PDA

View Full Version : All you people whining about Alphonso Pick answer me this-


Doggcow
04-25-2009, 11:27 PM
Why can't we spend the "Top 5 draft pick" money we would have been spending on an UNTESTED INEXPERIANCED TOP 5 DRAFT PICK instead of ON AN EXPERIANCED, ELITE, FA?

Seriously, are you people new? Top 5/10 picks get paid so much these days, why even bother, especially when you could sign someone like Bart Scott this year in the offseason.

Jekyll15Hyde
04-25-2009, 11:31 PM
So you trade down and load up on value picks in the 2nd and 3rd.

Atwater His Ass
04-25-2009, 11:31 PM
Why can't we spend the "Top 5 draft pick" money we would have been spending on an UNTESTED INEXPERIANCED TOP 5 DRAFT PICK instead of ON AN EXPERIANCED, ELITE, FA?

Seriously, are you people new? Top 5/10 picks get paid so much these days, why even bother, especially when you could sign someone like Bart Scott this year in the offseason.

you really this dumb, or you just trolling teh internetz?

garandman
04-25-2009, 11:33 PM
Well Genius, because we are going to need a REAL QB next year and there are more than 1 that fits the bill in that draft and guess where they will be drafted??? TOP 5

Franchise QB's don't become available in FA/Trade, oh wait , unless you have a waterboy running the football team...

Doggcow
04-25-2009, 11:34 PM
So you trade down and load up on value picks in the 2nd and 3rd.

Load up on more inexperianced, untested players? It's not always easy to trade down, btw.

Still didn't answer the question, we could sign Julius Peppers for instance, who is likely better than anyone we could draft anyway.

Doggcow
04-25-2009, 11:36 PM
Well Genius, because we are going to need a REAL QB next year and there are more than 1 that fits the bill in that draft and guess where they will be drafted??? TOP 5

Franchise QB's don't become available in FA/Trade, oh wait , unless you have a waterboy running the football team...

But they become available in the 6th round...
Cassel had a pretty good year, available through FA...

..
...
....

John Elway was acquired through FA.

Jekyll15Hyde
04-25-2009, 11:37 PM
Load up on more inexperianced, untested players? It's not always easy to trade down, btw.

Still didn't answer the question, we could sign Julius Peppers for instance, who is likely better than anyone we could draft anyway.

You certainly could and in certain situations, you would want to go that way. The problem is that Denver is not 1 or 2 players away. The D is full of holes and needs depth and size particularly all over the place.

I got an idea. Why not address some needs in the draft this year? Oh wait.... Maybe 2010? Whoops... already dumped that #1.

SureShot
04-25-2009, 11:38 PM
John Elway was acquired through FA.


LOL Strange, I thought he was acquired with a high first round pick.

Rohirrim
04-25-2009, 11:39 PM
I'll give you one example: There is a NT named Cody who, had he come out this year, would have gone in the top five. Next year, the Broncos could have used all the juice they squandered this year and gone after him. Do you know what it does for a 3-4 to have a great NT for ten years? It's like having a LT like Clady. Makes a world of difference. And that's not even getting into the discussion of the QBs coming out next year. I don't care if Alphonse turns out to be another Champ Bailey. That doesn't equal a top NT or a top QB in value.

SoCalBronco
04-25-2009, 11:39 PM
I would have rather used the money on Terrance Cody than some "elite FA" looking to get his big 2nd paycheck and then sit on his ass without motivation for the rest of his career.

We may very well have pissed away Mount Cody for this CB. That's ok though....we pissed away Raji and Brace, so maybe we like to do alot of pissing. :)

footstepsfrom#27
04-25-2009, 11:40 PM
I didn't know this board had near this many half wits.

Doggcow
04-25-2009, 11:40 PM
You certainly could and in certain situations, you would want to go that way. The problem is that Denver is not 1 or 2 players away. The D is full of holes and needs depth and size particularly all over the place.

I got an idea. Why not address some needs in the draft this year? Oh wait.... Maybe 2010? Whoops... already dumped that #1.

