PDA

View Full Version : Broncos trade up for South Carolina WR Kenny McKinley


montrose
04-26-2009, 11:24 AM
Will post trade details when I find them.

Beej
04-26-2009, 11:27 AM
Another Mc!

Doggcow
04-26-2009, 11:27 AM
OH NO! The pick stockpilers are gonna hate this one!

SportinOne
04-26-2009, 11:33 AM
So you think it was a good idea to trade a potential top 15 pick for an undersized cornerback...

Regardless of WHO we picked, you think it was a good idea to trade a top 15 pick for a 2nd rounder?

BroncoMan4ever
04-26-2009, 11:36 AM
So you think it was a good idea to trade a potential top 15 pick for an undersized cornerback...

Regardless of WHO we picked, you think it was a good idea to trade a top 15 pick for a 2nd rounder?

if they had him rated as a 1st rounder i see no problem with them using a 1st to make sure they got him this year.

Never Trust a Snake
04-26-2009, 11:37 AM
McKinley is not a HN, which is good.

Bronco Boy
04-26-2009, 11:38 AM
if they had him rated as a 1st rounder i see no problem with them using a 1st to make sure they got him this year.

I agree. Besides, that first round pick is going to end up being anywhere from 30-32 so that's good value. :~ohyah!:

go_broncos
04-26-2009, 11:38 AM
I am really worried.what did we give??

I hope we didn't give next year 2nd or 3rd rounder

titan
04-26-2009, 11:40 AM
McKinley is a decent value in the 5th round. I had him on my college fantasy team (yes I know that doesn't make me an nfl scout but I did watch a few of his games). He was better in 2007 than in 2008 as he was hampered by an injury in 2008. If he plays back to his 2007 form good pick in round 5. Was hoping the Broncos would get Collie wr byu but he went just before one of our 4th round picks.

barryr
04-26-2009, 11:42 AM
So you think it was a good idea to trade a potential top 15 pick for an undersized cornerback...

Regardless of WHO we picked, you think it was a good idea to trade a top 15 pick for a 2nd rounder?

Have you not been paying attention? The Broncos clearly felt Smith was the best CB in the draft with 1st round talent, so obviously they didn't feel they were trading for a 2nd rounder. You and some supposed "draft experts" may think Smith is just another CB, but the Broncos do not. How about letting the guy play before believing the guy isn't worth much.

DeusExManning
04-26-2009, 11:43 AM
our two 6th round picks

SportinOne
04-26-2009, 11:44 AM
McKinley is not a HN, which is good.

HN?

BroncoBuff
04-26-2009, 11:49 AM
This guy is awesome ... I drafted him for the chefs in the Mock Draft.

He's the all-time leading SC receiver, despite playing second fiddle to Sidney Rice for a couple years.

Problem is his hamstring injury is chronic ... he missed several games in '08, and then a recurrence forced him to miss the Combine.

If his hamstring heals, this was a steal.

oubronco
04-26-2009, 11:50 AM
our two 6th round picks

UGH

BroncoMan4ever
04-26-2009, 11:50 AM
I agree. Besides, that first round pick is going to end up being anywhere from 30-32 so that's good value. :~ohyah!:

more like early 20s. i am calling playoffs for us.

Finger Roll
04-26-2009, 11:51 AM
broncos traded 5th and 6th round picks this year

cutthemdown
04-26-2009, 11:53 AM
So you think it was a good idea to trade a potential top 15 pick for an undersized cornerback...

Regardless of WHO we picked, you think it was a good idea to trade a top 15 pick for a 2nd rounder?

Picks a yr away are valued a round or 2 below where the pick this yr is valued. The only thing that determines anything in the NFL is on field performance so I don't see how you can say one way or the other.

This CB picks off a couple of passes and plays well and you will love him regardless of where Broncos picked him.

Popps
04-26-2009, 11:54 AM
OH NO! The pick stockpilers are gonna hate this one!

The Stockpilers.

