. Would have liked for them to get a 3rd instead of a 4th, but overall don't think the move is going to make or break their draft.

Draft will be a success or failure depending on who they take tomorrow. Having four 4th rounders instead of 3 (fair value), wouldn't have made this draft a success for sure either.

sgbfan
04-26-2012, 11:50 PM
I think there are 2 reasons why everyone is upset about the trades. 1, they only got 1 extra pick in the process. 2, Baltimore had a similar trade around the same time and got much better value.

A few things could have happened to make this a worse deal for Denver:
1. They traded with NE, you'll always get screwed there.
2 Baltimore was the other team that did the trade, they are the only team competing with NE for knowing how to work the draft
3. Denver didn't want to trade out of the first round immediately, meaning, the guys that were picked from 25 to 31 weren't being targeted by Denver, so they felt OK going down again to 36 after that.

Boomhauer
04-26-2012, 11:50 PM
Epic Post!
:notworthy :notworthy :notworthy
Elway - "I got confused. I panicked. Everyone was talking all at once, Pat was walking around in his underwear, Brian kept asking us what we wanted on our pizza, John Fox wanted to take a fullback in the first round.... I didn't know what to do, all I knew is I HAD to get out of that draft slot and try to get my **** together on day 2."
That's one for the ages and sums up the Broncos' FO dysfunction outside Elway. It'll be a great day when Fox is replaced, but that clueless chimp Xanders needs to get the axe pronto.

sgbfan
04-26-2012, 11:52 PM
What's more likely? A number of general managers made terrible trades that just happened to coincide with it being the first draft under the new rookie wage scale? Or that the rookie wage scale, has made the obsolete draft value chart even more obsolete?

I tend to think it's the latter, but that's just me. Would have liked for them to get a 3rd instead of a 4th, but overall don't think the move is going to make or break their draft.

Draft will be a success or failure depending on who they take tomorrow. Having four 4th rounders instead of 3 (fair value), wouldn't have made this draft a success for sure either.

Why would the rookie wage scale make the trades cost less to move up if you don't have to pay the higher picks as much? That doesn't make sense to me. I would think it would cost more to move up now.

Rolandftw
04-27-2012, 12:02 AM
I think one of the reasons why trades were less likely now, other then for QB's, was because of the huge signing bonuses that had to be given out to unproven players. Now, the financial risk is much lower, and it's merely an issue of how much demand there is to move up.

Teams are still going to pay more to move up to get a QB, but now teams are going to be more willing to at least move up to take other positions. The price just won't be close to matching the draft value chart. They really need to almost have two separate ratings--those for QB's, and for everyone else.

Rolandftw
04-27-2012, 12:06 AM
I think there are 2 reasons why everyone is upset about the trades. 1, they only got 1 extra pick in the process. 2, Baltimore had a similar trade around the same time and got much better value.

A few things could have happened to make this a worse deal for Denver:
1. They traded with NE, you'll always get screwed there.
2 Baltimore was the other team that did the trade, they are the only team competing with NE for knowing how to work the draft
3. Denver didn't want to trade out of the first round immediately, meaning, the guys that were picked from 25 to 31 weren't being targeted by Denver, so they felt OK going down again to 36 after that.

Fair enough, and I could see why people are pissed about the draft. Nobody likes watching something for 3.5 hours only to find out you're not even getting a pick. And Baltimore did well for themselves, but most teams trading down did not. Some of it is circumstance too.. being at a certain spot, right ahead of a team that is going to take someone that another team 4-5 spots down really wants.

I think they're set up good for tomorrow; whether they mess it up or not is an entirely different issue.

sgbfan
04-27-2012, 12:06 AM
I think one of the reasons why trades were less likely now, other then for QB's, was because of the huge signing bonuses that had to be given out to unproven players. Now, the financial risk is much lower, and it's merely an issue of how much demand there is to move up.

Teams are still going to pay more to move up to get a QB, but now teams are going to be more willing to at least move up to take other positions. The price just won't be close to matching the draft value chart. They really need to almost have two separate ratings--those for QB's, and for everyone else.

But if teams are more willing to move up, wouldn't that mean that you can get more for them? I'm no economy major, but isn't that simple supply and demand?

Agamemnon
04-27-2012, 12:06 AM
I think one of the reasons why trades were less likely now, other then for QB's, was because of the huge signing bonuses that had to be given out to unproven players. Now, the financial risk is much lower, and it's merely an issue of how much demand there is to move up.

Teams are still going to pay more to move up to get a QB, but now teams are going to be more willing to at least move up to take other positions. The price just won't be close to matching the draft value chart. They really need to almost have two separate ratings--those for QB's, and for everyone else.

I don't follow. It was more expensive to move up before, therefore picks now have less value when trading down? That seems to be the opposite of the supply and demand principle. Teams should be willing to trade up more if its now more economical to do so, therefore increasing the value of higher picks, not the other way around.

sgbfan
04-27-2012, 12:10 AM
Fair enough, and I could see why people are pissed about the draft. Nobody likes watching something for 3.5 hours only to find out you're not even getting a pick. And Baltimore did well for themselves, but most teams trading down did not. Some of it is circumstance too.. being at a certain spot, right ahead of a team that is going to take someone that another team 4-5 spots down really wants.

I think they're set up good for tomorrow; whether they mess it up or not is an entirely different issue.

I personally don't like the value they got, but like what they did. It is anticlimactic to not get a pick, which is why I hate one round on day 1. But if that means they can regroup and have a better draft tomorrow, great.

I haven't had a lot of time to look at the individual players, but it seems to me like there isn't much difference after the top 20 into the 3rd round this year, So I wouldn't mind them continuing to move back and getting 2 2nd rounders and 2 3rd rounders.

Carmelo15
04-27-2012, 12:10 AM
Bottom line is we got more value for these two trade downs (101) than we got for Tebow (108 + 6th)

ol#7
04-27-2012, 12:12 AM
I don't follow. It was more expensive to move up before, therefore picks now have less value when trading down? That seems to be the opposite of the supply and demand principle. Teams should be willing to trade up more if its now more economical to do so, therefore increasing the value of higher picks, not the other way around.

Forget it Ag, the Broncos FO just did it, hence it must be the right move.

At least we played a part in helping NE reload for another title run.

Agamemnon
04-27-2012, 12:16 AM
Forget it Ag, the Broncos FO just did it, hence it must be the right move.

At least we played a part in helping NE reload for another title run.

That is the part that really made it unbearable for me. Not only did we get terrible value in the trade, but we helped the Pats get a player who fills a major need for them. If we are really hoping for a Super Bowl in the next few years, that was a very bad thing.

Oh well, Elway did it so it must be good right? ::)

Rolandftw
04-27-2012, 12:17 AM
But if teams are more willing to move up, wouldn't that mean that you can get more for them? I'm no economy major, but isn't that simple supply and demand?

I think teams are more willing to pay a price in moving up, if they also aren't going to be hit hard with a mammoth salary. But teams are still only going to pay the lowest price they can get away with paying. IF there's only a couple teams trying to trade up, then that's a different situation then if 8-10 teams are trying to trade up (like for an elite QB).

I also think this draft isn't the strongest near the top, so there's less demand to trade. But teams that want to trade down still are willing to do so, as it's better to get some value + player a then to just draft player a at a higher salary.

I expect the 2nd-4th rounds to have more fair value trades. Guess we'll see.

sgbfan
04-27-2012, 12:26 AM
I think teams are more willing to pay a price in moving up, if they also aren't going to be hit hard with a mammoth salary. But teams are still only going to pay the lowest price they can get away with paying. IF there's only a couple teams trying to trade up, then that's a different situation then if 8-10 teams are trying to trade up (like for an elite QB).

I also think this draft isn't the strongest near the top, so there's less demand to trade. But teams that want to trade down still are willing to do so, as it's better to get some value + player a then to just draft player a at a higher salary.

I expect the 2nd-4th rounds to have more fair value trades. Guess we'll see.

So what you are saying is that it is coincidence that the new CBA is this year when there isn't as much value, so you can trade up with less?

Houshyamama
04-27-2012, 12:26 AM
http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2012/0320/nfl_a_elway_d1_576.jpg

"I got confused. I panicked. Everyone was talking all at once, Pat was walking around in his underwear, Brian kept asking us what we wanted on our pizza, John Fox wanted to take a fullback in the first round.... I didn't know what to do, all I knew is I HAD to get out of that draft slot and try to get my **** together on day 2."

This is gold.

Armchair Bronco
04-27-2012, 12:40 AM
Remember a couple of years ago, some team couldn't make up its mind and then ran out of time, forfeiting their pick at that position and then falling down a slot?