We signed ****tons of FA's this year addressing tons of needs. We can get journeyman (2nd/3rd round equivilants) in FA easily at about the same price.

footstepsfrom#27
04-25-2009, 11:41 PM
John Elway was acquired through FA.
See what I mean?

Jekyll15Hyde
04-25-2009, 11:42 PM
We signed ****tons of FA's this year addressing tons of needs. We can get journeyman (2nd/3rd round equivilants) in FA easily at about the same price.

We walked into the draft (after FA) without a starting DL on the roster. Unfortunately, we leave the draft in the same situation.

summerdenver
04-25-2009, 11:42 PM
If Broncos were worried about paying the top 5 money, they could have pulled the same stunt as Cle did today and traded down.

BroncoMan4ever
04-25-2009, 11:45 PM
But they become available in the 6th round...
Cassel had a pretty good year, available through FA...

..
...
....

John Elway was acquired through FA.

i see where you are going with that, but we traded a good amount for Elway after the Colts drafted him and he threatened to play baseball instead of play there

Doggcow
04-25-2009, 11:46 PM
If Broncos were worried about paying the top 5 money, they could have pulled the same stunt as Cle did today and traded down.

It's not always that easy, I'm sure KC would have dropped down if they could have.

manchambo
04-25-2009, 11:48 PM
You need to ask yourself a question: Before your team did it, woudl you have supported the idea of trading first round picks for second round picks?

Have you noticed that isn't done very often? Do you think it's because the people with the second round picks aren't willing to make the trades?

BroncoLifer
04-25-2009, 11:49 PM
LOL Strange, I thought he was acquired with a high first round pick.

Two of them, actually. Plus a scrub QB.

manchambo
04-25-2009, 11:49 PM
It's not always that easy, I'm sure KC would have dropped down if they could have.


It's always easy to do if you're willing to take a second round pick for it. It can sometimes be hard to get the right value. But if you will trade it for a second rounder straight up, you will always find takers.

Popps
04-25-2009, 11:52 PM
Again, we probably lost somewhere between 10-20 draft slots with this trade to pick up a player our staff had slotted as a first round talent. We also get to begin developing that player now, not in 2010.

So, was it risky? Sure. Is it the nightmare people are making it out to be? Not really.

summerdenver
04-25-2009, 11:54 PM
It's not always that easy, I'm sure KC would have dropped down if they could have.

Sure they could have taken the same deal (or somewhat less) as Cle - the only difference is that they did not want to go down too far and miss Tyson Jackson. They only wanted to trade down to 8 or 9 and still pick TJack which was obviously going to be difficult.

Doggcow
04-25-2009, 11:56 PM
Again, we probably lost somewhere between 10-20 draft slots with this trade to pick up a player our staff had slotted as a first round talent. We also get to begin developing that player now, not in 2010.

So, was it risky? Sure. Is it the nightmare people are making it out to be? Not really.

Exactly. We get to develop a guy (that was first round talent) today, this season, get his production this year. Plus it wasn't just a 2nd anyway guys, it was a very high second.

Im sure if we go 8-8 and make the playoffs people will be rooting for us to lose in the AFC CG so we don't lose our 18 or so draft spots.

UberBroncoMan
04-25-2009, 11:56 PM
So you trade down and load up on value picks in the 2nd and 3rd.

Ding Ding.

The great part of a high round pick is you can trade it for a lower 1st rounder + usually a 2nd rounder.

(look at Cleavland)

There is always at least ONE team that wants to move up each year.

We could have had 2 1st rounders and 2 2nd rounders next year... now we just have one of each, and all for a 2nd round pick this year.

That's why people are so pissed off.

Doggcow
04-25-2009, 11:57 PM
Sure they could have taken the same deal (or somewhat less) as Cle - the only difference is that they did not want to go down too far and miss Tyson Jackson. They only wanted to trade down to 8 or 9 and still pick TJack which was obviously going to be difficult.

draft picks are a crapshoot anyway, I don't think KC messed up at all here, they got their man. We got ours.

manchambo
04-25-2009, 11:58 PM
Again, we probably lost somewhere between 10-20 draft slots with this trade to pick up a player our staff had slotted as a first round talent. We also get to begin developing that player now, not in 2010.