Hilarious!

cutthemdown
04-26-2009, 11:55 AM
UGH

LOL give me a break.

lazarus4444
04-26-2009, 11:56 AM
So you think it was a good idea to trade a potential top 15 pick for an undersized cornerback...

Regardless of WHO we picked, you think it was a good idea to trade a top 15 pick for a 2nd rounder?

You and a bunch of other retards here on this board are making the assumption that the Broncos will suck next year. Clearly, McDaniels is not making the same assumption otherwise he wouldn't have done the trade. I think alphonso will be an impact player but we won't know till he gets on the field.

Your thinking top 15, i'm thinking the seahawks will get a 25 or higher next year from us. The thing is, neither of us ****ing know whats going to happen so stop with all the negative thoughts (goes for all you ladies who are complaining).

I think mcdaniels is addressing speical teams which hasn't been paid attention to for the last 15 years. I think our ST will be pretty damn good this year.

UberBroncoMan
04-26-2009, 11:56 AM
Guess I should just point out that McKinley broke some of Sterling Sharpe's records at South Carolina.

Still... we have more pressing needs than WR.

SoDak Bronco
04-26-2009, 11:57 AM
Picks a yr away are valued a round or 2 below where the pick this yr is valued. The only thing that determines anything in the NFL is on field performance so I don't see how you can say one way or the other.

This CB picks off a couple of passes and plays well and you will love him regardless of where Broncos picked him.

until next april when we see the Seahawks using our pick which will be in the top 10, then i'll say..wtf were we thinking

doonwise
04-26-2009, 12:06 PM
I'm not sold on this pick. I don't think McKinley has what it takes to be a WR in McDaniels system. What I see is a fast WR with outstanding field vision and so I'm wondering if he was selected to be a punt return/kick return specialist. Has he ever done this before? Anyone?

barryr
04-26-2009, 12:07 PM
Hmm, Ronnie Fields, the guy the Broncos have penciled in at NT at this point, was a 4th-5th round pick when he was drafted, yet we're to believe there is a DL prospect in this draft, one labeled weak for DL no less, that will be significantly better than him in that same draft range? Ok.

Beantown Bronco
04-26-2009, 12:18 PM
Have you not been paying attention? The Broncos clearly felt Smith was the best CB in the draft with 1st round talent

Problem: if so, then the Broncos are literally the only team in the league that thought so.

Beantown Bronco
04-26-2009, 12:19 PM
Your thinking top 15, i'm thinking the seahawks will get a 25 or higher next year from us.

I love the Broncos as much as the next guy, but you, sir, are absolutely bat sh*t crazy.

Bronco Boy
04-26-2009, 12:22 PM
Problem: if so, then the Broncos are literally the only team in the league that thought so.

Really? Why would you say that?

TheReverend
04-26-2009, 12:25 PM
Really? Why would you say that?

Because he didn't go in the first... I thought that was pretty evident from what he said.

Beantown Bronco
04-26-2009, 12:27 PM
Really? Why would you say that?

If anyone else had a first round grade on him, they would've done what it took to get him before the Broncos got him in the 2nd.

footstepsfrom#27
04-26-2009, 12:27 PM
When's this thing over with?

Bronco Boy
04-26-2009, 12:29 PM
If anyone else had a first round grade on him, they would've done what it took to get him before the Broncos got him in the 2nd.

Why?

TonyR
04-26-2009, 12:35 PM
Problem: if so, then the Broncos are literally the only team in the league that thought so.

Well, taking this logic to its extreme you could say every pick that's made the team had that pick rated higher than anyone else. Looking at it another way, look how many players turn out to be "first round talents" that aren't taken in the first round.

It should also be pointed out that Mayock and Sporting News, among others, have him rated highly. I'm not happy about the trade we made either, but I don't totally agree with your point. There could have been several teams that had him rated highly that had other needs.

