PDA

View Full Version : The 1st rounder we traded MIGHT BE agreed the lower of the two


BroncoBuff
04-26-2009, 10:34 PM
There's some buzz here about the trade ... I will watch the Jim Mora Seahawks draft special later tonight, and check the local media here, but we might have protection on the 2010 1st rounder.

We MAY have stipulated Seattle gets whichever pick was lower.

MagicHef
04-26-2009, 10:35 PM
Cool, maybe.

OABB
04-26-2009, 10:36 PM
that would make me feel better.

DeusExManning
04-26-2009, 10:36 PM
That is what I heard but based on McDaniels interview today it appears that it is Denver's. He actually said he had no idea which one would be better.

Natedog24
04-26-2009, 10:37 PM
Really hope so...

tsiguy96
04-26-2009, 10:40 PM
That is what I heard but based on McDaniels interview today it appears that it is Denver's. He actually said he had no idea which one would be better.

of course he doesnt, if we have a better record than them we have the lower pick.

BroncoBuff
04-26-2009, 10:41 PM
Well, I can't find anything ... most of the links appear to merely assume it's Denver's pick. But the security guy at the desk in my building here heard on the radio it's the lower of the two .... and I heard that Atlas might've posted something here to that effect.

But if Josh said it's our pick - then that's probably right.

Wes Mantooth
04-26-2009, 10:44 PM
That would make this draft at least tolerable.

lex
04-26-2009, 10:47 PM
Interesting. Heres what Im trying to reconcile. At first when I heard McDaniels talk about haggling over it, I wondered if they had to make a decision because they were up against the gun timewise. But I also remember someone referencing McDaniels talking about looking ahead to the second round and talking about more than one picks...in other words, he knew at the end of the first they would be trading up into the 2nd. I wonder why they would be so willing to give up our first unless they were under the gun?

BroncoBuff
04-26-2009, 10:51 PM
It would make SO MUCH sense to protect it as the lower of the two .... rookie mistake if he did not?

Josh could not have specified it to be the Bears pick, because he would look like he had no confidence in his 2009 squad ... that wouldda been a mistake. But stipulating the lower of the two, now that makes sense.

BroncoBuff
04-26-2009, 11:02 PM
Based on Mcdaniels interview, we did not give up our first but the worst of the two whatever that is.

Anybody see this presser?

Did it sound like that to you?

DeusExManning
04-26-2009, 11:06 PM
On trading own pick in 2010 draft to Seattle to acquire CB Alphonso Smith (2nd Rd., 37th overall, Wake Forest University)
"We agreed that (the pick) could be ours. After talking through with (Seattle), we felt like ‘that's okay, we'll roll the dice. I have no idea where Chicago's pick is going to be, and I don't have the foresight to know where our pick is going to be. So, we felt like, at that point to haggle over something like that, that may not turn out in your favor, but it may. After discussing it with (Seattle), we said, ‘alright, let's go ahead and do it."

Directly from the presser

Vegas_Bronco
04-26-2009, 11:06 PM
Anybody see this presser?

Did it sound like that to you?

BB, from a legal standpoint, wouldn't you want to clarify that before making the trade....what are these guys dealing on??? spit n' a handshake?

BroncoBuff
04-26-2009, 11:13 PM
BB, from a legal standpoint, wouldn't you want to clarify that before making the trade....what are these guys dealing on??? spit n' a handshake?

Yes I agree ... I think we could've stipulkated the lower of the two, and probably still made the deal. Probably a rookie mistake by Josh.

And if Seattle wanted our pick specifically ... that tells you what they think of how we will do compared to the Bears.

While McD could have and should have insisted on the lower of the two .... he could not have insisted on the Bears pick. That wouldda looked bad.


And after DeusExJosh's post ....



END THREAD

SoCalBronco
04-26-2009, 11:16 PM
On trading own pick in 2010 draft to Seattle to acquire CB Alphonso Smith (2nd Rd., 37th overall, Wake Forest University)
"We agreed that (the pick) could be ours. After talking through with (Seattle), we felt like ‘that's okay, we'll roll the dice. I have no idea where Chicago's pick is going to be, and I don't have the foresight to know where our pick is going to be. So, we felt like, at that point to haggle over something like that, that may not turn out in your favor, but it may. After discussing it with (Seattle), we said, ‘alright, let's go ahead and do it."

Directly from the presser

He should have been honest with himself and traded Chicago's pick away rather than ours. It would have looked bad, but it would have been the better move, given all of our problems and schedule.

Blueflame
04-26-2009, 11:18 PM
Yes I agree ... I think we could've stipulkated the lower of the two, and probably still made the deal. Probably a rookie mistake by Josh.

And if Seattle wanted our pick specifically ... that tells you what they think of how we will do compared to the Bears.

While McD could have and should have insisted on the lower of the two .... he could not have insisted on the Bears pick. That wouldda looked bad.


And after DeusExJosh's post ....



END THREAD

Yeah, but I'm "lying" if I say that I personally know people (in Washington state) who have stated that they think it is possible for Josh McDaniels to make a rookie mistake.

BroncoBuff
04-26-2009, 11:23 PM
Yeah, but I'm "lying" if I say that I personally know people (in Washington state) who have stated that they think it is possible for Josh McDaniels to make a rookie mistake.

LOL ... you took some intense heat in that thread ... nice rebuttal there.


That is sad ... the Seahawks insisted on OUR pick :(

Blueflame
04-26-2009, 11:29 PM
LOL ... you took some intense heat in that thread ... nice rebuttal there.