Maybe Elway was taking his cues from those clowns.

Agamemnon
04-27-2012, 12:41 AM
Remember a couple of years ago, some team couldn't make up its mind and then ran out of time, forfeiting their pick at that position and then falling down a slot?

Maybe Elway was taking his cues from those clowns.

Well at least that didn't happen...

ol#7
04-27-2012, 02:24 AM
Well at least that didn't happen...

Winning!

CEH
04-27-2012, 02:56 AM
After some thought Denver may have had a offer from Minny to move back to #34 but decided that was too big a move if the board didn't fall their way so they incrementally moved back to 31. At 31 the board is still the same so move back again. When you add up it wasn't as good as Balt move with Minny but what if the board didn't fall their way and now they are stuck at #34 without the pool of players they covet

All in all the ends doesn't add up to the sum of the parts but the strategy was sound

fontaine
04-27-2012, 03:37 AM
I aplaud the FO for doing this and now having 6 picks in rounds 2-4 which will go a long way in addressing the multiple needs at depth positions like RB/OL/DL/CB.

This will go a long ways in having multiple young guys at key depth positions that can develop over the next few years instead of reaching for a risky impact player at 25 when those guys were gone.

OrangeCrush2724
04-27-2012, 03:45 AM
The value changes when a team is trying to trade down vs a team moving up to get their guy. You take what is offered, if reasonable.

Drek
04-27-2012, 03:46 AM
After some thought Denver may have had a offer from Minny to move back to #34 but decided that was too big a move if the board didn't fall their way so they incrementally moved back to 31. At 31 the board is still the same so move back again. When you add up it wasn't as good as Balt move with Minny but what if the board didn't fall their way and now they are stuck at #34 without the pool of players they covet

All in all the ends doesn't add up to the sum of the parts but the strategy was sound

1. why are you extrapolating crazy ass theories to cover up for FO ineptitude?

2. Even assuming your crazy little theory might have been true, why in the world couldn't they extract similar compensation from Tampa as Baltimore got from Minnesota for nearly the same kind of trade? Minnesota might have been able to wait on Harrison Smith. It was pretty clear the Giants were shooting for a RB and that is what Tampa obviously wanted too. How did that situation go from our FO having a clear upper hand in dictating price to instead taking the weakest compensation for a 1st round trade out in NFL history?

126 to 101 is just about the lowest value we could have possibly gotten. That is about as worthwhile as getting a 6th or 7th round pick. Its a joke. You only do that deal if you are unwilling to make a pick on day one for some reason.

Boomhauer
04-27-2012, 04:02 AM
...126 to 101 is just about the lowest value we could have possibly gotten... Its a joke. You only do that deal if you are unwilling to make a pick on day one for some reason.
Skimping pennies after wasting dollars re-signing Mays and Willis. :lombardi:

jutang
04-27-2012, 04:07 AM
After sleeping on what the Broncos did, I thought they didn't do a bad job. Baltimore got more out of their trade, but most other teams got comparable trade packages. While I would love to see Denver make out like a bandit, no team was absolutely in love with any player in the bottom first round.

Assuming their draft board is similar to Denver's, they must also feel that the 2nd-4th rounds is the strength of this yr's draft. If everyone feels the odd of landing a quality NFL player from the bottom half of the 1st round to the middle rounds are not much different, then you end up with the type of trade packages the broncos got yesterday.

Was it boring? Yes. Did the broncos increase their odds of landing some solid contributors? Yes. Will they capitalize on their trades? :kiddingme

ol#7
04-27-2012, 04:26 AM
1. why are you extrapolating crazy ass theories to cover up for FO ineptitude?

2. Even assuming your crazy little theory might have been true, why in the world couldn't they extract similar compensation from Tampa as Baltimore got from Minnesota for nearly the same kind of trade? Minnesota might have been able to wait on Harrison Smith. It was pretty clear the Giants were shooting for a RB and that is what Tampa obviously wanted too. How did that situation go from our FO having a clear upper hand in dictating price to instead taking the weakest compensation for a 1st round trade out in NFL history?

126 to 101 is just about the lowest value we could have possibly gotten. That is about as worthwhile as getting a 6th or 7th round pick. Its a joke. You only do that deal if you are unwilling to make a pick on day one for some reason.

This^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I know it means that you have to admit the FO screwed up, but getting the worst historical value for the 25th pick in the last 20 years is stupid no matter who they take with the picks.

It is opportunity lost and giving away draft value as if it were halloween candy.

ol#7
04-27-2012, 04:28 AM
After sleeping on what the Broncos did, I thought they didn't do a bad job. Baltimore got more out of their trade, but most other teams got comparable trade packages. While I would love to see Denver make out like a bandit, no team was absolutely in love with any player in the bottom first round.

Assuming their draft board is similar to Denver's, they must also feel that the 2nd-4th rounds is the strength of this yr's draft. If everyone feels the odd of landing a quality NFL player from the bottom half of the 1st round to the middle rounds are not much different, then you end up with the type of trade packages the broncos got yesterday.

Was it boring? Yes. Did the broncos increase their odds of landing some solid contributors? Yes. Will they capitalize on their trades? :kiddingme

But EVERYONE else that made similar moves got more in return. Historically, every other team that made a similar move got more in return.

It doesn't make you less of a fan by not rationalizing every stupid thing the team does. They crapped the bed.

cutthemdown
04-27-2012, 04:35 AM
I think Alshon Jeffery is a target. That SC video was of the O not the D.

Interesting.

cutthemdown
04-27-2012, 04:36 AM
But EVERYONE else that made similar moves got more in return. Historically, every other team that made a similar move got more in return.

It doesn't make you less of a fan by not rationalizing every stupid thing the team does. They crapped the bed.

Sometimes it comes down to the best deal you can get where you still achieve your goal.

ol#7
04-27-2012, 05:02 AM
Sometimes it comes down to the best deal you can get where you still achieve your goal.

I think sometimes it comes down to your Front Office screwing the pooch. Matt Millen agrees with me.

I hate (but am not suprised) constantly bitching about the Broncos, but can't defend idiocy 'just because'.

TheChamp24
04-27-2012, 05:25 AM
Personally, I would've liked them to move up a couple spots and take DeCastro. That guy would've been awesome for us.

Steve Sewell
04-27-2012, 05:26 AM
DOUCHEY BUTTHURT INTERNET GM TEAM, ASSEMBLE!

RaiderH8r
04-27-2012, 05:38 AM
Forget it Ag, the Broncos FO just did it, hence it must be the right move.

At least we played a part in helping NE reload for another title run.

Yep. And if we hadn't given the idiot cannonball $4 mill per to miss tackles we might have been in the market for an ILB that was great value at 25.

Hulamau
04-27-2012, 05:39 AM
I think most people get this. What we don't get is why they lubed themselves up for other teams in the process.

THats still only an assumption that they did. Lets see how the full draft plays out before declaring them raped in showers even just on 'value'....

BroncoInferno
04-27-2012, 05:39 AM
I'm going to guess your a fan that is still butt hurt over Tebow leaving?

He is.

Hulamau
04-27-2012, 05:47 AM
I aplaud the FO for doing this and now having 6 picks in rounds 2-4 which will go a long way in addressing the multiple needs at depth positions like RB/OL/DL/CB.

This will go a long ways in having multiple young guys at key depth positions that can develop over the next few years instead of reaching for a risky impact player at 25 when those guys were gone.

Agreed .. they are trying to make the most of the Tebow 'mircale wins' fall out and hand dealt to a team that overreached its talent level last season in wins on the basis of some inspired play by a moxie Option QB and a fired up D while Von was healthy that caught most of the NFL off guard for 7 weeks or so..

We played beyond our pay grade and now when reality set in and we really could use hte picks more commiserate with the overall talent level of our team we are a bit hamstrung by the 'Tebow miracle' .. as much fun as it was last year ... and doubtful to be repeated by Tebow in NYC or anywhere else going forward.

barryr
04-27-2012, 05:49 AM
I would have thought the Broncos with all that dealing, would have like 9 picks at least in this draft, so I'm a little disappointed with that, but hopefully they make some nice hits. Getting a extra 4th rounder is nice, but I always like getting extra picks, but it isn't worth throwing a parade about though.

stoxman
04-27-2012, 06:00 AM
Hightower or Martin would have looked GREAT in a Broncos uniform!

We'll need to compare how they do in the NFL to what we get in the 2nd and that putrid 4th in return.

I think Martin is an impact player...he's being compared to Rice or Forte. Hightower is a beast.