SportinOne
04-26-2009, 12:37 PM
Have you not been paying attention? The Broncos clearly felt Smith was the best CB in the draft with 1st round talent, so obviously they didn't feel they were trading for a 2nd rounder. You and some supposed "draft experts" may think Smith is just another CB, but the Broncos do not. How about letting the guy play before believing the guy isn't worth much.

How much impact can he really have? We have absolutely NO ONE on defensive line. Don't give me that Ayers bull****. He's a LB in a 3-4. If we aren't switching to 3-4 then things are different but from everything that I have read we are.

He could be a solid CB. Good. Awesome. Hey, we could have drafted the best ****ing kicker in the draft in the third round, too! That doesn't mean it's going to make the god damn defense better.

You think we'll be picking 25 next year? Care to place an actual wager on that? I'd even be willing to give you odds.

brncs_fan
04-26-2009, 12:43 PM
Problem: if so, then the Broncos are literally the only team in the league that thought so.

That could make them equally intelligent as it does incredulous.

Beantown Bronco
04-26-2009, 12:46 PM
Well, taking this logic to its extreme you could say every pick that's made the team had that pick rated higher than anyone else.

No, no, no.

There are obvious cases where teams just can't get the ammo together to trade up to grab guys that slip. But that is not an excuse in the second round. Hell, the Pats did it to get their CB. This is precisely what the Jets did today in the first round. A guy with first or early second round grade is there for the taking in the 3rd. They traded up to get him even though it wasn't necessarily a "need" selection.

Looking at it another way, look how many players turn out to be "first round talents" that aren't taken in the first round.

But we're not talking about guys that "turn out to be first round talents" now are we? We're talking about guys that are GRADED as first round talents this weekend before they hit the NFL. BIG difference.

It should also be pointed out that Mayock and Sporting News, among others, have him rated highly.

Highly is different from first round. And neither are part of my very specific criteria above: nfl teams.

Beantown Bronco
04-26-2009, 12:50 PM
There could have been several teams that had him rated highly that had other needs.

A handful of teams passed on him three times (one of them being the Pats, who had a clear need at CB). Some twice. Every team passed on him at least once. I can see him being rated highly, but not as a first rounder by anyone else.

Popps
04-26-2009, 01:08 PM
Not many highlights, but a few. Looks pretty fluid in his routes...

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5z9cH3sjoX4&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5z9cH3sjoX4&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Big Ideas
04-26-2009, 01:27 PM
A handful of teams passed on him three times (one of them being the Pats, who had a clear need at CB). Some twice. Every team passed on him at least once. I can see him being rated highly, but not as a first rounder by anyone else.

The Broncos also passed on him twice, and they waited until he dropped until 37 to trade up for him, yet you're not making the argument that the Broncos didn't give him a first round grade. Why not? What if the Broncos elected not to trade their first rounder for Smith because they thought the price was too high, as many of you do? Would that have necessarily meant that they didn't consider him one of the 32 best payers in the draft?

Do you think that all 32 teams give the same 32 players first round grades? I would assume not. How many players would you guess are given a first round grade by at least one team? I'd guess at least 50. Point being, not all of them can go in the first round, so inevitably numerous players who are given first round grades by several teams (or more) will be selected in the second round. That's just the way it has to be. The fact that someone drops to the second round is absolutely not proof that no team (or only one team) considered that player worthy of a first round pick. Draft order, team needs, etc. just happened to converge in a way that caused that player to drop. Given that Smith was picked at 37, and considering the evaluations that he has received, I find it highly unlikely that not a single other team thought he was worthy of a first round pick.

Beantown Bronco
04-26-2009, 01:41 PM
The Broncos also passed on him twice, and they waited until he dropped until 37 to trade up for him, yet you're not making the argument that the Broncos didn't give him a first round grade. Why not?

Actually, I am. I don't really believe they had a first round grade on him. They do, however, feel forced to say they did to justify what they gave up.