That is sad ... the Seahawks insisted on OUR pick :(

In their place, I would have, too. I've looked at our schedule.

Popps
04-26-2009, 11:32 PM
He should have been honest with himself and traded Chicago's pick away rather than ours. It would have looked bad, but it would have been the better move, given all of our problems and schedule.

I think he should just cancel the season, spend a full year pouting... and then quit.

BroncoBuff
04-26-2009, 11:33 PM
I think he should just cancel the season, spend a full year pouting... and then quit.

What an excellent rebuttal.

Still fighting that Jay vs. Josh fight I see.....

lex
04-26-2009, 11:34 PM
Id like to know what exactly Seattle was going to take. Only a pick or two later NE used lower round picks this year to move up...which was what we should have done.

Blueflame
04-26-2009, 11:39 PM
Id like to know what exactly Seattle was going to take. Only a pick or two later NE used lower round picks this year to move up...which was what we should have done.

It was high-stakes poker and a noob blinked.

DeusExManning
04-26-2009, 11:46 PM
Yes I agree ... I think we could've stipulkated the lower of the two, and probably still made the deal. Probably a rookie mistake by Josh.

And if Seattle wanted our pick specifically ... that tells you what they think of how we will do compared to the Bears.

While McD could have and should have insisted on the lower of the two .... he could not have insisted on the Bears pick. That wouldda looked bad.


And after DeusExJosh's post ....



END THREAD

I will never change my name to DeusExJosh unless we win 2 superbowls.

BroncoBuff
04-26-2009, 11:56 PM
I will never change my name to DeusExJosh unless we win 2 superbowls.

You saw that, did you? :~ohyah!:


Blue, I sense you're right ... highs stakes poker, and the noob blinked.

lex
04-27-2009, 12:00 AM
I will never change my name to DeusExJosh unless we win 2 superbowls.

Dont you mean 2 in the first 4 years?

Blueflame
04-27-2009, 12:02 AM
You saw that, did you? :~ohyah!:


Blue, I sense you're right ... highs stakes poker, and the noob blinked.

Does anyone believe Shanahan and the Goodmans would have traded a 2010 1st rounder (either one of them) for #37 overall in this year's very weak draft? There's no way in hell that would ever have happened. Shanahan and the Goodmans would have addressed the front 7.

Drek
04-27-2009, 04:07 AM
Does anyone believe Shanahan and the Goodmans would have traded a 2010 1st rounder (either one of them) for #37 overall in this year's very weak draft? There's no way in hell that would ever have happened. Shanahan and the Goodmans would have addressed the front 7.

1. If a guy was on the board that they valued as a mid-1st like the current regime obviously values Smith? Yep. In a heart beat. Wouldn't have even second guessed it. Kinda like when we sent the better part of our second day to move up for the massive character question Marcus Thomas was at the time, traded a 3rd to jump over who exactly for Jarvis Moss, etc..

2. Yes, because Shanahan and the Goodmans were so dedicated to drafting DL and had so much wild success at it, you just know they would've found some way to get all of five or six DLs in this draft who belong in the NFL. I mean, they've only drafted DL with any form of priority once, in '07, and missed wildly on those picks. But hey, we got a Patriot as a HC now so lets totally ignore the past and assume he's making the worst possible moves because its not like Shanahan wasn't a total draft **** up for most of his picks here and everyone still kept buying it.

Drek
04-27-2009, 04:22 AM
On trading own pick in 2010 draft to Seattle to acquire CB Alphonso Smith (2nd Rd., 37th overall, Wake Forest University)
"We agreed that (the pick) could be ours. After talking through with (Seattle), we felt like ‘that's okay, we'll roll the dice. I have no idea where Chicago's pick is going to be, and I don't have the foresight to know where our pick is going to be. So, we felt like, at that point to haggle over something like that, that may not turn out in your favor, but it may. After discussing it with (Seattle), we said, ‘alright, let's go ahead and do it."

Directly from the presser

This is a pretty key little word right here.

From the post-day one presser McDaniels said (rough quote) "you could label it the Broncos 1st, the Bears first, the later of the two, or the earlier of the two".

I'm still looking forward to some real clarification but I wouldn't be surprised if we have stipulations in place depending on where the two picks finish, so that if the Bears and Broncos both finish well the Seahawks get the better of the two picks, but if they both do poorly then the Seahawks get the worse of the two.

The Joker
04-27-2009, 04:30 AM
From watching the Press Conference I got the impression that it was ours from the way McDaniels said it, but it's really hard to be sure when you can't hear what the actual question was.

Hopefully they have some sort of agreement in place to make sure we're not totally exposed to potentially giving up a Top 10 pick if things don't go well this season.

It's the one thing I really had a problem with over the weekend, hopefully they've not made that mistake.

Not holding out much hope though.

Broncoman13
04-27-2009, 04:34 AM
There's some buzz here about the trade ... I will watch the Jim Mora Seahawks draft special later tonight, and check the local media here, but we might have protection on the 2010 1st rounder.

We MAY have stipulated Seattle gets whichever pick was lower.

That's what I said right after the pick was traded when I talked to Apa and/or Montrose. That would make me feel a lot better. I'm not so worried about McD turning this team around... I'm worried that it won't be next year, not with our schedule. Even with Jay Cutler in McD's offense I figured we were at best an 8-8 team next year, which could have very well won the West! Time will tell and I'm not writing the season off, but I think we'll see a lot of success next year, but not enough to find ourselves in the playoffs. 2010 and beyond though... look out!

Elway777
04-27-2009, 04:39 AM
Like Seattle is actually going to let McNumNuts back out of the trade that sends them Chicago pick instead of Denvers.

