PDA

View Full Version : Analyzing the BPA approach we took


footstepsfrom#27
04-27-2009, 12:28 PM
In theory I agree with this idea of BPA…but only to a point…because we all know no NFL team follows this philosophy entirely. Does anyone think McD takes an OT in round 1 if he's the top guy on their board? No obviously not. Teams try to stick with a BPA approach as much as possible but there's no team that never leaves some wiggle room here. Here's something interesting...check the picks that were taken through round 5 where Denver picked an offensive player instead of a front 7 defender...forget the points where D-backs were taken...just look at offensive selections only. In every case front 7 defensive players were taken shortly after Denver's pick, including some that were either taken by 3-4 teams or else seem to fit the 3-4 defense. Check it out:

Round 1: 12th pick; Moreno/Denver... 13th pick Brian Orakpo- DE/OLB; (Wash); 15th pick Brian Cushing- OLB (Hou), 16th pick Larry English- OLB (SD)

Round 2: 64th pick; Quinn/Denver...67th pick; Alex Magee- DT (KC); 68th pick; Jarron Gilbert- DE (Chi); 70th pick; Michael Johnson- DE (Cin)

Round 4: 132nd pick; Olson/Denver…136th pick; Terrance Taylor- DT (Indy)

Round 5: 141st pick/Mckinney/Denver…146th pick; Scott McKillop-ILB (SF); 150th pick; Jasper Brinkley- ILB (Minn)

That’s a total of 9 players separated by only 19 spots in the draft across 4 different spots. We can assume not every team has these guys ranked in the same order but it’s also unlikely we can assume that NONE of these guys were ranked anywhere close to where they were drafted on the Denver board. So basically the team might have had to adjust a guy a couple of places upward in order to take him but we are talking about a small change here. Is the 141st ranked player that much better than one ranked 9 spots later? That’s the largest gap here...9 spots. Something doesn’t add up…if they’re taking BPA that’s great, but if they’re so inflexible they cannot adjust a guy even slightly…that makes little sense.

Discuss...

tsiguy96
04-27-2009, 12:33 PM
well to say the offense didnt need help at all is silly. but if they truly thought they players they drafted would make a better impact then the guys they DIDNT draft, its hard to argue with the decision.

bronco militia
04-27-2009, 12:33 PM
if the broncos were taking BPA, then why were they trading up all weekend?

tsiguy96
04-27-2009, 12:39 PM
if the broncos were taking BPA, then why were they trading up all weekend?

to get the best players on their board before they disappeared

bronco militia
04-27-2009, 12:41 PM
to get the best players on their board before they disappeared

Ha!

alrighty then

Pseudofool
04-27-2009, 12:42 PM
They didn't exactly have a BPA approach. They had specific list of guys that they targeted and they got.

BPA approach tends to sound like settling; I think we were active and in control--the fact was that the talent of the draft didn't line up with our needs and the general thinness on the draft likely made more of an imperative for us to get our guys.

tsiguy96
04-27-2009, 12:43 PM
Ha!

alrighty then

if you had say 5 people you wanted with your #79 pick and 4 were gone, you make a move to get the last guy...but the alphonso pick, i think they saw that they could grab him with a first next year, the only reason they moved our first next year is because we had two, mcdaniels even said it. "we have a full draft for next year"

Tombstone RJ
04-27-2009, 12:45 PM
In theory I agree with this idea of BPA…but only to a point…because we all know no NFL team follows this philosophy entirely. Does anyone think McD takes an OT in round 1 if he's the top guy on their board? No obviously not. Teams try to stick with a BPA approach as much as possible but there's no team that never leaves some wiggle room here. Here's something interesting...check the picks that were taken through round 5 where Denver picked an offensive player instead of a front 7 defender...forget the points where D-backs were taken...just look at offensive selections only. In every case front 7 defensive players were taken shortly after Denver's pick, including some that were either taken by 3-4 teams or else seem to fit the 3-4 defense. Check it out:

Round 1: 12th pick; Moreno/Denver... 13th pick Brian Orakpo- DE/OLB; (Wash); 15th pick Brian Cushing- OLB (Hou), 16th pick Larry English- OLB (SD)

Round 2: 64th pick; Quinn/Denver...67th pick; Alex Magee- DT (KC); 68th pick; Jarron Gilbert- DE (Chi); 70th pick; Michael Johnson- DE (Cin)

Round 4: 132nd pick; Olson/Denver…136th pick; Terrance Taylor- DT (Indy)

Round 5: 141st pick/Mckinney/Denver…146th pick; Scott McKillop-ILB (SF); 150th pick; Jasper Brinkley- ILB (Minn)

That’s a total of 9 players separated by only 19 spots in the draft across 4 different spots. We can assume not every team has these guys ranked in the same order but it’s also unlikely we can assume that NONE of these guys were ranked anywhere close to where they were drafted on the Denver board. So basically the team might have had to adjust a guy a couple of places upward in order to take him but we are talking about a small change here. Is the 141st ranked player that much better than one ranked 9 spots later? That’s the largest gap here...9 spots. Something doesn’t add up…if they’re taking BPA that’s great, but if they’re so inflexible they cannot adjust a guy even slightly…that makes little sense.

Discuss...

Right or wrong, I think what this proves is that McX didn't think any of these defensive players were any better than the guys that are currently on the roster.

Plus, McX perhaps thought that the talent level between these guys and what they could get via UFAs was nominal.

SonOfLe-loLang
04-27-2009, 12:46 PM
This is insane to compare. It just lacks any sort of logic. All teams have diff schemes and different evaluations of players. Most playersi n the draft DONT make it. Its only a best guess.

bronco militia
04-27-2009, 12:49 PM
if you had say 5 people you wanted with your #79 pick and 4 were gone, you make a move to get the last guy...but the alphonso pick, i think they saw that they could grab him with a first next year, the only reason they moved our first next year is because we had two, mcdaniels even said it. "we have a full draft for next year"

that wouldn't be BPA..that would be going after targeted players.

