View Full Version : Do you want to fiinish strong knowing our playoff chances are remote and...
its likely going to cost us draft choices?
Seriously, this has been the most trying season in a long time. At least we could get a draft pick out of it. The worst thing you can do is 7-9 to 9-7(and not make the playoffs). After all the BS weve had to put up with this year, it would only make it worse to have a bunch of pointless wins at the end of the season.
absolutely, with the progression of cutler, winning helps more than losing
Billy Clyde Puckett
12-10-2007, 09:37 AM
Trying to lose is stupid. Losing breeds losing. Plenty of guys on the team need to establish their place on next year's team.
TailgateNut
12-10-2007, 09:41 AM
Do you come up with these stupid polls by yourself, or is someone helping you along?
Doesn't matter what you want. This team has shown what they are going to do. They are an average ballclub which doesn't react well to pressure of winning, also winning on the road.
I find it mildly ironic that Denver played so well yesterday when almost all hope of the playoffs are gone. I suspect they have a good chance to win out over the next three games.
We've done just enough to ruin our playoff hopes and i'm sure we'll do just enough to make sure we don't get a high draft pick. Sucks but thats the way it goes.
TheDave
12-10-2007, 01:02 PM
Personally I hope they lose out... just keep moving up the draft board.
NFLBRONCO
12-10-2007, 01:16 PM
I'd prefer losing out the point is to get us stronger in 08. This team while it shows flashes its still very weak. KC might be 2nd worst team next to Miami.
socalorado
12-10-2007, 01:28 PM
Personally I hope they lose out... just keep moving up the draft board.
[QUOTE=NFLBRONCO]
Ring of Famer
I'd prefer losing out the point is to get us stronger in 08. This team while it shows flashes its still very weak. KC might be 2nd worst team next to Miami.
COSIGN
Crushaholic
12-10-2007, 03:06 PM
I think Meck said it best. Tell the people who invest money and time to go to games that Denver should tank the season. Losing is stupid. Winning entices quality free agents to play for the team, and THAT should be the important part. Unproven college athletes are a risk...
Northman
12-10-2007, 03:36 PM
You dont throw away games. EVER.
mattob14
12-10-2007, 07:18 PM
It depends on what you're really asking here. If the question is should we "tank" games for a draft pick, then no, I'd rather the team fight and continue to grow. But, if we put together a solid effort and come up short in the end, I wouldn't be upset about losing 2 or even all three of the remaining games and picking in the top-12.
It's not really the winning or losing I care about over the remainder of the season, but I want to see a consistent effort from our young players.
SoCalBronco
12-10-2007, 09:24 PM
Despite the game yesterday, I still strongly agree with Dave and NFLBRONCO.
Northman
12-10-2007, 11:34 PM
It depends on what you're really asking here. If the question is should we "tank" games for a draft pick, then no, I'd rather the team fight and continue to grow. But, if we put together a solid effort and come up short in the end, I wouldn't be upset about losing 2 or even all three of the remaining games and picking in the top-12.
It's not really the winning or losing I care about over the remainder of the season, but I want to see a consistent effort from our young players.
Problem is, this thread and others are implying that the Broncos should tank so they can get a top 10 pick. Im with you, losing just because you arent good enough is one thing. Purposely losing is unacceptable no matter how high in the draft you go.
SoCalBronco
12-10-2007, 11:38 PM
Purposely losing is unacceptable no matter how high in the draft you go.
Reasons?
Problem is, this thread and others are implying that the Broncos should tank so they can get a top 10 pick. Im with you, losing just because you arent good enough is one thing. Purposely losing is unacceptable no matter how high in the draft you go.
It doesnt necessarily imply they should be tanking. Its cool if they try to win but ultimately lose. Also, if the coaches were to experiment with players to evaluate them instead of higing weaknesses, that would be ok too.
Northman
12-10-2007, 11:47 PM
Reasons?
