PDA

View Full Version : Knowing What We Know Now


Bmore Manning
05-02-2012, 06:35 AM
Now that the draft is over and the selections are made, I have a what if scenario to see who would change their stance now.

Now that we all saw that Denver traded out of the first round, who would have changed their stance on the Mike Wallace situation and given up the first round pick for him? I was one of the few who thought bringing Wallace in was a fantastic idea, if he took Desean type money, not Fitzgerald money.

The premis of this what if, is looking back at the Draft, it's very fiesable to say Denver could have gotten all the same players probably, except Osweiler who would have required future draft picks. But if they see him as the QB of the future, getting him at the top of round 3, by giving up next years second, would be worth it. So the same exact draft minus next years second, All the same while only giving up the pick for Wallace.

1. Mike Wallace Trade
2. Derek Wolf DT
3. Brock Osweiler QB (Trade with Indy, next years second)
3. Ronnie Hillman RB
4. Omar Bolden CB
4. Phillip Blake C
5. Malik Jackson DE
6. Danny Trevathan WLB

We probably would have had the same players and had Mike Wallace and only lost next years second for this years first in the third, which we hope is only a one pick difference anyway! So if we could have achieved these results, which I think Denver could have, who would have been in favor of this? I think many would have been very pleased if these were the results, even though it's the same rounds and the same players and everything. But that perception would change because of Wallace, when they didn't pick in the first anyway.

So would you advocate for this knowing what we know now?

ColoradoDarin
05-02-2012, 06:37 AM
No. Manning makes his receivers better, no need to spend top dollar for one.

eddie mac
05-02-2012, 06:41 AM
What you want and what you get are 2 completely different things. The Broncos were the 25th lowest spenders per player in 2011 and I cant wait to see no changes in that statistic when the 2012 figures are toted up. We're in the bottom 10 in NFL spending and actually moving down in the draft nearly saved them $3m in guaranteed money. Even if Wallace would have taken Jackson money we'd never have paid it much like baulking at Samuel's financial demands when it worked out not much more than what Porter got per year.

TheReverend
05-02-2012, 06:41 AM
No. Manning makes his receivers better, no need to spend top dollar for one.

He better be ****ing healthy.

Bmore Manning
05-02-2012, 06:47 AM
What you want and what you get are 2 completely different things. The Broncos were the 25th lowest spenders per player in 2011 and I cant wait to see no changes in that statistic when the 2012 figures are toted up. We're in the bottom 10 in NFL spending and actually moving down in the draft nearly saved them $3m in guaranteed money.

It would be the exact same dollar amount for Wolfe, he is still a second round pick, so the money difference would be on Wallace. But a 10 million cap hit may be worth it for an Electric dynamic WR, especially if you are in win now mode. The cap will go up every year after this year per the CBA, so his money will look like peanuts when the cap jumps to 150.

Crushisback
05-02-2012, 06:47 AM
1. Mike Wallace Trade
2. Derek Wolf DT
3. Brock Osweiler QB (Trade with Indy, next years second)
3. Ronnie Hillman RB
4. Omar Bolden CB
4. Phillip Blake C
5. Malik Jackson DE
6. Danny Trevathan WLB


So would you advocate for this knowing what we know now?

1. Wallace wants top 5 reciever money and he's not worth it so no.
2. No garauntee he is there later in the second
3a. Need more than a future 2nd to get Indy's pick @ top of 3.

Where did we get the extra 4th in this scenario?

Bmore Manning
05-02-2012, 06:48 AM
No. Manning makes his receivers better, no need to spend top dollar for one.

While that's true that he enhances everyone around him especially the WRs. Wallace, DT, Decker would be a dynamic complimentary Trio.

edog24
05-02-2012, 06:51 AM
Seeing our draft unfold it occurs to me that we probably should have just traded away all of our picks outside of our highest pick. I don't think we really had a plan going into the draft and got overall poor value.

In retrospect, we could have pulled a faiders move and just sold the farm for some expensive impact players and assembled an offensive powerhouse built to win a championship in the next 1-2 years.

Bmore Manning
05-02-2012, 06:52 AM
1. Wallace wants top 5 reciever money and he's not worth it so no.
2. No garauntee he is there later in the second
3a. Need more than a future 2nd to get Indy's pick @ top of 3.

Where did we get the extra 4th in this scenario?

Denver had picks in 1-6 and 2 4ths.

Desean money is five times what he is making now, so that would be much more significant to him. And with the cap going up, the contract can be backloaded to be cap friendly.

I even said future picks, but it may be a second and a mid rounder for a third, and since the next QB didn't go before Indys round three pick, I surely think he could have been there.

Gcver2ver3
05-02-2012, 06:53 AM
No thanks...

Mike wallace wants silly money and we have good talent at wr...

Besides, peyton makes wrs not the other way around...