So, was it risky? Sure. Is it the nightmare people are making it out to be? Not really.

In what world is this team getting the number 27 pick next year? 20 slots is the best any sane person can put it at (that's a decent improvement over last year) 20-30 is you number.

Doggcow
04-26-2009, 12:00 AM
Ding Ding.

The great part of a high round pick is you can trade it for a lower 1st rounder + usually a 2nd rounder.

(look at Cleavland)

There is always at least ONE team that wants to move up each year.

We could have had 2 1st rounders and 2 2nd rounders next year... now we just have one of each, and all for a 2nd round pick this year.

That's why people are so pissed off.

These are all still "What-ifs" what if we drafted a mega-Ryan-Leaf-Like bust next year? This could be a blessing. You all just want to latch on to the ****tiness of the draft, negative to a fault.

footstepsfrom#27
04-26-2009, 12:04 AM
These are all still "What-ifs" what if we drafted a mega-Ryan-Leaf-Like bust next year?
Or what if we could get John Elway in free agency? :wave:

manchambo
04-26-2009, 12:05 AM
These are all still "What-ifs" what if we drafted a mega-Ryan-Leaf-Like bust next year? This could be a blessing. You all just want to latch on to the ****tiness of the draft, negative to a fault.

Are you able to tie your shoes?

They traded a pick for a pick. Do you think a player picked with the 37th pick is more or less likely than a player taken with a top ten pick to be a bust?

And if you trade that pick for a later first and a second, are you more or less likely to wind up with at least one good player?

Doggcow
04-26-2009, 12:07 AM
Are you able to tie your shoes?

They traded a pick for a pick. Do you think a player picked with the 37th pick is more or less likely than a player taken with a top ten pick to be a bust?

And if you trade that pick for a later first and a second, are you more or less likely to wind up with at least one good player?

More likely than if you just paid one in FA? I'd say, with complete conviction, NO!

manchambo
04-26-2009, 12:16 AM
More likely than if you just paid one in FA? I'd say, with complete conviction, NO!


Were you asleep during the entire last seven years or so of the Shanahan regime?

Atlas
04-26-2009, 12:28 AM
LOL Strange, I thought he was acquired with a high first round pick.

2 first rounders and Mark Herman

Doggcow
04-26-2009, 12:30 AM
Were you asleep during the entire last seven years or so of the Shanahan regime?

Oh right, cuz he had a stellar draft record... He never busted and overpaid on anyone like Jarvis Moss...

manchambo
04-26-2009, 12:32 AM
Oh right, cuz he had a stellar draft record... He never busted and overpaid on anyone like Jarvis Moss...

I guess I have to be a little more clear. Did you notice whether the team signed any free agents during that period?

Doggcow
04-26-2009, 12:34 AM
I guess I have to be a little more clear. Did you notice whether the team signed any free agents during that period?

You're critiquing this rigime, I just threw the same back at you. Just because Shanahan brings in Boss Bailey and a bunch of other jagoffs doesn't mean McDaniels will continue the tradition. Hell, we're a better team now than we were 2 months ago.

manchambo
04-26-2009, 12:41 AM
You're critiquing this rigime, I just threw the same back at you. Just because Shanahan brings in Boss Bailey and a bunch of other jagoffs doesn't mean McDaniels will continue the tradition. Hell, we're a better team now than we were 2 months ago.

On what basis could you possibly say that? The only thing I really know about this team is that it has seriously downgraded the QB.

Doggcow
04-26-2009, 12:44 AM
Roster Comparison:

Quarterback:
Jay Cutler Vs. Kyle Orton / Chris Simms - Point goes to Shanahan

Runningback:
Selvin Young/Tatem Bell/Whoever Vs. Knowshon Moreno/Hillis/Whoever - Ill take Moreno, McDaniels Point

OL/TE/FB/WR- Wash, no real change

DL- McDaniels Point, no contest
LB- McDaniels Point, no contest
Safety- McDaniels Point, no contest
Corner- Wash, too early to tell, Bly was still solid but not outstanding.

Defensive Coordinator
15 Yard Cushion King vs. Mike Nolan - McDaniels Point, no contest

Special Teams- I'd wager they can't be much worse, but a wash at this point.