Shows low character and a unwillingness to compete. Sets a bad example to the players that when things go tough you just pack it in. Thats not Bronco football and we shouldnt start thinking like losers. To lose trying is one thing, to lose just so you can get a better draft pick is something else. Im really surprised at you Socal, i never thought you a quitter.
Northman
12-10-2007, 11:50 PM
It doesnt necessarily imply they should be tanking. Its cool if they try to win but ultimately lose. Also, if the coaches were to experiment with players to evaluate them instead of higing weaknesses, that would be ok too.
You guys do understand that this team is extremely young do you not? They need time to get better and its not going to happen overnight. Everyone that has paid attention to football knows that this year was going to be up and down and its been just that. The team is still gaining experience and learning as they go. This team is not full of veterans like it used to be. We have young guys in there and at times you see what they are capable of and other times you see the inexperience in there. You need to relax and allow this team to grow.
mattob14
12-10-2007, 11:52 PM
Shows low character and a unwillingness to compete. Sets a bad example to the players that when things go tough you just pack it in. Thats not Bronco football and we shouldnt start thinking like losers. To lose trying is one thing, to lose just so you can get a better draft pick is something else. Im really surprised at you Socal, i never thought you a quitter.
The other thing I'd add is players lose accountability in that setting. If you're trying to lose out, Cutler forcing a ball into double coverage for an INT becomes a good thing and the development curve flattens out. Players become lazy and develop bad habits if there is no accountability for their mistakes or laziness. The young players on this team need to continue to be challenged in order to grow to their full potential.
Northman
12-10-2007, 11:56 PM
The other thing I'd add is players lose accountability in that setting. If you're trying to lose out, Cutler forcing a ball into double coverage for an INT becomes a good thing and the development curve flattens out. Players become lazy and develop bad habits if there is no accountability for their mistakes or laziness. The young players on this team need to continue to be challenged in order to grow to their full potential.
Well, im not so sure on that its possible. But, despite all the flaws this team has had the last few years they are still a competitive team because they have a tradition of always believing. To start thinking its ok to not try anymore results in games like the first meeting with San Diego. Which in turn results like the Cardinals and Bengals where you go YEARS without a playoff appearance. Those teams lose because they are used to losing. I dont want that line of thinking to start in Denver. The team is young and needs the ability to grow and get better. We need to stop switching out players and coaches every year and work on chemistry.
Sassy
12-11-2007, 12:00 AM
We need to stop switching out players and coaches every year
That's been a little tough this year with all the injuries...
Sassy
12-11-2007, 12:05 AM
Pretty much the same poll I posted...
Northman
12-11-2007, 12:07 AM
We need to stop switching out players and coaches every year
That's been a little tough this year with all the injuries...
Im not talking about injuries.
SoCalBronco
12-11-2007, 12:07 AM
Shows low character and a unwillingness to compete. Sets a bad example to the players that when things go tough you just pack it in. Thats not Bronco football and we shouldnt start thinking like losers. To lose trying is one thing, to lose just so you can get a better draft pick is something else. Im really surprised at you Socal, i never thought you a quitter.
It's not about "quitting", that has nothing to do with it. It's a calculation of the team's best interest, balancing the benefits and detriments of winning and losing in a given situation.
Northman
12-11-2007, 12:12 AM
It's not about "quitting", that has nothing to do with it. It's a calculation of the team's best interest, balancing the benefits and detriments of winning and losing in a given situation.
Spin it however you like. To tank it in just because we arent undefeated or our record isnt pretty is ridiculous. The biggest asset to this team is motivation to grow and get better on the field. Multiple draft picks will do nothing as those players will also need time to develope. The best interest of this team is to continue to improve week to week and allow the players we have in place to get comfortable with the system in place.
SoCalBronco
12-11-2007, 12:16 AM
Spin it however you like. To tank it in just because we arent undefeated or our record isnt pretty is ridiculous. The biggest asset to this team is motivation to grow and get better on the field. Multiple draft picks will do nothing as those players will also need time to develope. The best interest of this team is to continue to improve week to week and allow the players we have in place to get comfortable with the system in place.