Broncoman13
04-27-2009, 04:55 AM
Does anyone believe Shanahan and the Goodmans would have traded a 2010 1st rounder (either one of them) for #37 overall in this year's very weak draft? There's no way in hell that would ever have happened. Shanahan and the Goodmans would have addressed the front 7.

Blue, that's a large part of the problem. Yes, Shanny and the Goodmans would have addressed the front seven. They would have drafted an ILB like Maualuga or Laurinaitis (which would have been good). They would have also reached on some guys and hoped that they could fit into our system. I believe our first pick would have been Orakpo with Shanny. That or he would have gave up a 3rd to get Raji. Either would have been fine with me... but then again, I really like what Moreno brings. We've known each other for a while Blue, trust me when I tell you that before this season is over you will be a HUGE fan of Knowshon Moreno. Give it some time and try to be positive. I didn't like everything about this draft, but I'll give McD credit. He had a plan and stuck by it to the end.

To me Quinn was a reach and we gave up some good value to get him. But when I look back at McD's offense and think about the down field blocking required it makes a lot of sense that he would want a TE that can line up wide and block like a mad man. Those quick screens to guys like Marshall, Royal, and Moreno are going to be even more effective b/c of a guy like Quinn... or at least that is the way I perceive that draft pick.

Broncoman13
04-27-2009, 04:58 AM
From watching the Press Conference I got the impression that it was ours from the way McDaniels said it, but it's really hard to be sure when you can't hear what the actual question was.

Hopefully they have some sort of agreement in place to make sure we're not totally exposed to potentially giving up a Top 10 pick if things don't go well this season.

It's the one thing I really had a problem with over the weekend, hopefully they've not made that mistake.

Not holding out much hope though.


That could be a mentality thing. If I've learned anything about McD thus far its that he not only believes he will win, he expects to win. I think he feels like he will be a better team than the Bears (and the Broncos probably will be) but the records may not indicate that due to schedule. The Broncos schedule is brutal while the Bears is actually pretty easy. Anyhow, I doubt he's going to come out and say that he made sure there was some protection in there or anything like that publicly, it doesn't fit into his "ego" which isn't a bad thing.

footstepsfrom#27
04-27-2009, 05:08 AM
On trading own pick in 2010 draft to Seattle to acquire CB Alphonso Smith (2nd Rd., 37th overall, Wake Forest University)
"We agreed that (the pick) could be ours. After talking through with (Seattle), we felt like ‘that's okay, we'll roll the dice. I have no idea where Chicago's pick is going to be, and I don't have the foresight to know where our pick is going to be. So, we felt like, at that point to haggle over something like that, that may not turn out in your favor, but it may. After discussing it with (Seattle), we said, ‘alright, let's go ahead and do it."

Directly from the presser
I had to read this twice to make sure my eyes weren't deceiving me. Let me get this straight...McDaniels considered discussing the critical question in these negotiations on where this future 1st round pick was located to be "haggling over something like that"?

I wonder if there's a difference of 20 spots in this draft if he'll still think the question was no big deal?

Broncoman13
04-27-2009, 05:19 AM
This is a pretty key little word right here.

From the post-day one presser McDaniels said (rough quote) "you could label it the Broncos 1st, the Bears first, the later of the two, or the earlier of the two".

I'm still looking forward to some real clarification but I wouldn't be surprised if we have stipulations in place depending on where the two picks finish, so that if the Bears and Broncos both finish well the Seahawks get the better of the two picks, but if they both do poorly then the Seahawks get the worse of the two.

You're right more often than not... I hope you're right on this one!!!

Beantown Bronco
04-27-2009, 05:45 AM
I'm convinced McDaniels thought he was still in NE for awhile there and didn't think twice about the possibility of having a top 10 draft pick next season.

Mogulseeker
04-27-2009, 05:53 AM
I'm convinced McDaniels thought he was still in NE for awhile there and didn't think twice about the possibility of having a top 10 draft pick next season.

I think it's highly possible that we have the same record as the Bears next year... in the 9-7 range.

Hercules Rockefeller
04-27-2009, 05:57 AM
Does anyone believe Shanahan and the Goodmans would have traded a 2010 1st rounder (either one of them) for #37 overall in this year's very weak draft? There's no way in hell that would ever have happened. Shanahan and the Goodmans would have addressed the front 7.

Do you really want to talk about asset management with Shanahan and the way he squandered draft picks? The entire reason the Broncos are in the position they're in is because he couldn't draft for **** for the most part. '06 and '08 doesn't give him a reprieve for almost a decade straight of sheer ineptness. He'd get the occasional starter out of the draft, but this team has absolutely no depth, and that has been an issue for years, and that is directly on him.

Yeah it was a ****ing stupid move by McDaniels that is almost certainly going to bite them in the ass next April, but to claim that Shanahan wouldn't do something nearly as stupid after watching year after year of botched drafts just shows how quickly some are willing to forget all their complaints about Shanahan just to take a shot at McD because they're still pissed about Cutler. If Shanahan had done this, everyone here would be freaking out because over his 14-year track record with regards to drafting corners, and I'm sure you'd be right at the forefront b****ing about that also.

Oh, and the Front 7 has been an issue for years with this team. The only real time Shanny tried to address this was '07, when the Goodmans were here and we all know how that turned out. Other than that it was a 3rd here and 4th there. Try again Blue.

TonyR
04-27-2009, 06:33 AM
As a McD supporter from day one I'll go on the record saying that if it wasn't stipulated in the trade that the pick we give up will be the later of the two then this was a monstrously bad mistake. There's just too big of a potential difference to give up.