Bmore Manning
05-02-2012, 07:01 AM
Seeing our draft unfold it occurs to me that we probably should have just traded away all of our picks outside of our highest pick. I don't think we really had a plan going into the draft and got overall poor value.

In retrospect, we could have pulled a faiders move and just sold the farm for some expensive impact players and assembled an offensive powerhouse built to win a championship in the next 1-2 years.

Not sure if you are being sarcastic, but I thought the draft was better than most think it was. The Sarcasm and arrogance probably isn't necessary, since the OP states it's only a loss of a second next year and maybe a mid rounder to get Osweiler. Not mortgaging the farm or anything.

BroncoBeavis
05-02-2012, 07:11 AM
What you want and what you get are 2 completely different things. The Broncos were the 25th lowest spenders per player in 2011 and I cant wait to see no changes in that statistic when the 2012 figures are toted up. We're in the bottom 10 in NFL spending and actually moving down in the draft nearly saved them $3m in guaranteed money. Even if Wallace would have taken Jackson money we'd never have paid it much like baulking at Samuel's financial demands when it worked out not much more than what Porter got per year.

Can't wait to read the memoirs.

"How to go for Broke on a Budget"

-John Elway tells the story of how Pat Bowlen, John Fox, and Brian Xanders leveraged Peyton Manning, some young talent, Moneyball vets, and Little Caesars $5 Hot n' Ready to win an NFL Championship.

edog24
05-02-2012, 07:16 AM
Not sure if you are being sarcastic, but I thought the draft was better than most think it was. The Sarcasm and arrogance probably isn't necessary, since the OP states it's only a loss of a second next year and maybe a mid rounder to get Osweiler. Not mortgaging the farm or anything.

No sarcasm, the arrogance is genuine, I think the draft was poorly thought out. We had a good backup qb, proven winner, just needed some PR finessing to keep the team together and we (the FO) blew it. If the mentality was honestly "win now" then we failed miserably.

CEH
05-02-2012, 07:16 AM
Now that the draft is over and the selections are made, I have a what if scenario to see who would change their stance now.

Now that we all saw that Denver traded out of the first round, who would have changed their stance on the Mike Wallace situation and given up the first round pick for him? I was one of the few who thought bringing Wallace in was a fantastic idea, if he took Desean type money, not Fitzgerald money.

The premis of this what if, is looking back at the Draft, it's very fiesable to say Denver could have gotten all the same players probably, except Osweiler who would have required future draft picks. But if they see him as the QB of the future, getting him at the top of round 3, by giving up next years second, would be worth it. So the same exact draft minus next years second, All the same while only giving up the pick for Wallace.

1. Mike Wallace Trade
2. Derek Wolf DT
3. Brock Osweiler QB (Trade with Indy, next years second)
3. Ronnie Hillman RB
4. Omar Bolden CB
4. Phillip Blake C
5. Malik Jackson DE
6. Danny Trevathan WLB

We probably would have had the same players and had Mike Wallace and only lost next years second for this years first in the third, which we hope is only a one pick difference anyway! So if we could have achieved these results, which I think Denver could have, who would have been in favor of this? I think many would have been very pleased if these were the results, even though it's the same rounds and the same players and everything. But that perception would change because of Wallace, when they didn't pick in the first anyway.

So would you advocate for this knowing what we know now?

I'm not a fan of paying Wallace outragous money so I would pass on a trade with Wallace. Not sure the Wallace addition would play well with the other WRs like DT and ED if Wallace comes in with a big contract

My stance is pick players in round 1-4. Trade picks 5-7 for picks next year or for another 4th. Select more UFAs.

Be interesting to study the impact of 5-7 picks vs the UFAs. I bet the hit rate is the same.

Bmore Manning
05-02-2012, 07:22 AM
No sarcasm, the arrogance is genuine, I think the draft was poorly thought out. We had a good backup qb, proven winner, just needed some PR finessing to keep the team together and we (the FO) blew it. If the mentality was honestly "win now" then we failed miserably.

What positions could there have been day one starters?
I say UT on D, and C/G on offense.. Where else could someone start?
What players would you have preferred to see drafted? I'm not big on a backup QB myself, do what would you have liked with the picks and who was available?

Butterscotch Stallion
05-02-2012, 07:22 AM
I'm hopeful we can trade von miler for dwight feeney. After freeny breaks his neck of course.

Bmore Manning
05-02-2012, 07:34 AM
I'm not a fan of paying Wallace outragous money so I would pass on a trade with Wallace. Not sure the Wallace addition would play well with the other WRs like DT and ED if Wallace comes in with a big contract

My stance is pick players in round 1-4. Trade picks 5-7 for picks next year or for another 4th. Select more UFAs.

Be interesting to study the impact of 5-7 picks vs the UFAs. I bet the hit rate is the same.