Where did I say I wanted us to tank if only our record was bad or we werent undefeated? The fundamental question is whether we have a reasonable likelihood to go to the playoffs and have the ability to do something of value? In my estimation, we don't. I also never said I wanted to bench all the young players. For Cutler and others obviously, there is a benefit in gaining more experience and they should keep playing, but that doesnt mean I shouldn't have a preference one way or another. I would prefer, given our circumstances, that we get the tangible benefit of a higher pick, rather than win games that have been basically rendered meaningless in all likelyhood. There are other older players that I wouldn't mind sitting, since there is no benefit to them from extra experience as a counterweight. It is simply better for the team, at this point, to lose and get an actual benefit from it.
Northman
12-11-2007, 12:22 AM
Where did I say I wanted us to tank if only our record was bad or we werent undefeated. The fundamental question is whether we have a reasonable likelihood to go to the playoffs and have the ability to do something of value? In my estimation, we don't. I also never said I wanted to bench all the young players. For Cutler and others obviously, there is a benefit in gaining more experience and they should keep playing, but that doesnt mean I shouldn't have a preference one way or another. I would prefer, given our circumstances, that we get the tangible benefit of a higher pick, rather than win games that have been basically rendered meaningless in all likelyhood. There are other older players that I wouldn't mind sitting, since there is no benefit to them from extra experience as a counterweight. It is simply better for the team, at this point, to lose and get an actual benefit from it.
Ok, let me ask this then. If we get a high draft pick who is the player that is going to take us to the Super Bowl next year? Can you answer that for me? Im really curious as too what player you think that we can get in the top 10 next year will get us to the promise land.
SoCalBronco
12-11-2007, 12:24 AM
Ok, let me ask this then. If we get a high draft pick who is the player that is going to take us to the Super Bowl next year? Can you answer that for me? Im really curious as too what player you think that we can get in the top 10 next year will get us to the promise land.
If we got a Top 10 pick, I would be extremely angry if we used it on ANYONE. I want a high pick so that we can trade down, acquire a number of picks to fill our many needs. The high pick also gives us flexibility, its not like last year when we were afraid someone was gonna take our last target and we had to sacrifice a third rounder needlessly. I do NOT want to use the pick, I want it to be traded away for picks or combo of picks/players.
Northman
12-11-2007, 12:29 AM
If we got a Top 10 pick, I would be extremely angry if we used it on ANYONE. I want a high pick so that we can trade down, acquire a number of picks to fill our many needs. The high pick also gives us flexibility, its not like last year when we were afraid someone was gonna take our last target and we had to sacrifice a third rounder needlessly. I do NOT want to use the pick, I want it to be traded away for picks or combo of picks/players.
So based upon that, when do you see this team making a playoff or Super Bowl appearance. Remember, all the current players are young and then we would be adding nothing but young players as well. Reason why i ask you this is because this team is close. We have a few draft picks as it is and can make more moves in Free Agency. Most likely we will finish with a top 15 pick as it is which is still trade bait. But this draft will have a lot of Olineman as well which is something Denver should consider with a high draft pick. To simply pick 20 guys who are unproven doesnt make a lot of sense to me and doesnt help this team right now.
Spin it however you like. To tank it in just because we arent undefeated or our record isnt pretty is ridiculous. The biggest asset to this team is motivation to grow and get better on the field. Multiple draft picks will do nothing as those players will also need time to develope. The best interest of this team is to continue to improve week to week and allow the players we have in place to get comfortable with the system in place.
No. A bigger asset is the ability to grow. And since this season got away from us, theres no need in adding more talent. And once again, I dont think anyone is suggesting that the players dont try as much as they have up until now. Thats tanking it.