I'm a quality over quantity guy...we need IMPACT players...let's see how we do today.

Drek
04-27-2012, 06:04 AM
Sometimes it comes down to the best deal you can get where you still achieve your goal.

So every other team picking before and after us is better at achieving their goals while still getting good value.

This is what you're saying. Lets do it up as a nice logic proof:

A - Teams get the best value they can draw from trades in the draft.

B - Earlier draft picks are worth more than later draft picks.

C- Denver traded pick #25 for picks #36 and #101. Baltimore traded pick #29 for picks #35 and #98.

Assuming A, B, and C are true then D is also true, which states:

D - Denver failed to get less value for a more valuable asset than Baltimore, and therefore must be less capable of drawing value from trades in the draft.

Jay3
04-27-2012, 06:05 AM
Agreed .. they are trying to make the most of the Tebow 'mircale wins' fall out and hand dealt to a team that overreached its talent level last season in wins on the basis of some inspired play by a moxie Option QB and a fired up D while Von was healthy that caught most of the NFL off guard for 7 weeks or so..

We played beyond our pay grade and now when reality set in and we really could use hte picks more commiserate with the overall talent level of our team we are a bit hamstrung by the 'Tebow miracle' .. as much fun as it was last year ... and doubtful to be repeated by Tebow in NYC or anywhere else going forward.

Peyton Manning just read your post and is a sad clown now.

RaiderH8r
04-27-2012, 06:11 AM
Agreed .. they are trying to make the most of the Tebow 'mircale wins' fall out and hand dealt to a team that overreached its talent level last season in wins on the basis of some inspired play by a moxie Option QB and a fired up D while Von was healthy that caught most of the NFL off guard for 7 weeks or so..

We played beyond our pay grade and now when reality set in and we really could use hte picks more commiserate with the overall talent level of our team we are a bit hamstrung by the 'Tebow miracle' .. as much fun as it was last year ... and doubtful to be repeated by Tebow in NYC or anywhere else going forward.

I doubt this was part of EFX's pitch to get Manning here. "Peyton, despite our record and wins our core really is more of a 4 or 5 win club but don't worry, we're going to draft some developmental guys that should be able to contribute in 2 or 3 years so it's all good, right? Oh....well how about $96 million. How do you feel about our win now approach now?"

Drek
04-27-2012, 06:15 AM
we are a bit hamstrung by the 'Tebow miracle' .. as much fun as it was last year ... and doubtful to be repeated by Tebow in NYC or anywhere else going forward.

The same "Tebow miracle" that has defined his entire athletic career. The same "Tebow miracle" everyone said couldn't happen in the NFL period, not for one game, not ever. Then that it couldn't happen over multiple games. Then that it definitely wouldn't get you into the playoffs. Then that well, it might get you into the playoffs in a bad division but you sure wouldn't win anything.

Yep. That "miracle" has no chance of repeating itself. Completely a one of a kind, freak incident. Except for all the other times its happened.

jhns
04-27-2012, 06:20 AM
Elway failed with these trades. 25 is valued at 720. 36 and 101 are worth 636. Teams just don't lose that much value when trading down...

Hopefully he makes up for it with some great picks.

The Ravens made a similar trade. They gave up 640 points and received 658 points.

misturanderson
04-27-2012, 06:24 AM
1. why are you extrapolating crazy ass theories to cover up for FO ineptitude?

2. Even assuming your crazy little theory might have been true, why in the world couldn't they extract similar compensation from Tampa as Baltimore got from Minnesota for nearly the same kind of trade? Minnesota might have been able to wait on Harrison Smith. It was pretty clear the Giants were shooting for a RB and that is what Tampa obviously wanted too. How did that situation go from our FO having a clear upper hand in dictating price to instead taking the weakest compensation for a 1st round trade out in NFL history?

126 to 101 is just about the lowest value we could have possibly gotten. That is about as worthwhile as getting a 6th or 7th round pick. Its a joke. You only do that deal if you are unwilling to make a pick on day one for some reason.

Exactly. Even with getting screwed over by the pats with the first trade, there is absolutely no excuse to have not added a 4th rounder in the second trade.

If they don't offer you that extra pick, then just make the selection at 31. On a matter of principle, don't bend over and take whatever you can get for the second time in 6 selections. What kind of idiot doesn't see that?

We made ourselves look weak for a 20 spot advantage in the 4th round.

And to the people saying that taking what we got from the Pats is all we could have asked for because they didn't have any other picks: Make them swap picks in the 2nd round to add value, do something to get real value out of the trades, don't just take what they offer so that you can move down and save $250K on the player you select.

CEH
04-27-2012, 06:29 AM
1. why are you extrapolating crazy ass theories to cover up for FO ineptitude?

2. Even assuming your crazy little theory might have been true, why in the world couldn't they extract similar compensation from Tampa as Baltimore got from Minnesota for nearly the same kind of trade? Minnesota might have been able to wait on Harrison Smith. It was pretty clear the Giants were shooting for a RB and that is what Tampa obviously wanted too. How did that situation go from our FO having a clear upper hand in dictating price to instead taking the weakest compensation for a 1st round trade out in NFL history?

126 to 101 is just about the lowest value we could have possibly gotten. That is about as worthwhile as getting a 6th or 7th round pick. Its a joke. You only do that deal if you are unwilling to make a pick on day one for some reason.

This from a guy who thought McD did a good job for the Denver Broncos and stood up for Josh at any and every opportunity

My guess is their #1 target went before #31. At that point the group of players were the same and now you either take the player at #31 or take whatever a team is offering to get the same player at #35. Getting to cute gets you burned like Shanny in '03 with Foster because you hold out for more from NE. I also mention last night it could be a salary dump by Denver

But do you want Denver to overdraft at #31 or get a little value . Every player with a first round grade was off their board. The next group has 8-9 players.

I have Denver trading out of the first and selecting Lamar Miller so we'll so what happens but maybe I know a little more about what happening inside Dove Valley than the average fan

Jay3
04-27-2012, 06:31 AM
We made ourselves look weak for a 20 spot advantage in the 4th round.

It's hard to figure why 20 spots of move-up in the fourth is worth moving down 5 slots now. If it's not an extra player, just make the pick.

I think they get themselves convinced that "well, the guy we want at this pick is still going to be there 5 picks later, so we may as well get something." But at some point, you're over-thinking it. You don't know that guy will be there -- go ahead and take him.

I wouldn't do these trade-downs except to pick up extra picks.

BroncoInferno
04-27-2012, 06:34 AM
I think they get themselves convinced that "well, the guy we want at this pick is still going to be there 5 picks later, so we may as well get something." But at some point, you're over-thinking it. You don't know that guy will be there -- go ahead and take him.

I'm guessing it's not just about one guy....there are probably a cluster of players they've given a similar grade to and they know someone they like will still be available @ #36.

Rabb
04-27-2012, 06:45 AM
We could, oh I don't know, let the entire draft play out first and even maybe *gasp* see the players play first before making a judgement here.

But what do I know, I am not a GM.

jhns
04-27-2012, 06:47 AM
We could, oh I don't know, let the entire draft play out first and even maybe *gasp* see the players play first before making a judgement here.

But what do I know, I am not a GM.

It won't change the fact that other teams are ripping off this front office.

Kaylore
04-27-2012, 06:50 AM
I thought it was a good press conference. I was shocked that Elway admitted to being surprised by Carol selecting Irvin when asked if any picks surprised him. That may create a bit of a storm.

Rabb
04-27-2012, 06:56 AM
It won't change the fact that other teams are ripping off this front office.

I get what you are saying.

Let it all play out before we all cry about it, we had a solid draft last year and none of us are used to a front office staying true to their board.

jhns
04-27-2012, 07:00 AM
I get what you are saying.

Let it all play out before we all cry about it, we had a solid draft last year and none of us are used to a front office staying true to their board.

It just raises concerns that they don't understand the value of draft picks. Other than that, I agree. The draft can be a success if they get a few future starters.

We need to fire Xanders and bring in a real GM to work with the inexperienced Elway.

Bronco Rob
04-27-2012, 07:01 AM
The Real Reason For Yesterday...




:sunshine:

mwill07
04-27-2012, 07:05 AM
The value changes when a team is trying to trade down vs a team moving up to get their guy. You take what is offered, if reasonable.

this.

Per the draft value chart, we got burned by NE. the Tampa deal was pretty close, but the NE deal was terrible. comparing our deal with Bal - I think it's a matter of buyer vs seller market. In almost every deal yesterday, the team trading up won the trade-value comparison - that should tell us something about the market - all across the board, teams were willing to give up value to move down.