I don't have problem with the players they got...just disappointed that they mostly ignored their biggest weakness(front 7).

TheReverend
04-27-2009, 12:50 PM
This is a really good OP in a potentially very good thread.

This illustrates my frustration with the Denver draft perfectly and it doesn't even account for the added frustration of the trade for Smith with Brace or Rey on the board.

Beantown Bronco
04-27-2009, 12:52 PM
Right or wrong, I think what this proves is that McX didn't think any of these defensive players were any better than the guys that are currently on the roster.

Which is scary because Moss is still on the roster and he's apparently not even worth a 7th. And I assume pretty much the same could be said for Crowder. That's two guys on this defense that are essentially worthless, yet McDaniels believes they are better than any of the DLinemen in this entire draft. Awesome.

footstepsfrom#27
04-27-2009, 12:53 PM
This is insane to compare. It just lacks any sort of logic. All teams have diff schemes and different evaluations of players. Most playersi n the draft DONT make it. Its only a best guess.
It absolutely does not lack "any sort of logic". It's reasonable to believe that while differences exist, perhaps significantly so in some cases, it's unlikely that NONE of the players taken that I listed were not at least fairly closely ranked to where they were taken on Denver's board. One could make a similar argument for front 7 defenders taken fairly closely to their picks ABOVE where we picked. We traded up for a CB who they describe as a nickel back and used a #1 to do so. Why isn't it legitimate to ask why they didn't see any similar front 7 defenders for the same opportunity?

At the end of the day our most critical needs...defense in the trenches...went largely ignored. I'm glad we're looking at UDFA's...wish we'd have looked a little harder in the draft.

DrFate
04-27-2009, 12:53 PM
It wasn't a BPA approach. There were too many trades up to consider this a BPA approach. They targeted guys and went to get them, apparently regardless of cost.

footstepsfrom#27
04-27-2009, 12:55 PM
It wasn't a BPA approach. There were too many trades up to consider this a BPA approach. They targeted guys and went to get them, apparently regardless of cost.
That's hair splitting. They still had these guys ranked and decided they wanted them based on where they were ranked. Trading up just shows they were assertive in getting up the ladder. I'm asking why NONE of their picks chosen on offense through 5 rounds could have been chosen for the team's most pressing need.

Tombstone RJ
04-27-2009, 12:55 PM
This is a really good OP in a potentially very good thread.

This illustrates my frustration with the Denver draft perfectly and it doesn't even account for the added frustration of the trade for Smith with Brace or Rey on the board.

It's pretty clear to me that McX saw more value in trading up for what he thinks is the best CB in the draft, rather than spending that pick on lower rated players, simply because they are sitting there. Again, you can argue the strategy behind the Alphonso pick, but you can't argue the fact that McX got the player they wanted.

cabronco
04-27-2009, 12:56 PM
McD said it was also important for him to bring in players for all 3 phases. Mentioned how the specially challenged teams ranked 32 in the league in field position. I think he placed alot of emphasis there, in which he should, because we sucked in s/t's as well for a long time. Field position is BIg part of the game.

footstepsfrom#27
04-27-2009, 12:58 PM
Which is scary because Moss is still on the roster and he's apparently not even worth a 7th. And I assume pretty much the same could be said for Crowder. That's two guys on this defense that are essentially worthless, yet McDaniels believes they are better than any of the DLinemen in this entire draft. Awesome.
I doubt he beleived that, but if in fact he does...we should have serious reservatoins about what he knows about defensive talent. Does anyone truly believe any GM in the league thinks the guy's he took on the D-line in the draft in the 1st 3 rounds are worth less than Crowder? If they did they'd have traded for Crowder or Moss. Are you telling me little hoodie believes something no other coach in the league does about this draft?

TheReverend
04-27-2009, 12:59 PM
It's pretty clear to me that McX saw more value in trading up for what he thinks is the best CB in the draft, rather than spending that pick on lower rated players, simply because they are sitting there. Again, you can argue the strategy behind the Alphonso pick, but you can't argue the fact that McX got the player they wanted.

I know what you're saying, but please factor in that I currently could give two ****s about McDeeznuts or Colonel Xanders and the Tecumseh Sherman slash and burn approach they've taken to all things Denver Broncos.

Can't wait for the first jump ball Smith goes for against a Randy Moss or Fitz or CJ or... well any receiver over 6 feet... which is roughly all of them.

Tombstone RJ
04-27-2009, 01:01 PM
Which is scary because Moss is still on the roster and he's apparently not even worth a 7th. And I assume pretty much the same could be said for Crowder. That's two guys on this defense that are essentially worthless, yet McDaniels believes they are better than any of the DLinemen in this entire draft. Awesome.

Yes and no. McD probably felt that taking those players (talking mainly about the DTs here) at their alloted time slot, was not as good of value as taking someone else. Basically, you pass on a guy who you don't think will help you out as much as another guy, regardless of position. For example, if McD had a WR rated at a certain level and a DT rated at a certain level and he took the WR and not the DT, then he's taking the most impactful player at the time of the pick.

barryr
04-27-2009, 01:01 PM
Which is scary because Moss is still on the roster and he's apparently not even worth a 7th. And I assume pretty much the same could be said for Crowder. That's two guys on this defense that are essentially worthless, yet McDaniels believes they are better than any of the DLinemen in this entire draft. Awesome.

Are you really that dense? Neither Moss or Crowder figure to make the team, much less play much.

Pseudofool
04-27-2009, 01:02 PM
I'm asking why NONE of their picks chosen on offense through 5 rounds could have been chosen for the team's most pressing need.Because the players on the board at positions of need just weren't good enough.

