Question: Your thoughts on using future picks to better ourselves in the 2007 Draft

[Requiem]

After going back and reading the Krieger article that stated Shanahan attempted to send their future picks to get back into the first-round to select Maroney; would you guys be in favor of Denver trying to do the same this year? Would you be in favor of using picks in 2008 to move up or gain selections in 2007?

I'm all about value; but if the Broncos want to win next year they have some holes to fill. Sure, it'd leave us a little thin going into 2008; and sending future picks only translates as half face-value in the current draft; but what if there's "THAT" player who could really have an impact on our team that we couldn't get outside doing something similar.

I'm not talking about specific players; but I'm just talking about the idea in general.

Picks in 2008 don't help us win now; but I'm all for using those selections to gain some ammo in 2007 and get use some good talent to help us win this coming year.

Thoughts?

[youcandoit1687]

of course if there is "that" player, im allfor getting him. we are not rebuilding so the necessity of "that player" is heavier than the value that we lose by trading picks from the next draft.

[Billy Clyde Puckett]

Of course they should if they really feel it is a steal, however, depending upon who actually declares, right now off the top of my head, 2008 appears to be a better draft than 2007 except maybe at OL and maybe LB. I would tend to hold on to those picks

[youcandoit1687]

DT is pretty strong and the third round has a lot of talent at positions of need.

[Requiem]

If the Broncos really feel the need to get a running back and are not pleased with either Mike Bell or Tatum Bell; they'll have to do something creative to get Marshawn Lynch or Adrian Peterson. Outside them; and an injured Michael Bush; there isn't much "FRANCHISE BACK" potential that everyone wants.

[SpringStein]

My thoughts are similiar to Big Guy's. Last year was such an unusual deep draft in quantity and quality - I don't think this year is going to have that same value. So unless it is a prospect that they feel they "must" have, then OK - but I wouldn't love it.

[SpringStein]

If the Broncos really feel the need to get a running back and are not pleased with either Mike Bell or Tatum Bell; they'll have to do something creative to get Marshawn Lynch or Adrian Peterson.

Shanahan and Sundquist are truly creative (witness the Falcons/Jets/Abraham/movingupto15 scenario last year). But a flat trade that could work if they really want Lynch, who I think would be GREAT here, is trade #21 and #70 (Skins pick) to the Steelers and move up to 15 and take Lynch before the Packers select at #16.

[Hercules Rockefeller]

No. I'm never in favor of trading away future picks, just too many variables that can result in those picks being a lot higher than you anticipated. How many people thought the Skins would be turning over the 6th pick in the 3rd round when the trade was made? I'd rather accumulate other team's future picks rather than give Denver's away.

[Requiem]

Shanahan and Sundquist are truly creative (witness the Falcons/Jets/Abraham/movingupto15 scenario last year). But a flat trade that could work if they really want Lynch, who I think would be GREAT here, is trade #21 and #70 (Skins pick) to the Steelers and move up to 15 and take Lynch before the Packers select at #16.

That'd be ideal. . . I hope we can do something like that.

Marshawn's my #1 target for the team; and if Denver could gain additional picks by trading away some other kids; it'd make it a lot easier.

I just wonder if Shanahan will stick with the RBBC for one more year. . .

[mattob14]

I'd almost lean the other way, depending on who's available. Trade our first for a second or third this year and picks next year. I think there will still be quality talent available. You tend to maximize value that way and it creates a lot of flexibility. The Broncos had a great draft last year and it was due in large part to the extra picks they had from the Skins. There's also a chance to strike gold and end up with a top-10 pick for a bargain price. Probably not going to happen with all of the needs this year, but I wouldn't be upset by it.

[OrangeShadow]

No, its way to much of a risk because you never know what those picks could bring the next year. Way to much uncertainty for my taste

[Drek]

You only dump future picks if you think the current draft offers superior talent at the later levels you'll have to drop to in making a trade. This class is too weak and some of our areas of need, like RB, and deep enough in the others (DL and S) to address with our own picks.

[mattob14]

I'm changing my mind here very quickly. If we could use a pick next year and combine it with our first this year for an impact DL like Anderson, Branch, or Adams, I'd be all for it. We could still pick up a second DL in the second or third, along with a safety and WR or RB. That'd be an outstanding first day. Hopefully this year's draft re-builds our defense like last year's did our offense.

[ludo21]

I dont see why we wouldnt just do that every year. Just trade future picks every year. Why isnt that possible?