When we are the ones on the clock and calling around..."hey - anyone wanna make a trade?" we are going to get low-balled. When Minnesota saw the only decent S still on the board @ 29, they called up Bal and asked about trading up...no way Baltimore trades down without getting a good deal.

We were selling, Minnesota was buying. it's a shame that we couldn't have hooked up with them for the 25 pick, but it's possible that with the 10 minute time constraint, we didn't have time to exhaust all possibilities.

At the end of the day, even if it was not a good trade per the value chart and we possibly left the equivalent of a 4th rounder on the table, we are better off making a deal than drafting player X at a spot higher than we could have. If Miller is the target, Miller + 101 > Miller. It's better to get screwed in trade value than reaching.

That all being said, my preference would have been Hightower @ 25, I think. Or, be more pro-active and trade up for one of the guys you were hoping would slip.

Rabb
04-27-2012, 07:05 AM
It just raises concerns that they don't understand the value of draft picks. Other than that, I agree. The draft can be a success if they get a few future starters.

We need to fire Xanders and bring in a real GM to work with the inexperienced Elway.

I agree with you here, I think they panicked a little bit and we need a more experienced GM.

Overall though I appreciate that they didn't force a 1st round pick on someone they knew would be available today. And I would be lying if I said when I saw Hightower still there that I wasn't disappointed a little, but I am trusting them for now.

Beantown Bronco
04-27-2012, 07:06 AM
But what do I know, I am not a GM.

I wonder how many times Xanders has said this very thing before someone has to whisper in his ear that he is, in fact, the GM. :)

DENVERDUI55
04-27-2012, 07:08 AM
Because other teams made bad trades it's okay that EFX did? Is that what you are arguing? Teams make bad trades every draft, that doesn't make bad trades not bad.

Who did Denver miss out on because of trade down? Hightower is only guy I see and he is 2 down lb.

Bigdawg26
04-27-2012, 07:11 AM
Well I would be happy if we draft Lamar Miller with our first pick then one of the DT's (Worthy, Still, Reyes, or Ta'amu) with our second. I can see the broncos traded up again to get Osilweler in the early third and a corner/OL with another pick.

Bronco Rob
04-27-2012, 07:12 AM
http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2012/0320/nfl_a_elway_d1_576.jpg

"I got confused. I panicked. Everyone was talking all at once, Pat was walking around in his underwear, Brian kept asking us what we wanted on our pizza, John Fox wanted to take a fullback in the first round.... I didn't know what to do, all I knew is I HAD to get out of that draft slot and try to get my **** together on day 2."



Hilarious!

Darkhawk24
04-27-2012, 07:12 AM
There wasn't anyone I was really wanting to see Denver draft who was available at 25 or 31 . I would have liked to see them take DeCastro if he dropped one more spot. He looks like somebody who will be really good for a long time in the league.

It didn't seem like they got the best value, but that being said I don't hold any real dissapointment on missing out on anyone in particular.

Curious to see what they do in the 2nd round.

Rolandftw
04-27-2012, 07:12 AM
So what you are saying is that it is coincidence that the new CBA is this year when there isn't as much value, so you can trade up with less?

No, I'm saying teams in the 1st round rarely trade up and give fair value unless it's for a QB. Now, without the financial ramifications they're willing to do so but not at a rate that matches the draft value chart. The chart is inaccurate... as teams are willing to give up more value then what the chart implies to trade up to get a top QB, but for most everything else it falls short.

Remember during the Cutler trade saga..? We didn't want the first pick in the draft because of the salary risk it entailed... under the current system, if we were in that situation we'd love the #1 pick.

TonyR
04-27-2012, 07:13 AM
When the Broncos' pick came at #25, they decided they could move back six spots, get their guy, and pick up a fourth-rounder in the process.

When pick #31 came, they decided they could still get their guy five picks later at pick #36 and gain 25 spots in round four by trading pick #126 for #101. Throw all of this out the window. In essence, the Broncos moved back 11 spots to gain a high fourth-round draft pick. The traditional draft chart says the Broncos should have ended up with a mid-3rd-round draft pick, but as we saw tonight, the traditional draft chart doesn't account for the recent rookie salary cap. Still, I think they could have done better for themselves.

I also believe that had OT Riley Reiff or G David DeCastro not been picked at #23 and #24, the Broncos would have taken either guy. Both players had tumbled down the board. I am also shocked they didn't jump on ILB Dont'a Hightower, who went to New England with that original #25 pick. I guess the $4 million they are giving Joe Mays really does mean something in 2012.

Just who is their guy that John Elway said was there at #25 and who is still there at #36? We don't know, but let's quickly review who is still available after Round 1--these players had all been tied to the Broncos at #25:
• Jerel Worthy, DT, Michigan State - many mocks had Worthy going to Denver at #25
• Coby Fleener, TE, Stanford - rumored to be an Elway favorite, he's the best tight end in the draft
• Devon Still, DT, Penn State - like Worthy, many had tied Still to the Broncos at #25.
• Stephen Hill, WR, Georgia Tech - rumored for a week or more to be on the Broncos' radar
• Rueben Randle, WR, LSU - in the same category as Hill

Other possibilities include Cordy Glenn, Peter Konz, and Jonathan Martin on the offensive line, and Lamar Miller at running back.

Throughout the night Jason La Canfora and Michelle Beisner kept saying that Worthy is the Broncos' guy. If that's the case, they've played this draft perfectly, assuming Worthy isn't drafted in the next three picks to begin the second round. The only impact player on this list--one that will pay dividends on day 1--is Miller, however. Fleener is a distant second, although Fleener would be ideal if the Broncos pair him with Robert Turbin in the 3rd round.

The Broncos claim they are a best player available team. I hope they apply this logic in round four, which is what they got for their night's work.

http://www.itsalloverfatman.com/broncos/entry/gut-reaction-broncos-trade-out-of-first-round

peacepipe
04-27-2012, 07:13 AM
Well I would be happy if we draft Lamar Miller with our first pick then one of the DT's (Worthy, Still, Reyes, or Ta'amu) with our second. I can see the broncos traded up again to get Osilweler in the early third and a corner/OL with another pick.with all the DTs available we have to go DT with our 1st 2nd. I think there is going to be a run on DTs early in the 2nd.

lolcopter
04-27-2012, 07:15 AM
What do you care douche? The Jets got their man, and yours too.....

Stfu about the jets

enjolras
04-27-2012, 07:16 AM
So every other team picking before and after us is better at achieving their goals while still getting good value.

This is what you're saying. Lets do it up as a nice logic proof:

A - Teams get the best value they can draw from trades in the draft.

B - Earlier draft picks are worth more than later draft picks.

C- Denver traded pick #25 for picks #36 and #101. Baltimore traded pick #29 for picks #35 and #98.

Assuming A, B, and C are true then D is also true, which states:

D - Denver failed to get less value for a more valuable asset than Baltimore, and therefore must be less capable of drawing value from trades in the draft.

D would only be true if Baltimore traded out of the same position with the same variables in play. They did not, so the conclusion is completely invalid.

Again, I think the Broncos created that value for Baltimore when they traded back. Minnesota wanted a safety and they feared that the Broncos had moved back to take their guy. They likely assumed Broncos would go Hightower at #25, and when they didn't they were forced to move ahead of the Broncos (now at #31).

edog24
04-27-2012, 07:18 AM
Really really stupid to trade with NE. Supposedly they are the biggest obstacle to us getting deep in the playoffs and we let them screw us? Unacceptable.

Bigdawg26
04-27-2012, 07:21 AM
I REALLY don't see why the broncos would draft a TE with their first pick! You drafted two last year, and you signed two more in the offseason!

peacepipe
04-27-2012, 07:22 AM
I REALLY don't see why the broncos would draft a TE with their first pick! You drafted two last year, and you signed two more in the offseason!I'm for WR Hill if we go offense.

Rabb
04-27-2012, 07:22 AM
Really really stupid to trade with NE. Supposedly they are the biggest obstacle to us getting deep in the playoffs and we let them screw us? Unacceptable.

solid logic

Hilarious!

BroncoBeavis
04-27-2012, 07:23 AM
Really really stupid to trade with NE. Supposedly they are the biggest obstacle to us getting deep in the playoffs and we let them screw us? Unacceptable.

We have Peyton now, so there's no need to concern ourselves with the New England Patriots.

TonyR
04-27-2012, 07:25 AM
D would only be true if Baltimore traded out of the same position with the same variables in play. They did not, so the conclusion is completely invalid.

Again, I think the Broncos created that value for Baltimore when they traded back. Minnesota wanted a safety and they feared that the Broncos had moved back to take their guy. They likely assumed Broncos would go Hightower at #25, and when they didn't they were forced to move ahead of the Broncos (now at #31).