Why is it so hard for many to accept that the depth wasn't there for us to rebuild the Dline with our draft. Teams that did take NT and 3-4 DEs did so to build depth (NE) not to find franchise guys.

More than that I think the difference between Brace and Baker is smaller than Smith and the first UDFA CB.

eddie mac
04-27-2009, 01:03 PM
Maybe I'm wrong but didn't McDaniels state that the trade-ups for McKinley and Brandstater were undertaken because they didn't have very many players left on their board so they wanted to make sure they got 2 guys they wanted???

McDaniels also stated he traded up for Smith because he was the best CB on our board and in his opinion had good 1st rd value.

Denver took the players they wanted it's as simple as that. McDaniels stated there was no value for 5 tech players where we picked so they mustn't have been high on our board.

Mediator12
04-27-2009, 01:05 PM
I think I see where you are going here, but the overall Grades are for Value, and the team grades are for BPA. That means while a player like Orakpo, Cushing, or English gets picked right behind Moreno in value, those players were not the TEAM BPA on the board. In fact, they could have been much lower than their overall value in some cases. I disagree with that, but Hey its not my draft board!

To go BPA is to ignore the league value and take the best player on your board or go get the last tiered player in your BPA by moving up for a guy they had ranked as a second tier first round CB In Smith. I am stunned their board was stacked the way it was to go get the TE in the second round when it looked like TE's were getting way undervalued in this draft though.

The thing about this is, teams shift priorities drafting as their tiers change. A lot of teams Go BPA the first 2 rounds, then switch to targets the next three, then shift back to BPA to finish the draft. This is the first one by this regime so it might take some time to see the logic behind it.

Rohirrim
04-27-2009, 01:09 PM
Maybe I'm wrong but didn't McDaniels state that the trade-ups for McKinley and Brandstater were undertaken because they didn't have very many players left on their board so they wanted to make sure they got 2 guys they wanted???

McDaniels also stated he traded up for Smith because he was the best CB on our board and in his opinion had good 1st rd value.

Denver took the players they wanted it's as simple as that. McDaniels stated there was no value for 5 tech players where we picked so they mustn't have been high on our board.

From what I've read so far, it appears that Mac and Xanders had a very limited board. Perhaps when they saw the end coming, they panicked and started jumping on the players they wanted. I suggest next year they simply turn on the TV and pick who Mayock tells them to pick. ;D

summerdenver
04-27-2009, 01:11 PM
Can't wait for the first jump ball Smith goes for against a Randy Moss or Fitz or CJ or... well any receiver over 6 feet... which is roughly all of them.

You hit the nail on the coffin for the issues I have with this pick Rev. I live in Seattle and see Firtz and Q routinely abuse the midget CBs of hawks.

I had to believe that Broncos expect to have atleast one more 1st next year (from trading Champ). May be and this is a step towards preparing ground for that. There is no way in hell this regime is going to over pay Champ and keep him here.

Rohirrim
04-27-2009, 01:11 PM
I think I see where you are going here, but the overall Grades are for Value, and the team grades are for BPA. That means while a player like Orakpo, Cushing, or English gets picked right behind Moreno in value, those players were not the TEAM BPA on the board. In fact, they could have been much lower than their overall value in some cases. I disagree with that, but Hey its not my draft board!

To go BPA is to ignore the league value and take the best player on your board or go get the last tiered player in your BPA by moving up for a guy they had ranked as a second tier first round CB In Smith. I am stunned their board was stacked the way it was to go get the TE in the second round when it looked like TE's were getting way undervalued in this draft though.

The thing about this is, teams shift priorities drafting as their tiers change. A lot of teams Go BPA the first 2 rounds, then switch to targets the next three, then shift back to BPA to finish the draft. This is the first one by this regime so it might take some time to see the logic behind it.

How could you design a board based on the Broncos where Quinn is higher rated than Magee? I doubt anybody could adequately explain that one.

DrFate
04-27-2009, 01:18 PM
That's hair splitting. They still had these guys ranked and decided they wanted them based on where they were ranked. Trading up just shows they were assertive in getting up the ladder. I'm asking why NONE of their picks chosen on offense through 5 rounds could have been chosen for the team's most pressing need.

I don't dispute your last sentence. I'm not a big fan of drafting exclusively on need (if you can't find appropriate value at a position you shouldn't overpay simply to fill that position). But if that is the case you can always try to trade down.

I just don't understand how anyone justifies waving the magic draft wand and turning a first round pick into - tada! - the #37 pick overall.

The ONLY way that makes sense is if they feel a 2nd round guy this year is better than a first round guy next year. And the consensus is that the 2010 draft is better/deeper than the 2009 draft.

What if that pick ends up being #1? or #4? Or #10? Is Alphonso Smith, a 5'9" corner without a great 40 time, with that value?

You can't go into a draft with the opinion 'we are going to get those guys regardless of what we have to give up to get them!'

Mediator12
04-27-2009, 01:20 PM
How could you design a board based on the Broncos where Quinn is higher rated than Magee? I doubt anybody could adequately explain that one.

I can, but I hate it ;D

NE used a lot of 3 TE sets to run the ball and DEN has only one blocking TE on the roster. In their mind, the need for a blocking TE was so critical to scheme success that the grade on Quinn Was inflated to reflect that. This is one reason DEN's Red Zone and short yardage Running success sucked Balls the last few years. They also were aware that another team in that area might select him there. His Team grade was higher because the drop off to the next tier Blocking TE was so severe.

Magee is a versatile DL that I would love to have, but the TE could have had a higher grade and value than we thought.

TheReverend
04-27-2009, 01:21 PM
You hit the nail on the coffin for the issues I have with this pick Rev. I live in Seattle and see Firtz and Q routinely abuse the midget CBs of hawks.

