PDA

View Full Version : Broncos bringing in Wells for a second look


lex
03-30-2009, 05:52 PM
http://myespn.go.com/blogs/afcwest/0-3-1870/Could-Wells-end-up-in-Denver-or-San-Diego-.html


Could Wells end up in Denver or San Diego?

March 28, 2009 6:49 PM


Posted by ESPN.com's Bill Williamson

A source close to the situation confirmed Ohio State star running back Chris "Beanie" Wells will visit both the Denver Broncos and the San Diego Chargers prior to the April 25-26 draft. Wells is considered a sure first-round pick.

San Diego is clearly going to consider running backs. The Chargers are planning a private meeting with Georgia running back Knowshon Moreno, the other top running back prospect. The interest in Wells and Moreno comes despite the fact that the Chargers are tying up nearly $13 million in salary this year to running backs LaDainian Tomlinson and Darren Sproles. Plus, San Diego has pressing defensive needs.

Broncos running backs coach Bobby Turner held a private workout with Wells a couple of weeks ago so the team is clearly interested in him. Wells would be entering a crowded backfield if drafted by Denver.

Denver signed three veteran running backs this offseason. Correll Buckhalter, J.J. Arrington and LaMont Jordan were all brought in. The Broncos also have youngsters Ryan Torain and Peyton Hillis.

Sometimes teams use pre-draft visits as decoys. Teams will visit with players from positions they have no intentions of drafting in the early rounds in an attempt to fool other teams. Former Denver coach Mike Shanahan routinely did that. Perhaps this is what new Denver coach Josh McDaniels is doing with Wells.

ludo21
03-30-2009, 05:54 PM
noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

I would rather take Donald Brown, or Jennings later in the draft.

vancejohnson82
03-30-2009, 05:57 PM
no thanks...

I like the kid from UCONN in the second or third

lex
03-30-2009, 06:12 PM
no thanks...

I like the kid from UCONN in the second or third

Youre delusional.

Br0nc0Buster
03-30-2009, 06:31 PM
I would be shocked if we drafted a RB

Im not sure Hillis isnt better than Wells

lex
03-30-2009, 06:35 PM
I would be shocked if we drafted a RB

Im not sure Hillis isnt better than Wells

Go look at who we've been bringing in. Its one thing to think we wont take a RB but its another to be shocked. I wouldnt be shocked at anything they did. It almost seems like the FA signinngs were done to give them draft day flexibility.

Br0nc0Buster
03-30-2009, 06:43 PM
Go look at who we've been bringing in. Its one thing to think we wont take a RB but its another to be shocked. I wouldnt be shocked at anything they did. It almost seems like the FA signinngs were done to give them draft day flexibility.

With the aquisitions of Buckhalter, Jordan, and Arrington on top of Hillis already, I would be very suprised if we go RB early.

I think we will just get the best available front 7 defender assuming he fits a 3-4 and is what the coaches are looking for

lex
03-30-2009, 06:44 PM
With the aquisitions of Buckhalter, Jordan, and Arrington on top of Hillis already, I would be very suprised if we go RB early.

I think we will just get the best available front 7 defender assuming he fits a 3-4 and is what the coaches are looking for

Thats not at all what you said previously.

Br0nc0Buster
03-30-2009, 06:51 PM
Thats not at all what you said previously.

This thread is about Beanie, obviously it would require a high pick to get him.

That is what I was referring to, a high pick.

I guess I wasnt clear.

I still would be suprised if we go RB any earlier than like a 4th

lex
03-30-2009, 07:14 PM
This thread is about Beanie, obviously it would require a high pick to get him.

That is what I was referring to, a high pick.

I guess I wasnt clear.

I still would be suprised if we go RB any earlier than like a 4th

The 4th round stuff is a waste. No thanks. That approach is played.

meangene
03-30-2009, 07:53 PM
I think Wells is going to be a franchise back in the NFL. I think at 12 he could be the best player on the board. I realize opinions may differ. Thing is do we draft a RB with all the defensive front seven needs? Now, maybe if we are involved in a trade, or trades that nets us some more picks it makes a whole lot more sense.

BroncoMan4ever
03-30-2009, 07:54 PM
hell yes, bring this bad mother****er to Denver and let the rest of the league tremble in his wake.

and if not him Rashad Jennings.

BroncoMan4ever
03-30-2009, 08:06 PM
I think Wells is going to be a franchise back in the NFL. I think at 12 he could be the best player on the board. I realize opinions may differ. Thing is do we draft a RB with all the defensive front seven needs? Now, maybe if we are involved in a trade, or trades that nets us some more picks it makes a whole lot more sense.

last season in 5 games when Peyton Hillis was starting for us. Jay threw 9TDs to 4INTs, 1500 yards, the offense scored almost 30PPG, and the Defense was allowing 19PPG.

the point being we had good production out of the running game and our scoring went up, and the points allowed by our defense went down.

so with a rebuilding defense a good RB could be one of the best things we could get and would be a wise investment with our 1st round pick

This thread is about Beanie, obviously it would require a high pick to get him.

That is what I was referring to, a high pick.

I guess I wasnt clear.

I still would be suprised if we go RB any earlier than like a 4th

have the last few years of suck from the RB position not ended the desire to bring in another late round piece of crap to fix RB position.

how many more Young's, Bell's, Hall's, Torain's, Boyd's, do we need to go through with piss poor results before people on this board get over the we can plug anyone into our system and get results?

it isn't working anymore. the last one that did was Anderson and that was a really long time ago.

1 year spending a high pick on a very important weapon for the team is a smart thing to do, and it sets the position up for the next 5 years at least.

a good RB will chew clock, open passing lanes, and keep our weak ass defense off the field.

Br0nc0Buster
03-30-2009, 08:17 PM
last season in 5 games when Peyton Hillis was starting for us. Jay threw 9TDs to 4INTs, 1500 yards, the offense scored almost 30PPG, and the Defense was allowing 19PPG.

the point being we had good production out of the running game and our scoring went up, and the points allowed by our defense went down.

so with a rebuilding defense a good RB could be one of the best things we could get and would be a wise investment with our 1st round pick



have the last few years of suck from the RB position not ended the desire to bring in another late round piece of crap to fix RB position.

how many more Young's, Bell's, Hall's, Torain's, Boyd's, do we need to go through with piss poor results before people on this board get over the we can plug anyone into our system and get results?

it isn't working anymore. the last one that did was Anderson and that was a really long time ago.

1 year spending a high pick on a very important weapon for the team is a smart thing to do, and it sets the position up for the next 5 years at least.

a good RB will chew clock, open passing lanes, and keep our weak ass defense off the field.

We have a good RB on the roster already, his name is Hillis
The jump from Hillis to Wells(assuming there is one, which I am not convinced there is) does not justify a 1st round pick.

A good RB may chew up clock, but you know what else helps a defense?
Good players.
We have only a few, we need to get more.
The draft is where we can get top talent.

RBs get so beat up so much that their value really isnt worth it unless he is THAT good, and like I said I am not even convinced he would be an upgrade over Hillis

Arent you glad we didnt draft a RB high last year?

BroncoMan4ever
03-30-2009, 08:29 PM
We have a good RB on the roster already, his name is Hillis
The jump from Hillis to Wells(assuming there is one, which I am not convinced there is) does not justify a 1st round pick.

A good RB may chew up clock, but you know what else helps a defense?
Good players.
We have only a few, we need to get more.
The draft is where we can get top talent.

RBs get so beat up so much that their value really isnt worth it unless he is THAT good, and like I said I am not even convinced he would be an upgrade over Hillis

Arent you glad we didnt draft a RB high last year?

i would have gone absolutely crazy with joy over the selection of Jonathon Stewart last season, so no, i wish we had gotten a RB early, instead of trash known as Torain. if you look at old posts, Sttewart was who i was pimping and wanting us to draft.

i agree completely on the Hillis part. if it were possible, he is who i would want as our starting RB. but the guy who has brought in 3 guys for his job and supposedly put him on the trade block doesn't seem to agree, and with that in mind, i want Wells, or Jennings in the draft.

Drek
03-30-2009, 08:36 PM
We have a good RB on the roster already, his name is Hillis
The jump from Hillis to Wells(assuming there is one, which I am not convinced there is) does not justify a 1st round pick.