Good post. I agree in general with what Drek is saying but at the same time situation/timing/context need to be considered.

barryr
04-27-2012, 07:29 AM
D would only be true if Baltimore traded out of the same position with the same variables in play. They did not, so the conclusion is completely invalid.

Again, I think the Broncos created that value for Baltimore when they traded back. Minnesota wanted a safety and they feared that the Broncos had moved back to take their guy. They likely assumed Broncos would go Hightower at #25, and when they didn't they were forced to move ahead of the Broncos (now at #31).

Minnesota feared the Broncos moved back to take Harrison Smith?

peacepipe
04-27-2012, 07:30 AM
Minnesota feared the Broncos moved back to take Harrison Smith?

makes sense with brian dawkins having just retired.

peacepipe
04-27-2012, 07:32 AM
we have two main weaknesses an ageing secondary & our DTs are avg. at best.

barryr
04-27-2012, 07:34 AM
makes sense with brian dawkins having just retired.

So then pretty much giving up on the safeties the Broncos just drafted, one that Carter was taken with a 4th rounder a year ago, which happens to be a pick that some are so excited the Broncos got an extra one of in this draft.

barryr
04-27-2012, 07:35 AM
we have two main weaknesses an ageing secondary & our DTs are avg. at best.

CB is a weakness for sure.

BroncoBeavis
04-27-2012, 07:36 AM
makes sense with brian dawkins having just retired.

Makes 'more' sense than before BDawk retired, but it was still a stretch. I don't think they wanted Smith. Do you?

I can't imagine most teams bet much on that kind of hunch. Seems like you'd drive yourself crazy.

WolfpackGuy
04-27-2012, 07:38 AM
Once Hightower went, it was cut and run. I was feeling good about him falling after Poe and Irvin went as high as they did.

TheChamp24
04-27-2012, 07:42 AM
I seriously wish with DeCastro falling, we should've moved up a few spots to get him. He's going to be an awesome guard in the league.

That said, now, I feel we should be looking at DT for our first pick, and RB/CB with our 2nd.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
04-27-2012, 07:46 AM
I think most people get this. What we don't get is why they lubed themselves up for other teams in the process.

My my. You really hate this team.

jhns
04-27-2012, 07:50 AM
My my. You really hate this team.

Says the guy who defended McDaniels and Orton...

MVP-06
04-27-2012, 07:54 AM
I'm guessing they like the three top cb's and Brockers and Cox. When they were gone they felt like they could get similar value in the early second. They have a board and they are sticking to it, and everyone here is ready to crucify them for it. We all wish they had gotten a higher pick in return, but don't you think they would have if it was on the table? Either we reach or take the best trade out there. On a side note, I don't understand the Martin love around here, he looks like a poor mans Ryan Mathews to me.

My prediction is that we dominate the draft tonight with four picks in rounds 2-3 and are the talk of the draft. Schefter said it last night "we will look to attack the draft tomorrow night." It's time to buckle up b*tches, it's going to be a fun ride

WolfpackGuy
04-27-2012, 07:54 AM
They still plenty of ammo to make a move up with those 3 4ths.

BroncoBen
04-27-2012, 08:01 AM
I think most people get this. What we don't get is why they lubed themselves up for other teams in the process.

lubed themselves is a stretch... but in regards to the Pats trade.. the pats had the LB higher on their board then the Broncos.

The pats are still the pats.. they are going to be good. The LB they drafted may be alright against the run, but not so much the pass.

I think he was drafted in response to the Jets and Tebow.

EmpireOrange
04-27-2012, 08:03 AM
I don't get this at all...

I don't really get how being a 4th rounder short was really a more terrible move then what happened throughout the draft. If they would have selected someone at 25, that they could have got later... doubt too many people would have complained about it. They get an early 4th rounder, when they should have got a mid 3rd and everyone freaks out.



You're having troubles because you're trying to make sense with irrational, and quite frankly very dumb people. The best way to explain it, many around here need a first round pick much like a small child likes shiny objects. Last night was big boy draft management.

Dos Rios
04-27-2012, 08:05 AM
Worthy/Miller/Still/Hill at 25 + original draft picks = sober nods of approval

Worthy/Miller/Still/Hill at 36 + original picks + high 4th rounder = pitchforks

No doubt that mid-third is a better market return than high 4th. But the hyperbole here is crazy. That was no Jarvis Moss/Alphonso Smith squander of value.

I'm happy that Fox and Elway seem to take a middle of the fairway, traditional approach to drafting after the "look at me! I'm a genius!" approaches of McDaniels and late Shanahan. This is a roster woefully lacking in young depth. Yes, they made the playoffs, but they don't have anywhere near the culture and system in place yet to compete with Pats, Steelers, Ravens, and the like. How many Jameel McClains - reserve players coveted by other teams as starters - is Denver producing? Get used to several years of loading up in the middle of the draft, trying like hell to develop guys like Moore, Irving, and Thomas, and building a top level organization.

Rohirrim
04-27-2012, 08:05 AM
Now the question is, who is the guy they know will still be there at 36? If it's Randle, I'm good with that. If it's Worthy or Fleener, that's also okay (although I think both will be gone). My suspicion is it's going to be Janoris. It's a good bet that everybody in the league knows he'll still be there at 36. And for good reason.

jhns
04-27-2012, 08:07 AM
Worthy/Miller/Still/Hill at 25 + original draft picks = sober nods of approval

Worthy/Miller/Still/Hill at 36 + original picks + high 4th rounder = pitchforks

No doubt that mid-third is a better market return than high 4th. But the hyperbole here is crazy. That was no Jarvis Moss/Alphonso Smith squander of value.

I'm happy that Fox and Elway seem to take a middle of the fairway, traditional approach to drafting after the "look at me! I'm a genius!" approaches of McDaniels and late Shanahan. This is a roster woefully lacking in young depth. Yes, they made the playoffs, but they don't have anywhere near the culture and system in place yet to compete with Pats, Steelers, Ravens, and the like. How many Jameel McClains - reserve players coveted by other teams as starters - is Denver producing? Get used to several years of loading up in the middle of the draft, trying like hell to develop guys like Moore, Irving, and Thomas, and building a top level organization.

Show one other team that has lost that much value, while trading down, in the last decade. This is not the traditional approach to drafting...

mwill07
04-27-2012, 08:11 AM
Show one other team that has lost that much value, while trading down, in the last decade. This is not the traditional approach to drafting...

I can pretty easily show you teams that lost value by not trading down.

jhns
04-27-2012, 08:13 AM
I can pretty easily show you teams that lost value by not trading down.

In your opinion. Who is smarter, you or every franchise in the NFL(minus this one)?

mwill07
04-27-2012, 08:17 AM
They still plenty of ammo to make a move up with those 3 4ths.

not as much as you might hope. our three 4th rounders combined are equivalent to about pick 10 in the 3rd round.

To get a 3rd 2nd rounder, we are going to have to give up our 3 and two 4ths, leaving the entire draft haul of 3 2nd rounders, 1 4th rounder, a 5th and a 6th.

This is where that extra 4th rounder we were shorted by the NE trade would come in really handy.

mwill07
04-27-2012, 08:18 AM
In your opinion. Who is smarter, you or every franchise in the NFL(minus this one)?

in my opinion?

jhns
04-27-2012, 08:20 AM
in my opinion?

Yup. You can't show that using facts.

mwill07
04-27-2012, 08:28 AM
Yup. You can't show that using facts.

ok. In my opinion, I'm smarter than all 32 teams, but I can't back that up. happy?

DarkHorse
04-27-2012, 08:29 AM
I like our moves so far, this draft to me was just 6-8 top tier guys and then a bunch of solid depth players. We started at 25, which sucks, and moved to pickup more picks. I'm fine with what we've done.

jhns
04-27-2012, 08:30 AM
ok. In my opinion, I'm smarter than all 32 teams, but I can't back that up. happy?

I don't think you are making any sense at this point.

You said you could show teams that lost value by not trading down. You can't do that. If you are basing it off of bad picks, you can't prove they would have made better picks later. There is a reason that teams don't just trade down and lose that much value.

mwill07
04-27-2012, 08:36 AM
I don't think you are making any sense at this point.

You said you could show teams that lost value by not trading down. You can't do that. If you are basing it off of bad picks, you can't prove they would have made better picks later. There is a reason that teams don't just trade down and lose that much value.

my position is that many teams have lost value by drafting players ahead of where they otherwise would go. I believe that this can be relatively easily demonstrated. If player X should be a 2nd rounder and you draft him in the first, you are losing value by not trading back into the second and taking him there.

do you agree, or do I need to mention Richard Quinn?