I had to believe that Broncos expect to have atleast one more 1st next year (from trading Champ). May be and this is a step towards preparing ground for that. There is no way in hell this regime is going to over pay Champ and keep him here.

Maybe we can pick a 5'11 210 lb DT, because "if he were a little bigger, he would've been a first round pick!"

Beantown Bronco
04-27-2009, 01:26 PM
Are you really that dense? Neither Moss or Crowder figure to make the team, much less play much.

I was addressing a very specific post which dealt with the roster as it is currently constructed TODAY, not the future roster. I know it's tough for you to follow more than one idea at a time, but please try to keep up.

Rohirrim
04-27-2009, 01:26 PM
I can, but I hate it ;D

NE used a lot of 3 TE sets to run the ball and DEN has only one blocking TE on the roster. In their mind, the need for a blocking TE was so critical to scheme success that the grade on Quinn Was inflated to reflect that. This is one reason DEN's Red Zone and short yardage Running success sucked Balls the last few years. They also were aware that another team in that area might select him there. His Team grade was higher because the drop off to the next tier Blocking TE was so severe.

Magee is a versatile DL that I would love to have, but the TE could have had a higher grade and value than we thought.

But then you should also incorporate into the logorithm the overall TEAM need. Could you get by with the Putzier, Graham and Sheffler combo and still do allright? Not to mention, TEs historically drop in the draft, and were dropping in this one. Especially TEs whose forte is blocking. Compare that to the need at DT. I just don't see how the math could come out right.

Mediator12
04-27-2009, 01:33 PM
But then you should also incorporate into the logorithm the overall TEAM need. Could you get by with the Putzier, Graham and Sheffler combo and still do allright? Not to mention, TEs historically drop in the draft, and were dropping in this one. Especially TEs whose forte is blocking. Compare that to the need at DT. I just don't see how the math could come out right.

Well, they proved they did not think the TEAM need for DE/DT was that extreme by their actions in FA and the draft. The common perception here is that the personnel Sucked the last 2 years, but they have basically stated they can get by with what they have in the front 7.

In fact, the draft was heavily slanted towards completing the pieces to the Mcdaniels offense versus completing the Nolan Defense. That is how I view it.

TonyR
04-27-2009, 01:33 PM
You hit the nail on the coffin for the issues I have with this pick Rev. I live in Seattle and see Firtz and Q routinely abuse the midget CBs of hawks.


I don't love the Smith pick either, particularly the trading up part, but some of you are overplaying the 5-9 thing a little bit. Asante Samuel is only 5-9 and he's considered one of the best in the business. If Smith was 5-10 none of you would be commenting on his height, and 1 inch doesn't make all that much of a difference (although your wife or girlfriend might disagree).

Beantown Bronco
04-27-2009, 01:37 PM
Teams that did take NT and 3-4 DEs did so to build depth (NE) not to find franchise guys.


People keep trying to convince themselves of it, but it's simply not true. NE's best three DLinemen are FAs in the next 12 months. Two of them will be over 30 at that point. One of them (Seymour) battles injuries pretty much every year. The only one they'll likely try to keep (Wilfork) will have to be franchised or given a Haynesworth type deal.....which NE simply doesn't do.

These guys have to be replaced. Brace was not a "luxury" pick. He was picked with the hope that he'll be taking the place of one of these guys. Not that he'll simply be a "depth" signing.

Pseudofool
04-27-2009, 01:39 PM
People keep trying to convince themselves of it, but it's simply not true. NE's best three DLinemen are FAs in the next 12 months. Two of them will be over 30 at that point. One of them (Seymour) battles injuries pretty much every year. The only one they'll likely try to keep (Wilfork) will have to be franchised or given a Haynesworth type deal.....which NE simply doesn't do.

These guys have to be replaced. Brace was not a "luxury" pick. He was picked with the hope that he'll be taking the place of one of these guys. Not that he'll simply be a "depth" signing.They have time to develop, good players in front of them. The Pats have some luxury of some of these guys not panning out because they have a year, and can resign their FAs. All the reasons you list are precisely the reasons you draft for depth. (And it goes without saying that any player drafted in the top two rounds is seen as an eventual starter).

chex
04-27-2009, 01:43 PM
But then you should also incorporate into the logorithm the overall TEAM need. Could you get by with the Putzier, Graham and Sheffler combo and still do allright? Not to mention, TEs historically drop in the draft, and were dropping in this one. Especially TEs whose forte is blocking. Compare that to the need at DT. I just don't see how the math could come out right.

My feeling is, we may have passed on some of the DT’s because the FO didn’t feel like these guys would be long term solutions. Are they better than what we have now? Probably. But that doesn’t mean they are building blocks. This was widely considered a weak draft, especially along the DL. As was mentioned earlier, most teams were drafting for depth at the position, and not to turn around a defense. Trying to rebuild a DL in a weak position specific draft isn’t the right move. If the philosophy was getting guys who will be contributors right off the bat, and develop into starters we can depend on, then I agree with what they did, although I hate trading the picks away. If Smith is the playmaker he was in college, and is the highly rated guy he was coming into the draft, then we’ll be pretty happy we have him when we get the rest of the D rounded out. If Quinn is the devastating blocker that helps us out in short yardage, or goal line situations, how can you argue with that, considering how poor we were in scoring points last year? He may very well be of more value to the team than a mid round DT. Maybe now next year, we can get a higher grade DT instead of grabbing a weaker one this year because it was what everyone on here was expecting.

Oh, and check out the heights of the CB’s in the Pro Bowl last year. 3 were 5’10”, and Antoine Winfield is 5’9”, so the myth that you need 6 foot tall corners is just that.

footstepsfrom#27
04-27-2009, 01:53 PM
You hit the nail on the coffin for the issues I have with this pick Rev. I live in Seattle and see Firtz and Q routinely abuse the midget CBs of hawks.