OLD BRONCOS - 1 NEW BRONCOS - 5

watermock
04-26-2009, 12:46 AM
But they become available in the 6th round...
Cassel had a pretty good year, available through FA...

..
...
....

John Elway was acquired through FA.

Dumbass.

Doggcow
04-26-2009, 12:49 AM
Nurrrr I beat off to my post count!

First off, trading our 2010 first rounder for a blocking TE when we allready have one being paid millions just to block was stupid.

Thats about the size of it. ROFL! LOL

watermock
04-26-2009, 12:59 AM
Unreal.

We barely beat the raiders first day, and we lost a top 10 pick in '10.

manchambo
04-26-2009, 01:09 AM
Roster Comparison:

Quarterback:
Jay Cutler Vs. Kyle Orton / Chris Simms - Point goes to Shanahan

Runningback:
Selvin Young/Tatem Bell/Whoever Vs. Knowshon Moreno/Hillis/Whoever - Ill take Moreno, McDaniels Point

OL/TE/FB/WR- Wash, no real change

DL- McDaniels Point, no contest
LB- McDaniels Point, no contest
Safety- McDaniels Point, no contest
Corner- Wash, too early to tell, Bly was still solid but not outstanding.

Defensive Coordinator
15 Yard Cushion King vs. Mike Nolan - McDaniels Point, no contest

Special Teams- I'd wager they can't be much worse, but a wash at this point.

OLD BRONCOS - 1 NEW BRONCOS - 5

See, that's not how it works. The QB is worth like ten points on that silly scheme you made up there.

And I really don't know how you have any particular basis to say that either the LB or DL is better.

In fact, given what you've been saying in defense of trading the first round pick, I don't see how you can say the RB situation is better.

Matter of fact, our new little man royally screwed the pooch on that one. A shrewd drafter would have parlayed that pick into a second round pick to avoid the expense and risk of bust that attends any high first round pick

Ambiguous
04-26-2009, 01:33 AM
In what world is this team getting the number 27 pick next year? 20 slots is the best any sane person can put it at (that's a decent improvement over last year) 20-30 is you number.

Exactly. I would actually be fine with this if we traded the Chicago pick which would actually follow the logic in Popps' post.

The Bears have an easy schedule with a pretty good team, and we have a bad team with a brutal schedule. Granted, the NFL has the most unpredictability in this regard when compared to any other sport, but I hope McD has some kind of foresight that I don't have.

Doggcow
04-26-2009, 01:37 AM
See, that's not how it works. The QB is worth like ten points on that silly scheme you made up there.

And I really don't know how you have any particular basis to say that either the LB or DL is better.

In fact, given what you've been saying in defense of trading the first round pick, I don't see how you can say the RB situation is better.

Matter of fact, our new little man royally screwed the pooch on that one. A shrewd drafter would have parlayed that pick into a second round pick to avoid the expense and risk of bust that attends any high first round pick

You can make it say what you want. A vastly improved Defense should be worth 50 points then imo.

manchambo
04-26-2009, 01:40 AM
You can make it say what you want. A vastly improved Defense should be worth 50 points then imo.


OK, explain for me why picking Moreno wasn't a total ****-up. Shouldn't they have traded it for a second? Apparently there were some players in the scond they had graded as first round talents.

Doggcow
04-26-2009, 01:47 AM
OK, explain for me why picking Moreno wasn't a total ****-up. Shouldn't they have traded it for a second? Apparently there were some players in the scond they had graded as first round talents.

Uhm, we lost a ****load of RB's last year for one. Best Player Available at the pick.

You're right, next time lets trade our #12 for 4 5th's 6 6th's and then boondoggle someone out of like 15 7th's, then we have tons of picks!

Popps
04-26-2009, 01:48 AM
OK, explain for me why picking Moreno wasn't a total ****-up. Shouldn't they have traded it for a second? Apparently there were some players in the scond they had graded as first round talents.

There were, and they got one... with a 2nd round pick.

What's the problem? And what does that have to do with taking the best RB in the draft at 12?

snowspot66
04-26-2009, 01:50 AM
See, that's not how it works. The QB is worth like ten points on that silly scheme you made up there.