So based upon that, when do you see this team making a playoff or Super Bowl appearance. Remember, all the current players are young and then we would be adding nothing but young players as well. Reason why i ask you this is because this team is close. We have a few draft picks as it is and can make more moves in Free Agency. Most likely we will finish with a top 15 pick as it is which is still trade bait. But this draft will have a lot of Olineman as well which is something Denver should consider with a high draft pick. To simply pick 20 guys who are unproven doesnt make a lot of sense to me and doesnt help this team right now.
Marcus Thomas is unproven. Also, there have been countless people complaining about how much of a liability Gold has been. Gold has experience. Lepsis, while being experienced, really looks old more than "experienced". We have Glenn Martinez returning kicks, yeah he had a return but we could do better. There are several positons that we could upgrade on talent alone...rookie or not.
TheDave
12-11-2007, 01:57 AM
Cutler, Marshall, scheffler, etc. were all unproven rookies just a year ago. We are all real happy with them right now. We need many more of them :thumbs:
SoCalBronco
12-11-2007, 02:03 AM
So based upon that, when do you see this team making a playoff or Super Bowl appearance. Remember, all the current players are young and then we would be adding nothing but young players as well. Reason why i ask you this is because this team is close. We have a few draft picks as it is and can make more moves in Free Agency. Most likely we will finish with a top 15 pick as it is which is still trade bait. But this draft will have a lot of Olineman as well which is something Denver should consider with a high draft pick. To simply pick 20 guys who are unproven doesnt make a lot of sense to me and doesnt help this team right now.
I expect a playoff berth and at least a 50-50 shot at a division championship next season. I believe we will be or should be in the SuperBowl in about 2-3 years (mainly because I think Cutler will be a Top 4 NFL QB in an extremely short period of time). The offense is showing itself, I believe, to be an offense that can be a 30 ppg offense next season. This does not mean that no pieces are necessary. The tackles need to be improved, no doubt. I like the young guys on the interior. Another WR for Jay is imperative. I agree that we will probably make some moves in FA, but remember, pretty much everyone is significantly under the cap, except for Washington and another couple clubs, so it is not necessarily true that DEN can win several bidding wars, without really overpaying. Its more likely that we'll be moderate in FA, which is smart anyway. You said to pick 20 guys who are unproven does not make alot of sense to you. Well.. as much as I have a huge hard on for picks, I'm pretty sure unfortunately we wont have 20 of them. :) In any case, the larger point is that there is a widespread and false assumption out there that first of all, there isn't room for alot of picks. Well, that is wrong, IMO. It's one of the Great Mysteries of the World right up there with the crop circles and the Pyramids of Giza that we have 53 badasses on the team and yet have had two weak seasons in a row. The point being, there is alot of crap on this roster that isnt necessary and can be replaced. There are alot of players that are just depth, or that are not even quality depth. I'm talking about the Nate Jacksons of the world. We always seem to keep about a dozen guys that never provide anything of value. There is alot of room for picks. There is alot of room for talent improvement, not just in the starting lineup but in the quality depth area as well, IMO. There are alot of holes to be filled in the starting lineups on defense. We could use some young talent there, another young DT or two, two LBs, a S or two. There's alot here that needs to be upgraded. ALOT. Granted, they would be young players, as you said, but so what? The days of us waiting fifty years for our young players to develop are gone. In recent years our young players are benefitting us earlier and earlier. In fact, many of our best current players are guys that have been in the league just 2 or 3 years.
What we have built here is a strong base, but that base needs to be supplemented with several players. I see no reason or logic in trading the ability to be in a position to get more players for a couple short term feel good wins that wont amount to anything. I just don't see the benefit in that, Anubis.
FYI, I heard today that Chicago is going to be starting Orton instead of Griese. The Bears are smart enough to try to evaluate how badly they need to draft a QB even though 3 games isnt a big sample size by Orton. In any case, playing their 3rd string QB doesnt exactly make it look like they are trying to finish strong even though Im sure they want the guys out there to try.
Northman
12-11-2007, 07:33 AM
FYI, I heard today that Chicago is going to be starting Orton instead of Griese. The Bears are smart enough to try to evaluate how badly they need to draft a QB even though 3 games isnt a big sample size by Orton. In any case, playing their 3rd string QB doesnt exactly make it look like they are trying to finish strong even though Im sure they want the guys out there to try.