Do you think that all 32 teams give the same 32 players first round grades? I would assume not. How many players would you guess are given a first round grade by at least one team? I'd guess at least 50. Point being, not all of them can go in the first round, so inevitably numerous players who are given first round grades by several teams (or more) will be selected in the second round. That's just the way it has to be. The fact that someone drops to the second round is absolutely not proof that no team (or only one team) considered that player worthy of a first round pick. Draft order, team needs, etc. just happened to converge in a way that caused that player to drop. Given that Smith was picked at 37, and considering the evaluations that he has received, I find it highly unlikely that not a single other team thought he was worthy of a first round pick.

I agree with all this. I am simply coming to the other conclusion. Do either of us have proof of our side? Of course not. I'm just of the opinion that none of the other teams had a first round grade on him. And after reading the reports of the "pundits" that loved him, I discovered that even they didn't have him rated as a clear first (obviously the ones that didn't love him didn't have him as a first either).

Big Ideas
04-26-2009, 02:02 PM
I agree with all this. I am simply coming to the other conclusion. Do either of us have proof of our side? Of course not. I'm just of the opinion that none of the other teams had a first round grade on him. And after reading the reports of the "pundits" that loved him, I discovered that even they didn't have him rated as a clear first (obviously the ones that didn't love him didn't have him as a first either).

You said: "Problem: if so, then the Broncos are literally the only team in the league that thought so."

Your conclusion seemed to be that Smith falling to 37 was definitive proof that not a single other team considered him a first round caliber player. That's the main assertion (as I interpreted it) that I was responding to, although I also would strongly disagree with your opinion that it's likely that not one other team gave him a first round grade. The pundits may not have considered him a clear first round pick (rightfully so as it turns out), but that really only indicates that they didn't think that enough teams had him rated that high to make him a lock for the first round, not that nobody had him rated that high.

Forget the other 31 teams for a moment. Do you think that all of Denver's top 32 players were selected in the first 36 picks? I concede that it's possible, but I don't think it's likely. If a team chooses someone at 37, there's a good chance they had him ranked in their top 32.

For the record, I think we took too big of a risk in giving up our first rounder (which could well be top-15), but I do think that CB was actually a big need, and I'm fine with the pick itself (just not thrilled with the compensation we gave up to get the pick).

Jekyll15Hyde
04-26-2009, 02:30 PM
Your thinking top 15, i'm thinking the seahawks will get a 25 or higher next year from us. The thing is, neither of us ****ing know whats going to happen so stop with all the negative thoughts (goes for all you ladies who are complaining).


Then you are not objectively looking at this. You talking about what you WANT to happen, the most ideal scenario. The rest of us are taking all the facts of the matter and wrapping them together to put together a the most probable scenario.

And day 2 is only strengthening the argument for Denver, ahem Seattle getting a top 10 pick next year.

Steve Sewell
04-26-2009, 02:37 PM
ITT: Lots of crying and butthurtness.

Beantown Bronco
04-26-2009, 02:43 PM
You said: "Problem: if so, then the Broncos are literally the only team in the league that thought so."

Your conclusion seemed to be that Smith falling to 37 was definitive proof that not a single other team considered him a first round caliber player.

That was a big part of it. The other factors were this: not one single mock draft out there had him going in the first. At least none of the 50-75 that I saw. None of the pundits had him going that far. No teams mentioned him as a possible target. No "league sources." I could go on.

Until anyone can provide me with a slither of evidence to the contrary, I'd say my opinion clearly has more evidence on its side.

Forget the other 31 teams for a moment. Do you think that all of Denver's top 32 players were selected in the first 36 picks? I concede that it's possible, but I don't think it's likely. If a team chooses someone at 37, there's a good chance they had him ranked in their top 32.

Nothing would surprise me at this point.....least of all the Broncos having no clue about this year's draft.