A good RB may chew up clock, but you know what else helps a defense?
Good players.
We have only a few, we need to get more.
The draft is where we can get top talent.

RBs get so beat up so much that their value really isnt worth it unless he is THAT good, and like I said I am not even convinced he would be an upgrade over Hillis

Arent you glad we didnt draft a RB high last year?
Adrian Peterson is unquestionably the best RB in the NFL today. He's spelled by a former 1,200 yard rusher.

When Ladanian Tomlinson was in his prime he was spelled by Michael Turner.

In New England they spelled Corey Dillon with a host of RBs, most notably the very versatile Kevin Faulk.

We could easily give Wells 20 carries while also giving Hillis 10 carries and 5 catches on an average Sunday. Hell, it'd probably make both of them more effective.

If Turner and McDaniels see a guy who could go 20 carries a game at 5.0 ypc then I'd say they're pretty obligated to at least see how he stacks up to the other options we'll have at #12. Chances are that won't include Raji, Jenkins, Curry, and at least one if not both of Orakpo and Brown. So if we're sitting at #12, no one wants to move up, and we're looking at taking either Brian Cushing who's a solid but unspectacular LB with a high floor/low ceiling projection or Beanie Wells who might be a dominant back in this league, who would you chose?

It makes a lot of sense.

Also, a nice little something in that article for the McDaniels haters. Bobby Turner held the private workout for Wells, and aparently wanted another. So before assuming that McD was the reason we brought in a bunch of low cost middle tier RBs maybe ask yourself who's really making those calls.

Br0nc0Buster
03-30-2009, 08:55 PM
i would have gone absolutely crazy with joy over the selection of Jonathon Stewart last season, so no, i wish we had gotten a RB early, instead of trash known as Torain. if you look at old posts, Sttewart was who i was pimping and wanting us to draft.

i agree completely on the Hillis part. if it were possible, he is who i would want as our starting RB. but the guy who has brought in 3 guys for his job and supposedly put him on the trade block doesn't seem to agree, and with that in mind, i want Wells, or Jennings in the draft.

Except the choice wasnt either Torain or Stewart, had we drafted Stewart we would not of gotten Clady.

Fortunately for us we took the franchise tackle.
RBs are a dime a dozen, for the most part.

As far as what McDaniels sees in Hillis, I wont make any conclusions until preseason about how he will use Hillis.
Hillis is the best RB on the roster, Im sure McDaniels will find that out if he doesnt already know

Br0nc0Buster
03-30-2009, 09:05 PM
Adrian Peterson is unquestionably the best RB in the NFL today. He's spelled by a former 1,200 yard rusher.

When Ladanian Tomlinson was in his prime he was spelled by Michael Turner.

In New England they spelled Corey Dillon with a host of RBs, most notably the very versatile Kevin Faulk.

We could easily give Wells 20 carries while also giving Hillis 10 carries and 5 catches on an average Sunday. Hell, it'd probably make both of them more effective.

If Turner and McDaniels see a guy who could go 20 carries a game at 5.0 ypc then I'd say they're pretty obligated to at least see how he stacks up to the other options we'll have at #12. Chances are that won't include Raji, Jenkins, Curry, and at least one if not both of Orakpo and Brown. So if we're sitting at #12, no one wants to move up, and we're looking at taking either Brian Cushing who's a solid but unspectacular LB with a high floor/low ceiling projection or Beanie Wells who might be a dominant back in this league, who would you chose?

It makes a lot of sense.

Also, a nice little something in that article for the McDaniels haters. Bobby Turner held the private workout for Wells, and aparently wanted another. So before assuming that McD was the reason we brought in a bunch of low cost middle tier RBs maybe ask yourself who's really making those calls.

If Wells really is that much better than everyone else on the board, then I guess I wouldnt be too upset.
Hillis though could be our workhorse, and get spelled by Buck, Jordan, and JJ.
Like I said earlier, I am not sure Wells really is that much better than Hillis
I see it as we already have our RB, we dont need to get another one.
It would be like drafting Maclin to me

I dont see how Jackson wont be there for us at 12, is his ceiling that much lower than Wells?

I also take into consideration the shelf life of a RB.
These guys take a beating, there are no guarantees they wont wear down after 5 years.

NFLBRONCO
03-30-2009, 09:24 PM
If Wells really is that much better than everyone else on the board, then I guess I wouldnt be too upset.
Hillis though could be our workhorse, and get spelled by Buck, Jordan, and JJ.
Like I said earlier, I am not sure Wells really is that much better than Hillis
I see it as we already have our RB, we dont need to get another one.
It would be like drafting Maclin to me

I dont see how Jackson wont be there for us at 12, is his ceiling that much lower than Wells?

I also take into consideration the shelf life of a RB.
These guys take a beating, there are no guarantees they wont wear down after 5 years.

It would not surprise me one bit if Wells name is called or Harvin's for that matter at 12. Yeah I'd prefer front 7 help most of all. I'm kind of thinking Wells might land into top 10 come draft day. Who knows what our new FO will do.

lex
03-30-2009, 09:58 PM
If Wells really is that much better than everyone else on the board, then I guess I wouldnt be too upset.
Hillis though could be our workhorse, and get spelled by Buck, Jordan, and JJ.
Like I said earlier, I am not sure Wells really is that much better than Hillis
I see it as we already have our RB, we dont need to get another one.
It would be like drafting Maclin to me

I dont see how Jackson wont be there for us at 12, is his ceiling that much lower than Wells?

I also take into consideration the shelf life of a RB.
These guys take a beating, there are no guarantees they wont wear down after 5 years.

Wells is better than Hillis. Drek is dead on. The arrangement he described gives flexibility to use Hillis in a variety of ways including at RB as opposed to what youre saying, which makes him a RB with lesser RBs spelling him. Again, if theres one thing that kind of makes sense with the signings its that they give the teams draft flexibility. You say McDaniels signed RBs already but he's also signed a LB leaving 7 in the fold. He's also signed, what, 3 DBs?

BroncoInferno
03-30-2009, 10:17 PM
Look, you guys are nuts on Hillis. I like the guy, but you people act like he's a proven Earl Campbell. He has a single 100 yard rushing game and a single 100 yard receiving game in his career. Try to have some prospective, folks. He seems to bring versatility to the table, but Wells certainly would not be a bad addition to the mix, especially since I suspect the Arrington signing will be primarily for the return game.

BroncoMan4ever
03-30-2009, 10:40 PM
Except the choice wasnt either Torain or Stewart, had we drafted Stewart we would not of gotten Clady.

Fortunately for us we took the franchise tackle.
RBs are a dime a dozen, for the most part.

As far as what McDaniels sees in Hillis, I wont make any conclusions until preseason about how he will use Hillis.
Hillis is the best RB on the roster, Im sure McDaniels will find that out if he doesnt already know

i agree i am glad we got Clady over anyone else.

but the question posed to me was about with our injuries to the position last year, was i glad we didn't use a high pick on one.

and yes, if we had gotten Stewart we would not have gotten Clady, and i an happy with the way we went, but had we gotten Stewart our offense would have looked really good, and we wouldn't have had to deal with all the lame false hope generated from Torain

BroncoMan4ever
03-30-2009, 10:43 PM
If Wells really is that much better than everyone else on the board, then I guess I wouldnt be too upset.
Hillis though could be our workhorse, and get spelled by Buck, Jordan, and JJ.
Like I said earlier, I am not sure Wells really is that much better than Hillis
I see it as we already have our RB, we dont need to get another one.
It would be like drafting Maclin to me

I dont see how Jackson wont be there for us at 12, is his ceiling that much lower than Wells?

I also take into consideration the shelf life of a RB.
These guys take a beating, there are no guarantees they wont wear down after 5 years.

i think Jackson is the best in a really weak class of 3-4 DEs and not really as good as he is ranked.

but with Wells, 240lbs on 4.38 speed, that is freakish ability you can't teach. pair him with Hillis and you create a fierce tandem that will bowl over defenses as well as keep ours off the field and open up passing lanes for Jay.

think of it like LT and Turner, with Wells our LT and Hillis our Turner. would be almost impossible to gameplan against

lex
03-30-2009, 10:49 PM
i think Jackson is the best in a really weak class of 3-4 DEs and not really as good as he is ranked.

but with Wells, 240lbs on 4.38 speed, that is freakish ability you can't teach. pair him with Hillis and you create a fierce tandem that will bowl over defenses as well as keep ours off the field and open up passing lanes for Jay.

think of it like LT and Turner, with Wells our LT and Hillis our Turner. would be almost impossible to gameplan against

I think Id rather have Gilbert than Jackson. And nevermind the pool video. The guy is awesome at handfighting.