Grossman is hurt, otherwise he would be playing. This isnt a evaluation period, they are just desperate for wins.
Northman
12-11-2007, 07:35 AM
Marcus Thomas is unproven. Also, there have been countless people complaining about how much of a liability Gold has been. Gold has experience. Lepsis, while being experienced, really looks old more than "experienced". We have Glenn Martinez returning kicks, yeah he had a return but we could do better. There are several positons that we could upgrade on talent alone...rookie or not.
As ive stated before, when you take players who were playing one system a year before and start a whole new system it takes them a while to adjust. I wouldnt matter who we had at linebacker, they would still struggle.
socalorado
12-11-2007, 08:47 AM
FYI, I heard today that Chicago is going to be starting Orton instead of Griese. The Bears are smart enough to try to evaluate how badly they need to draft a QB even though 3 games isnt a big sample size by Orton. In any case, playing their 3rd string QB doesnt exactly make it look like they are trying to finish strong even though Im sure they want the guys out there to try.
Hey! Did the Bears really have a deal in place to send SF Briggs?
Or was that all a bunch of BS?
Grossman is hurt, otherwise he would be playing. This isnt a evaluation period, they are just desperate for wins.
No. Griese is available and Orton hasnt even played for 2 years.
Crushaholic
12-11-2007, 09:46 AM
FYI, I heard today that Chicago is going to be starting Orton instead of Griese. The Bears are smart enough to try to evaluate how badly they need to draft a QB even though 3 games isnt a big sample size by Orton. In any case, playing their 3rd string QB doesnt exactly make it look like they are trying to finish strong even though Im sure they want the guys out there to try.
In addition to Anubis' point about being desperate for more wins, their season really IS over. Denver still has a remote chance of winning the AFC West...
As ive stated before, when you take players who were playing one system a year before and start a whole new system it takes them a while to adjust. I wouldnt matter who we had at linebacker, they would still struggle.
So, youd rather stick with Gold and not sign free agents at all let alone have draft picks? Good luck selling that idea.
In addition to Anubis' point about being desperate for more wins, their season really IS over. Denver still has a remote chance of winning the AFC West...
He had no point. If they were going for wins they wouldnt be going with some guy who hasnt played in 2 years. Your point doesnt really go together with his. Your point is the opposite of the one he is trying to make. Chicago no longer has a season to salvage and thats why theyre doing this. When they were playing for something either Griese or Grossman were in there.
Hey! Did the Bears really have a deal in place to send SF Briggs?
Or was that all a bunch of BS?
Honestly, I had either not heard about that or have totally forgotten about it.
Billy Clyde Puckett
12-11-2007, 10:10 AM
So, youd rather stick with Gold and not sign free agents at all let alone have draft picks? Good luck selling that idea.
Selling the idea to who???? No one here can sell the Broncos on any idea. believe it or not, they know the players better than a bunch of message board morons.
Selling the idea to who???? No one here can sell the Broncos on any idea. believe it or not, they know the players better than a bunch of message board morons.
No one said anything about selling it to the FO.
rugbythug
12-11-2007, 11:06 AM
Confidence and winning go hand in hand. I think the team would be better off moving back 8-10 draft slots but being a winning team than vice versa. 2 of the top guys on this team were 4th round selections. This tells me that you don't need a top 10 pick to field a good ball club. With the development we are seeing plus the maturation of our young DL I think this team could easily be great next year.
socalorado
12-11-2007, 11:43 AM
Confidence and winning go hand in hand. I think the team would be better off moving back 8-10 draft slots but being a winning team than vice versa. 2 of the top guys on this team were 4th round selections. This tells me that you don't need a top 10 pick to field a good ball club. With the development we are seeing plus the maturation of our young DL I think this team could easily be great next year.
Clearly you dont know Shenanigans drafting history.....
Hilarious!