Think about this for a second:

For the Broncos to give up what they did to move up for #37, I'd have to believe the player in question would be ranked in the 20s at least. If the player was only #31 or #32, that would REALLY have me worried about their sanity. Why give up the world for a guy that "slid" by 5 spots at that point? It's one thing to give up the world to move up to #6 from #11 or 12 if the guy you had ranked #1 slid. It's completely another to give up a ton to move up to #37 when the #32 guy fell a few slots. That leads me to believe that they felt the player slid by at least 10 spots from where they projected him. That's scary to me. To have a guy ranked that much differently from everyone else. That is why I refuse to believe it.

TennBronco
04-26-2009, 02:52 PM
Don't forget McKinley put up good numbers but had crap for QB's his entire career. I think he's got a lot of upside.

barryr
04-26-2009, 02:55 PM
God forbid the Broncos don't follow the "draft experts" since they're always right of course.

worm
04-26-2009, 02:59 PM
The dude looks like a stick to me.

TennBronco
04-26-2009, 03:03 PM
The dude looks like a stick to me.

About the same as Eddie Royal.

Beantown Bronco
04-26-2009, 03:04 PM
God forbid the Broncos don't follow the "draft experts" since they're always right of course.

Actually, what's funny is the majority of their early draft reeks of Mike Mayock. It's like they didn't bother filling all the scout slots they lost with the new regime coming in because they knew they'd just use his mock draft as a guide.

Big Ideas
04-26-2009, 03:46 PM
Think about this for a second:

For the Broncos to give up what they did to move up for #37, I'd have to believe the player in question would be ranked in the 20s at least. If the player was only #31 or #32, that would REALLY have me worried about their sanity. Why give up the world for a guy that "slid" by 5 spots at that point? It's one thing to give up the world to move up to #6 from #11 or 12 if the guy you had ranked #1 slid. It's completely another to give up a ton to move up to #37 when the #32 guy fell a few slots. That leads me to believe that they felt the player slid by at least 10 spots from where they projected him. That's scary to me. To have a guy ranked that much differently from everyone else. That is why I refuse to believe it.


As for this part, it sounds like you're making the case for why the Broncos are probaby being truthful in their contention that they rated him as a first round talent. I would agree, although I don't know that their rating of Smith was necessarily significantly different than the average NFL team. First, the Broncos may believe that they'll be a solid team next year. McDaniels is a confident guy, so it's possible. If they think they'll end up picking between 15 and 20, then it wouldn't be crazy to trade that pick for a guy you rate between 25 and 32.

Wasn't Smith almost universally considered a top 5 CB in the draft, with many ranking him as either the third or fourth best? Butler and Byrd went 41 and 42, respectively, so you have to figure that Smith would have gone somewhere around that point. Would it be that crazy to rank a guy 15 spots higher than the average team? Pretty much every guy you pick is a guy you ranked higher than the average team. Even at that spot in the draft, I don't think I'd consider that a huge discrepancy.

Mike Mayock had Smith ranked fourth behind Butler, whom he ranked as the 19th best prospect in the draft, so I would assume that Smith wasn't that much farther down the list. Gil Brandt ranked him between 31 and 40. Bucky Brooks on nfl.com ranked him as the fourth best CB and had him going 30th in his mock draft. (So that's one mock that had him in the first round.) I haven't checked out 70 mock drafts, but from what I have seen, and based on where the other CBs went, it appears that he was generally regarded as a high second round pick. And any player ranked that high probably had teams that rated him as a late first rounder.

Beantown Bronco
04-26-2009, 07:22 PM
Bucky Brooks on nfl.com ranked him as the fourth best CB and had him going 30th in his mock draft. (So that's one mock that had him in the first round.)

Bucky also had Aaron Curry lasting until the Broncos selection at 12, so I think it's safe to assume he was face down in a pile of cocaine when he was typing up his mock.

Regardless, it fits my criteria, so I stand corrected. There was at least one other idiot out there.

http://www.nfl.com/draft/story?id=09000d5d80fec297&template=with-video-with-comments&confirm=true

BroncoBuff
04-26-2009, 07:36 PM
This guy is a steal if his hamstring is okay.