BroncoMan4ever
03-30-2009, 10:49 PM
These guys take a beating, there are no guarantees they wont wear down after 5 years.

Fisher in Tennessee told Lendale White when he drafted him, that in 5 years he is going to draft his replacement.

and yes RBs wear down after 5 years and with the position, you just draft a new one. look at the Chiefs and LJ, they gave him a major contract after a few years in his rookie deal and now they are stuck with him. i say get a RB on a 5 year rookie contract, let him play it out and draft a new one, unless the old RB is willing to give a hometown discount, then re-sign that guy and get a replacement to take carries from him.

BroncoMan4ever
03-30-2009, 10:50 PM
I think Id rather have Gilbert than Jackson.

and he'll be available in the 2nd and we can still get Wells in the 1st, so it works

NFLBRONCO
03-30-2009, 11:05 PM
Other then Raji and maybe Brown who's left to really appeal to us at 12 and I'll faint if Raji is there at 12.

lex
03-30-2009, 11:37 PM
Other then Raji and maybe Brown who's left to really appeal to us at 12 and I'll faint if Raji is there at 12.

Excellent point.

http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/7129546/7192163

Key To A Successful 3-4 Defense
Posted on: March 19, 2008 8:15 pm
Edited on: March 26, 2008 1:53 amScore: 91



Offense can win games. Defense wins championships.

Over the past several years we have seen a resurgence of teams running a 3-4 defense. For those of you that don't know what this is, it is when a team lines up in a defensive set with 3 down lineman and 4 linebackers. Typically, you have a nose tackle flanked by 2 defensive ends. 2 inside linebackers line up behind the linemen and 2 outside linebackers line up outside the tackles. There are variations but this is the "base" 3-4.

You always here about the linebackers in this scheme. Primarily, because the pass rushers are the guys that get all the sacks. In the 3-4, linebackers tend to be the ones that get the most sacks...and the glory. Now the key to making this defense work smoothly is the defensive line. The only reason why the linebackers are able to rack up sacks and tackles is because the big guys up front occupy space and keep the blockers off the linebackers. The idea is to have the NT and/or a DE each tie up multiple blockers.

By now, you're probably wondering "what's the point of all this? Many of you reading already know what the 3-4 defense is. To start, I'm a 49er fan (OK...get all the laughs out of the way right now). Coach MIke Nolan is a defensive specialist. he did an outstanding job with the Baltimore Raven's defense as defensive coordinator. So I am at a loss as to why the 49er's defense has never ranked better than 25th in the 3 years Nolan has been with the team. The point is, you need to have exceptional talent on the D-line to make the 3-4 defense work.

Nolan has done a good job of supplying the defense with flashy talent at the linebacker position - Patrick Willis, and some potential talent - Manny Lawson, Donterrius Thomas, Brandon Moore, Tully Banta-Cain. All these guys have the potential to breakout with 6-8 and maybe double digit sack seasons. But unless more attention is paid to the D-line, the sack potential will never come to fruition.

Let's take some examples from the rest of the NFL.

The Pittsburgh Steelers have NT Casey Hampton (1st rd draft pick, 4 Pro Bowls).

The San Diego Chargers have NT Jamal Williams (3 Pro Bowls), DE Luis Castillo (1st rd pick 2005).

The Baltimore Ravens have DE Trevor Pryce (4 Pro Bowls, 1st rd pick), DE Haloti Ngata (1st rd pick 2006).

And the model example...the New England Patriots - NT Vince Wilfork (1 Pro Bowl, 1st rd pick), DE Ty Warren (1st rd pick), Richard Seymour (5 Pro Bowls, 1st rd pick)

All the above top 10 defenses of 2007 have either a NT or DE from the 1st round or are Pro Bowl caliber players. These teams have willing invested into the D-line to make their 3-4 defenses successful. Even the Cleveland Browns made a strong play in the off season and acquired Shaun Rogers and Corey Williams. The Jets added DT Kris Jenkins.

Let's take a look at the 49ers

NT Aubrayo Franklin (5th rd pick - Ravens cast off) - Isaac Sopoaga may still his job but neither can consistently draw double teams.

DE Ray McDonald (3rd rd pick)

DE Justin Smith (1st rd pick in 2001 with no notable achievements) - just brought in to replace Bryant Young at 3-4 DE. Let's see if he makes the adjustment. I'm not confident that it will.

Come on Nolan. Let's get some help in the draft early. If Kentwan Balmer is available, then take him.



But with that in mind, I look at Jackson and its not even a certainty that he is really better than Gilbert,...depending on the scheme (of course).

SouthStndJunkie
03-31-2009, 12:46 AM
It would be very intriguing to have a RB will the skills and size/speed ratio of Beanie Wells in our backfield.

That said, I just can't see Denver going RB at 12....they need a playmaker on the front seven of the defense.

I would not kick the dog if we took him, but there are much bigger needs.

lex
03-31-2009, 01:07 AM
It would be very intriguing to have a RB will the skills and size/speed ratio of Beanie Wells in our backfield.

That said, I just can't see Denver going RB at 12....they need a playmaker on the front seven of the defense.

I would not kick the dog if we took him, but there are much bigger needs.


http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=2358652&postcount=13

If Raji or Brown were available at 12, Id be cool with taking them. Beyond that, Id rather take a RB at 12. If the key positions in the 3-4 are NT and the rush lb, then it doesnt make a lot of sense to take other positions or reach. Id rather take Wells at that point and then get Brace or Gilbert.

BroncoMan4ever
03-31-2009, 01:22 AM
http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=2358652&postcount=13

If Raji or Brown were available at 12, Id be cool with taking them. Beyond that, Id rather take a RB at 12. If the key positions in the 3-4 are NT and the rush lb, then it doesnt make a lot of sense to take other positions or reach. Id rather take Wells at that point and then get Brace or Gilbert.

i agree. if Raji and Brown are there at 12, i think it is obvious we take 1 of them. but if they are gone, we either can reach on a guy like Cushing who should still be available til the late teens early 20's or take a true gamebreaker in a position that has been bare since Portis was traded.

i'd rather take Wells, and hope Clay Mathews falls, or get Brace, Sintim or Gilbert in the 2nd

lex
03-31-2009, 01:32 AM
i agree. if Raji and Brown are there at 12, i think it is obvious we take 1 of them. but if they are gone, we either can reach on a guy like Cushing who should still be available til the late teens early 20's or take a true gamebreaker in a position that has been bare since Portis was traded.

i'd rather take Wells, and hope Clay Mathews falls, or get Brace, Sintim or Gilbert in the 2nd


In the second, I would be hoping for: Brace, Gilbert, Kruger, or Barwin. But then you also have guys like Sammie Lee Hill and Chris Baker who will be there after that. If Brace doesnt play next year, then maybe you consider taking one of those guys. The uncertainty that exists with drafting DLinemen is probably the biggest reason I like the move to a 3-4 (fewer Dlinemen means less uncertainty)...that and blitz flexibility.

Even if Raji were available, I could live with taking Wells instead if Turner likes him THAT much and also if Brace was a more sensible fit schematically (the short arms or they feel its a waste having him 2 gap).

BroncoMan4ever
03-31-2009, 02:20 AM
In the second, I would be hoping for: Brace, Gilbert, Kruger, or Barwin. But then you also have guys like Sammie Lee Hill and Chris Baker who will be there after that. If Brace doesnt play next year, then maybe you consider taking one of those guys. The uncertainty that exists with drafting DLinemen is probably the biggest reason I like the move to a 3-4 (fewer Dlinemen means less uncertainty)...that and blitz flexibility.