Pony Boy
04-27-2012, 08:36 AM
We have Peyton Manning and a stock pile of picks .............. What's not to like.

Victor
04-27-2012, 08:40 AM
I agree with a lot of what has been written. I don't have a problem with trading down, but it seems like the Broncos did not get appropriate value for the move (especially the second trade with Tampa Bay). I think that EFX crapped the bed and it looks like they didn't have a plan, unless the plan was "let's hope that a 10-15 pick talent falls to 25". Hope is not a strategy fellows.

I don't believe that the talent is the same at 36 as it would have been at 25. Like with most of life, time will tell whether this was a mistake or not. It just appears that the front office was getting a bit too cute with the last move out of the first round. They appear to be more interested in looking like sophisticated draft day movers than actually adding the best players to the team.

jhns
04-27-2012, 08:43 AM
my position is that many teams have lost value by drafting players ahead of where they otherwise would go. I believe that this can be relatively easily demonstrated. If player X should be a 2nd rounder and you draft him in the first, you are losing value by not trading back into the second and taking him there.

do you agree, or do I need to mention Richard Quinn?

Taking bad picks isn't much of an argument. Who says your value of a player is the right value? Who says they would have made a better pick later? If Quinn sucked for that pick, why is it better to select him later? You are still wasting your picks. Bad talent evaluation is a completely different topic. If you can't evaluate talent, you will fail no matter how many picks you have. Do I need to bring up McDaniels and the like 50 picks he had in the first two rounds?

mwill07
04-27-2012, 08:45 AM
I agree with a lot of what has been written. I don't have a problem with trading down, but it seems like the Broncos did not get appropriate value for the move (especially the second trade with Tampa Bay). I think that EFX crapped the bed and it looks like they didn't have a plan, unless the plan was "let's hope that a 10-15 pick talent falls to 25". Hope is not a strategy fellows.

I don't believe that the talent is the same at 36 as it would have been at 25. Like with most of life, time will tell whether this was a mistake or not. It just appears that the front office was getting a bit too cute with the last move out of the first round. They appear to be more interested in looking like sophisticated draft day movers than actually adding the best players to the team.

actually, per the pick value chart, the tampa trade wasn't so bad - we gave up 10 points, the equivalent of a 7th rounder. no big deal. Where we got screwed is accepting a late 4th for moving from 25-31: that should have been a late 3rd or two late 4ths.

Rohirrim
04-27-2012, 08:46 AM
I think if you trade down twice, you should have two picks to show for it. Coming back up in the fourth from 126 to 101 is some weak sauce.

Dedhed
04-27-2012, 08:48 AM
We have Peyton Manning and a stock pile of picks .............. What's not to like.

That we could (should) have a stockpile of better picks.

Drunken.Broncoholic
04-27-2012, 08:50 AM
lubed themselves is a stretch... but in regards to the Pats trade.. the pats had the LB higher on their board then the Broncos.

The pats are still the pats.. they are going to be good. The LB they drafted may be alright against the run, but not so much the pass.

I think he was drafted in response to the Jets and Tebow.

This. Let's see him go up against fast TEs. I'm not really a fan of him, or some of the other Alabama D. Together they were great. Apart? We will see

mwill07
04-27-2012, 08:52 AM
Taking bad picks isn't much of an argument. Who says your value of a player is the right value? Who says they would have made a better pick later? If Quinn sucked for that pick, why is it better to select him later? You are still wasting your picks. Bad talent evaluation is a completely different topic. If you can't evaluate talent, you will fail no matter how many picks you have. Do I need to bring up McDaniels and the like 50 picks he had in the first two rounds?

you are missing a piece of the puzzle here. There are two aspects to this:

1. talent evaluation
2. appraising value - how are players perceived around the league?

imagine a player, lets call him richard quinn, and you evaluate him as being worthy of a 2nd round pick. If the rest of the league sees him as a 3rd or 4th rounder and you draft him in the 3rd or 4th round, you got a bargain - kudos to you. If you take him in the 2nd, you are leaving money on the table because you could have had him later.

This is a completely separate discussuion from talent evaluation. We all know now that McD was way off talent evaluation, but in his first draft, he compounded that by screwing up with appraising value.

Frankly, I think that the value-appraisal part has been pretty damn good over the past few years - we didn't reach for anyone, and were pretty deft in maneuvering around to get the player we targeted at an appropriate cost.

Dedhed
04-27-2012, 08:52 AM
I think if you trade down twice, you should have two picks to show for it. Coming back up in the fourth from 126 to 101 is some weak sauce.

This.

TonyR
04-27-2012, 08:56 AM
I think if you trade down twice, you should have two picks to show for it. Coming back up in the fourth from 126 to 101 is some weak sauce.

Agree. But with a clearer head this monring than I had last night, if we still get in the early second whoever we would have picked in the late first it really ends up not mattering much. That and we really don't know what variables precipitated what we were able to get when we made our trades vs. those when others made theirs. Again, agree we theoretically should have done better. But if we get our guys it's not something to be too upset about. I'm thinking they had a half dozen guys on their board when they were sitting at 31 and decided that at least one of them would still be there at 36.

Dedhed
04-27-2012, 09:09 AM
Agree. But with a clearer head this monring than I had last night, if we still get in the early second whoever we would have picked in the late first it really ends up not mattering much.

This is the argument that ignores the actual issue. It's not about moving back. They very may well get the guy they were targeting at #25.

Hypothetical: let's say we take Miller at #36.

Then Ta'Amu goes off the board @#98 and Wolfe goes off the board at #99, and Reyes at #100. Instead of having our choice of those guys (had we gotten better value) we're stuck looking at Billy Winn and Mike Martin if we want to address DT.

Looking at the front end of the trade is ignoring the issue.

Drunken.Broncoholic
04-27-2012, 09:17 AM
Was there another team that wanted to put up another pick? I don't think anyone else was calling for the pick. And NE didn't have too many picks left to choose. After DeCastro fell off I didn't really see too much value at 25. From the sound of it their guys will be on the board at 36, and felt taking one of them at 25 was a reach.

Not very happy about losing 82-90 value points but I'll wait and see who they thought was worth dropping back, but not worth picking at 25.

TonyR
04-27-2012, 09:20 AM
...Looking at the front end of the trade is ignoring the issue.

That's a fair point and I agree. But, looking at the bright side, we still get who we want plus got an additional return. A larger return would have been nice, yes.

jhns
04-27-2012, 09:21 AM
you are missing a piece of the puzzle here. There are two aspects to this:

1. talent evaluation
2. appraising value - how are players perceived around the league?

imagine a player, lets call him richard quinn, and you evaluate him as being worthy of a 2nd round pick. If the rest of the league sees him as a 3rd or 4th rounder and you draft him in the 3rd or 4th round, you got a bargain - kudos to you. If you take him in the 2nd, you are leaving money on the table because you could have had him later.

This is a completely separate discussuion from talent evaluation. We all know now that McD was way off talent evaluation, but in his first draft, he compounded that by screwing up with appraising value.

Frankly, I think that the value-appraisal part has been pretty damn good over the past few years - we didn't reach for anyone, and were pretty deft in maneuvering around to get the player we targeted at an appropriate cost.

This is exactly why you can't give examples though. You have no idea what the rest of the league thought. You know what TV guys thought of the prospects.

Lestat
04-27-2012, 09:23 AM
the only thing i dislike about the moves is that we didn't get a 3rd in the process. we got the extra 4th and used it to move to up to the top of the 4th where we now have 3 4ths.

would have liked to have seen us get a 3rd out of the night and then give us more room to
maneuver up to grab a 3rd 2nd or so.

RaiderH8r
04-27-2012, 09:23 AM
Agree. But with a clearer head this monring than I had last night, if we still get in the early second whoever we would have picked in the late first it really ends up not mattering much. That and we really don't know what variables precipitated what we were able to get when we made our trades vs. those when others made theirs. Again, agree we theoretically should have done better. But if we get our guys it's not something to be too upset about. I'm thinking they had a half dozen guys on their board when they were sitting at 31 and decided that at least one of them would still be there at 36.

Roh's right though. If the move is to stock some picks and get your guy you should actually get the picks rather than shifting in the seat. This seems like a move for move's sake and EFX got tailpipes by the Pats who actually are a team loading up for a run. EFX should take notes along with the cash Bellichick left on the dresser.