I had to believe that Broncos expect to have atleast one more 1st next year (from trading Champ). May be and this is a step towards preparing ground for that. There is no way in hell this regime is going to over pay Champ and keep him here.
I agree with this, and I think Graham is a surefire bet to also get dumped along with some other Shanny holdovers making big money.

footstepsfrom#27
04-27-2009, 01:59 PM
I don't dispute your last sentence. I'm not a big fan of drafting exclusively on need (if you can't find appropriate value at a position you shouldn't overpay simply to fill that position). But if that is the case you can always try to trade down.

I just don't understand how anyone justifies waving the magic draft wand and turning a first round pick into - tada! - the #37 pick overall.

The ONLY way that makes sense is if they feel a 2nd round guy this year is better than a first round guy next year. And the consensus is that the 2010 draft is better/deeper than the 2009 draft.

What if that pick ends up being #1? or #4? Or #10? Is Alphonso Smith, a 5'9" corner without a great 40 time, with that value?

You can't go into a draft with the opinion 'we are going to get those guys regardless of what we have to give up to get them!'
Agreed...and if in fact their board defined the value in this draft so poorly that they saw Moss and Crowder...guys we now know they offered for a 7th rounder...that seems utterly outside the parameters of where almost anyone else had the draft ranked. This was a weak draft, not a completely useless one.

400HZ
04-27-2009, 02:02 PM
Well, they proved they did not think the TEAM need for DE/DT was that extreme by their actions in FA and the draft. The common perception here is that the personnel Sucked the last 2 years, but they have basically stated they can get by with what they have in the front 7.
In fact, the draft was heavily slanted towards completing the pieces to the Mcdaniels offense versus completing the Nolan Defense. That is how I view it.

Does McDaniels have a drug problem? Or is he following the Shanahan model of bulking up "his" side of the ball at the expense of the defense? He can always blame the crappy players on Nolan.

Lolad
04-27-2009, 02:03 PM
I just think they didn't take the time to prepare a thorough draft board. In McDs presser he said that he didn't want a lot of players put on his draft board. So when the players that they had on our draft board started to go. He needed to make a decision to go get them. Which made us overpay

As it stands right now. I'm trying to be optimistic about our DLine. Maybe, we can put together a line that will compete. I think our main problem last year was the inability of our team to:

1. Tackle
2. Pass rush
3. Not sticking with the same scheme

McD made a point in his presser that the guys he picked up were sound tacklers in the open field. Even though I've read that the S we picked up in the 4th wiffs in the open field :-/

Hopefully our new Dline coach can teach proper techniques to make these guys look more then serviceable.

footstepsfrom#27
04-27-2009, 02:04 PM
I can, but I hate it ;D

NE used a lot of 3 TE sets to run the ball and DEN has only one blocking TE on the roster. In their mind, the need for a blocking TE was so critical to scheme success that the grade on Quinn Was inflated to reflect that. This is one reason DEN's Red Zone and short yardage Running success sucked Balls the last few years. They also were aware that another team in that area might select him there. His Team grade was higher because the drop off to the next tier Blocking TE was so severe.

Magee is a versatile DL that I would love to have, but the TE could have had a higher grade and value than we thought.
If you're right about this, and it seems to make sense...God knows nothing else does that explains this...then why not trade up from the 2nd by adding a 3rd and moving to get Pettigrew? That might have made some sense because he's seen as a complete TE who has the potential to start and play at a high level as both a receiver and a blocker. This guy is little more than Chad Mustard if all they needed was a big guy who can block. I think I'd have preferred to move the two thirds for a TE we see as a starting replacement for Graham in a year rather than one we know wont' start here.

TonyR
04-27-2009, 02:06 PM
Oh, and check out the heights of the CB’s in the Pro Bowl last year. 3 were 5’10”, and Antoine Winfield is 5’9”, so the myth that you need 6 foot tall corners is just that.

Yep, see my post above. People need to drop this part of their argument against this pick. Stupid.

footstepsfrom#27
04-27-2009, 02:09 PM
Well, they proved they did not think the TEAM need for DE/DT was that extreme by their actions in FA and the draft. The common perception here is that the personnel Sucked the last 2 years, but they have basically stated they can get by with what they have in the front 7.

In fact, the draft was heavily slanted towards completing the pieces to the Mcdaniels offense versus completing the Nolan Defense. That is how I view it.
This might be the scariest post I've seen yet on this guy.

Mediator12
04-27-2009, 02:12 PM
If you're right about this, and it seems to make sense...God knows nothing else does that explains this...then why not trade up from the 2nd by adding a 3rd and moving to get Pettigrew? That might have made some sense because he's seen as a complete TE who has the potential to start and play at a high level as both a receiver and a blocker. This guy is little more than Chad Mustard if all they needed was a big guy who can block. I think I'd have preferred to move the two thirds for a TE we see as a starting replacement for Graham in a year rather than one we know wont' start here.

Read hoosier Teachers article over on MHR. He explains it in almost the same light. Pettigrew's value was much higher to the league as a WHOLE, than Quinn. Yet, it was much cheaper to get Quinn who can do the same job blocking for less.

It just takes perspective on the actual Strategy. Like Why the Colts drafted Donald Brown in the first with Addai already on the roster. BPA to the Team. Then, they moved up for Moala as the drop in tiers for a DT was too much to risk for just 4 spots. Every team is unique in their drafting style. Just be EXTREMELY Happy Al Davis resides in OAK ;D

Hulamau
04-27-2009, 02:18 PM
to get the best players on their board before they disappeared

Exactly, who said anything about a generic BPA (BPA in whose eyes?) They certainly took who they thought was the best player available on their board that they spend 100';s of hours assembling.

It has nothing to do with what some other teams valued in a guy. But only what McD and Xanders thought about the players available on THEIR board at that time.