And I really don't know how you have any particular basis to say that either the LB or DL is better.

In fact, given what you've been saying in defense of trading the first round pick, I don't see how you can say the RB situation is better.

Matter of fact, our new little man royally screwed the pooch on that one. A shrewd drafter would have parlayed that pick into a second round pick to avoid the expense and risk of bust that attends any high first round pick

How can you not say the LB are better?

You do remember who we had starting last year right?

The defense will be at least a little better if only through the firing of Slowick.

How can you not say the RB situation is better? We have Hillis and Moreno along with a batch of others. How is this not better than Mike Bell, Tatum Bell, Selvin Young, and God knows who else we trotted out there the past few years.

The DL situation is even better with the elimination of the likes of Engleberger. Is it a good line? No. But that will take time and hopefully Ayers is the first big step in that direction. WE WERE NOT GOING TO FIX IT IN ONE DRAFT. If we tried to do that we would end up with a draft like in 05 or 07.

manchambo
04-26-2009, 01:50 AM
There were, and they got one... with a 2nd round pick.

What's the problem? And what does that have to do with taking the best RB in the draft at 12?

But surely there were others. And now they're going to waste a crap load of money on Moreno.

It's just a pity they didn't hit on their plan to trade first round picks for second round picks a little earlier. They could have saved themselves from that blunder.

extralife
04-26-2009, 01:52 AM
Yeah, good teams never build through the draft, OP. Why would they, when it's just a bunch of college kids?

/facepalm

manchambo
04-26-2009, 01:57 AM
How can you not say the LB are better?

You do remember who we had starting last year right?

The defense will be at least a little better if only through the firing of Slowick.

How can you not say the RB situation is better? We have Hillis and Moreno along with a batch of others. How is this not better than Mike Bell, Tatum Bell, Selvin Young, and God knows who else we trotted out there the past few years.

The DL situation is even better with the elimination of the likes of Engleberger. Is it a good line? No. But that will take time and hopefully Ayers is the first big step in that direction. WE WERE NOT GOING TO FIX IT IN ONE DRAFT. If we tried to do that we would end up with a draft like in 05 or 07.

Some of that may be true, but it's not true if you apply the logic Dogcow seems to apply when he's defending some of the FO's desicions today.

You see, high picks are terrible anyway, so we probably just screwed ourselves by taking those two first round players today.

And my real opinion is that the defense will be incrementally better while the offense will be substantially worse, for a net increase in overall crapulence.

snowspot66
04-26-2009, 02:06 AM
Offense will be substantially worse? It was pretty ****ty last year too when it was all said and done. I look forward to a much more consistent offense this year even if it isn't very flashy.

manchambo
04-26-2009, 02:10 AM
Offense will be substantially worse? It was pretty ****ty last year too when it was all said and done. I look forward to a much more consistent offense this year even if it isn't very flashy.

How do you define "flashy"? Moving the ball a lot?

I agree that this year's offense won't be nearly as flashy.

Doggcow
04-26-2009, 02:39 AM
How do you define "flashy"? Moving the ball a lot?

I agree that this year's offense won't be nearly as flashy.

We didnt score tons of points, thats pretty much the point of an offense. Not get to the redzone and miss a fieldgoal.

Doggcow
04-26-2009, 02:41 AM
Yeah, good teams never build through the draft, OP. Why would they, when it's just a bunch of college kids?

/facepalm

ITS ONE PICK. Good teams dont win Superbowls off of ONE PICK

Atwater His Ass
04-26-2009, 02:55 AM
How do you define "flashy"? Moving the ball a lot?

I agree that this year's offense won't be nearly as flashy.

Oh man you didn't know? Jay Cutler was a horrible QB and will be easily replaced by Kyle Orton in this new "system". Shanahan and Cutler had no clue what good offesne should look like.

Hell most here think our defense is improved by drafting 2 DB's and a tweener DE/OLB. Who needs a DL? You'd think after having the worst DL in the NFL over the last decade that maybe we'd invest in it until we get it right. But nah, let's keep building from the back 4. That worked great while we had the #1 CB in the NFL amirite? Pass rush is overrated.