Dedhed
04-27-2012, 09:25 AM
That's a fair point and I agree. But, looking at the bright side, we still get who we want plus got an additional return. A larger return would have been nice, yes.
What if who we want goes @ #35?

Beantown Bronco
04-27-2012, 09:31 AM
we have two main weaknesses an ageing secondary & our DTs are avg. at best.

If our DTs are average at best, I'd love to know whose you think are worse. Think about it. To be average means that there are around 15 or so teams with worse DTs. Can anyone name even one?

peacepipe
04-27-2012, 09:36 AM
If our DTs are average at best, I'd love to know whose you think are worse. Think about it. To be average means that there are around 15 or so teams with worse DTs. Can anyone name even one?true, I was being nice.

TonyR
04-27-2012, 09:39 AM
What if who we want goes @ #35?

That would be problematic. My assumption/hope is that they have more than one guy left for that slot on their board. If they don't then they really ****ed up.

Rohirrim
04-27-2012, 09:44 AM
Agree. But with a clearer head this monring than I had last night, if we still get in the early second whoever we would have picked in the late first it really ends up not mattering much. That and we really don't know what variables precipitated what we were able to get when we made our trades vs. those when others made theirs. Again, agree we theoretically should have done better. But if we get our guys it's not something to be too upset about. I'm thinking they had a half dozen guys on their board when they were sitting at 31 and decided that at least one of them would still be there at 36.

It definitely matters if your philosophy going in is quantity over quality. That's the only reasonable excuse for it; But then, you get more picks. I'm also suspicious of the idea that the Broncos know something the rest of the league doesn't. Really? Belichick traded up. Why? Because he saw quality, Brady is getting long in the tooth (like Manning), and he had to go after what the team needs right away - quality, impact players. The Broncos are following what, a build-the-team-slowly-over-time strategy? Doesn't make much sense to me. I thought we were going for Plan A? I thought we were going after "impact" players, not "value" players? Why didn't we trade up?

It seems to me more likely that the Broncos lost their cool when the draft didn't fall they way they thought it would and they panicked. I admit, I was shocked at what happened myself, and I don't have the added pressure of being in a war room for real. ****, the whole thing went off in three hours, a record. I think they should have just checked down and drafted Hightower. It would have had the added benefit of keeping the Big Hoodie's greedy mitts off of him. This whole thing of "It's all going according to plan" doesn't pass the fish test, IMO.

gunns
04-27-2012, 09:46 AM
Apparently it was the best EFX could get, but the Ravens clearly demonstrate much more could've been gotten by people who actually know what they are doing.

NE doesn't have a 3rd round pick so their 4th was it and being a good team it was the 126th. Then Denver was able to get with TB and rectify that by moving up 25 slots in the 4th. The Ravens didn't do any better. Minny's 2nd round pick was like us moving to 31 with NE and then to 36th and Minny's 4th round which we are right there. Just another reason for you to bitch and make it seem real.

rbackfactory80
04-27-2012, 09:49 AM
You don't make the move and declare it probable without having several options out of which 1 will definitely be available. They have a couple guys they are willing to select at 36.

Beantown Bronco
04-27-2012, 09:50 AM
I'm also suspicious of the idea that the Broncos know something the rest of the league doesn't. Really? Belichick traded up. Why? Because he saw quality

For every team that traded up, that meant by definition, another traded down. We were not even close to the only ones doing so or trying to do so.

Requiem
04-27-2012, 09:50 AM
NE doesn't have a 3rd round pick so their 4th was it and being a good team it was the 126th. Then Denver was able to get with TB and rectify that by moving up 25 slots in the 4th. The Ravens didn't do any better. Minny's 2nd round pick was like us moving to 31 with NE and then to 36th and Minny's 4th round which we are right there. Just another reason for you to b**** and make it seem real.

Bingo, gunns. *passes the blunt and hugs* :)

jhns
04-27-2012, 09:51 AM
For every team that traded up, that meant by definition, another traded down. We were not even close to the only ones doing so or trying to do so.

Did any others sacrifice the pick value that we did?

Drunken.Broncoholic
04-27-2012, 09:52 AM
What if who we want goes @ #35?

I brought this up yesterday. They gotta have a few guys there at that pick just in case. Hopefully their player will be there.

TonyR
04-27-2012, 09:53 AM
It definitely matters...

I have a hard time arguing against anything you said. My only feeble response would be that everyone's board is different, and different teams have different "needs" and and prioritization of those needs. Take Hightower as an example. Denver just re-upped Mays and drafted Irving high last year, so they may have had a very different outlook on that pick. But I share your concern that we passed on a lot of good players and got very little return for doing so.

Drek
04-27-2012, 09:54 AM
NE doesn't have a 3rd round pick so their 4th was it and being a good team it was the 126th. Then Denver was able to get with TB and rectify that by moving up 25 slots in the 4th. The Ravens didn't do any better. Minny's 2nd round pick was like us moving to 31 with NE and then to 36th and Minny's 4th round which we are right there. Just another reason for you to b**** and make it seem real.

1. If all NE had to offer was their 4th then why not extort some 2013 picks from them as well?

2. We should have gotten 101 free and clear from Tampa, not swapping it for 126.

3. The Ravens did substantially better. They traded the 29th pick for the 35th and 98th. We traded the 25th pick for the 36th and 101st. They traded about half as far back as we did and got a pick three spots better than ours in the fourth to do so.

Simple math. What a team has available is irrelevant. When New England wanted to trade up it should have been simple. Give us the 126 pick and next year's 3rd or 4th, depending on what you can talk out of them. Not game for that? Cool, we like Hightower too.

Then with Tampa its the same thing. Swap 126 for 101? No, you give us 101 and we'll keep 126 while we're at it. Got a problem with that? Well I'm sure Doug Martin will do just fine in Denver.

The problem is that the Broncos showed up unwilling or unable to make a decision on the first round talents they knew would be available to them. They weren't hoping for a slider, they NEEDED a slider. When they didn't get it they did a fire sale to get away from making a pick the first day of the draft. Bush league drafting. Hopefully the regroup this morning and show a bit more poise tonight.

Requiem
04-27-2012, 09:54 AM
I brought this up yesterday. They gotta have a few guys there at that pick just in case. Hopefully their player will be there.

You are dealing with an idiot. Obviously there is a group of 3-6 players (as Elway was referring to) -- so they made comfortable making the pick. The number of guys with 2(A) value on their board must be pretty huge for them to take a 11 drop gamble. It will pay off too. We are gonna get some winners today.

Drunken.Broncoholic
04-27-2012, 09:55 AM
What if the patriots were the ONLY team calling for 25? I didn't see teams wanting to leapfrog Houston to take Fleener. Hard to get value when no one or only one team is on the other end of the phone line.

Rohirrim
04-27-2012, 09:55 AM
For every team that traded up, that meant by definition, another traded down. We were not even close to the only ones doing so or trying to do so.

So, what's our strategy? Value picks or impact players? Hell, if all it took to trade up was a fourth rounder, we had two of them.

Requiem
04-27-2012, 09:56 AM
So, what's our strategy? Value picks or impact players? Hell, if all it took to trade up was a fourth rounder, we had two of them.

Getting impact players at value picks! WOO. Hilarious!

jhns
04-27-2012, 09:57 AM
NE doesn't have a 3rd round pick so their 4th was it and being a good team it was the 126th. Then Denver was able to get with TB and rectify that by moving up 25 slots in the 4th. The Ravens didn't do any better. Minny's 2nd round pick was like us moving to 31 with NE and then to 36th and Minny's 4th round which we are right there. Just another reason for you to b**** and make it seem real.

NFL.com just an article breaking these two trades down. They say we were not even close to getting the same value. The draft value chart also disagrees.

In our trades, the team that moved down gave up 720 points. The team that moved up gave up 636 points.

In the Ravens trade, the team that moved down gave up 640 points. The team that moved up gave up 658 points.

They gained value by moving down. This team lost a ton of value while moving down. Something that doesn't happen. You are completely clueless.

mwill07
04-27-2012, 09:57 AM
This is exactly why you can't give examples though. You have no idea what the rest of the league thought. You know what TV guys thought of the prospects.

I don't know what other teams are intending, that's true. The pro-scouting department had better have at least some idea of overall perceived value.

Your position here is basically because player X was drafted in slot X, that's exactly what he's worth based on evaluations from the rest of the league. If that were true, no one in the history of the NFL draft has ever reached on a player.

I don't think that's true - I think that there have been reaches before - significant ones. I think there were reaches yesterday. I think Ted Ginn Jr was a massive reach. I think Robert Ayers was a reach. I think Richard Quinn was a reach. I think Tyson Alualu was a reach. I think AJ Jenkins was probably a reach. I think pretty much anyone oakland drafted over the past decade was a reach.