Even if Raji were available, I could live with taking Wells instead if Turner likes him THAT much and also if Brace was a more sensible fit schematically (the short arms or they feel its a waste having him 2 gap).

i wouldn't mind taking Wells over Raji either, as i don't really think Raji is a great NT prospect. if we were still in a 4-3 base i would be more into him as a DT for us, but i am not sold on him as a NT and would rather get a maor contributor to the team in the 1st round whether it be an offensive or defensive pick.

basically with a 1st round pick, i want that guy to hit the ground running and be important, like Clady did and was.

i don't want to take guys who will take time to develop and get up to speed, i want an NFL ready playmaker from day 1, and at number 12 i think Wells is the best option to fit that type

ohiobronco2
03-31-2009, 08:21 AM
It would be very intriguing to have a RB will the skills and size/speed ratio of Beanie Wells in our backfield.

That said, I just can't see Denver going RB at 12....they need a playmaker on the front seven of the defense.

I would not kick the dog if we took him, but there are much bigger needs.

Not trying to stir the pot, but Michigan fans know better than most. Beanie was dominant in every game against them.

SouthStndJunkie
03-31-2009, 08:57 AM
Not trying to stir the pot, but Michigan fans know better than most. Beanie was dominant in every game against them.

I was at 2 out of the 3 games in which he ran all over us.

The 2007 game especially sucked.

222 yards and 2 TDs in the Big House.

Broncoman13
03-31-2009, 09:29 AM
Well, looks like I might have been wrong on my prediction a while back (the Broncos will draft "pretty" in the first round and take a skill position player). I'm hearing more and more talk about the Broncos going after a guy that can flat get after the QB. For all the draft nits out there, start going over the 3-4 ROLBs and 4-3 ends that may be available at #12, that is likely the pick.

Off the top of my head:

Orakpo (likely a top 10 pick)
Brown (Could be available at 12, size is dropping him a bit)
Mathews (Should be available at 12, outstanding motor. Late bloomer?)
Ayers (Darkhorse. I think he'll be the pick, hope not though. Rising quickly and can play ROLB and 4-3 end. Production has been low.)
Johnson (Incredible size/speed... why doesn't it translate to production?)
Sintim (Well versed in the 3-4, would be a nice addition but probably available much later than #12)
English (Another Ayers type climb. Not as athletic as I would like and would be making a position change.)
Maybin (Dude is adding a lot of weight lately. Really makes you wonder. Sure can get after the QB though.)
Barwin (Phenomenal athlete! 12 is a bit too early for him, but he will be a first rounder!)

Dream scenario for me:

Michael Oher is available at #12. The Lions selected Stafford with the #1 overall. They send picks #20 and #33 to the Broncos for #12 in order to draft Michael Oher.

With #20 the Broncos select DE Tyson Jackson. With #33 the Broncos select LB Connor Barwin. This contradicts my earlier statement that Barwin would be a first rounder, but this is my dream so I'll pick who I want to!

TheReverend
03-31-2009, 09:34 AM
Well, looks like I might have been wrong on my prediction a while back (the Broncos will draft "pretty" in the first round and take a skill position player). I'm hearing more and more talk about the Broncos going after a guy that can flat get after the QB. For all the draft nits out there, start going over the 3-4 ROLBs and 4-3 ends that may be available at #12, that is likely the pick.

Off the top of my head:

Orakpo (likely a top 10 pick)
Brown (Could be available at 12, size is dropping him a bit)
Mathews (Should be available at 12, outstanding motor. Late bloomer?)
Ayers (Darkhorse. I think he'll be the pick, hope not though. Rising quickly and can play ROLB and 4-3 end. Production has been low.)
Johnson (Incredible size/speed... why doesn't it translate to production?)
Sintim (Well versed in the 3-4, would be a nice addition but probably available much later than #12)
English (Another Ayers type climb. Not as athletic as I would like and would be making a position change.)
Maybin (Dude is adding a lot of weight lately. Really makes you wonder. Sure can get after the QB though.)
Barwin (Phenomenal athlete! 12 is a bit too early for him, but he will be a first rounder!)

Dream scenario for me:

Michael Oher is available at #12. The Lions selected Stafford with the #1 overall. They send picks #20 and #33 to the Broncos for #12 in order to draft Michael Oher.

With #20 the Broncos select DE Tyson Jackson. With #33 the Broncos select LB Connor Barwin. This contradicts my earlier statement that Barwin would be a first rounder, but this is my dream so I'll pick who I want to!

Ayers should be only a 4-3 end. He's my favorite though... I haven't been quiet about thinking he will end up being the best 4-3 end in the draft.

montrose
03-31-2009, 09:51 AM
Look, you guys are nuts on Hillis. I like the guy, but you people act like he's a proven Earl Campbell. He has a single 100 yard rushing game and a single 100 yard receiving game in his career. Try to have some prospective, folks. He seems to bring versatility to the table, but Wells certainly would not be a bad addition to the mix, especially since I suspect the Arrington signing will be primarily for the return game.

Good points here BroncoInferno. I love Hillis' potential and, if given a fair shake, I wouldn't be stunned if he won the starting HB position. However, we can't count on the guy as if he's arrived. While he certainly has a talented and unique skill set, we're not sure how he holds up over the long-haul as a starting HB. I personally like the idea of a Hillis/Buckhalter/Arrington combo (with Jordan, Young and Torain fighting it out for a roster spot). Judging from McDaniels comments, and the fact he was brought in immediately at the start of FA, I think Arrington is looking at the Kevin Faulk role in the offense.

Per Wells, I've seen him all over the board in mock drafts. As high as #12 and as low as the 2nd round. At this point I think a RB is more of a finishing touch than 1st priority. I'd go front-7 hard and heavy in this years draft and look RB, WR and DB next year if I were in charge. We'll have to see.

SoCalBronco
03-31-2009, 09:59 AM
I would not mind this. He's a huge monster. The only thing that bothers me about the guy is his injuries. But he'd be the last piece on offense. We need that big stud in the backfield (teamed with Hillis at FB) and then I think we'd be well on our way to being the No. 1 undisputed offense in the NFL from a yards perspective and also a scoring perspective. I would not mind this at all IF Raji is not there. If Jackson is there, that would be another fine pick, although a 3-4 DE is ofcourse nowhere near as important as a 3-4 NT, although Jackson sure fits the bill of a 3-4 DE perfectly and he would be a huge shot in the arm for our run defense. Either of the two would be fine if Raji was not there. Brown would also be great if he was still there, as an OLB.

TheReverend
03-31-2009, 10:02 AM
I would not mind this. He's a huge monster. The only thing that bothers me about the guy is his injuries. But he'd be the last piece on offense. We need that big stud in the backfield (teamed with Hillis at FB) and then I think we'd be well on our way to being the No. 1 undisputed offense in the NFL from a yards perspective and also a scoring perspective. I would not mind this at all IF Raji is not there. If Jackson is there, that would be another fine pick, although a 3-4 DE is ofcourse nowhere near as important as a 3-4 NT, although Jackson sure fits the bill of a 3-4 DE perfectly and he would be a huge shot in the arm for our run defense. Either of the two would be fine if Raji was not there. Brown would also be great if he was still there, as an OLB.

My personal preference:

Unless an Adrian Peterson is available in the first, ignore the **** out of the RB position.

meangene
03-31-2009, 10:07 AM
Ayers should be only a 4-3 end. He's my favorite though... I haven't been quiet about thinking he will end up being the best 4-3 end in the draft.

I think he can be a monster at ROLB too! Reminds me of James Harrison.

TheReverend
03-31-2009, 10:13 AM
I think he can be a monster at ROLB too! Reminds me of James Harrison.

I have serious concerns about any coverage ability in zone, and no faith in anything resembling man coverage.

montrose
03-31-2009, 10:25 AM
My personal preference:

Unless an Adrian Peterson is available in the first, ignore the **** out of the RB position.

I don't even know if I'd take an Adrian Peterson in the 1st round. Those guys have such a short lifespan and looking over the RB combos of recent SB winners, only the Colts had a 1st round RB. You can find RBs elsewhere in the draft, and I can't think of the last time the league's leading rusher won the Super Bowl.

My philosophy would be that the 1st round is for (assuming you've got your QB) OL, DL and LB since that's where most games are won and lost. I suppose ever so often that stud DB or WR may come around, but it seems to me that the perennially good teams usually draft in the trenches/front-7 in round 1.

TheReverend
03-31-2009, 10:31 AM
I don't even know if I'd take an Adrian Peterson in the 1st round. Those guys have such a short lifespan and looking over the RB combos of recent SB winners, only the Colts had a 1st round RB. You can find RBs elsewhere in the draft, and I can't think of the last time the league's leading rusher won the Super Bowl.