Broncoman13
04-27-2009, 06:46 AM
The good news is that if Orton or Simms can't get it done we still have at least one first round pick to work with. We could very well be in a position that we only need one premier player for the future next year. It may require trading our first in the 2011 draft to move up, but if Orton and Simms don't cut it, we can still have a shot at Bradford, McCoy, Tebow, Snead. If Orton and Simms do well, same can be said for a big DT like Cody or Suh. All is not lost, but it Alphonso Smith better pay off!

eddie mac
04-27-2009, 07:00 AM
It might be the lower of the 2 but only if the Broncos have a better record than the Bears.

We traded our No1 not Chicago's.

From Kreiger's piece today

On the trade of next year's first-round pick, I asked if McDaniels tried to get Seattle to accept whichever turns out to be the later of the two first-round picks — Denver's or Chicago's — that the Broncos controlled at the time.

"There was a little discussion about that, but we agreed that the pick could be ours," he said. "After talking it through with the other team, we felt like, that's OK, we'll roll the dice."

I asked if that decision reflected an expectation on McDaniels' part as to where those picks will be.

"No, it doesn't," he said. "I have no idea where Chicago's pick is going to be. And I don't have the foresight to know where our pick is going to be. I hope it's later, but you don't know.

"We just felt like, at that point, to haggle over something like that, it may not turn out in your favor, but it may. So after discussing it with them we said, 'All right, let's go ahead and do it.' "

McDaniels denied that financial considerations played any role in that trade.

It will be awhile before we know for sure whether these were sound decisions. My own guess is that the Bears will be better than the Broncos this season, and therefore that McDaniels should have held out to trade either the Bears' pick or the later of the two if he was going to make that trade at all.

Drek
04-27-2009, 07:01 AM
You're right more often than not... I hope you're right on this one!!!

Just a hunch so who knows, but neither of the sides actually involved in this trade has given a clear, definitive answer as to what it entails.

I had to read this twice to make sure my eyes weren't deceiving me. Let me get this straight...McDaniels considered discussing the critical question in these negotiations on where this future 1st round pick was located to be "haggling over something like that"?

I wonder if there's a difference of 20 spots in this draft if he'll still think the question was no big deal?

I think you could read that comment to just as easily mean that they were haggling with Seattle about what pick they'd get, for some type of protection in the event of a very poor season.

Its classic double speak from both sides on this right now though. We'll see what the deal really is before too long hopefully.

Beantown Bronco
04-27-2009, 07:02 AM
I refuse to believe they didn't protect themselves in the event that their pick turns out to be in the top 5 (not that I think it will be). Teams simply don't do that anymore. Every future first that's been traded in recent memory has had that kind of protection. Every one.

eddie mac
04-27-2009, 07:13 AM
I refuse to believe they didn't protect themselves in the event that their pick turns out to be in the top 5 (not that I think it will be). Teams simply don't do that anymore. Every future first that's been traded in recent memory has had that kind of protection. Every one.

I've only ever witnessed those stipulations in NBA trades. Never seen it within the NFL and if McDaniels did indeed protect the pick in this way why didn't he tell the media that, might have got the hounds off his back.

Drek
04-27-2009, 07:20 AM
I refuse to believe they didn't protect themselves in the event that their pick turns out to be in the top 5 (not that I think it will be). Teams simply don't do that anymore. Every future first that's been traded in recent memory has had that kind of protection. Every one.
I think a related question is if we'd legitimately want a top 5 pick next year.

Short of a collective bargaining miracle 2010 at least is going to be a CBA free, uncapped year. That means no rookie slotting system as well. We could see every top 5 pick get a record breaking deal next year, and I wouldn't even be surprised if some projected top 5'er who slides into the 10-15 range (as there always is) doesn't wind up suing the NFL since the draft is only legal thanks to the union agreeing to it in the CBA.

A top 5 or 10 pick next year is going to have a pretty big "blow up in your face" factor.

oklahomabroncofan
04-27-2009, 07:31 AM
with next year possibly being an uncapped year having a top 5 or 10 pick might not be worth it money wise. just imagine what agents are going to be asking for next year so i. have no problem with it being ours

Beantown Bronco
04-27-2009, 08:32 AM
I've only ever witnessed those stipulations in NBA trades. Never seen it within the NFL and if McDaniels did indeed protect the pick in this way why didn't he tell the media that, might have got the hounds off his back.

Huh? That very language was in the deal with the Redskins a few years back.

manchambo
04-27-2009, 10:29 AM
When first round picks are traded in the NBA, there are always stipulations. Generally the trade says the pick won't go to the other team if it's in the lottery the first year, then decending for a couple of years to a point where it's totally unprotected.

I have no idea if they include those types of protections in NFL trades. I think the trade is absolutely horrific if there is no protection.

And it's fine for McDaniels to publicly state that he had confidence in his team, but he needs to be a realist in his personnel decisions. He has been in the sense that he has cut and run off a large percentage of the starters last season. Don't do that and then take actions in the draft pretending that you have no idea where your pick will be next year.

Jekyll15Hyde
04-27-2009, 10:37 AM
I think a related question is if we'd legitimately want a top 5 pick next year.

Short of a collective bargaining miracle 2010 at least is going to be a CBA free, uncapped year. That means no rookie slotting system as well. We could see every top 5 pick get a record breaking deal next year, and I wouldn't even be surprised if some projected top 5'er who slides into the 10-15 range (as there always is) doesn't wind up suing the NFL since the draft is only legal thanks to the union agreeing to it in the CBA.