To answer your whole quandary here, simply refer to what Josh said in his pre-draft presser.

In effect: "If there are highly rated guys that we feel don't have the intelligence and instinctive smarts to be able to learn and adapt to our complex and flexible scheme week in and week out as we change our looks to help us win each week in different circumstances, then that player will not be on our board no matter how many other teams and draft-nik gurus think they are world beaters!

They have to fit our whole scheme and philosophy here and no arrogant 'me -first' guys will do. Right there, on the sharp-minded and adaptable intelligence front might well have downgraded guys like Orakpo who are strong and quick and very athletic but may not be able the brightest lamps in the forest.

footstepsfrom#27
04-27-2009, 02:23 PM
Read hoosier Teachers article over on MHR. He explains it in almost the same light. Pettigrew's value was much higher to the league as a WHOLE, than Quinn. Yet, it was much cheaper to get Quinn who can do the same job blocking for less.
Mustard could do it even cheaper yet. I asked on another thread...nobody had an answer and Khan tossed out some sarcasm but he also had no answer. How on earth are these two that different? In fact even their stats over the last four years are almost identical. Mustard's a big blocker/big zero in the passing game. What makes this dude any better? Or if he's better...is it enough to justify a 2nd rounder? I can't possibly imagine any good reason...do you have one I haven't thought of?
Just be EXTREMELY Happy Al Davis resides in OAK ;D
This does not make me feel any better.

summerdenver
04-27-2009, 02:26 PM
I don't love the Smith pick either, particularly the trading up part, but some of you are overplaying the 5-9 thing a little bit. Asante Samuel is only 5-9 and he's considered one of the best in the business. If Smith was 5-10 none of you would be commenting on his height, and 1 inch doesn't make all that much of a difference (although your wife or girlfriend might disagree).

I hope you are right and alphonso turns about to be the next Asanthe Aamuel but I rmember very well how a couple of years ago how Rivers abused Dwill with jump balls to Malcom freaking Floyd for crying out loud.

Kelly Jennigs is not a bad corner but when a QB throws a jump ball there is nothing a short corner can do about that.

The way i look at this is - (please put away Jay's trade, Mike's firing for a sec and look at the state of the franchise)

i. At the end of last year, we had a explosive offense yet error prone offense. When you consider the number of young 1st year players, 1st year play caller, and the injuries to RBs, all that needed was a little discipline, a healthy RB and more balanced attack.

For people who don't think our offense was good i provide the game tapes as my only evidence. Frankly you don't need anything else. No team was able to shut us down and for the most part we killed ourselves with mistakes. Does it mean we did not need fine tuning no but we did not need a rebuilding either.

ii. On the defense, we badly needed to get rid of Slowik and bring consistency to the scheme we were going to use. Most of the problems we had bad player selections etc can be traced down to lack of consistency in defensive scheme and bad position coaches.

We were in excelent position to fix these issues. We had boat loads of draft picks and cap space to fix these issues.

Now where are we? It looks like we are preparing the team for a whole philosophical change on both sides was it needed? Is it going to work? I don't know and only time will tell. My gut feel is that we are not going in the right direction but we will see. I will tell you one thing though looking at how McDaniels has worked so far - he is deifinitely thinking out of the box. Either he is a genius and is able to see things more clearly than others or just over confident in his abilities.

footstepsfrom#27
04-27-2009, 02:31 PM
.It has nothing to do with what some other teams valued in a guy. But only what McD and Xanders thought about the players available on THEIR board at that time.
Read the original post. It DOES have to do with what other teams had on their board given the incredibly bizarre stunts they pulled. If these guys are so radically different than any other team, that might tell us something. In a draft where we absolutely were desperate for front 7 defense...a hole so wide it got the previous coach fired...we totally ignored the need FIVE TIMES to go with OFFENSE. 9 players separated by only 19 spots...that's an average of 2 spots per player...you don't wonder whether a SINGLE ONE of these guys didn't exist in nearly the same spot on our board?
To answer your whole quandary here, simply refer to what Josh said in his pre-draft presser.

In effect: "If there are highly rated guys that we feel don't have the intelligence and instinctive smarts to be able to learn and adapt to our complex and flexible scheme week in and week out as we change our looks to help us win each week in different circumstances, then that player will not be on our board no matter how many other teams and draft-nik gurus think they are world beaters!
That actually doesn't answer anything. The question is whether this draft board was radically out of step with every other NFL team or not.
They have to fit our whole scheme and philosophy here and no arrogant 'me -first' guys will do. Right there, on the sharp-minded and adaptable intelligence front might well have downgraded guys like Orakpo who are strong and quick and very athletic but may not be able the brightest lamps in the forest.
Orakpo notched a 26 on the wonderlic, and there is no evidence he's a dunce. I've seen this suggested in here several times without any known justification.

Rohirrim
04-27-2009, 02:37 PM
Well, they proved they did not think the TEAM need for DE/DT was that extreme by their actions in FA and the draft. The common perception here is that the personnel Sucked the last 2 years, but they have basically stated they can get by with what they have in the front 7.

In fact, the draft was heavily slanted towards completing the pieces to the Mcdaniels offense versus completing the Nolan Defense. That is how I view it.

Yeah, but then that has the smell of Mac using his power to give his side of the ball the priority when the team concept would have led him toward putting stopping the run first. I guess the statement here is that the pieces were good enough, but the coaching sucked. Given that it was Slowik, I can buy that argument. ;D

I guess the unknown quantity is Powell. Maybe he's shown something in mini camp that changed the numbers?

Then of course, there's the Mighty McChesney.

footstepsfrom#27
04-27-2009, 02:40 PM
I hope you are right and alphonso turns about to be the next Asanthe Aamuel but I rmember very well how a couple of years ago how Rivers abused Dwill with jump balls to Malcom freaking Floyd for crying out loud.