Tamme and Dreesen are the highest paid receiving threats on the team as of now...

Bmore Manning
05-02-2012, 07:35 AM
I'm hopeful we can trade von miler for dwight feeney. After freeny breaks his neck of course.

Why even bother wasting your time posting in this thread?

edog24
05-02-2012, 07:39 AM
What positions could there have been day one starters?
I say UT on D, and C/G on offense.. Where else could someone start?
What players would you have preferred to see drafted? I'm not big on a backup QB myself, do what would you have liked with the picks and who was available?

Honestly, I don't watch enough college ball to venture a guess beyond the big names. I would have preferred us moving up instead of down to get some more impact players. I think Wolfe was the good pickup of the draft. If Elway was hell bent on getting rid of Tebow (which he was), I think we could have picked up any journeyman qb for peanuts to play backup if the unthinkable happens. The others, not so much, but I hope to be proved wrong!

Seeing how our draft has worked the last 4-5 years (Von aside, he was obviously an awesome pick), we seem to do better in FA than the draft.

BroncoBeavis
05-02-2012, 07:53 AM
I'm hopeful we can trade von miler for dwight feeney. After freeny breaks his neck of course.

LOL

Bronco Boy
05-02-2012, 07:53 AM
I don't see how we would even have cap room for Wallace. WR is one of the teams lowest needs anyway.

Bmore Manning
05-02-2012, 07:57 AM
I don't see how we would even have cap room for Wallace. WR is one of the teams lowest needs anyway.

That's if DT and ED stay healthy. I'm not advocating Fitzy money, but Desean money and back load the contract to go up per the salary cap with the new CBA, and it would be a solid investment. Nobody can stretch a field like Wallace.

Gort
05-02-2012, 07:59 AM
without Osweiler, i'd give the draft a B- grade. with Osweiler in the 2nd and opting out of any 1st rounders, i'd give it a C or C+. not great. not awful. average. however, considering Broncos fans have many years experience with Shanny's drafts, i think alot of people are happy with that and feeling pretty good about themselves right now. it's called lowered expectations. we're experts on that.

disclaimer - i'm not a draft nerd. the strategy of the draft is interesting to me. the individual players not so much. nobody really knows how they'll do in the NFL. this is a franchise that celebrates the fact that TD was a 6th rounder and Rod Smith was an UFA. so we think talent will show itself, no matter where it's drafted. all of these guys may turn out to be contributors. i'm optimistic.

maher_tyler
05-02-2012, 08:23 AM
We don't need Mike Wallace..we have DT, Decker and our TE's. We'll be running a lot of 2 TE single back sets if i were to guess.

Popcorn Sutton
05-02-2012, 08:31 AM
Good Lord. Not this again from the "new" resident expert on everything Broncos (sarcasm).

The Broncos are 1 of 31 teams that passed on signing Wallace to an offer sheet. Wonder why?

Hint: Something to do with his agent saying he wanted Fitz money.

I don't care if you think you can run an NFL front office. You can talk about backloading contracts and all that mess but Wallace's agent knows better. He wasn't saying he wanted Desean money. He was saying he wanted Fitz money. End of discussion.

Popcorn Sutton
05-02-2012, 08:31 AM
The Broncos ponied up 28 million in cap to Peyton, Porter, Tamme and Dreesen and there was no room left for another 12 million.

Bmore Manning
05-02-2012, 08:46 AM
The Broncos ponied up 28 million in cap to Peyton, Porter, Tamme and Dreesen and there was no room left for another 12 million.

So now your the resident capologist?

TheElusiveKyleOrton
05-02-2012, 08:49 AM
No sarcasm, the arrogance is genuine, I think the draft was poorly thought out. We had a good backup qb, proven winner, just needed some PR finessing to keep the team together and we (the FO) blew it. If the mentality was honestly "win now" then we failed miserably.

I don't know how you can consider Brady Quinn to be a "proven winner."

Butterscotch Stallion
05-02-2012, 08:55 AM
Why even bother wasting your time posting in this thread?

because it makes douchebags mad. I left them alone and this sight got even worse. TJ asked me to help add some testosterone to this ****fest and save the mane.





You are welcome.

Popcorn Sutton
05-02-2012, 08:59 AM
So now your the resident capologist?


Q: Have the Broncos considered signing London Fletcher or Plaxico Burress? And why haven't the Broncos re-signed defensive tackle Marcus Thomas?

A: The Broncos don't have money to play with right now because the signings of Peyton Manning and other free agents ate up their salary cap space. Any additional signings would require players being cut.


Read more: Marcus Thomas, Denver Broncos aren't in each other's plans - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_20417396/marcus-thomas-denver-broncos-arent-each-others-plans?IADID=Search-www.denverpost.com-www.denverpost.com#ixzz1tjESNdTc
Read The Denver Post's Terms of Use of its content: http://www.denverpost.com/termsofuse

broncobum6162
05-02-2012, 09:20 AM
He better be ****ing healthy.