A top 5 or 10 pick next year is going to have a pretty big "blow up in your face" factor.

Think a couple steps ahead. If there is a problem with not getting who want at #5-10 or dont want to spend the $$, some other team will. So you trade down and pile up later picks where you feel the draft is strongest. Just look at what NE and CLE did yesterday.

But just saying, 'yeah that pick will cost to much so lets get rid of it now' before we know what the value is doesnt seem right.

BroncoBuff
04-27-2009, 10:41 AM
Just heard Jim Mora on the radio ... the radio guys said, "we'll root for the Broncos to lose, hahahaha." Mora did not contradict them, but he didn't agree either.

But then again, the stupid ESPN radio guys were laughing and blabbing so much, he wouldda had to interrupt to say that.


I think a related question is if we'd legitimately want a top 5 pick next year.

I can't believe you said that ... of COURSE we want the highest pick we can get. Sam Bradford will prolly be out of reach (and I think Simms will be very good anyway), but that NT from Michigan, he's the kind of guy Super Bowl defenses are built around. Unless he tanks his senior year, we'll need a very high pick to get him.

Chris
04-27-2009, 10:45 AM
This is a pretty key little word right here.

From the post-day one presser McDaniels said (rough quote) "you could label it the Broncos 1st, the Bears first, the later of the two, or the earlier of the two".

I'm still looking forward to some real clarification but I wouldn't be surprised if we have stipulations in place depending on where the two picks finish, so that if the Bears and Broncos both finish well the Seahawks get the better of the two picks, but if they both do poorly then the Seahawks get the worse of the two.

How would you define "well" or "poorly" Drek? Top 15 or bottom 15?

Blueflame
04-27-2009, 12:35 PM
1. If a guy was on the board that they valued as a mid-1st like the current regime obviously values Smith? Yep. In a heart beat. Wouldn't have even second guessed it. Kinda like when we sent the better part of our second day to move up for the massive character question Marcus Thomas was at the time, traded a 3rd to jump over who exactly for Jarvis Moss, etc..

2. Yes, because Shanahan and the Goodmans were so dedicated to drafting DL and had so much wild success at it, you just know they would've found some way to get all of five or six DLs in this draft who belong in the NFL. I mean, they've only drafted DL with any form of priority once, in '07, and missed wildly on those picks. But hey, we got a Patriot as a HC now so lets totally ignore the past and assume he's making the worst possible moves because its not like Shanahan wasn't a total draft **** up for most of his picks here and everyone still kept buying it.

1. I do not believe for an instant that Shanahan and the Goodmans would have traded a first rounder to move up in the second round. Yes, they might have packaged multiple Day Two picks, but not a first for a second.

2. They already had the offensive players they wanted in place, so I do believe they would have gone defense this year. The last 3 drafts they made were pretty good.

Blueflame
04-27-2009, 12:40 PM
Blue, that's a large part of the problem. Yes, Shanny and the Goodmans would have addressed the front seven. They would have drafted an ILB like Maualuga or Laurinaitis (which would have been good). They would have also reached on some guys and hoped that they could fit into our system. I believe our first pick would have been Orakpo with Shanny. That or he would have gave up a 3rd to get Raji. Either would have been fine with me... but then again, I really like what Moreno brings. We've known each other for a while Blue, trust me when I tell you that before this season is over you will be a HUGE fan of Knowshon Moreno. Give it some time and try to be positive. I didn't like everything about this draft, but I'll give McD credit. He had a plan and stuck by it to the end.

To me Quinn was a reach and we gave up some good value to get him. But when I look back at McD's offense and think about the down field blocking required it makes a lot of sense that he would want a TE that can line up wide and block like a mad man. Those quick screens to guys like Marshall, Royal, and Moreno are going to be even more effective b/c of a guy like Quinn... or at least that is the way I perceive that draft pick.

I'm not sure that Shanahan would have necessarily gone for a nose tackle because he (Slowik) would probably have stuck with the 4-3.

Moreno probably will wind up being a good player and good value at #12... but if we were going to take a RB in the first round, then the FA acquisitions of Arrington, Buckhalter, and Jordan were pure waste. And trading a first to move up in the second for a 5'9" CB ticked me off.

Blueflame
04-27-2009, 12:46 PM
Do you really want to talk about asset management with Shanahan and the way he squandered draft picks? The entire reason the Broncos are in the position they're in is because he couldn't draft for **** for the most part. '06 and '08 doesn't give him a reprieve for almost a decade straight of sheer ineptness. He'd get the occasional starter out of the draft, but this team has absolutely no depth, and that has been an issue for years, and that is directly on him.

Yeah it was a ****ing stupid move by McDaniels that is almost certainly going to bite them in the ass next April, but to claim that Shanahan wouldn't do something nearly as stupid after watching year after year of botched drafts just shows how quickly some are willing to forget all their complaints about Shanahan just to take a shot at McD because they're still pissed about Cutler. If Shanahan had done this, everyone here would be freaking out because over his 14-year track record with regards to drafting corners, and I'm sure you'd be right at the forefront b****ing about that also.

Oh, and the Front 7 has been an issue for years with this team. The only real time Shanny tried to address this was '07, when the Goodmans were here and we all know how that turned out. Other than that it was a 3rd here and 4th there. Try again Blue.

While Shanahan would have been likely to squander lower draft picks, I don't believe for an instant that he would have traded a first rounder to move up in the second round. And we agree that it was f*ing stupid for the rookie to do it.