My philosophy would be that the 1st round is for (assuming you've got your QB) OL, DL and LB since that's where most games are won and lost. I suppose ever so often that stud DB or WR may come around, but it seems to me that the perennially good teams usually draft in the trenches/front-7 in round 1.

And Indy would've been fine with Dominic Rhodes. Peyton's so scary stacking the box is retarded. Absolutely zero need for a pedigree back. Cutler will be the same way.

Doggcow
03-31-2009, 10:35 AM
No way. We need Defense, and Donald Brown.

montrose
03-31-2009, 10:49 AM
Cutler will be the same way.

If we still have him. Who knows what will happen, dude could no-show. It makes no sense, but at this point - nothing would surprise me.

TheReverend
03-31-2009, 11:14 AM
If we still have him. Who knows what will happen, dude could no-show. It makes no sense, but at this point - nothing would surprise me.

It makes good sense for him if he values $ and feels vindictive towards McDaniels.

montrose
03-31-2009, 11:25 AM
It makes good sense for him if he values $ and feels vindictive towards McDaniels.

Good point.

rugbythug
03-31-2009, 11:26 AM
I don't even know if I'd take an Adrian Peterson in the 1st round. Those guys have such a short lifespan and looking over the RB combos of recent SB winners, only the Colts had a 1st round RB. You can find RBs elsewhere in the draft, and I can't think of the last time the league's leading rusher won the Super Bowl.

My philosophy would be that the 1st round is for (assuming you've got your QB) OL, DL and LB since that's where most games are won and lost. I suppose ever so often that stud DB or WR may come around, but it seems to me that the perennially good teams usually draft in the trenches/front-7 in round 1.

1997

gyldenlove
03-31-2009, 12:01 PM
Well, looks like I might have been wrong on my prediction a while back (the Broncos will draft "pretty" in the first round and take a skill position player). I'm hearing more and more talk about the Broncos going after a guy that can flat get after the QB. For all the draft nits out there, start going over the 3-4 ROLBs and 4-3 ends that may be available at #12, that is likely the pick.

Off the top of my head:

Orakpo (likely a top 10 pick)
Brown (Could be available at 12, size is dropping him a bit)
Mathews (Should be available at 12, outstanding motor. Late bloomer?)
Ayers (Darkhorse. I think he'll be the pick, hope not though. Rising quickly and can play ROLB and 4-3 end. Production has been low.)
Johnson (Incredible size/speed... why doesn't it translate to production?)
Sintim (Well versed in the 3-4, would be a nice addition but probably available much later than #12)
English (Another Ayers type climb. Not as athletic as I would like and would be making a position change.)
Maybin (Dude is adding a lot of weight lately. Really makes you wonder. Sure can get after the QB though.)
Barwin (Phenomenal athlete! 12 is a bit too early for him, but he will be a first rounder!)

Dream scenario for me:

Michael Oher is available at #12. The Lions selected Stafford with the #1 overall. They send picks #20 and #33 to the Broncos for #12 in order to draft Michael Oher.

With #20 the Broncos select DE Tyson Jackson. With #33 the Broncos select LB Connor Barwin. This contradicts my earlier statement that Barwin would be a first rounder, but this is my dream so I'll pick who I want to!

Hehe, I have a slight modification to your scenario. All indications are that the Lions want Sanchez and that they are talking to Jason Smith about the 1st over all.

I think they will take Jason Smith and then try to trade up for Sanchez, if they are cool they can outwait Jacksonville and see if they take Sanchez, if he is still there he is not going to Green Bay or Buffalo for sure, and San Fransisco has so many needs that they may pass on a QB.

montrose
03-31-2009, 12:22 PM
According to the value chart, Detroit would be giving up value in doing #20 and #33 for #12. I'd imagine we'd have to throw in something else to sweeten the pot. How about Michigan native Tony Scheffler?

Broncoman13
03-31-2009, 12:25 PM
Hehe, I have a slight modification to your scenario. All indications are that the Lions want Sanchez and that they are talking to Jason Smith about the 1st over all.

I think they will take Jason Smith and then try to trade up for Sanchez, if they are cool they can outwait Jacksonville and see if they take Sanchez, if he is still there he is not going to Green Bay or Buffalo for sure, and San Fransisco has so many needs that they may pass on a QB.

Perhaps if they were concerned the Redskins might take Sanchez. After the Skins though, they have no worries until #17.

lex
03-31-2009, 12:26 PM
And Indy would've been fine with Dominic Rhodes. Peyton's so scary stacking the box is retarded. Absolutely zero need for a pedigree back. Cutler will be the same way.

When will Cutler be on the leven of Manning? Cutler has been in put in the position where he tries to do too much. If we want to help Cutler, upgrading the running game is a good idea. An upgraded running game would most likely help the defense too. 4ever provided some excellent info that shows that...and Hillis isnt even as good as Wells. Not only that but we're not Indianapolis. We've had a blocking scheme that accentuates the skills of a RB, so why not maximize that?

BTW, for as much as people love to obsess over New Englands offense and their success, its worth pointing out that the last time New Endland won the Super Bowl was when they had Corey Dillon carrying the ball. He had 1,635 yards that year. And that was probably NE's best team, under Belichick.

gyldenlove
03-31-2009, 12:30 PM
Perhaps if they were concerned the Redskins might take Sanchez. After the Skins though, they have no worries until #17.

Unless some other team jumps up, the lower you get the higher the probability that another team will scoop you. Tampa could move up if Sanchez drops too far.

TheReverend
03-31-2009, 12:32 PM
When will Cutler be on the leven of Manning? Cutler has been in put in the position where he tries to do too much. If we want to help Cutler, upgrading the running game is a good idea. An upgraded running game would most likely help the defense too. 4ever provided some excellent info that shows that...and Hillis isnt even as good as Wells. Not only that but we're not Indianapolis. We've had a blocking scheme that accentuates the skills of a RB, so why not maximize that?

BTW, for as much as people love to obsess over New Englands offense and their success, its worth pointing out that the last time New Endland won the Super Bowl was when they had Corey Dillon carrying the ball. He had 1,635 yards that year. And that was probably NE's best team, under Belichick.

With a little more natural progression through game experience, and more importantly, when he has a semi-respectable defense that even if can't stop opposing teams, can force turnovers in a respectable amount.

At that point, he can afford to take the safer throw significantly more often.

lex
03-31-2009, 12:35 PM
I don't even know if I'd take an Adrian Peterson in the 1st round. Those guys have such a short lifespan and looking over the RB combos of recent SB winners, only the Colts had a 1st round RB. You can find RBs elsewhere in the draft, and I can't think of the last time the league's leading rusher won the Super Bowl.

My philosophy would be that the 1st round is for (assuming you've got your QB) OL, DL and LB since that's where most games are won and lost. I suppose ever so often that stud DB or WR may come around, but it seems to me that the perennially good teams usually draft in the trenches/front-7 in round 1.

2004
Curits Martin, NYJ 1,697
Shaun Alexander, Sea 1,696
Corey Dillon, NE 1,635

Theres value in having a running game. And if anyone should understand that, it should be a Broncos fan. We have 2 SBs due in large part to having a great running game with a bellcow running back. And history has proven that getting a Terrell Davis isnt as easy as taking a RB with a low round pick. We were lucky with him.

lex
03-31-2009, 12:38 PM
With a little more natural progression through game experience, and more importantly, when he has a semi-respectable defense that even if can't stop opposing teams, can force turnovers in a respectable amount.

At that point, he can afford to take the safer throw significantly more often.

If we have a top shelf running game, it will open up the pass more. He shouldnt have to force as much. And we should also be able to squeeze the clock more helping the defense. If you look at the history of SB winners, most of the time the winners, running the ball has probably been more important than passing the ball.

Northman
03-31-2009, 12:40 PM
This could be just a move to get SD to bite on a RB so that a defender drops.

lex
03-31-2009, 12:41 PM
This could be just a move to get SD to bite on a RB so that a defender drops.

That would make sense if SD picked before us.

TheReverend
03-31-2009, 12:42 PM
If we have a top shelf running game, it will open up the pass more. He shouldnt have to force as much. And we should also be able to squeeze the clock more helping the defense. If you look at the history of SB winners, most of the time the winners, running the ball has probably been more important than passing the ball.