Hey Rev...when's the post draft podcast? Looking forward to this one considering I think we had a lot of lost value when we traded back.

Crushaholic
05-02-2012, 09:25 AM
Why would you want to give up on Osweiler, already? While I'm ecstatic that we have Manning, he's the short-term solution. Why CAN'T Brock be the long-term answer?

Bmore Manning
05-02-2012, 09:30 AM
Why would you want to give up on Osweiler, already? While I'm ecstatic that we have Manning, he's the short-term solution. Why CAN'T Brock be the long-term answer?

Who's giving up on him? My OP does not say anything about no Osweiler..

Drunken.Broncoholic
05-02-2012, 09:31 AM
Manning is not taking up 28 mil in cap space.

Popcorn Sutton
05-02-2012, 09:32 AM
Manning is not taking up 28 mil in cap space.

Manning takes up 18, Porter 4, Tamme ~3, and Dreessen ~3 = 28.

Bmore Manning
05-02-2012, 09:32 AM
Q: Have the Broncos considered signing London Fletcher or Plaxico Burress? And why haven't the Broncos re-signed defensive tackle Marcus Thomas?

A: The Broncos don't have money to play with right now because the signings of Peyton Manning and other free agents ate up their salary cap space. Any additional signings would require players being cut.


Read more: Marcus Thomas, Denver Broncos aren't in each other's plans - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_20417396/marcus-thomas-denver-broncos-arent-each-others-plans?IADID=Search-www.denverpost.com-www.denverpost.com#ixzz1tjESNdTc
Read The Denver Post's Terms of Use of its content: http://www.denverpost.com/termsofuse

Why would they sign either one? Mike Wallace is a young stud WR, why would plaxico and Wallace be considered together? Wallace has his best football ahead of him, Fletcher and Plax have passed their prime. So this is a terrible Q & A example.

Drunken.Broncoholic
05-02-2012, 09:34 AM
Manning takes up 18, Porter 4, Tamme ~3, and Dreessen ~3 = 28.

Those damn commas. I thought it was a period after manning.

I Need some wake up juice.

Popcorn Sutton
05-02-2012, 09:35 AM
Why would they sign either one? Mike Wallace is a young stud WR, why would plaxico and Wallace be considered together? Wallace has his best football ahead of him, Fletcher and Plax have passed their prime. So this is a terrible Q & A example.

The point is the cap space... If they can't sign Fletcher or Plaxico, how do you suppose they would sign a 12 mill plus receiver?

Crushaholic
05-02-2012, 09:35 AM
Who's giving up on him? My OP does not say anything about no Osweiler..

Didn't you suggest trading him to Indy to get a second round pick? Did I read that wrong?

BroncoBen
05-02-2012, 09:36 AM
No sarcasm, the arrogance is genuine, I think the draft was poorly thought out. We had a good backup qb, proven winner, just needed some PR finessing to keep the team together and we (the FO) blew it. If the mentality was honestly "win now" then we failed miserably.

I am in the camp that the Broncos did pretty good in the draft. You figure they had no glaring holes to fill. Yes, maybe they didn't draft any of the 'Sexy' ESPN mock draft players.

But it looks like they address needs in terms of adding depth without over reaching.

It takes 2-3 years to really get a good feel for how the Broncos did. Only time will tell.

Drunken.Broncoholic
05-02-2012, 09:37 AM
Bmore? This team failed to spend money on Marshall and Lloyd. Why would you think they would spend even more money than they would need to give those recievers, on Wallace? Wasn't going to happen even if they had the cap space. Wallace is not worth that kind of money. Even his own team knows that.

Bmore Manning
05-02-2012, 09:58 AM
Didn't you suggest trading him to Indy to get a second round pick? Did I read that wrong?

No only trade was us giving away the first pick for Wallace, so taking Wolfe with 57, Osweiler trade to get him @65 and give up our second next year. Which is no big deal if they see him as QBOTF.

Bmore Manning
05-02-2012, 10:02 AM
Bmore? This team failed to spend money on Marshall and Lloyd. Why would you think they would spend even more money than they would need to give those recievers, on Wallace? Wasn't going to happen even if they had the cap space. Wallace is not worth that kind of money. Even his own team knows that.

Both Marshal and Lloyd were traded correct? I'm suggesting a point that if they could have gotten all the same players and used the first round pick on Eallace instead of trading into the early second and taking Wolfe, just taking him at 57, who would be on board. I also said give Wallace Desean type money 10 million per year not 15.

TheReverend
05-02-2012, 10:07 AM
Hey Rev...when's the post draft podcast? Looking forward to this one considering I think we had a lot of lost value when we traded back.