Aren't we going to be relying heavily on Shanahan draft picks for the defensive front 7 this year? (Thomas, Crowder, Dumervil, Moss) It certainly looks like we are....

cutthemdown
04-27-2009, 12:48 PM
I'm not sure that Shanahan would have necessarily gone for a nose tackle because he (Slowik) would probably have stuck with the 4-3.

Moreno probably will wind up being a good player and good value at #12... but if we were going to take a RB in the first round, then the FA acquisitions of Arrington, Buckhalter, and Jordan were pure waste. And trading a first to move up in the second for a 5'9" CB ticked me off.

Why would anything piss you off? It amazes me why people think they can predict what players will be worth it. Don't you remember Marcus Nash, Ted Gregory, George Foster, Willie Middlebrooks, Ashley Lelie, Jarvis Moss? Just a few of our first round gems. Just wait and see how the player performs before you get all pissed. Typical woman getting pissed before things have even played out already. Unfortunately a lot of men on the board acting same way.

Mogulseeker
04-27-2009, 12:49 PM
Well as long as we're talking about the front seven, yeah, and so will Ayers and Davis.

cutthemdown
04-27-2009, 12:51 PM
While Shanahan would have been likely to squander lower draft picks, I don't believe for an instant that he would have traded a first rounder to move up in the second round. And we agree that it was f*ing stupid for the rookie to do it.

Aren't we going to be relying heavily on Shanahan draft picks for the defensive front 7 this year? (Thomas, Crowder, Dumervil, Moss) It certainly looks like we are....

Moss will be gone, Crowder maybe too. The both have bust written all over them. Thomas stays, Doom stays, so Shanny probably 50% on those picks. IMO this draft will have both of the top 2 picks become good NFL starters. If even one of the other ones becomes a good pick it will be one of the Broncos better drafts ever.

Just sit back and wait, Moreno is going to be OROY.

oubronco
04-27-2009, 12:54 PM
what makes you so sure McDipshyt will start Moreno he did go out and get rb's that were HIS guy's remember

Meck77
04-27-2009, 01:00 PM
Why waste time even speculating what shanny would have done? His ass got fired because the team was not getting the job done and we were in DECLINE.

Maybe some of you are still waiting for Maurice Clarette to come back into the league?

Blueflame
04-27-2009, 01:03 PM
Why would anything piss you off? It amazes me why people think they can predict what players will be worth it. Don't you remember Marcus Nash, Ted Gregory, George Foster, Willie Middlebrooks, Ashley Lelie, Jarvis Moss? Just a few of our first round gems. Just wait and see how the player performs before you get all pissed. Typical woman getting pissed before things have even played out already. Unfortunately a lot of men on the board acting same way.

It ticked me off because a first round draft pick is more valuable than a second round draft pick. ::)

Moss will be gone, Crowder maybe too. The both have bust written all over them. Thomas stays, Doom stays, so Shanny probably 50% on those picks. IMO this draft will have both of the top 2 picks become good NFL starters. If even one of the other ones becomes a good pick it will be one of the Broncos better drafts ever.

Just sit back and wait, Moreno is going to be OROY.

Moss and Crowder may be busts, but do we have anything better on our roster? I'm not sure we do.

As to OROY, we'd pretty much have to be a playoff team for that to even be possible... not at all confident that will happen due to our tough schedule and essentially-unimproved defense.

Blueflame
04-27-2009, 01:04 PM
Why waste time even speculating what shanny would have done? His ass got fired because the team was not getting the job done and we were in DECLINE.

Maybe some of you are still waiting for Maurice Clarette to come back into the league?

Wouldn't Clarett have to get out of jail first? :wiggle: ;D

Meck77
04-27-2009, 01:21 PM
Wouldn't Clarett have to get out of jail first? :wiggle: ;D

I heard he broke off 2k in the San Quentin summer league. He's so slick he even shanked one fool on a reverse. Refs missed the call and they don't have instant replay! Word!

Drek
04-27-2009, 02:07 PM
While Shanahan would have been likely to squander lower draft picks, I don't believe for an instant that he would have traded a first rounder to move up in the second round. And we agree that it was f*ing stupid for the rookie to do it.
You're talking about the same guy who gave a 6th, 7th, and future 3rd for a late 4th because he wanted to grab a massive character question mark in Marcus Thomas.

He traded a 2nd for Javon Walker as well.

And you really don't think that given two firsts he wouldn't consider trading one to procure more immediate impact players?

Aren't we going to be relying heavily on Shanahan draft picks for the defensive front 7 this year? (Thomas, Crowder, Dumervil, Moss) It certainly looks like we are....
Only one of those players (Thomas) is even playing DL with any regularity at this point. The other three have been moved to LB, and two of those three will likely be cut before the end of camp.

I'm sure that didn't cross your mind though, since you think we've had THREE very good drafts despite '07 having busts in the 1st and 2nd, a good but injury riddled RT in the 3rd, and all the rest of our picks including a future 3rd given up for a DT who at this point is still not a league average player.

BroncoBuff
04-27-2009, 02:11 PM
While Shanahan would have been likely to squander lower draft picks, I don't believe for an instant that he would have traded a first rounder to move up in the second round. And we agree that it was f*ing stupid for the rookie to do it.

Agreed, I'll go a step further: No experienced GM trades 1st rounders for draft picks, unless it's an impact Top 10 guy.

barryr
04-27-2009, 02:16 PM
The idiots continue. Broncos thought Smith was a 1st round pick type and thought he was worth a future 1st rounder that no one doesn't even know what the pick will be or who will be picked with it. Some continue to make this difficult.

But let me guess: now we are going to have jackasses complaining about any and everything that Alphonso Smith does or doesn't do. We have that to look forward to.