I understand exactly where you're coming from. However, unless you can get a SERIOUS blue chip RB on the Peterson/Younger Tomlinson level, I'd avoid it like the plague in the first and fill up with role players that can provide the desired effect by down and distance. The game is changing and every down RBs are rapidly disappearing. And with it, the RB's value on the whole.

lex
03-31-2009, 12:58 PM
I understand exactly where you're coming from. However, unless you can get a SERIOUS blue chip RB on the Peterson/Younger Tomlinson level, I'd avoid it like the plague in the first and fill up with role players that can provide the desired effect by down and distance. The game is changing and every down RBs are rapidly disappearing. And with it, the RB's value on the whole.

Wells is on that level. The only ding on him is his injuries but he hasnt really had anything big like a knee. Its been an ankle and a wrist. He missed three games this year due in large part to the coach keeping him out. He playe most of 2007 with a broken wrist and an injured ankle and still had 1600 yards and lit up LSU in the NC game. He actually has less injury concerns than Adrian Peterson did coming from college. The difference is that Wells is a bigger back and isnt as reliant on speed as Peterson is...and so when the combine happens and he runs in the 4.5s it doesnt have the same cache as it does when Peterson runs a 4.4. But all the 40 times were slow and since then, Wells has run his 40 in the 4.3s. Before this season, Wells was described as a top 5 and put on the same level as guys like Peterson when they came out of college.

Regarding your point about the diminishing value of RBs, this is not true. What has changed is the necessity to have another quality RB. Quality RBs still have a huge effect on games. And actually, the emergence of numerous young QBs like Rivers, Roethlisberger, Cutler, Eli Manning, Ryan (?),... increases the importance of quality RBs. The more elite QBs you have in the league, the greater the need to have other components. When theres only two elite QBs in the league, having one of those QBs alone might be enough to buoy the offense enough for it to get by. But when you have more elite QBs, having a running game becomes more important. Thats what you saw in the 90s when you had several hall of fame QBs on rosters across the league. The championship offenses had the great running games. Dallas won 3 SBs and we won 2 SBs with this concept in play. Meanwhile, you had Miami drafting RB year after year, trying to find their Terrrell Davis or Emmitt Smith to help Marino. I said a while back that its an arms race. Thats what happens when you have the emergence of more elite QBs. Notice how NE totally changed their model and started signing big ticket FAs and bringing in guys like Randy Moss. They saw the writing on the wall.

Northman
03-31-2009, 01:04 PM
I still like Brown more. Maybe even Greene.

HILife
03-31-2009, 01:05 PM
Go look at who we've been bringing in. Its one thing to think we wont take a RB but its another to be shocked. I wouldnt be shocked at anything they did. It almost seems like the FA signinngs were done to give them draft day flexibility.

I would be very mad if they draft a RB in the first...or even at all.

Northman
03-31-2009, 01:07 PM
I would be very mad if they draft a RB in the first...or even at all.

I wouldnt be to happy taking one in the first, but after that i have no problem with it so as long as their picks are solid.

lex
03-31-2009, 01:08 PM
I would be very mad if they draft a RB in the first...or even at all.


oh

lex
03-31-2009, 01:09 PM
I still like Brown more. Maybe even Greene.

Wells > Brown
Wells > Greene

Also, 12 is too high for Brown and 48 is probably too low for him. Greene doesnt have enough speed.

TheReverend
03-31-2009, 01:09 PM
Wells is on that level. The only ding on him is his injuries but he hasnt really had anything big like a knee. Its been an ankle and a wrist. He missed three games this year due in large part to the coach keeping him out. He playe most of 2007 with a broken wrist and an injured ankle and still had 1600 yards and lit up LSU in the NC game. He actually has less injury concerns than Adrian Peterson did coming from college. The difference is that Wells is a bigger back and isnt as reliant on speed as Peterson is...and so when the combine happens and he runs in the 4.5s it doesnt have the same cache as it does when Peterson runs a 4.4. But all the 40 times were slow and since then, Wells has run his 40 in the 4.3s. Before this season, Wells was described as a top 5 and put on the same level as guys like Peterson when they came out of college.

Regarding your point about the diminishing value of RBs, this is not true. What has changed is the necessity to have another quality RB. Quality RBs still have a huge effect on games. And actually, the emergence of numerous young QBs like Rivers, Roethlisberger, Cutler, Eli Manning, Ryan (?),... increases the importance of quality RBs. The more elite QBs you have in the league, the greater the need to have other components. When theres only two elite QBs in the league, having one of those QBs alone might be enough to buoy the offense enough for it to get by. But when you have more elite QBs, having a running game becomes more important. Thats what you saw in the 90s when you had several hall of fame QBs on rosters across the league. The championship offenses had the great running games. Dallas won 3 SBs and we won 2 SBs with this concept in play. Meanwhile, you had Miami drafting RB year after year, trying to find their Terrrell Davis or Emmitt Smith to help Marino. I said a while back that its an arms race. Thats what happens when you have the emergence of more elite QBs. Notice how NE totally changed their model and started signing big ticket FAs and bringing in guys like Randy Moss. They saw the writing on the wall.

You realize on that list, only 1 has a RB even close to a first round pedigree, and he's the one that's on a steep age decline, right?

Northman
03-31-2009, 01:13 PM
Wells > Brown
Wells > Greene

Also, 12 is too high for Brown and 48 is probably too low for him. Greene doesnt have enough speed.

I wouldnt take Brown or Greene that high. But i think both would be fine in our offense and major contributors.

lex
03-31-2009, 01:16 PM
You realize on that list, only 1 has a RB even close to a first round pedigree, and he's the one that's on a steep age decline, right?

These are all teams that emphasize the run. SD is also looking at RBs according to many. Also, many regret letting Turner go. Atlanta paid big FA $ to get Turner, whether he was taken in the first or not. Also, Pittsburgh emphasizes the run as does the Giants. This observation not having 1st round talent at RB really doesnt have traction. Citing these teams shows that they all value the run and dont insist on putting it all on the QB.

And btw, what happened to the Chargers record when LT went on the decline and they lost Turner? They went from being a 12 win team to an 8 win team and thats even with Rivers stepping up in a big way as a QB.

TheReverend
03-31-2009, 01:18 PM
These are all teams that emphasize the run. SD is also looking at RBs according to many. Also, many regret letting Turner go. Atlanta paid big FA $ to get Turner, whether he was taken in the first or not. Also, Pittsburgh emphasizes the run as does the Giants. This observation really doesnt have traction. It shows that they all value the run and dont insist on putting it all on the QB.

And btw, what happened to the Chargers record when LT went on the decline and they lost Turner? They went from being a 12 win team to an 8 win team and thats even with Rivers stepping up in a big way as a QB.

Yes, and you can emphasize the run and still do exactly what I said.

In fact, the majority of those teams did EXACTLY just that. They grabbed role players, as I suggested, used them effectively as they developed.

Willie Parker Role Player
Brandon Jacobs Role Player
Michael Turner Former Role Player
LT The only exception, although his age has made him a role player

You're only proving my point, lex...

lex
03-31-2009, 01:24 PM
Yes, and you can emphasize the run and still do exactly what I said.

In fact, the majority of those teams did EXACTLY just that. They grabbed role players, as I suggested, used them effectively as they developed.

Willie Parker Role Player
Brandon Jacobs Role Player
Michael Turner Former Role Player
LT The only exception, although his age has made him a role player

You're only proving my point, lex...

Not really. All those teams value the run, meaning that its important. It doesnt really matter where your running game comes from as long as you have one. We have been trying to get by with the bargain basement running backs for years using the "role player" approach. All these teams demonstrate that they value the run. Also, you seem to be calling any RB thats part of a platoon a role player. This isnt true. As I said, theres nothing wrong with a platoon system and it doesnt diminish the value of a RB. The platoon system avoids having one RB have 400 + carries in a season, which is the danger thresshold.

skpac1001
03-31-2009, 01:57 PM
I think Wells is a bigger, slightly less explosive version of Peterson, with better cutback vision and an amazing stiff arm. I have no problem with taking him.

gyldenlove
03-31-2009, 02:09 PM
I think Wells is a bigger, slightly less explosive version of Peterson, with better cutback vision and an amazing stiff arm. I have no problem with taking him.