I removed myself from the podcasts from here out, so you'd have to ask the other guys.

Drunken.Broncoholic
05-02-2012, 10:10 AM
Both Marshal and Lloyd were traded correct? I'm suggesting a point that if they could have gotten all the same players and used the first round pick on Eallace instead of trading into the early second and taking Wolfe, just taking him at 57, who would be on board. I also said give Wallace Desean type money 10 million per year not 15.

They were traded because their contracts were about to expire and were wanting to get paid. Something the broncos didn't want to do. They wanted out knowing they weren't gonna get the money they were asking.

cmhargrove
05-02-2012, 10:10 AM
In all honesty, I would have rather traded a draft pick for someone's starting Left Guard. Give Manning 5 seconds per play and all of our receivers will look all-world. No need for a greedy WR.

O-line would have been a better use of a draft pick, and we could have probably traded the #56 pick for a good one.

Bmore Manning
05-02-2012, 10:14 AM
In all honesty, I would have rather traded a draft pick for someone's starting Left Guard. Give Manning 5 seconds per play and all of our receivers will look all-world. No need for a greedy WR.

O-line would have been a better use of a draft pick, and we could have probably traded the #56 pick for a good one.

Could have moved up and taken DeCastro and just gave up a fourth rounder for how the trades were working out value wise..

Drunken.Broncoholic
05-02-2012, 10:19 AM
I'm not sure they were even looking in DeCastros direction. They had to know the steelers were targeting DeCastro when he fell to 24. Elway hung out all year in Palo Alto. If he wanted him they would've made a play for him.

Lestat
05-02-2012, 10:38 AM
i would have traded up for DeCastro but that would cause issues with the rest of the draft because then we don't have two 2nds unless another trade is made and then we don't get Hillman unless another trade is made.

more than likely i deal up to #21 or #22 and get DeCastro. then make moves to ensure the draft plays out like it did. Blake pretty much serves in the DeCastro roll since he's gonna play G. but i can't help but wonder if we had a lineup of Clady,Kuper,Blake,DeCastro & Franklin.

Heyneck
05-02-2012, 10:46 AM
Why would they sign either one? Mike Wallace is a young stud WR, why would plaxico and Wallace be considered together? Wallace has his best football ahead of him, Fletcher and Plax have passed their prime. So this is a terrible Q & A example.

Dude! You Brain dead? Wallace is rumored to be asking for a contract on the same scale of Fitz. We are set at WR... we could use a vet whose wheels are not about to roll off thou...

Heyneck
05-02-2012, 10:54 AM
Both Marshal and Lloyd were traded correct? I'm suggesting a point that if they could have gotten all the same players and used the first round pick on Eallace instead of trading into the early second and taking Wolfe, just taking him at 57, who would be on board. I also said give Wallace Desean type money 10 million per year not 15.

Again... you can't seem to understand that Wallace is not going to take 10 mil just bucause "you" are willing to dish out 10 mil a year. If you pay attention to NFL news you would know that Wallace is asking for something more significant. Think about this for a second... why didn't anybody that picked a WR at the end of the 1st round made a offer to the Steeler for Wallace. You do know that it doesn't always have to be a 1st round pick? Simple answer... he priced himself out of their budget. PEACE!!!

Ohh an since you look like the lazy kind that can't take 1 min to look it up on the web...

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/22/report-mike-wallace-told-49ers-he-wants-more-than-larry-fitzgerald/

who picked a WR at the end of the 1st round? SF!!!

So please... stop it with the Wallace talk!!! It is and never was gonna happen.

Bmore Manning
05-02-2012, 11:20 AM
Again... you can't seem to understand that Wallace is not going to take 10 mil just bucause "you" are willing to dish out 10 mil a year. If you pay attention to NFL news you would know that Wallace is asking for something more significant. Think about this for a second... why didn't anybody that picked a WR at the end of the 1st round made a offer to the Steeler for Wallace. You do know that it doesn't always have to be a 1st round pick? Simple answer... he priced himself out of their budget. PEACE!!!

Ohh an since you look like the lazy kind that can't take 1 min to look it up on the web...

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/22/report-mike-wallace-told-49ers-he-wants-more-than-larry-fitzgerald/

who picked a WR at the end of the 1st round? SF!!!

So please... stop it with the Wallace talk!!! It is and never was gonna happen.

Think your missing the premis of the OP.

errand
05-02-2012, 11:33 AM
No. Manning makes his receivers better, no need to spend top dollar for one.

I'm sure you're being a bit sarcastic by this post...I'll just counter with the fact that when Gonzales went down with injury, Manning still made mince-meat of half the NFL and his demand for perfection caused guys like Garcon' and Collie to step up their game and they too came thru....but let's look at it from another perspective.