My only question is ... if Royal and Stokley are already slot guys, then why draft McKinley?

Royal = McD's Welker

Where does McKinley fit?

BroncoBuff
04-26-2009, 07:39 PM
McKinley is a decent value in the 5th round. He was better in 2007 than in 2008 as he was hampered by an injury in 2008.

That's the WHOLE ISSUE ... the hamstring. It's chronic. He missed games both early and late in 2008 ... then he aggravated it again and missed the Combine and the Gamecocks' pro day.

If the damn thing heals, then this was an excellent pick at a position of need imo :thumbs:

SonOfLe-loLang
04-26-2009, 07:42 PM
This guy is a steal if his hamstring is okay.


My only question is ... if Royal and Stokley are already slot guys, then why draft McKinley?

Royal = McD's Welker

Where does McKinley fit?

From what i know about McKinley, and what McD said, is that he can play any of the receiver positions. he clearly has the speed to stretch the field.

Bronco Boy
04-26-2009, 07:43 PM
This guy is a steal if his hamstring is okay.


My only question is ... if Royal and Stokley are already slot guys, then why draft McKinley?

Royal = McD's Welker

Where does McKinley fit?

Assuming he works out, they'll let Royal go a la Deion Branch and have McKinley take over the slot, I would think.

SonOfLe-loLang
04-26-2009, 07:47 PM
Assuming he works out, they'll let Royal go a la Deion Branch and have McKinley take over the slot, I would think.

What are you talking about? Why are people jumping to this ridiculous conclusions. First off, in the McD offense, i think we should have, at least, 4 effective receivers. As for the 7th round center (someone else mentioned him), just because we draft some guy in the 7th round, doesnt mean we don't believe in another guy (lichtensteiger). They had him rated on their bored and are picking guys they think that can help. Why is this so difficult to understand?

Bronco Boy
04-26-2009, 07:50 PM
What are you talking about? Why are people jumping to this ridiculous conclusions. First off, in the McD offense, i think we should have, at least, 4 effective receivers.

Really? Why would you think that? And how do you define effective?

BroncoBuff
04-26-2009, 07:52 PM
http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/544/mckinley.jpg


Who does he remind you of?


(There is a correct answer Knowitall)

TonyR
04-26-2009, 08:02 PM
...one of them being the Pats, who had a clear need at CB...

If so, why did they trade Hobbs to Philly?

TonyR
04-26-2009, 08:03 PM
Who does he remind you of?


Marcus Nash? If so, at least we didn't use a first round pick on him like Shanny!

BroncoBuff
04-26-2009, 08:04 PM
(I was thinking Rod Smith)

Beantown Bronco
04-26-2009, 08:06 PM
If so, why did they trade Hobbs to Philly?

$
Salary cap savings
Not living up to expectations
Drafted his replacement in 2nd round
They're apparently liking what one or both of the guys they drafted last year (but didn't play) are doing in camp.

Some combo of above.

TonyR
04-26-2009, 08:19 PM
(I was thinking Rod Smith)

Okay, you were thinking glass half full and I was thinking half empty. Hope you're the one who's right!

TonyR
04-26-2009, 08:22 PM
Some combo of above.

Interesting. Living in the Philly market I'm wondering how Philly got involved and why. Thinking out loud, are they really planning to move Sheldon Brown and replace him with Hobbs or is Hobbs just depth?

lex
04-26-2009, 08:47 PM
Assuming he works out, they'll let Royal go a la Deion Branch and have McKinley take over the slot, I would think.

Good then we can get that 2010 pick back that we used to trade into trade into the first round.

Bronco Boy
04-26-2009, 09:59 PM
Good then we can get that 2010 pick back that we used to trade into trade into the first round.

:thumbs: Seriously, that's the Patriot way that hopefully McD brings to the Broncos. You develop guys in your system until they're overvalued, then sell them high for draft picks and start the process over again.