And if we go DL and Lynch is still on the board, im ALL for it.

[mattob14]

I dont see why we wouldnt just do that every year. Just trade future picks every year. Why isnt that possible?

And if we go DL and Lynch is still on the board, im ALL for it.

Because, according to the value charts, a 2008 pick would only be valued at half of its 2007 value. Because of that, a 2008 first would really only get you a 2007 second, unless traded with other picks. If you lose value like that every year, it will catch up to you and the teams youth and talent will reflect it. In the right situation, it can work occaisionally, though.

[NFLBRONCO]

Shanahan and Sundquist are truly creative (witness the Falcons/Jets/Abraham/movingupto15 scenario last year). But a flat trade that could work if they really want Lynch, who I think would be GREAT here, is trade #21 and #70 (Skins pick) to the Steelers and move up to 15 and take Lynch before the Packers select at #16.

You don't see Lynch as top 10 player?

[-Slap-]

No. I'm never in favor of trading away future picks, just too many variables that can result in those picks being a lot higher than you anticipated. How many people thought the Skins would be turning over the 6th pick in the 3rd round when the trade was made? I'd rather accumulate other team's future picks rather than give Denver's away.

I agree. You also get less value for future picks. Each one is devalued by one round. Then you start the following draft with your hands tied.

[Drek]

You don't see Lynch as top 10 player?

I'd be surprised if Lynch is a top 10 pick. Kiper has him at 10 on his big board and running backs historically drop in talented drafts (and rise in weak drafts).

My very early guess at the top 10:
1. Oakland - Jamarcus Russell
2. Detroit - Joe Thomas
3. Cleveland - Brady Quinn
4. Tampa Bay - Calvin Johnson
5. Arizona - Leon Hall
6. Washington - Alan Branch
7. Minnesota - Adrian Peterson
8. Houston - Glenn Dorsey
9. Miami - Amobi Okoye
10. Atlanta - LaRon Landry

What team there is going to pass up on the guy listed for Lynch?

That's followed up by these five teams:
11. San Fran
12. Buffalo
13. St. Louis
14. Carolina
15. Pittsburgh

Only Pittsburgh would look RB, and with Willie Parker already I don't see them spending a mid-first on one. Here's the remaining five teams before our pick:

16. Green Bay
17. Jacksonville
18. Cincinnati
19. Tennessee
20. New York Giants

17-20 won't take him, J-ville has Drew/Taylor/Jones, Cinci has Rudi, Tennessee has Henry and Lendale White, NYG have Brandon Jacobs so if anything they'll want a speedy back in a later round to back him up in a reversed role to what they've had this year with Tiki.

He either goes at 16 to Green Bay, or slides all the way down to us. I think they'd take him, but then it also wouldn't totally surprise me if they passed and took a DL or DB instead, as their defense has major problems.

Just so happens our 1st and the 'skins 3rd together equals the point total of the 15th overall pick.

[SpringStein]

You don't see Lynch as top 10 player?

Sorry, Paul, I started to respond last night and got too lengthy. Looking at the top 10 teams - there are a lot more needs on most of them than a great RB. In that light, I would have to say no, I don't think he'll be a top 10 pick. Now do I think he may be a top ten talent? Sure do.

But even with us, if we had a shoot at Moses or Okoye on the DL - I'd say we need a DE or DT more than a RB - unless the team believes there will be greater value in the second at those positions, which could be the case. IMO, this isn't a very deep draft at RB.

[mattob14]

My very early guess at the top 10:
1. Oakland - Jamarcus Russell
2. Detroit - Joe Thomas
3. Cleveland - Brady Quinn
4. Tampa Bay - Calvin Johnson
5. Arizona - Leon Hall
6. Washington - Alan Branch
7. Minnesota - Adrian Peterson
8. Houston - Glenn Dorsey
9. Miami - Amobi Okoye
10. Atlanta - LaRon Landry


I'd love to see that top 10, with Anderson and Adams still on the board, we'd HAVE to trade up for one of them, and I think either would be a steal.

[eddie mac]

No. I'm never in favor of trading away future picks, just too many variables that can result in those picks being a lot higher than you anticipated. How many people thought the Skins would be turning over the 6th pick in the 3rd round when the trade was made? I'd rather accumulate other team's future picks rather than give Denver's away.

Totally agree with this. Future picks are also undervalued at the time of the trade as well. Most teams would regard a 2008 1st rd pick as a 2007 2nd rounder.