We don't really know how good our WR's actually are...since they had basically a journeyman and whatever else you wanna call the other guy throwing them the ball, and they too are young and inexperienced.....but we did get a pretty decent glimpse of what could be...

[] Willis came thru time and time again with a clutch reception generally for a good gain, and generally with the score close and in the 4th qtr. 15 of his 18 receptions resulted in a 1st down.

[] Decker was on pace for 70 receptions after the first 5 games...then our entire offense shifted to ground game with rudimentary pass attack, and his numbers slipped dramatically as he only nabbed 22 more passes over the last 11 games....you gotta figure that if he doesn't drop as many as some on here say he did, and he's catching passes from Manning instead of those other two guys we had, he could possibly catch close to 100 balls this season. I think he might the one that benefits the most from the Manning signing.

[] Thomas over the last month and half of season was only out produced by Detroit's Calvin Johnson if I recall correctly....aand he was huge in our wild-card win over the Steelers by hauling in 4 balls for 204 yards (51.0 ypc) and that thrilling 80 yard game winner in OT. He accounted for 40% of the completions, and 65% of the yards...and considering he had 140 yards after the catch, I think barring injury that he will become a very big problem for opposing DC's

[] Caldwell seems like a decent possession receiver, as 64 of his 124 career receptions netted first downs....he nabbed 37 balls last season with a rookie throwing the ball....we could do alot worse than him as a 3rd or 4th guy.

These guys are young, but they also have talent....and they also had QB's that are nowhere near the class of QB they have now throwing them the ball....if our running game is even 2/3rds as good as it was last year....we will see these guys put up some pretty nice numbers in my opinion.

eddie mac
05-02-2012, 11:33 AM
It would be the exact same dollar amount for Wolfe, he is still a second round pick, so the money difference would be on Wallace. But a 10 million cap hit may be worth it for an Electric dynamic WR, especially if you are in win now mode. The cap will go up every year after this year per the CBA, so his money will look like peanuts when the cap jumps to 150.

It's got nothing to do with the cap and everything to do with the cash they'd have to pay/guarantee Wallace over the next few years.

They cant afford it, simple as that. They couldn't even afford Bunkley or Samuel ffs and instead settled for a DT on $1m a year (Bannan), Wolfe a 2nd rd pick who'll make a pittance over the next few years as opposed to a Bunkley or Soliai and a CB in Bolden who'll make less over the next few years than vet minimum. They even made Vickerson take a paycut.

The only real financial plunge Denver took this offseason was Manning and I hope for their sakes that works out. The rest were all mid-tier money or less and basically replaced other players on the roster who were making more or similar money last year.

Heyneck
05-02-2012, 11:35 AM
Think your missing the premis of the OP.

No I am not missing anything. Your premis was never possible. Snap out of lala land.

errand
05-02-2012, 11:42 AM
No sarcasm, the arrogance is genuine, I think the draft was poorly thought out. We had a good backup qb, proven winner, just needed some PR finessing to keep the team together and we (the FO) blew it. If the mentality was honestly "win now" then we failed miserably.



Ok, i understand your butthurt about this, but what did that have to do with the rest of the guys we drafted outside of Osweiler?

Bmore Manning
05-02-2012, 11:44 AM
The idea is if the draft played out with Denver taking the same exact players, and instead of trading out of the first used that pick on Wallace, the general consensus would approve the draft more than now. And everyone of you saying no to Wallace, would gladly take him here if the FO made the move.

errand
05-02-2012, 11:48 AM
This team failed to spend money on Marshall and Lloyd.

In fairness to the Broncos those two guys wanted out of Denver....Marshall has proven he's a liability and will screw something up and possibly get suspended, and Lloyd was becoming a bit of a distraction in locker room allegedly bitching about the QB.

Bill Parcells said it best..."You identify the guys that can play and want to be on your team, and those that don't?...well, you get rid of them and put them on someone else's team"

errand
05-02-2012, 11:51 AM
The idea is if the draft played out with Denver taking the same exact players, and instead of trading out of the first used that pick on Wallace, the general consensus would approve the draft more than now. And everyone of you saying no to Wallace, would gladly take him here if the FO made the move.

they're just pissed that they didn't think of this....just like they're pissed that elway and company didn't pick the guys they had on their wish list.

One day these clowns will realize that unless they are part of an NFL coaching staff or front office, their opinions about who we draft or who's worth what mean the same as ours...nothing.

broncobum6162
05-02-2012, 12:00 PM
I removed myself from the podcasts from here out, so you'd have to ask the other guys.

So sad to hear. Hope the removal was amiable......... I liked the honest straightforward analysis that didn't hold back. Let me guess......you weren't a big fan of the Manning deal....

Bmore Manning
05-02-2012, 12:02 PM
they're just pissed that they didn't think of this....just like they're pissed that elway and company didn't pick the guys they had on their wish list.

One day these clowns will realize that unless they are part of an NFL coaching staff or front office, their opinions about who we draft or who's worth what mean the same as ours...nothing.

You said it! I thought it was a solid draft. But had we gotten all the same players and had Mike Wallace from the first pick and the next being Wolfe @57 people would be loving life! Yet it's the same players!

gyldenlove
05-02-2012, 12:09 PM
I wouldn't pay Mike Wallace 10 million a year, that is the kind of money I would only pay a complete reciever like Calvin Johnson, Fitzgerald or Andre Johnson. Wallace is a smallish speed reciever, much like Mesean Jackson, they tend to have a shorter shelf life and are quite dependent on the game plan being tailored to getting them into space.

TheReverend
05-02-2012, 12:09 PM
So sad to hear. Hope the removal was amiable......... I liked the honest straightforward analysis that didn't hold back. Let me guess......you weren't a big fan of the Manning deal....

lol, na I like the Manning deal.

He better be healthy though...

cmhargrove
05-02-2012, 12:12 PM
i would have traded up for DeCastro but that would cause issues with the rest of the draft because then we don't have two 2nds unless another trade is made and then we don't get Hillman unless another trade is made.

more than likely i deal up to #21 or #22 and get DeCastro. then make moves to ensure the draft plays out like it did. Blake pretty much serves in the DeCastro roll since he's gonna play G. but i can't help but wonder if we had a lineup of Clady,Kuper,Blake,DeCastro & Franklin.

I'm not even talking about DeCastro.

I'm saying that if I was willing to deal a pick for a player I needed, I would just pick up the phone and start making calls. Call a team with 3 quality Guards (better than Beadles) and make an offer. Start by offering a fourth, settle with a third or second for the right guy. Our traded pick would have still been the 56 pick, so we could have traded down and still had the scenario for Wolfe and a fourth.

Lestat
05-02-2012, 12:29 PM
I'm not even talking about DeCastro.

I'm saying that if I was willing to deal a pick for a player I needed, I would just pick up the phone and start making calls. Call a team with 3 quality Guards (better than Beadles) and make an offer. Start by offering a fourth, settle with a third or second for the right guy. Our traded pick would have still been the 56 pick, so we could have traded down and still had the scenario for Wolfe and a fourth.

naw, that's a bad idea. you don't trade draft ammo for a quality guard who may not be in the starting lineup or barely in, you stick to your board and you develop the guys you take. to me Blake is better than dealing away a pick for another player.

people forget that Kuper was a 5th round pick in 06. he's our 2nd best OL. not saying i want to rely on lower round picks for the OL going forward but i'll take a draftee over dealing for a ok OL that might be better than Beadles.

BroncoBeavis
05-02-2012, 12:36 PM
I removed myself from the podcasts from here out, so you'd have to ask the other guys.

That sucks. I'd ask what happened, but it's probably not for public consumption.

Mogulseeker
05-02-2012, 12:39 PM
Osweiler wouldn't have lasted to the 3rd.

He was projected as a late 1st until his poor combine showing. He's a legitimate 2nd, and the reason teams passed on him is because he's not ready, and other teams don't have the luxury of making him sit for a couple years.

TheReverend
05-02-2012, 12:47 PM
That sucks. I'd ask what happened, but it's probably not for public consumption.

If you think about it, you really do already know.

Because of that I just don't want to clear an entire night from my schedule away from book release promo, kiddo, and gf anymore.

Bmore Manning
05-02-2012, 12:52 PM
Osweiler wouldn't have lasted to the 3rd.

He was projected as a late 1st until his poor combine showing. He's a legitimate 2nd, and the reason teams passed on him is because he's not ready, and other teams don't have the luxury of making him sit for a couple years.

No QB went after Osweiler or before Indys third round pick.

BroncoBeavis
05-02-2012, 12:57 PM
If you think about it, you really do already know.

Because of that I just don't want to clear an entire night from my schedule away from book release promo, kiddo, and gf anymore.

Yeah, I kinda get it. Just hope you don't let the message board garbage get too much in the way of those person-to-person opportunities you get.

People can be complete tools online yet be alright guys/girls in person. I'm not sure why the disconnect. I try not to be that way, but I still find myself pushing buttons I wouldn't push in person. Probably just cuz I don't have to deal with the fallout like in real life.

But it seems like there's a good core group here who know each other outside the board. As we've seen, that can cause some problems. But then again without that, this place wouldn't be the same.

BroncoBeavis
05-02-2012, 01:01 PM
No QB went after Osweiler or before Indys third round pick.

I'd like to hear which of the teams following us after 57 before round 3 were going to pick Brock .

alkemical
05-02-2012, 01:03 PM
I'd like to hear which of the teams following us after 57 before round 3 were going to pick Brock .

http://www.rauzulusstreet.com/football/profootball/nflldirectory.htm

:)

Let us know...

Tombstone RJ
05-02-2012, 01:08 PM
Now that the draft is over and the selections are made, I have a what if scenario to see who would change their stance now.

Now that we all saw that Denver traded out of the first round, who would have changed their stance on the Mike Wallace situation and given up the first round pick for him? I was one of the few who thought bringing Wallace in was a fantastic idea, if he took Desean type money, not Fitzgerald money.

The premis of this what if, is looking back at the Draft, it's very fiesable to say Denver could have gotten all the same players probably, except Osweiler who would have required future draft picks. But if they see him as the QB of the future, getting him at the top of round 3, by giving up next years second, would be worth it. So the same exact draft minus next years second, All the same while only giving up the pick for Wallace.

1. Mike Wallace Trade
2. Derek Wolf DT
3. Brock Osweiler QB (Trade with Indy, next years second)
3. Ronnie Hillman RB
4. Omar Bolden CB
4. Phillip Blake C
5. Malik Jackson DE
6. Danny Trevathan WLB

We probably would have had the same players and had Mike Wallace and only lost next years second for this years first in the third, which we hope is only a one pick difference anyway! So if we could have achieved these results, which I think Denver could have, who would have been in favor of this? I think many would have been very pleased if these were the results, even though it's the same rounds and the same players and everything. But that perception would change because of Wallace, when they didn't pick in the first anyway.

So would you advocate for this knowing what we know now?

I think with the UFA class coming in that Wallace may not be needed. Of course WRs take a while to develop but the Broncos do have a little depth at WR.

Bmore Manning
05-02-2012, 01:35 PM
I'd like to hear which of the teams following us after 57 before round 3 were going to pick Brock .

That's my point, are you agreeing with me?

Bmore Manning
05-02-2012, 01:45 PM
I think with the UFA class coming in that Wallace may not be needed. Of course WRs take a while to develop but the Broncos do have a little depth at WR.

I was more trying to convey that had Wallace been traded for.. Wolfe @57, Osweiler 65, Hillman 87 and so on.. People would have been ecstatic. I think that would have been very attainable. The point was with all the same players, people are basing the draft on the lack of value and how bad they thought Denver reached. But if Wallace occupied that first pick and follow my format from the OP, this draft would have been a home run.

BroncoBeavis
05-02-2012, 01:47 PM
That's my point, are you agreeing with me?

Yeah. I meant that for the other people telling me Brock was 1st round talent that nobody other than us was going to pick until at least the 3rd.

Gort
05-02-2012, 02:05 PM
Yeah. I meant that for the other people telling me Brock was 1st round talent that nobody other than us was going to pick until at least the 3rd.

the way these Oswankers are desperately spinning this pick, you'd almost think there were 97 million reasons we shouldn't have signed Manning and just let Brock "Dreamy Eyes" Osweiler take us to the SB in the next 2 or 3 years.

this pick was Elway peeing on the fire hydrant and marking his territory. like a dog. nothing more. nothing less.

doesn't mean Brock can't become a decent pro QB. just means that these Oswankers are shoveling it pretty deep right now.

cmhargrove
05-02-2012, 02:47 PM
naw, that's a bad idea. you don't trade draft ammo for a quality guard who may not be in the starting lineup or barely in, you stick to your board and you develop the guys you take. to me Blake is better than dealing away a pick for another player.

people forget that Kuper was a 5th round pick in 06. he's our 2nd best OL. not saying i want to rely on lower round picks for the OL going forward but i'll take a draftee over dealing for a ok OL that might be better than Beadles.

I understand your point, but the OP was bringing up the first round tender for Wallace. I stated that I would go after another player that isn't a free agent (just a good old fashioned trade for pick). The point is, only trade a pick if it will make your team better (with a proven player). If you don't like a player, you obviously wouldn't ask for him (that seems pretty self explanatory).

Solidify the line with players making much less money than diva WR's, and then the diva WR's become expendable. If I were writing the checks, that would be my priority.

BroncoBeavis
05-02-2012, 02:52 PM
the way these Oswankers are desperately spinning this pick, you'd almost think there were 97 million reasons we shouldn't have signed Manning and just let Brock "Dreamy Eyes" Osweiler take us to the SB in the next 2 or 3 years.

this pick was Elway peeing on the fire hydrant and marking his territory. like a dog. nothing more. nothing less..

Well played. I hadn't thought about it in those terms, but I think that's the long and short of it.

broncobum6162
05-02-2012, 06:51 PM
If you think about it, you really do already know.

Because of that I just don't want to clear an entire night from my schedule away from book release promo, kiddo, and gf anymore.

Well good luck Rev w/ all you got on your plate. You'll be missed on Podcasts.