Billy Clyde Puckett
12-11-2007, 12:54 PM
Clearly you dont know Shenanigans drafting history.....
Hilarious!
Clearly you don't understand the overall success rate of all teams in the draft.
socalorado
12-11-2007, 01:47 PM
Clearly you don't understand the overall success rate of all teams in the draft.
Clearly you have a million excuses as well as dont know what the hell your talking about.
2000 WR Chris Cole
2001 WR Kevin Kasper
2002 WR Ashlie Lilly
2002 WR Herb Haygood
2003 WR Adrian Madise
2004 WR Darius Watts
2005 WR Triandos Luke
2006 WR BRandon Marshall (WHEW!)
2007 WR Domenik Hixon (oh well!)
Just going back to 2000, can you do the math and tell me the success rate of the WR position?
Gosh i hope i dont read all the lame overused "homer"excuses that are commonly found when referring to Shenanigans horrid draft history.
Then theres an obscure reference to some other team that had a poor draft once as well. That one is always funny.
I could do this for every position if needed.
Billy Clyde Puckett
12-11-2007, 02:10 PM
Look it up moron. The Broncos overall draft success is about better than about 2/3 of the teams in the league. You pick out WR's - OK where are the 16 WRs drafted before Marshall in the 2006 draft?
Take your BS over to the fire shanahan site where it belongs
socalorado
12-11-2007, 02:28 PM
Look it up moron. The Broncos overall draft success is about better than about 2/3 of the teams in the league. You pick out WR's - OK where are the 16 WRs drafted before Marshall in the 2006 draft?
Take your BS over to the fire shanahan site where it belongs
1st off bill, no need to call other posters names, OK?
If your frustrated or angry try to relax, and not make up posts from a fantasy reality. DEN has had horrid draft success with Shanny at the helm. Thats obvious.
All the excuses in the world arent going to hide that fact.
Your question was where are the 16 WRs drafted before marshall in the 2006 draft?
Pittsburgh (from N.Y. Giants) - Santonio Holmes, WR Ohio State
(44) N.Y. Giants (from Baltimore) - Sinorice Moss, WR Miami (FL)
(52) Green Bay (from New England) - Greg Jenning, WR Western Michigan
(57) Chicago - Devin Hester, WR/KR Miami (FL)
(115) Minnesota - Will Blackmon, WR Boston College
You mean like these guys?
Shoot, i'm sure there are a few bad ones in there, only problem is shanny makes it a habit of poor drafting anyways!
If he hits on a Marshall, he still blows it anyways by drafting Hixon just a few places later!
Northman
12-11-2007, 03:38 PM
No. Griese is available and Orton hasnt even played for 2 years.
And Griese sucks hence why they went to Orton who carried them to the playoffs 3 years ago.
Northman
12-11-2007, 03:42 PM
Clearly you have a million excuses as well as dont know what the hell your talking about.
2000 WR Chris Cole
2001 WR Kevin Kasper
2002 WR Ashlie Lilly
2002 WR Herb Haygood
2003 WR Adrian Madise
2004 WR Darius Watts
2005 WR Triandos Luke
2006 WR BRandon Marshall (WHEW!)
2007 WR Domenik Hixon (oh well!)
Just going back to 2000, can you do the math and tell me the success rate of the WR position?
Gosh i hope i dont read all the lame overused "homer"excuses that are commonly found when referring to Shenanigans horrid draft history.
Then theres an obscure reference to some other team that had a poor draft once as well. That one is always funny.
I could do this for every position if needed.
Im actually glad you brought this up. Its interesting that for the some who want draft picks that they dont look at the history of who we draft and when. It doesnt matter if we have 5 picks or 15. Going by Shanny's history of drafting reaches it wont help this team whether its by talent or depth. So explain to me again the advantage of getting more draft picks? If we dont have people there to evaluate the talent in the draft than the picks become meaningless. Right?
And Griese sucks hence why they went to Orton who carried them to the playoffs 3 years ago.