BroncoBuff
04-27-2009, 02:26 PM
The idiots continue.

But let me guess: now we are going to have jackasses complaining about any and everything that Alphonso Smith does or doesn't do. We have that to look forward to.

Thanks for calling me an idiot ... that's very constructive.

And you're wrong, just plain wrong. Smith is a Bronco now, and his performance will rise or fall based upon his performance alone. Besides, the consensus is that if he were 3 inches taller, he wouldda been a Top 10 pick.

So I think we have a longtime starter ... period.

My complaint is that imo an experienced GM would have insisted that the 1st round pick be the lower of the two picks. And Seattle would have taken it.

The fact that the Seahawks insisted on OUR pick tells you a whole lot about what they think the Bears and Broncos will finish.

Drek
04-27-2009, 02:41 PM
Think a couple steps ahead. If there is a problem with not getting who want at #5-10 or dont want to spend the $$, some other team will. So you trade down and pile up later picks where you feel the draft is strongest. Just look at what NE and CLE did yesterday.

But just saying, 'yeah that pick will cost to much so lets get rid of it now' before we know what the value is doesnt seem right.

The GM of the 49ers flat out said in a radio interview heading into this draft that 7 of the 9 teams ahead of them called trying to move back.

Only one did, and it dealt with the team their HC just came from, receiving a handful of his old players.

No one wants to trade into the top 10 anymore, let alone the top 5. They don't want it because of the money implications attached to an unproven player who often isn't any better than the guy taken 20 spots later.


I can't believe you said that ... of COURSE we want the highest pick we can get. Sam Bradford will prolly be out of reach (and I think Simms will be very good anyway), but that NT from Michigan, he's the kind of guy Super Bowl defenses are built around. Unless he tanks his senior year, we'll need a very high pick to get him.

Taylor was talked about as that kind of NT going into this season as well, also from Michigan. Where did he fall in the draft?

Better yet, who're the best NTs in the NFL? Vince Wilfork, Casey Hampton, Haloti Ngata, and up until a few years ago Jamal Williams right?

Not a one of them was a top 10 pick. Ngata was the closest, at #12, and he's best in a 4-3/3-4 hybrid where he isn't asked to play zero tech every down.

You don't typically find NTs in the top 10. You find them early, but in a realistically solid draft class they fall into the middle of the first because they don't present the pass rush skills that teams want to see in a top 10 DL.

barryr
04-27-2009, 02:41 PM
Thanks for calling me an idiot ... that's very constructive.

And you're wrong, just plain wrong. Smith is a Bronco now, and his performance will rise or fall based upon his performance alone. Besides, the consensus is that if he were 3 inches taller, he wouldda been a Top 10 pick.

So I think we have a longtime starter ... period.

My complaint is that imo an experienced GM would have insisted that the 1st round pick be the lower of the two picks. And Seattle would have taken it.

The fact that the Seahawks insisted on OUR pick tells you a whole lot about what they think the Bears and Broncos will finish.

I could call you something else, like an ignorant fool, but whichever you prefer.

You call bitching and moaning about not drafting some nameless DL constructive as has been going on around here?

You'd rather the Broncos miss out on the guy they have rated highly just so they can keep a future 1st round pick that may or may not even get a player worth that pick. Great. Maybe they will draft another bust DL with it. Yippee.

Blueflame
04-27-2009, 03:00 PM
You're talking about the same guy who gave a 6th, 7th, and future 3rd for a late 4th because he wanted to grab a massive character question mark in Marcus Thomas.

He traded a 2nd for Javon Walker as well.

And you really don't think that given two firsts he wouldn't consider trading one to procure more immediate impact players?


Only one of those players (Thomas) is even playing DL with any regularity at this point. The other three have been moved to LB, and two of those three will likely be cut before the end of camp.

I'm sure that didn't cross your mind though, since you think we've had THREE very good drafts despite '07 having busts in the 1st and 2nd, a good but injury riddled RT in the 3rd, and all the rest of our picks including a future 3rd given up for a DT who at this point is still not a league average player.

Shanahan hosed other teams (notably the Redskins) in trades; he was not the "hose-ee". He did not give up more value for less value...

Blueflame
04-27-2009, 03:01 PM
The idiots continue. Broncos thought Smith was a 1st round pick type and thought he was worth a future 1st rounder that no one doesn't even know what the pick will be or who will be picked with it. Some continue to make this difficult.

But let me guess: now we are going to have jackasses complaining about any and everything that Alphonso Smith does or doesn't do. We have that to look forward to.

No other team considered Smith a first-rounder...

barryr
04-27-2009, 03:01 PM
Shanahan hosed other teams (notably the Redskins) in trades; he was not the "hose-ee". He did not give up more value for less value...

And it helped get him great players on defense in the draft and numerous playoff wins. Oh.

barryr
04-27-2009, 03:02 PM
No other team considered Smith a first-rounder...

Really Mel Kiper?

Blueflame
04-27-2009, 03:09 PM
And it helped get him great players on defense in the draft and numerous playoff wins. Oh.

He did trade for Champ Bailey, right? Oh, and a draft pick as well.

Really Mel Kiper?

Who cares what Mel Kiper thinks. If any other team had considered him a first-rounder, logic says they would have taken him in the bloomin' first round.

BroncoInferno
04-27-2009, 03:39 PM
Who cares what Mel Kiper thinks. If any other team had considered him a first-rounder, logic says they would have taken him in the bloomin' first round.