Kelly Jennigs is not a bad corner but when a QB throws a jump ball there is nothing a short corner can do about that.

The way i look at this is - (please put away Jay's trade, Mike's firing for a sec and look at the state of the franchise)

i. At the end of last year, we had a explosive offense yet error prone offense. When you consider the number of young 1st year players, 1st year play caller, and the injuries to RBs, all that needed was a little discipline, a healthy RB and more balanced attack.

For people who don't think our offense was good i provide the game tapes as my only evidence. Frankly you don't need anything else. No team was able to shut us down and for the most part we killed ourselves with mistakes. Does it mean we did not need fine tuning no but we did not need a rebuilding either.

ii. On the defense, we badly needed to get rid of Slowik and bring consistency to the scheme we were going to use. Most of the problems we had bad player selections etc can be traced down to lack of consistency in defensive scheme and bad position coaches.

We were in excelent position to fix these issues. We had boat loads of draft picks and cap space to fix these issues.

Now where are we? It looks like we are preparing the team for a whole philosophical change on both sides was it needed? Is it going to work? I don't know and only time will tell. My gut feel is that we are not going in the right direction but we will see. I will tell you one thing though looking at how McDaniels has worked so far - he is deifinitely thinking out of the box. Either he is a genius and is able to see things more clearly than others or just over confident in his abilities.
Yep. Red Zone offensive problems were largely the product of having no consistent running game with every back we plugged in getting hurt. Teams sold out to stop the pass inside the RZ where the field shortens knowing we had no real threat on the ground. Imagine Cutler firing rockets with Moreno working the ground game and the underneath routes in this offense...then add in two years to rebuild the defense with a key FA signing and 6 picks invested.

Depressing huh?

Kaylore
04-27-2009, 02:40 PM
This is a really good OP in a potentially very good thread.

This illustrates my frustration with the Denver draft perfectly and it doesn't even account for the added frustration of the trade for Smith with Brace or Rey on the board.

Brace I agree. Rey is stupid and can't play all three downs. When are you going to admit that? Do you think it was a fluke that every team passed on him on his way down to the second round?

Hulamau
04-27-2009, 02:41 PM
If you're right about this, and it seems to make sense...God knows nothing else does that explains this...then why not trade up from the 2nd by adding a 3rd and moving to get Pettigrew? That might have made some sense because he's seen as a complete TE who has the potential to start and play at a high level as both a receiver and a blocker. This guy is little more than Chad Mustard if all they needed was a big guy who can block. I think I'd have preferred to move the two thirds for a TE we see as a starting replacement for Graham in a year rather than one we know wont' start here.

You know nothing of Quinn if you think he is little more than Chad Mustard! .. Big TEs who can really block are rare commodities and Quinn has very soft and secure hands as well, he just didn't get as much chance to show them at UNC.

McD liked him not only for the blocks but specifically because he CAN catch the ball well and will get a chance to prove that here unlike in college. And MCD said he was very smart, very bright.

footstepsfrom#27
04-27-2009, 02:42 PM
People keep trying to convince themselves of it, but it's simply not true. NE's best three DLinemen are FAs in the next 12 months. Two of them will be over 30 at that point. One of them (Seymour) battles injuries pretty much every year. The only one they'll likely try to keep (Wilfork) will have to be franchised or given a Haynesworth type deal.....which NE simply doesn't do.

These guys have to be replaced. Brace was not a "luxury" pick. He was picked with the hope that he'll be taking the place of one of these guys. Not that he'll simply be a "depth" signing.
I hate it when I agree with you. ;D

Rohirrim
04-27-2009, 02:44 PM
My feeling is, we may have passed on some of the DT’s because the FO didn’t feel like these guys would be long term solutions. Are they better than what we have now? Probably. But that doesn’t mean they are building blocks. This was widely considered a weak draft, especially along the DL. As was mentioned earlier, most teams were drafting for depth at the position, and not to turn around a defense. Trying to rebuild a DL in a weak position specific draft isn’t the right move. If the philosophy was getting guys who will be contributors right off the bat, and develop into starters we can depend on, then I agree with what they did, although I hate trading the picks away. If Smith is the playmaker he was in college, and is the highly rated guy he was coming into the draft, then we’ll be pretty happy we have him when we get the rest of the D rounded out. If Quinn is the devastating blocker that helps us out in short yardage, or goal line situations, how can you argue with that, considering how poor we were in scoring points last year? He may very well be of more value to the team than a mid round DT. Maybe now next year, we can get a higher grade DT instead of grabbing a weaker one this year because it was what everyone on here was expecting.

Oh, and check out the heights of the CB’s in the Pro Bowl last year. 3 were 5’10”, and Antoine Winfield is 5’9”, so the myth that you need 6 foot tall corners is just that.

I go with the idea that the #1 team weakness was stopping the run. To me, everything in defense starts with that. If you can't do that, it doesn't matter what else you do. This draft improves the offense greatly, IMO. Adding pieces to the secondary does nothing. If a team can tee off on the ground all day it doesn't really matter how good your secondary is. Ayers is an improvement, no doubt, but he can only play one zone at a time. We basically will start the season with the same pieces who couldn't stop the run last year. Maybe it was all Slowik? I hope so.

Here's the major flaw in the BPA argument: What if there are no top tier DTs for three or four drafts in a row (or you don't have the juice to trade up for best ones)? Do you still keep going with what you've got? Sooner or later you have to bring in somebody and coach them up.

Rohirrim
04-27-2009, 02:47 PM
Brace I agree. Rey is stupid and can't play all three downs. When are you going to admit that? Do you think it was a fluke that every team passed on him on his way down to the second round?