It happens, and it happens when teams ignore how the rest of the league sees players.

DBroncos4life
04-27-2012, 09:59 AM
I like how everyone is in love with NE. They still don't have anyone to cover WRs or a RB and only have two picks now left in the draft.

Even if Chandler Jones plays like I think he can they still have 20.5 sacks to replace with Anderson and Carter with just Jones.

jhns
04-27-2012, 10:00 AM
You are dealing with an idiot. Obviously there is a group of 3-6 players (as Elway was referring to) -- so they made comfortable making the pick. The number of guys with 2(A) value on their board must be pretty huge for them to take a 11 drop gamble. It will pay off too. We are gonna get some winners today.

The rest of the NFL woupd have taken the best of those 3-6 playrrs over losing that much value...

You are a draft guy. What other team has lost that much value while trading down?

Rohirrim
04-27-2012, 10:00 AM
Getting impact players at value picks! WOO. Hilarious!

I shudder to think what will happen if the guy they have targeted tonight is gone before we pick. Ha!

Rohirrim
04-27-2012, 10:02 AM
I like how everyone is in love with NE. They still don't have anyone to cover WRs or a RB and only have two picks now left in the draft.

Even if Chandler Jones plays like I think he can they still have 20.5 sacks to replace with Anderson and Carter with just Jones.

I hate the Pats. That's why it disgusts me to see them getting rich off trades with us.

bronco militia
04-27-2012, 10:03 AM
I like how everyone is in love with NE. They still don't have anyone to cover WRs or a RB and only have two picks now left in the draft.

Even if Chandler Jones plays like I think he can they still have 20.5 sacks to replace with Anderson and Carter with just Jones.

fixing the front seven can help a suspect secondary.

jhns
04-27-2012, 10:04 AM
I don't know what other teams are intending, that's true. The pro-scouting department had better have at least some idea of overall perceived value.

Your position here is basically because player X was drafted in slot X, that's exactly what he's worth based on evaluations from the rest of the league. If that were true, no one in the history of the NFL draft has ever reached on a player.

I don't think that's true - I think that there have been reaches before - significant ones. I think there were reaches yesterday. I think Ted Ginn Jr was a massive reach. I think Robert Ayers was a reach. I think Richard Quinn was a reach. I think Tyson Alualu was a reach. I think AJ Jenkins was probably a reach. I think pretty much anyone oakland drafted over the past decade was a reach.

It happens, and it happens when teams ignore how the rest of the league sees players.

That isn't what I am saying. You would call Quinn a reach. There were multiple reports that he was getting picked right after where we got him. It is why they traded up. So do you take your guy then, or skip him because Kiper says he isn't worth it? The league seems to disagree with him.

My point is only that you and I have no clue what value they are placing on players. 90% og the league could have loved Ginn and we will never know.

mwill07
04-27-2012, 10:05 AM
Here's the troubling part for me: the only way it makes sense to trade down so you can draft your target(s) at an appropriate cost is if you are fixated on your target(s). That says to me that we are not in a "best-player-available" mode, we are in "draft for need" mode.

It's either that, or you can not make a judgement on who the best player is.

TonyR
04-27-2012, 10:06 AM
The problem is that the Broncos showed up unwilling or unable to make a decision on the first round talents they knew would be available to them. They weren't hoping for a slider, they NEEDED a slider. When they didn't get it they did a fire sale to get away from making a pick the first day of the draft. Bush league drafting. Hopefully the regroup this morning and show a bit more poise tonight.

Could be. But it's also possible that as they were sitting there at 25 they said, "you know what? 6 of the guys we have at this spot are still there. Let's trade down." And then at 31 they might have said the same thing again. I agree that they were hoping for certain guys to slide to them. Who doesn't? But I think when both 25 and 31 came up they had legit reasons for moving down rather than taking a guy who will still be there later.

Rohirrim
04-27-2012, 10:06 AM
I guarantee you one thing; People have questions about Hightower. Fine. There are going to be a lot more questions about the player the Broncos take tonight at 36, especially when you start looking at things like size, speed and upside.

sgbfan
04-27-2012, 10:06 AM
No, I'm saying teams in the 1st round rarely trade up and give fair value unless it's for a QB. Now, without the financial ramifications they're willing to do so but not at a rate that matches the draft value chart. The chart is inaccurate... as teams are willing to give up more value then what the chart implies to trade up to get a top QB, but for most everything else it falls short.

Remember during the Cutler trade saga..? We didn't want the first pick in the draft because of the salary risk it entailed... under the current system, if we were in that situation we'd love the #1 pick.

I get what you are saying, but it doesn't have anything to do with why there is less value this year. I thought you were originally arguing that the CBA made trading up less expensive. So your argument is the draft value chart is off, except for QB's?

DBroncos4life
04-27-2012, 10:10 AM
fixing the front seven can help a suspect secondary.

They replaced two guys that got 10 plus sacks with two rookies. One with no pass covering skills and not that great pass rushing skills.

Drunken.Broncoholic
04-27-2012, 10:16 AM
They replaced two guys that got 10 plus sacks with two rookies. One with no pass covering skills and not that great pass rushing skills.

I don't understand the pats lovefest either. They couldn't beat anyone with a winning record last year until the AFC champ game, and they needed Evans to drop a winning TD for that to happen. They take advantage of easy schedules every year. That's about it.

I think Belichick just brought in Hightower to stop tebow. He will get more playin time against the jets than other teams.

Lestat
04-27-2012, 10:17 AM
Here's the troubling part for me: the only way it makes sense to trade down so you can draft your target(s) at an appropriate cost is if you are fixated on your target(s). That says to me that we are not in a "best-player-available" mode, we are in "draft for need" mode.

It's either that, or you can not make a judgement on who the best player is.

i don't think it's fixation, i think it's like last year when they stuck to their board and didn't draft anyone they didn't believe it.
we felt they overdrafted some guys but outside of Thomas most of them showed why the Broncos were right to take them. the only guy who wasn't seen as a overdraft was Moore and the jury is still out on him due to his up and down season.

Lestat
04-27-2012, 10:18 AM
I don't understand the pats lovefest either. They couldn't beat anyone with a winning record last year until the AFC champ game, and they needed Evans to drop a winning TD for that to happen. They take advantage of easy schedules every year. That's about it.

cause they got players some posters felt were good fits for this team. thus if the Pats got them it means they'll be studs and we screwed up.

DBroncos4life
04-27-2012, 10:31 AM
I don't understand the pats lovefest either. They couldn't beat anyone with a winning record last year until the AFC champ game, and they needed Evans to drop a winning TD for that to happen. They take advantage of easy schedules every year. That's about it.

I think Belichick just brought in Hightower to stop tebow. He will get more playin time against the jets than other teams.

I liked Jones so I agree with that being a good pick. At the same time I know that they need to replace both Carter and Anderson who had 10 sacks. Jones can do some of that. I don't think Hightower can.

Anyways I don't think the Pats are that balanced of a team right now, which will hurt them.

Rolandftw
04-27-2012, 11:17 AM
I get what you are saying, but it doesn't have anything to do with why there is less value this year. I thought you were originally arguing that the CBA made trading up less expensive. So your argument is the draft value chart is off, except for QB's?

Basically, yeah. If Matt Barkley stays in the draft, he likely goes in the top 5... and if the Browns wanted to move up to get him at #3, it would have cost them a lot more then what they gave up. Probably a future 1st, or at least two 2nd rounders. There's not that many teams that are looking to move up to #3 and take Trent Richardson (and give up the farm like the Redskins did for RG3)

Bronco Rob
04-27-2012, 01:08 PM
I don't understand the pats lovefest either. They couldn't beat anyone with a winning record last year until the AFC champ game, and they needed Evans to drop a winning TD for that to happen. They take advantage of easy schedules every year. That's about it.

I think Belichick just brought in Hightower to stop tebow. He will get more playin time against the jets than other teams.




:sunshine:

Agamemnon
04-27-2012, 03:28 PM
Here's the troubling part for me: the only way it makes sense to trade down so you can draft your target(s) at an appropriate cost is if you are fixated on your target(s). That says to me that we are not in a "best-player-available" mode, we are in "draft for need" mode.

It's either that, or you can not make a judgement on who the best player is.

This is pretty much right on. Careful though, too much criticism of this regime and you aren't a true fan.

Bronco Rob
04-27-2012, 05:41 PM
Wolfe was also the Big East player of the year

Wolfe had 70 tackles 21 tackles for a loss and 9.5 sacks as a senior






:strong: