I want Dre Bly in our uniform

[BlitzingDog]

Lions | Give Bly permission to seek trade
Wed, 14 Feb 2007 08:19:00 -0800

Nicholas J. Cotsonika, of the Detroit Free Press, reports Detroit Lions president Matt Millen and head coach Rod Marinelli have given CB Dre' Bly permission to seek a trade this offseason. "I have a tremendous amount of respect for Matt and Rod allowing me the opportunity to find a home for Dre' Bly that is more conducive to his Pro Bowl skill set," Bly's agent, Kennard McGuire, said Tuesday Feb. 13.


Bly is one of my fav players and I have always compared Darrent Williams to Dre Bly but Bly with more polished season cover skills. I think we could get him for a 3rd. I think it would be great, he has a decent cap hit I believe, but would be cheaper than an Asante Samuel at this stage. I hate giving up day 1 picks, but I would give a 3rd for Bly no doubt. I really hope we consider this. Bly and Bailey at CB, two of the best ballhawks in the NFL.

[BroncoInferno]

I go for Asante first; if that fails, I'd go with Bly if he could be had for a 3rd.

[broncs2bowl]

Do you seriously think we have enough cap room and no other holes to blow or money on Dre Bly.....or even Asante Samuel. Also Dre Cly will NOT come for a third

[Billy Clyde Puckett]

Tatum for Bly????

[broncs2bowl]

Nooo.....Tatum for KGBeast

[cutthemdown]

Do you seriously think we have enough cap room and no other holes to blow or money on Dre Bly.....or even Asante Samuel. Also Dre Cly will NOT come for a third

Broncos have plenty of room under cap to add whoever they want. Cap economics doesn't need much space to cram a few contracts in by using bonuses, likely to be earned incentives etc. This year FA will start really coming down to where a player wants to play more then who will pay him i think. It could be the almost every team has enough room to add a couple big contracts if they want.

[Crushaholic]

I know Shanahan SAID he was confident with Foxworth and Paymah, but I don't really believe he means it. If we spent money on a big-time FA corner, I wouldn't be disappointed...

[eddie mac]

Broncos have plenty of room under cap to add whoever they want. Cap economics doesn't need much space to cram a few contracts in by using bonuses, likely to be earned incentives etc. This year FA will start really coming down to where a player wants to play more then who will pay him i think. It could be the almost every team has enough room to add a couple big contracts if they want.

That has changed a little over the last few seasons. A lot of players have been offered deals by us over the last 2-3 years and turned them down because they could get more money up front elsewhere. Okeafor and Jamal Lewis are 2 that spring to mind. If you look closely at Denver's contracts over the last few seasons they nearly always use 2-tiered signing bonuses now which means that the 1st year cap hit is minimal.

Warren, Gold, Bailey, Wilson etc all had 2-tiered signing bonuses.

[HEAV]

A solid pass rush will help coverage more than another cornerback. Plain and simple.

[Atlas]

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/eQaKvE9I9KQ"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/eQaKvE9I9KQ" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

[-Slap-]

Bly for 3B would be a great deal for us.

[OrangeShadow]

a pass rush makes average corners look good, i.e most of the pats superbowl teams

[watermock]

We HAVE to address getting pressure on the QB.

[i4jelway7]

I'd be all for getting Bly, we could still have money for a dline FA too...

[OrangeShadow]

We HAVE to address getting pressure on the QB.

when mock gets it right its gotta be obvious Hilarious!

[BroncoBen]

A solid pass rush will help coverage more than another cornerback. Plain and simple.

Word...

Important dates to keep track of before the NFL Draft:

<b>March 1, Thursday</B>

-Expiration date of all player contracts due to expire after 2006 season.
-Deadline for clubs to submit Qualifying Offers to Restricted Free Agents whose contracts are expiring.
-Deadline for clubs to submit minimum salary offers to Exclusive Rights Free Agents (players with less than three years of free agency credit).

<b>March 2, Friday</B>

-Free Agency period begins
-Trading period begins for 2007

<b>April 20, Friday</B>

Deadline for signing and submission of Offer Sheets by Restricted Free Agents

<B>April 27, Friday</B>

Deadline for Old Clubs to match Offer Sheets submitted by Restricted Free Agents


<b>April 28, Saturday & April 29, Sunday</b>

NFL Draft in New York City, NY

[toad]

I certainly wouldn't be dissappointed in getting Bly. I watched him for 4 years at UNC (Torry Holt was at NC State during the same time and they had some great battles).

[elsid13]

Rather wait for Fred Smoot to be cut and sign that mouth. All local press would cheer that move in Denver

[Kaylore]

I know Shanahan SAID he was confident with Foxworth and Paymah, but I don't really believe he means it. If we spent money on a big-time FA corner, I wouldn't be disappointed...

Exactly. And let's be clear on what he actually said. He said "And Dominique Foxworth is our starter right now...Karl Paymah has showed some thing and we'll go from there."

Somehow people here heard that and turned it into "We have our Corners set and will not try to improve there at all for ten years."

As for Bly, wasn't he the one that blamed his QB for everything wrong on the team? I know that Harrington isn't the hottest item on the market, but this is the Matt Millen-led Lions and I'm not a fan of anyone that takes shots at your quarterback.

[Ron Mexico]

Exactly. And let's be clear on what he actually said. He said "And Dominique Foxworth is our starter right now...Karl Paymah has showed some thing and we'll go from there."

Somehow people here heard that and turned it into "We have our Corners set and will not try to improve there at all for ten years."

As for Bly, wasn't he the one that blamed his QB for everything wrong on the team? I know that Harrington isn't the hottest item on the market, but this is the Matt Millen-led Lions and I'm not a fan of anyone that takes shots at your quarterback.

:yep: Well said.

[youcandoit1687]

Exactly. And let's be clear on what he actually said. He said "And Dominique Foxworth is our starter right now...Karl Paymah has showed some thing and we'll go from there."

Somehow people here heard that and turned it into "We have our Corners set and will not try to improve there at all for ten years."

As for Bly, wasn't he the one that blamed his QB for everything wrong on the team? I know that Harrington isn't the hottest item on the market, but this is the Matt Millen-led Lions and I'm not a fan of anyone that takes shots at your quarterback.

Especially when there is a GM to take shots at. Seriously though, I've always thought Bly had very good skills but I worry about his salary, his attitude, and his trade cost. 3a is too high, 3b is good depending on the aforementioned issues. If he is seeking a trade, that COULD mean that DET would be willing to depart with him for less that his usual market value would be. Definite upgrade talent wise and that's no knock on DomFox or Paymah.

[SoCalBronco]

It wouldnt be bad...so long as we arent giving up any picks for him...only players on the current roster.

[BroncoInferno]

It wouldnt be bad...so long as we arent giving up any picks for him...only players on the current roster.

A 3rd rounder would be excellent value for Bly.

C'mon, SoCal. You are a keen guy. Surely you aren't buying the idea that the loss of DWill (who had some struggles in '05, mind you) does not leave quite a whole at CB? Foxworth has only a handful of starts under his belt and only one was encouraging in any way (versus Arizona). Paymah has done nothing. NOTHING! How can you not see the need to invest a valuable resource here?

[youcandoit1687]

haha SoCal doesn't want to give up his draft picks for anything, you could offer every UM pro bowler in the league for all of our picks and he wouldn't take the deal, huh SoCal?haha

[SoCalBronco]

A 3rd rounder would be excellent value for Bly.

C'mon, SoCal. You are a keen guy. Surely you aren't buying the idea that the loss of DWill (who had some struggles in '05, mind you) does not leave quite a whole at CB? Foxworth has only a handful of starts under his belt and only one was encouraging in any way (versus Arizona). Paymah has done nothing. NOTHING! How can you not see the need to invest a valuable resource here?

I don't mind investing some resources to improve the depth and competition at the position, just so long as that resource is not: A) a draft choice (unless ofcourse we are talking about a pick that is from the 5th round on down..although I still wouldnt be thrilled that we did that) or B) a large or moderately large free agent contract. Draft picks are sacred and we shouldnt trade them away for a player unless it is pretty clear that some of the fungible assets on the team or a relatively decent (from the team's perspective) FA contract cannot fetch that player. And maybe if those two things aren't going to get the job done...then maybe we should consider the view that going after that player maybe isnt worth it. Look.....corner is a need, Darrent's death certainly hurt the situation at CB, but IMO, the corner position remains a need that is nowhere near that of RB, DT, DE, and probably below at least one of S and OL as well. If Foxworth/Paymah/Cox cannot get the job done, then we can resort to various coverages that can help hide that weakness, for example, at least two of the most common zone coverages call for the corner to simply be responsible for simply covering the flats. We can scheme around it. I think Fox is good enough to get the job done. If we want to draft someone in Round 5...fine. If you want to give up Tatum for a decent corner...fine (although I'd also prefer a pick there instead, but if u want a current NFL corner, thats fine too I suppose). There are better ways to do it then trading picks. That should be the absolute last option, IMO.

[SoCalBronco]

haha SoCal doesn't want to give up his draft picks for anything, you could offer every UM pro bowler in the league for all of our picks and he wouldn't take the deal, huh SoCal?haha

Funny story.....believe it or not, a few days ago, I actually inquired to NFLBRONCO in our mock draft about moving up to the 49th overall pick, which he had. There was a guy falling that I really wanted, but as you know...I absolutely hate the idea of moving up and giving up some of the 5 picks that I have between the start of Round 3 and the end of Round 4, so I gave him a very substandard offer...one that, if he accepted, he would be giving me a good deal of extra value...that was the only way I could justify to myself the idea of giving up some picks to move up, if I really got a great deal, I knew he wouldnt accept it, but i STILL felt horrible after I PMed him with my offer because after thinking about it, I re-considered the situation and felt that I didnt want to give up quantity even if I had a good deal for me, so I prayed that he would reject it and thankfully he did. :)

[BroncoInferno]

I don't mind investing some resources to improve the depth and competition at the position, just so long as that resource is not: A) a draft choice (unless ofcourse we are talking about a pick that is from the 5th round on down..although I still wouldnt be thrilled that we did that) or B) a large or moderately large free agent contract. Draft picks are sacred and we shouldnt trade them away for a player unless it is pretty clear that some of the fungible assets on the team or a relatively decent (from the team's perspective) FA contract cannot fetch that player. And maybe if those two things aren't going to get the job done...then maybe we should consider the view that going after that player maybe isnt worth it. Look.....corner is a need, Darrent's death certainly hurt the situation at CB, but IMO, the corner position remains a need that is nowhere near that of RB, DT, DE, and probably below at least one of S and OL as well. If Foxworth/Paymah/Cox cannot get the job done, then we can resort to various coverages that can help hide that weakness, for example, at least two of the most common zone coverages call for the corner to simply be responsible for simply covering the flats. We can scheme around it. I think Fox is good enough to get the job done. If we want to draft someone in Round 5...fine. If you want to give up Tatum for a decent corner...fine (although I'd also prefer a pick there instead, but if u want a current NFL corner, thats fine too I suppose). There are better ways to do it then trading picks. That should be the absolute last option, IMO.

That's a fair view. Let me be clear that I don't necessarily endorse a big move at CB per se, it just depends on the context. Looking at FA, who is going to available at DL who is a playmaker? Just about nobody. Theoretically, the depth at DL should leave a solid player available at 21, but what if the derth of DL in FA leads to a run on the position? Further suppose no 1st round RBs or S are available? Or maybe a CB the staff has rated higher than any other player is available. Do they go against the board out of need? Hasn't this approach gotten them in trouble in the past?

I think we need playmakers. Period. Doesn't matter the position. This isn't like the old days. Every team has multiple "needs" these days (both SB representatives have "needs" as long as your arm). If we find those playmakers at CB, DL, even LB...I don't care. Doesn't matter. The two keys in the modern NFL are coaching and sufficient playmakers. Being well-rounded is no longer necessary, and, really, barely possible.

[SoCalBronco]

That's a fair view. Let me be clear that I don't necessarily endorse a big move at CB per se, it just depends on the context. Looking at FA, who is going to available at DL who is a playmaker? Just about nobody. Theoretically, the depth at DL should leave a solid player available at 21, but what if the derth of DL in FA leads to a run on the position? Further suppose no 1st round RBs or S are available? Or maybe a CB the staff has rated higher than any other player is available. Do they go against the board out of need? Hasn't this approach gotten them in trouble in the past?

I think we need playmakers. Period. Doesn't matter the position. This isn't like the old days. Every team has multiple "needs" these days (both SB representatives have "needs" as long as your arm). If we find those playmakers at CB, DL, even LB...I don't care. Doesn't matter. The two keys in the modern NFL are coaching and sufficient playmakers. Being well-rounded is no longer necessary, and, really, barely possible.

I don't believe in the "Best Player Available" theory, primarily because it produces absurd results. A guy could be there who is the best on the board no question, but if you are stocked at the position, or even relatively stocked, it doesnt help you a whole lot. First of all, you'd be overinvesting at the spot, which is never good. Secondly, if you are getting good production out of that position, you prolly have good players and this guy may be sitting on the bench and you basically lose any value with the pick. If he beats out the other guys and maintains, or even somewhat increases the already good production at the position, the overall additional value that you have added to your football team is small.....i.e. we went from good at X to very good...big deal. It isnt this position that ruined the team's season last year anyway, it was fine and now you have a guy who produced who isnt playing at all or isnt playing much because the new guy is a little better than him, so you have a potentially productive player that is not being used. That's not efficient. I dont like BPA because it operates in a vacuum and doesn't take into account the various unique circumstances of the team at the time. In addition to producing absurd results, it also embodies laziness...i.e. Don't weigh things back and forth and evaluate a bunch of facts...rather just take the BPA on your board. I don't really care who is the highest guy overall that is still on the board. In the most general sense, we are going into the draft with the objective of improving the team, but in a more narrow sense, what we are really trying to do is patch up holes here and there. We are trying to be at least decent everywhere, not necessarily outstanding at a few places to the real detriment of some other positions. In that sense, a need based theory of drafting is better, although that is also flawed (not as much as BPA tho, IMO).

Even though it is better than BPA, as noted, pure need theory is still unwise because if you have guard rated No. 1 on your list and when you come up to pick the highest ranked guard is a third round caliber player (at your first round pick), if you were to choose him, you really aren't satisfying your need, a third round guard doesnt materially improve your guard position. So, at least in my view, while both are flawed, BPA is far more flawed. A better approach would be to meld both views and go with a balancing analysis. You rank where you are at each position, consider a number of factors, turn it into a mathematical formula almost (thats hard to do, admittedly), but essentially rank your overall situation at each position...and when you draft, consider not what is the No. 1 need, or who is the BPA, but what player adds the most to a position, with an emphasis on eliminating weaknesses more so than strengthening ok areas if the addition to a position is relatively equal (i.e. if we grade DE at 6 and X player will get us to a 7.5, and we grade CB at 7 and Y player will get us to 8.5, it is more desirable to add X instead of Y). That rule would incorporate the good aspects of need based drafting, but if the addition to a position isnt relatively equal i.e. X adds 2.5 vs. Y adds 1.5, even though Y is a greater need, we still go with X...that seems to be incorporating the positive aspect of BPA. It is difficult to reduce it to a mathematical grade like this, but coaches do it all the time when grading not their own positions, but rather draft prospects at a given position given a number of plus or minus check marks at the various things they look for at a position.

[RhymesayersDU]

A solid pass rush will help coverage more than another cornerback. Plain and simple.

Indeed. Even if Paymah and/or Foxworth are shaky @ CB, forcing a QB to make mistakes and bad throws via a solid pash rush will cover that up.

[BroncoInferno]

Indeed. Even if Paymah and/or Foxworth are shaky @ CB, forcing a QB to make mistakes and bad throws via a solid pash rush will cover that up.

Or, if you have top notch corners the DL has an extra half second to produce a pass rush, resulting in more sacks and pressures. The theory works both ways.

[BroncoInferno]

I don't believe in the "Best Player Available" theory, primarily because it produces absurd results. A guy could be there who is the best on the board no question, but if you are stocked at the position, or even relatively stocked, it doesnt help you a whole lot. First of all, you'd be overinvesting at the spot, which is never good. Secondly, if you are getting good production out of that position, you prolly have good players and this guy may be sitting on the bench and you basically lose any value with the pick. If he beats out the other guys and maintains, or even somewhat increases the already good production at the position, the overall additional value that you have added to your football team is small.....i.e. we went from good at X to very good...big deal. It isnt this position that ruined the team's season last year anyway, it was fine and now you have a guy who produced who isnt playing at all or isnt playing much because the new guy is a little better than him, so you have a potentially productive player that is not being used. That's not efficient. I dont like BPA because it operates in a vacuum and doesn't take into account the various unique circumstances of the team at the time. In addition to producing absurd results, it also embodies laziness...i.e. Don't weigh things back and forth and evaluate a bunch of facts...rather just take the BPA on your board. I don't really care who is the highest guy overall that is still on the board. In the most general sense, we are going into the draft with the objective of improving the team, but in a more narrow sense, what we are really trying to do is patch up holes here and there. We are trying to be at least decent everywhere, not necessarily outstanding at a few places to the real detriment of some other positions. In that sense, a need based theory of drafting is better, although that is also flawed (not as much as BPA tho, IMO).

Even though it is better than BPA, as noted, pure need theory is still unwise because if you have guard rated No. 1 on your list and when you come up to pick the highest ranked guard is a third round caliber player (at your first round pick), if you were to choose him, you really aren't satisfying your need, a third round guard doesnt materially improve your guard position. So, at least in my view, while both are flawed, BPA is far more flawed. A better approach would be to meld both views and go with a balancing analysis. You rank where you are at each position, consider a number of factors, turn it into a mathematical formula almost (thats hard to do, admittedly), but essentially rank your overall situation at each position...and when you draft, consider not what is the No. 1 need, or who is the BPA, but what player adds the most to a position, with an emphasis on eliminating weaknesses more so than strengthening ok areas if the addition to a position is relatively equal (i.e. if we grade DE at 6 and X player will get us to a 7.5, and we grade CB at 7 and Y player will get us to 8.5, it is more desirable to add X instead of Y). That rule would incorporate the good aspects of need based drafting, but if the addition to a position isnt relatively equal i.e. X adds 2.5 vs. Y adds 1.5, even though Y is a greater need, we still go with X...that seems to be incorporating the positive aspect of BPA. It is difficult to reduce it to a mathematical grade like this, but coaches do it all the time when grading not their own positions, but rather draft prospects at a given position given a number of plus or minus check marks at the various things they look for at a position.


I actually agree with your post in a sense, expect in this case CB IS a need (though maybe not THE top need), so taking BPA if it's a CB is not a move that would needlessly add to a position of strength. This is especially true if there is a mad run on DL due to the derth of FA talent (certainly possible) and the thin talent at RB does not leave a top prospect available at 21 ( again, very possible). Same deal at safety. If BPA is CB then that is definately a sufficient enough need to pull the trigger. A position like LB is a little different. I would only go BPA there if the available player were SIGNIFICANTLY rated higher than guy number two. If they have Patrick Willis rated as the 6th best player in the draft, just for instance, and the number two guy is on down at 17, I think you have to go with Willis. If it's something like 12th for Willis versus number 17 for the number two guy who plays a position of greater need, then you go with the greater need. Really depends on the context.

[broncolife]

I know I am one that would rather go D-line, but for a late 3rd, I would be all over that. Anytime we can get a starter for a 3rd it is great. Especially since rookies dont usually start for us right away. It would all depend on how big his contract is. Its better than getting in a bidding war for FA. I Dont think were that great drafting in the 3rd anyways. The only big names coming to my mind in the Shanny era are Foxworth and Hayward, big wippdee doo. Plus, drafting the Greaseball in the 3rd should give us even more incentive to trade the pick :) Anyways we do need depth at the CB position especially if the injury bug hits us again. If we did pick him up, we would still need a starting DT, DE and RB. Which we could probably pick one or two with our first three picks, especially if we traded another pick :) (Socal ugh!~ ) And the rest of our picks we could us for depth.Or we could just trade them away to move up:) (Socal:angel: RIP)

[enjolras]

Or, if you have top notch corners the DL has an extra half second to produce a pass rush, resulting in more sacks and pressures. The theory works both ways.

Ya it does.. but the Broncos ran out a pretty secondary last year, along with the bset cover linebackers in football. Yet the defensive line was still incredibly ineffective.

That's the issue here. The one thing both superbowl teams did well was get to the quarterback. For all of their deficiencies they could at least attack on defense. The Broncos where as passive a defense (particular in the second half of the year) as I've ever seen. They ended up playing a lot of soft cover-two in because that defensive line couldn't be trusted to put pressure on anything. That simply has to change.

The Broncos have been weak along both lines for the last 2 or 3 seasons. I would be happy to run out foxworth or paymah and see them put 100% of their resources into shoring up the offensive guard and defensive line issues. The Browncos are largely a failed experiment...

[footstepsfrom#27]

I can't see Bly coming for a 3rd...2X pro bowl CB's don't generally come that cheap.

[Hogan11]

Exactly. And let's be clear on what he actually said. He said "And Dominique Foxworth is our starter right now...Karl Paymah has showed some thing and we'll go from there."

Somehow people here heard that and turned it into "We have our Corners set and will not try to improve there at all for ten years."

Damn good call. Foxworth & Paymah are suspect as starting CB's and let's be honest here, many thought DWill was shakey on the corner as it was and if he beat them out, well....

As for Bly, wasn't he the one that blamed his QB for everything wrong on the team? I know that Harrington isn't the hottest item on the market, but this is the Matt Millen-led Lions and I'm not a fan of anyone that takes shots at your quarterback.

Well...that was Joey Blue Skies behind the center. I'm not condoning it by any means, but I do understand it in this case.

[Atlas]

I don't mind investing some resources to improve the depth and competition at the position, just so long as that resource is not: A) a draft choice (unless ofcourse we are talking about a pick that is from the 5th round on down...

Let's say you could getr Bly for a 3rd round or you could use that 3rd rounder to draft an unproven CB that probably won't be able to help right away.

If Shanny feels there is a need on this team where he needs a starter and if he feels he can find a starter in FA or a trade I hope he doesn't wait for the draft to try to find that guy. Starters in general don't come in the draft. If they do you know they are going to make a lot of mistakes and might cost you some games.

If Shanny thinks he needs a starter type person at CB or at DT he should go out and get one then draft for depth and for future starters. Like safety, WR, LBer.

Although I really don't feel there are any DTs or DEs worth getting in FA. Spend FA money on a CB and draft DL, S, WR, OL, RB, LB

[Elway777]

His Salary is listed as 4.2 million. That is not to bad of a contract for the Price of a shutdown corner. I might be willing to give up our second 3 round pick for him. If the Broncos cann't sign a good de or safety then might as well get Bly.

[fontaine]

Funny story.....believe it or not, a few days ago, I actually inquired to NFLBRONCO in our mock draft about moving up to the 49th overall pick, which he had. There was a guy falling that I really wanted, but as you know...I absolutely hate the idea of moving up and giving up some of the 5 picks that I have between the start of Round 3 and the end of Round 4, so I gave him a very substandard offer...one that, if he accepted, he would be giving me a good deal of extra value...that was the only way I could justify to myself the idea of giving up some picks to move up, if I really got a great deal, I knew he wouldnt accept it, but i STILL felt horrible after I PMed him with my offer because after thinking about it, I re-considered the situation and felt that I didnt want to give up quantity even if I had a good deal for me, so I prayed that he would reject it and thankfully he did. :)


I really admire your optimism Socal, in the face of the dismal failure that is the recent Denver Draft history.

[chrisp]

I think that if Shanny doesn't like any of the FE DE's then he may go after a CB, but then only if there is someone he specifically likes.