He is also quite a bit slower than Peterson. The danger with Peterson is that if you give him day-light he will take it to pay-dirt, Wells will never do that.

BroncoMan4ever
03-31-2009, 02:41 PM
I don't even know if I'd take an Adrian Peterson in the 1st round. Those guys have such a short lifespan and looking over the RB combos of recent SB winners, only the Colts had a 1st round RB. You can find RBs elsewhere in the draft, and I can't think of the last time the league's leading rusher won the Super Bowl.

My philosophy would be that the 1st round is for (assuming you've got your QB) OL, DL and LB since that's where most games are won and lost. I suppose ever so often that stud DB or WR may come around, but it seems to me that the perennially good teams usually draft in the trenches/front-7 in round 1.

I can think of the 98 season right off the top of my head as a time the leading NFL rusher's team won a super bowl. we ran TD all the way to another super bowl, and he led the AFC in rushing the year before when we ran him to our 1st super bowl.

i think the 1st round is for guys who are going to contribute and make the team better from day 1. if it is an OL, DL, LB, QB, TE, WR, S, CB, or a RB that best fits the mold of a guy who will make the team better and is going to contribute on day 1, then you take that guy.

point is we need a RB and have needed one since Portis, so why not draft a good one that will instantly make us better. not just on offense but also defense.

good RB will open up passing lanes, create a drop in mistakes by Jay, chew the clock, wear down opposing defenses, keep our defense off the field.

last year in 5 games where Hillis started in some capacity, we were at our best. our PPG went up to around 30, our defense was allowing 19 a game, Jay was lighting it up and we were winning.

i think if you can get a guy who can give you a boost to the entire team like that, you take him in the 1st and don't look back

BroncoMan4ever
03-31-2009, 02:43 PM
I still like Brown more. Maybe even Greene.

i am not high on Brown because he is smaller, and i love Greene, but i like Wells upside a whole lot more. and i rank Jennings ahead of both Brown and Greene behind Wells

BroncoMan4ever
03-31-2009, 02:45 PM
He is also quite a bit slower than Peterson. The danger with Peterson is that if you give him day-light he will take it to pay-dirt, Wells will never do that.

are you crazy, Wells has 4.38 speed on a 240lbs frame. give that guy a crease and he is gone, get in his way he will plow through you and then he is gone.

Peterson may be slightly faster but i think Wells is stronger has better vision and an awesome stiff arm.

BroncoMan4ever
03-31-2009, 02:52 PM
I would be very mad if they draft a RB in the first...or even at all.

why? i can understand not in the 1st, but not at all? come on man. if our crap fest running game last year showed anything is that we need a RB who doesn't suck(i am excluding Hillis as supposedly he is trade bait, and now has 3 new guys brought in who are ranked ahead of him in McDaniels mind)

our entire team looked a lot better when we had Hillis starting in some capacity. PPG went up, points allowed per game went down, Cutler's mistakes went down, and we won.

so i think a RB is a very wise investment

lex
03-31-2009, 03:11 PM
are you crazy, Wells has 4.38 speed on a 240lbs frame. give that guy a crease and he is gone, get in his way he will plow through you and then he is gone.

Peterson may be slightly faster but i think Wells is stronger has better vision and an awesome stiff arm.


Wells has great feet in the hole too. The only real knock on him has been minor injuries, which, again, were also an issue with Peterson coming out...but even moreso. Has Wells had any breaks besides the wrist, which he played with?

lex
03-31-2009, 03:23 PM
He is also quite a bit slower than Peterson. The danger with Peterson is that if you give him day-light he will take it to pay-dirt, Wells will never do that.

This one is agains LSU in the NC game. He was playing with a bad ankle and a broken wrist on this play. LSU is an SEC team whose team speed is typically only surpassed by Florida.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUL0rZ_2tuI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPLUQknHYTk&feature=related

This one is against Michigan, which gets its share of talent. Say what you want about the Big 10 but Michigan recruits nationally and has better athletes than other Big 10 teams.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZmuBLYYjrc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6x7Vax2RMA&feature=related


He had two nice runs against Wisconsin that demonstrate his explosiveness. Here's one of them:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eP6hcWCnBQA

socalorado
03-31-2009, 03:32 PM
This one is agains LSU in the NC game. He was playing with a bad ankle and a broken wrist on this play. LSU is an SEC team whose team speed is typically only surpassed by Florida.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUL0rZ_2tuI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPLUQknHYTk&feature=related

This one is against Michigan, which gets its share of talent. Say what you want about the Big 10 but Michigan recruits nationally and has better athletes than other Big 10 teams.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZmuBLYYjrc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6x7Vax2RMA&feature=related


He had two nice runs against Wisconsin that demonstrate his explosiveness. Here's one of them:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eP6hcWCnBQA

Wheres the highlights from that last game against TEXAS?
Where are those highlights?
He was an absolute beast in that game........

lex
03-31-2009, 03:34 PM
Wheres the highlights from that last game against TEXAS?
Where are those highlights?
He was an absolute beast in that game........

Yes he was. I only provided highlights that prove he can take it to the house since someone was claiming he didnt have the speed to do so.

TheReverend
03-31-2009, 04:18 PM
Not really. All those teams value the run, meaning that its important. It doesnt really matter where your running game comes from as long as you have one. We have been trying to get by with the bargain basement running backs for years using the "role player" approach. All these teams demonstrate that they value the run. Also, you seem to be calling any RB thats part of a platoon a role player. This isnt true. As I said, theres nothing wrong with a platoon system and it doesnt diminish the value of a RB. The platoon system avoids having one RB have 400 + carries in a season, which is the danger thresshold.

You realize that nearly EVERY running back from the teams you listed was a "bargain basement" player, right?

If you want to change your approach to, "We need to value the run more" then so be it. What you're currently saying is not accurate to your statement.

gyldenlove
03-31-2009, 04:40 PM
are you crazy, Wells has 4.38 speed on a 240lbs frame. give that guy a crease and he is gone, get in his way he will plow through you and then he is gone.

Peterson may be slightly faster but i think Wells is stronger has better vision and an awesome stiff arm.

If he ran every play on the Ohio State surface I would say that would be all right, but he is a 4.50 guy, those hand timed pro day results are never reliable.

gyldenlove
03-31-2009, 04:42 PM
This one is agains LSU in the NC game. He was playing with a bad ankle and a broken wrist on this play. LSU is an SEC team whose team speed is typically only surpassed by Florida.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUL0rZ_2tuI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPLUQknHYTk&feature=related

This one is against Michigan, which gets its share of talent. Say what you want about the Big 10 but Michigan recruits nationally and has better athletes than other Big 10 teams.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZmuBLYYjrc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6x7Vax2RMA&feature=related


He had two nice runs against Wisconsin that demonstrate his explosiveness. Here's one of them:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eP6hcWCnBQA

That first run is nice, but on the other ones he is either out running people lined up very close to the line of scrimmage who have to turn and give pursuit as he runs by or not outrunning defensive backs. Those plays are more a tribute to the amazing blocking of the jumbo package that OSU runs.

That is nowhere near good enough for the NFL.

lex
03-31-2009, 04:47 PM
You realize that nearly EVERY running back from the teams you listed was a "bargain basement" player, right?

If you want to change your approach to, "We need to value the run more" then so be it. What you're currently saying is not accurate to your statement.


Now youre just making stuff up.

Broncosfreak_56
03-31-2009, 04:56 PM
I wouldn't mind Beanie if Raji and Orakpo are off the board. He reminds of a little smaller Jamal Lewis.

lex
03-31-2009, 04:56 PM
That first run is nice, but on the other ones he is either out running people lined up very close to the line of scrimmage who have to turn and give pursuit as he runs by or not outrunning defensive backs. Those plays are more a tribute to the amazing blocking of the jumbo package that OSU runs.

That is nowhere near good enough for the NFL.


He's not really a track guy, mind you, but he ran a 4.38 at his pro day. He's plenty fast on the football field. His game speed is 4.4s. Also, on all of those runs he had to make a move to free himself (except the Wisconsin one). That is why he is able to take it to the house when the box is stacked. He has the vision to see an opening and the quick feet to then hit it. That will also in play at the pro level. He will have plenty of long runs in the pros. Some of them will be because of his vision and quick feet. Some will come because he is strong enough to shed a tackle that springs him free. He is fast enough to take it the distance most of the time that he springs himself free provided a track star isnt 2 yards behind him when he breaks into the open.