Just another example of how you are unable to process things beyond the surface (at least when it comes to football). Just because Smith did not go in the 1st does NOT mean there were not teams who valued him as a 1st rounder. It's entirely possible that other teams valued Smith as a 1st, but passed on him due to a higher rated player being available or a player who fit a greater need. For instance, take Philly. Let's say Maclin was the 10th player on their board, and Smith the 18th. That means they believed Smith had 1st round value (among the top 32 players), but a player they had rated higher was available. Not too difficult to comprehend.

Blueflame
04-27-2009, 03:57 PM
Just another example of how you are unable to process things beyond the surface (at least when it comes to football). Just because Smith did not go in the 1st does NOT mean there were not teams who valued him as a 1st rounder. It's entirely possible that other teams valued Smith as a 1st, but passed on him due to a higher rated player being available or a player who fit a greater need. For instance, take Philly. Let's say Maclin was the 10th player on their board, and Smith the 18th. That means they believed Smith had 1st round value (among the top 32 players), but a player they had rated higher was available. Not too difficult to comprehend.

Again, you're taking issue with something I said. What a surprise.

Only 32 players can possibly be "valued as first rounders"...or will be paid like first rounders. If "higher rated players" were still available and they passed on Smith because of that, then they obviously did not "value him as a first rounder"...

And no, it's not too difficult to comprehend. In a weak draft, no one took Smith until someone reached for him with the fifth pick of the second round.

Rabb
04-27-2009, 04:11 PM
but if we were going to take a RB in the first round, then the FA acquisitions of Arrington, Buckhalter, and Jordan were pure waste

I was unhappy at first also and confused but after taking a day or two to think about the potential that Moreno can bring to us, it makes a few backs that were not brought in as FA's expendable (I am looking at you Ryan Torrain and Selvin Young)

after last year, I am all for depth in the backfield, and if Moreno hits and turns into the kind of running threat it looks like he can...nobody will remember or care who we signed in free agency because they will be on the bench teaching the young guys (why I think they were brought in anyhow) or playing special teams or God forbid giving us a decent option if/when the starters get hurt

I really warmed up to the pick, think of how valuable Forte was for Orton...without the same line we have

it all boils down to the draft being as much of a crap shoot from pick #1 to Mr. Irrelevant honestly, you just get better odds...a good example is Curry, I think he is the best player in the entire draft but he was not 1st,2nd or 3rd

why is that?

oh yeah, people taking chances based on a need (either planned or an immediate opportunity) and that is why I think they pulled the trigger on Smith

I agree with you in that I am not thrilled with it in terms of giving up a high pick...but if he truly pans out to be top 10 talent and we got him in the second then we win major in the $$$ game

mattob14
04-27-2009, 05:03 PM
It ticked me off because a first round draft pick is more valuable than a second round draft pick. ::)

Value is such an abstract concept, and you're making out to be black and white here. Now, if we're talking about taking DHB (who would've been available 15-20 spots later) at #7, then yeah, that's poor value. But the Broncos spent a 1st round pick (which we have absolutely no idea where it will fall) on a player they placed a first round value on in Smith. Would you have felt better if they would've made the deal with Pittsburgh (at #32) so that Denver can say "Hey, we traded a first round pick for a 1st round pick, that's good value"? This is just another example of falling in love with potential (the fact that the 2010 pick COULD be a top-10 pick) over the known (a solid CB who can contribute immediately and could be a long-term starter).

BroncoBuff
04-27-2009, 05:06 PM
A first round draft pick is more valuable than a second round draft pickValue is such an abstract concept, and you're making out to be black and white here.

Abstract concept?


Congratulations, Matt ... your post wins the "Most Rationalizing, Koolaid Gulping Post Award" :thumbs"

Blueflame
04-27-2009, 05:19 PM
Value is such an abstract concept, and you're making out to be black and white here. Now, if we're talking about taking DHB (who would've been available 15-20 spots later) at #7, then yeah, that's poor value. But the Broncos spent a 1st round pick (which we have absolutely no idea where it will fall) on a player they placed a first round value on in Smith. Would you have felt better if they would've made the deal with Pittsburgh (at #32) so that Denver can say "Hey, we traded a first round pick for a 1st round pick, that's good value"? This is just another example of falling in love with potential (the fact that the 2010 pick COULD be a top-10 pick) over the known (a solid CB who can contribute immediately and could be a long-term starter).

I don't see it as "abstract" at all. Any pick that is between #1 and #32 overall has more value than #37. We gave up more than we got, especially if that pick does wind up being in the top ten.

mattob14
04-27-2009, 05:24 PM
Abstract concept?


Congratulations, Matt ... your post wins the "Most Rationalizing, Koolaid Gulping Post Award" :thumbs"

That's not drinking the koolaid, I'm still not 100% sold on the trade, but let's face it: If Denver had traded next year's 1st for, say, #20 overall, then picked Smith, no one would be questioning the value of the trade. From the Broncos comments, that's probably close to where they had him valued. The higher pick doesn't always return more value (just ask the Lions).

mattob14
04-27-2009, 05:30 PM
I don't see it as "abstract" at all. Any pick that is between #1 and #32 overall has more value than #37. We gave up more than we got, especially if that pick does wind up being in the top ten.

In the same year, yes, but teams generally de-value future picks by 1 round or (if using the value chart) 50%. In this case, that means they received decent value in the trade. Again, they used a 1st round pick in trade for a player they had given a 1st round grade. I don't understand how that is losing value in the deal.

Now, I would've preferred we move, say a #48 and a 3rd, grab Smith, then pick up Quinn or McBath (I think one would've probably been available) with the remaining 3rd. If we really wanted Bruton, move a 2010 3rd for the pick to grab him.