We talk about team needs, but the biggest factor is how our staff evaluate the people that are available. Just becuase we have a team need in an area, it doesn't mean that we will pick up a guy in that area for the sheer hell of it. the coaches will do a detailed evaluation and if they feel someone is an ugrade they will persue him.

I still think there is a good chance we go after Kearney, and that of we do CB is a much lesser priority - plus FA CBs get obscene amounts of money - its one fo the highest paid positions after D-line on the defense, so to see us upgrade both with major free-agent moves would be a surprise to say the least.

[Atlas]

I really admire your optimism Socal, in the face of the dismal failure that is the recent Denver Draft history.

I admire your nonstop negativism. In case you haven't noticed Denver's last two drafts have been A+.

[Kaylore]

All great teams are built through the draft, but they are ultimately a crap shoot and if someone offers you a marquis player for a non-first round draft pick, you take it. Javon Walker is one of the best receivers in the game and we gave up a second round pick for him. I personally think that's a steal and in hind sight, a first would have been good enough for him.

You can make the case that never using your picks to draft players can hurt you (Redskins) but you have to be willing to do whatever it takes to make your team better.

[HEAV]

All great teams are built through the draft, but they are ultimately a crap shoot and if someone offers you a marquis player for a non-first round draft pick, you take it. Javon Walker is one of the best receivers in the game and we gave up a second round pick for him. I personally think that's a steal and in hind sight, a first would have been good enough for him.

You can make the case that never using your picks to draft players can hurt you (Redskins) but you have to willing to whatever it takes to make your team better.

While it's true the draft is a solid piece to building a team. Teams also have used trades and free agency to build Super Bowl teams.

The Broncos didn't draft Ed Mac, Stink, Zimmerman, Tony jones, Habib, Alfie Willaims, Romo, D. Gordon. All were aquired via trades or FA.

It's just some teams like the Skins throw all their dollars at the FA market.

It's about balance in the building of a team.

[Elway777]

Alright I would even give up a second round pick for Bly. Bly had 3 picks plus 4 forced fumbles plus 19 passes broken last year up at 4.4 million Bly contract the Broncos would get a good Bargain. The Broncos could also trade Tatum for a 3 and Plummer for a 3 rounder given The Broncos some more picks.the Broncos add a Interior pass rusher like Vonnie Holliday for 3 million then draft a de like Carriker or Johnson in the first then our defensive should be top 5 next year.

[Atlas]

All great teams are built through the draft, but they are ultimately a crap shoot and if someone offers you a marquis player for a non-first round draft pick, you take it. Javon Walker is one of the best receivers in the game and we gave up a second round pick for him. I personally think that's a steal and in hind sight, a first would have been good enough for him.

You can make the case that never using your picks to draft players can hurt you (Redskins) but you have to be willing to do whatever it takes to make your team better.


What you say is correct of course but the problem you run into is that Javon is one of the highest paid WRs in the NFL where as that 2nd round draft choice wouldn't cost but about $1 million against the cap.

You have to draft well and make smart trades and well, you got it made then!!!

[Elway777]

This is what a mock draft could look like with Dre ble trade. 1. Adam Carriker,replaces Tevor Pryce and fill Denver biggest need, 2 traded for Dre Ble to replace DW. 3a Antonio Pittman ,someone to replace Tatum Bell .3b Tatum Bell and Plummer traded to Houston for a 3 and 5 rounder. Broncos draft Kareem Brown. 3c Mike Otto,future replacement for Lepsis. The Broncos don't have to spend big signing Bonus in free agency and this draft covers all of Broncos needs besides safety and the broncos could add a cheap safety in free agency like Mike Doss or Tony Parrish.Last year the Broncos traded for Javon Walker and that worked out pretty good for Broncos.

[Rascal]

While it's true the draft is a solid piece to building a team. Teams also have used trades and free agency to build Super Bowl teams.

The Broncos didn't draft Ed Mac, Stink, Zimmerman, Tony jones, Habib, Alfie Willaims, Romo, D. Gordon. All were aquired via trades or FA.

It's just some teams like the Skins throw all their dollars at the FA market.

It's about balance in the building of a team.

Exactly.