TheReverend
03-31-2009, 05:04 PM
Now youre just making stuff up.

Really?!?!

Willie Parker - UDFA
Michael Turner - Late 5th round
Brandon Jacobs - Late 4th round
...and now Sproles is getting paid more than LT, so:
Darren Sproles - Late 4th round

There's the teams and their marquee backs that you mentioned. So where's this premier pedigree you want us to be targeting?

Drek
03-31-2009, 05:14 PM
Really?!?!

Willie Parker - UDFA
Michael Turner - Late 5th round
Brandon Jacobs - Late 4th round
...and now Sproles is getting paid more than LT, so:
Darren Sproles - Late 4th round

There's the teams and their marquee backs that you mentioned. So where's this premier pedigree you want us to be targeting?

Um....

The Steelers drafted Rashard Mendenhall last year in the first round. That should tell you quite a bit when one of these teams that you say does it right saw fit to take the 4th first round RB in last year's class.

And correct me if I'm wrong here, but didn't San Diego take Michael Turner late in the 5th, and the Falcons only acquired him after giving him a big fat FA deal? Yeah, I'm pretty sure I'm right on that.

The fact that you are trying to insinuate that dollars paid = franchise back when talking about Sproles/LT is pretty weak too.

As for the Giants, Brandon Jacobs spent the first several years of his career as the understudy for early 2nd round selection Tiki Barber, and would probably still be a short yardage back and nothing more if not for Tiki's early retirement. The Giants also franchise tagged Jacobs to not let him get away this year.

Of course I called Brandon Jacobs' NFL success back when he first came out of college. I was quite irate that we chose to draft Mo Clarrett when Jacobs was still on the board, and I still think it was the biggest mistake Bobby Turner ever made.

But anyhow, I'm sure you can see that your argument about grabbing late rounders with some apparent ease is pretty weak by now. It isn't easy at all. RB is one of the positions where late rounders do often blossom in the NFL, but then there are also dozens of early round RBs who dominated the league for more than their fare share of time as well. Its a position that if you know what you're doing you can go either way on. Grab a game changing back early or get a couple solid rotational types late. Or a mixture thereof. But if you can scout RBs you can find appropriate value in any round.

Northman
03-31-2009, 05:21 PM
i am not high on Brown because he is smaller, and i love Greene, but i like Wells upside a whole lot more. and i rank Jennings ahead of both Brown and Greene behind Wells

I would be fine with Jennings. Even taking Peerman later would be nice.

elsid13
03-31-2009, 05:40 PM
This one is agains LSU in the NC game. He was playing with a bad ankle and a broken wrist on this play. LSU is an SEC team whose team speed is typically only surpassed by Florida.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUL0rZ_2tuI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPLUQknHYTk&feature=related

This one is against Michigan, which gets its share of talent. Say what you want about the Big 10 but Michigan recruits nationally and has better athletes than other Big 10 teams.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZmuBLYYjrc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6x7Vax2RMA&feature=related


He had two nice runs against Wisconsin that demonstrate his explosiveness. Here's one of them:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eP6hcWCnBQA

I think Wells has enough speed to be successful in the NFL, but the LSU run was more of bad gap control, good blocking and poor tackling angles then Wells turning the corner and out racing anyone. The LSU video does show that he has good feet in the hole and is able to press the gap.

BroncoMan4ever
03-31-2009, 06:29 PM
Yes he was. I only provided highlights that prove he can take it to the house since someone was claiming he didnt have the speed to do so.

dude played with a broken wrist and a bad ankle. with that in mind i still am a little confused by the scouting reports that say he doesn't care for the game and doesn't give his all.

i have seen like 5 different scouting reports since last season talking about how he might not have the desire to work on being better in the pros, and leaving that as a knock on him.

if he is willing to play with that kind of pain and an injury like that, i know all i need to know about him, and i think we'd be lucky to get him

BroncoMan4ever
03-31-2009, 06:33 PM
If he ran every play on the Ohio State surface I would say that would be all right, but he is a 4.50 guy, those hand timed pro day results are never reliable.

TD ran something like a 4.67 in college before the draft, and once he got to the pros he played faster than anyone on the field. he didn't have the track star speed, but he had great vision, good feet, and played harder than anyone on the field. and once he found a crease and got behind the defense, no one was going to run him down.

Wells is just like that, awesome vision, good feet, patience, a killer stiff arm, and once he gets behind the defense no one is going to run him down.


now i am not saying that Wells is the next coming of TD, i am simply pointing out that the supposed 40 times don't always hold merit on what a player will do on the field

TheReverend
03-31-2009, 06:52 PM
Um....

The Steelers drafted Rashard Mendenhall last year in the first round. That should tell you quite a bit when one of these teams that you say does it right saw fit to take the 4th first round RB in last year's class.

And correct me if I'm wrong here, but didn't San Diego take Michael Turner late in the 5th, and the Falcons only acquired him after giving him a big fat FA deal? Yeah, I'm pretty sure I'm right on that.

The fact that you are trying to insinuate that dollars paid = franchise back when talking about Sproles/LT is pretty weak too.

As for the Giants, Brandon Jacobs spent the first several years of his career as the understudy for early 2nd round selection Tiki Barber, and would probably still be a short yardage back and nothing more if not for Tiki's early retirement. The Giants also franchise tagged Jacobs to not let him get away this year.

Of course I called Brandon Jacobs' NFL success back when he first came out of college. I was quite irate that we chose to draft Mo Clarrett when Jacobs was still on the board, and I still think it was the biggest mistake Bobby Turner ever made.

But anyhow, I'm sure you can see that your argument about grabbing late rounders with some apparent ease is pretty weak by now. It isn't easy at all. RB is one of the positions where late rounders do often blossom in the NFL, but then there are also dozens of early round RBs who dominated the league for more than their fare share of time as well. Its a position that if you know what you're doing you can go either way on. Grab a game changing back early or get a couple solid rotational types late. Or a mixture thereof. But if you can scout RBs you can find appropriate value in any round.


Wow. Re-read the conversation to gain some context or shut the **** up, scrub. You just completely agreed with my point.

lex
03-31-2009, 08:20 PM
I think Wells has enough speed to be successful in the NFL, but the LSU run was more of bad gap control, good blocking and poor tackling angles then Wells turning the corner and out racing anyone. The LSU video does show that he has good feet in the hole and is able to press the gap.

Not really. The OLine gave him a crease leaving him one on one with Steltz, which is a mismatch. BTW, they ran that right at Dorsey.

Drek
03-31-2009, 08:39 PM
Wow. Re-read the conversation to gain some context or shut the **** up, scrub. You just completely agreed with my point.

I did and from what I can see your argument against Wells is that a later round RB could do an acceptable job.

A team that had a later round RB who was doing a fine job, Pittsburgh, saw fit to draft a first round RB last year.

Turner didn't work his way up with the Falcons, he broke out and they gave him big money.

Jacobs did work his way up with the Giants, but they guaranteed him big money before he could test FA.

You were making it sound like it'd be an comparatively easy task to find good RB value in the later rounds. What I was saying is that if we have a good RB scouting staff (which I think we do) they'll find what RB offers appropriate value for the round. That includes taking an RB in round 1 if the value you assign to his skill sets fits a 1st round pick.

Just because a lot of RBs get taken late in the draft and see success doesn't mean its a repeatable formula or one a team that is looking to build and elite offense should be betting on. You could make a stronger argument that 5-tech DEs are pretty easily acquired and developed out of the later rounders and so no team should be willing to spend early picks on Tyson Jackson or Jarron Gilbert. But both will be off the board by the late first or early second. Would that be a mistake by the selecting team, or just willing to pay a premium for what they think is a premium player at the position?

Wells makes perfect sense if the staff believes his talents are worth a first round pick on their own merits. Its when you get slanted evaluations from poor comparative talent pools that you get a team overpicking and falling on their face as a result. Alex Smith is a good example, he wasn't a 1st rounder entering the collegiate season, and a borderline one at that after the season ended if Lienart had come out. Instead he was the #1 overall pick. Stafford and Sanchez are similar prospects. Wells is definitely not in that kind of group.