"Carried"!!! Wow...just wow. Talk about a reach.
rugbythug
12-11-2007, 04:49 PM
1st off bill, no need to call other posters names, OK?
If your frustrated or angry try to relax, and not make up posts from a fantasy reality. DEN has had horrid draft success with Shanny at the helm. Thats obvious.
All the excuses in the world arent going to hide that fact.
Your question was where are the 16 WRs drafted before marshall in the 2006 draft?
Pittsburgh (from N.Y. Giants) - Santonio Holmes, WR Ohio State
(44) N.Y. Giants (from Baltimore) - Sinorice Moss, WR Miami (FL)
(52) Green Bay (from New England) - Greg Jenning, WR Western Michigan
(57) Chicago - Devin Hester, WR/KR Miami (FL)
(115) Minnesota - Will Blackmon, WR Boston College
You mean like these guys?
Shoot, i'm sure there are a few bad ones in there, only problem is shanny makes it a habit of poor drafting anyways!
If he hits on a Marshall, he still blows it anyways by drafting Hixon just a few places later!
Please- Who does it better? Shanny's last 3 drafts stack up against anybodies.
socalorado
12-11-2007, 05:02 PM
Please- Who does it better? Shanny's last 3 drafts stack up against anybodies.
Yes you are right,the last 2 1/2 half drafts have been pretty good!
I guess you were not around for the Travis McGriffs and the Willie Middlebrooks. Alas!
And shanny's last couple drafts are par for the course for alot of NFL coaches.
L!OL!
socalorado
12-11-2007, 05:18 PM
Im actually glad you brought this up. Its interesting that for the some who want draft picks that they dont look at the history of who we draft and when. It doesnt matter if we have 5 picks or 15. Going by Shanny's history of drafting reaches it wont help this team whether its by talent or depth. So explain to me again the advantage of getting more draft picks? If we dont have people there to evaluate the talent in the draft than the picks become meaningless. Right?
Well whats the other option out there?
What do you want Shenanigans to do? Trade away all his picks for players? Oh NO! Not a guy like Mike! hes waaaay toooo big headed to do something like that!
Naw, he'll keep drafting and hopefully keep improving at the draft. he has gotten better, but his role as GM should be taken away and given to some one who can better access and develop talent.
Billy Clyde Puckett
12-11-2007, 07:35 PM
Yes you are right,the last 2 1/2 half drafts have been pretty good!
I guess you were not around for the Travis McGriffs and the Willie Middlebrooks. Alas!
And shanny's last couple drafts are par for the course for alot of NFL coaches.
L!OL!
I was around for those drafts and many more before them. If you want to look it up instead of just repeating what you want to think is true, you will find that since Shanahan has been coach, the Bronco draft record is better than about 2/3 of the teams in the NFL. That's not an excellent record, but much better than the urban legends people like you spout.
sgbfan
12-11-2007, 11:38 PM
I would rather win out. The team needs confidence for next year, and a rookie drafted at 12 instead of 20 isn't going to do that IMO.
Northman
12-12-2007, 07:08 AM
"Carried"!!! Wow...just wow. Talk about a reach.
Ok, poor choice of words. But he did the old Trent Dilfer and didnt screw it up.
Northman
12-12-2007, 07:09 AM
Well whats the other option out there?
What do you want Shenanigans to do? Trade away all his picks for players? Oh NO! Not a guy like Mike! hes waaaay toooo big headed to do something like that!
Naw, he'll keep drafting and hopefully keep improving at the draft. he has gotten better, but his role as GM should be taken away and given to some one who can better access and develop talent.
This we can agree on.
Ok, poor choice of words. But he did the old Trent Dilfer and didnt screw it up.
No kidding. Just to show you how impressed they were with him. After that year they went out and signed Griese and he's been buried on the bench behind Griese and Grossman in spite of both of their struggles. The clearly have identified QB as a need. They just want to see where they need to draft one. If Orton shoes some promise, they may be willing to not draft one in the 1st Rd.