Butkus wasn't exactly a rocket surgeon either. :wiggle:

colonelbeef
04-27-2009, 02:47 PM
For all this talk about the 'patriot way' and the patriot victories year in and year out, the fact that Belichick has had a number of bad drafts, specifically in the past few years, and that the Pats haven't won anything since the defense that Parcells drafted and built got old/injured is totally overlooked. If this system is so amazing, how come the Pats have so many draft busts lately and havent won anything?

Mediator12
04-27-2009, 02:49 PM
Mustard could do it even cheaper yet. I asked on another thread...nobody had an answer and Khan tossed out some sarcasm but he also had no answer. How on earth are these two that different? In fact even their stats over the last four years are almost identical. Mustard's a big blocker/big zero in the passing game. What makes this dude any better? Or if he's better...is it enough to justify a 2nd rounder? I can't possibly imagine any good reason...do you have one I haven't thought of?

This does not make me feel any better.

No, Mustard could not do it. He could not do it in the parlour with the candlestick ROFL!

He was a stop gap, Sorry Dortoh, and stuck because they could Activate him, cut him, activate him, cut him, etc. Quinn is legitimately an OT blocking like Graham is and can neutralize Edge rushers reliably and smash DL in the short yardage, Red Zone situations. He is even More valuable with the amount of 3-4 Teams in the division and the AFC growing.

Quinn allows them to run their whole offense and in smash mouth games repalce the third WR sets with Double TE's. You know, like running the football in the fourth quarter with a lead and actually being successful! Quinn Actually gives the Offense a huge scheme boost.

Tombstone RJ
04-27-2009, 02:51 PM
I don't dispute your last sentence. I'm not a big fan of drafting exclusively on need (if you can't find appropriate value at a position you shouldn't overpay simply to fill that position). But if that is the case you can always try to trade down.

1. I just don't understand how anyone justifies waving the magic draft wand and turning a first round pick into - tada! - the #37 pick overall.

2. The ONLY way that makes sense is if they feel a 2nd round guy this year is better than a first round guy next year. And the consensus is that the 2010 draft is better/deeper than the 2009 draft.

3. What if that pick ends up being #1? or #4? Or #10? Is Alphonso Smith, a 5'9" corner without a great 40 time, with that value?

You can't go into a draft with the opinion 'we are going to get those guys regardless of what we have to give up to get them!'

1. The Broncos had Alphonso Smith rated as a first round talent, so they traded one of next year's firsts to get him. Right or wrong, they pulled the trigger and had the ammo to do it.

2. McD made a statement that the guys they wanted on their draft board were being snatched up fast, in other words, they were not gonna get Smith if they waited until their next pick. They had to trade up to get him and again, they had the ammo.

3. It's way too early to know any of this. For all we know, this next year's first round pick is a top 5, but when your in the heat of the moment and trying to get this draft right, you can't think in those terms. You can't be afraid to make a move.

GeniusatWork
04-27-2009, 02:53 PM
I would have liked to see us get some more players with passrush potential. We passed on quite a few in rounds one and two. We did improve the team though, no doubt about that.

Kaylore
04-27-2009, 02:53 PM
No, Mustard could not do it. He could not do it in the parlour with the candlestick ROFL!

He was a stop gap, Sorry Dortoh, and stuck because they could Activate him, cut him, activate him, cut him, etc. Quinn is legitimately an OT blocking like Graham is and can neutralize Edge rushers reliably and smash DL in the short yardage, Red Zone situations. He is even More valuable with the amount of 3-4 Teams in the division and the AFC growing.

Quinn allows them to run their whole offense and in smash mouth games repalce the third WR sets with Double TE's. You know, like running the football in the fourth quarter with a lead and actually being successful! Quinn Actually gives the Offense a huge scheme boost.

OMG! bUt d3y bOtH BL0k so dEy r teh $@/\/\3X0rrrr!!!!!!!!!

Mediator12
04-27-2009, 02:54 PM
Butkus wasn't exactly a rocket surgeon either. :wiggle:

No, and the NFL was more like college back then too :thumbsup: Maualuga would have been perfect in that era. However, this is now a Nickle base league for a lot of teams. And, Butkus did not like to cover the flats!

footstepsfrom#27
04-27-2009, 03:08 PM
No, Mustard could not do it. He could not do it in the parlour with the candlestick ROFL!

He was a stop gap, Sorry Dortoh, and stuck because they could Activate him, cut him, activate him, cut him, etc. Quinn is legitimately an OT blocking like Graham is and can neutralize Edge rushers reliably and smash DL in the short yardage, Red Zone situations. He is even More valuable with the amount of 3-4 Teams in the division and the AFC growing.

Quinn allows them to run their whole offense and in smash mouth games repalce the third WR sets with Double TE's. You know, like running the football in the fourth quarter with a lead and actually being successful! Quinn Actually gives the Offense a huge scheme boost.
Color me unimpressed.

Nothing you noted here is a skill set that bunches of NFL blocking tight ends don't possess. A "blocking tight end" is a guy who can't catch. That's like a "run stuffing safety"...one who can't cover anyone...a one dimensional player in other words. How many guys like this were drafted in round 2? If all we need is a guy who can block I don't think that differs appreciably from Mustard...as crazy as that sounds...essentially a guard who might be able to run a 5 yard pass pattern every 3 games. In fact the role you just described sounds like the perfect way to use Hillis. He's a fine blocker AND he can catch the all as well and at 250 he's stout enough to open holes in the running game. He cost a 7th round pick...based on where Quinn went I wonder if he wouldn't have been a top ten pick to this regime.

footstepsfrom#27
04-27-2009, 03:11 PM
OMG! bUt d3y bOtH BL0k so dEy r teh $@/\/\3X0rrrr!!!!!!!!!
Still no good argument from you. As usual...you're more talk than walk.

chex
04-27-2009, 03:19 PM
I go with the idea that the #1 team weakness was stopping the run. To me, everything in defense starts with that. If you can't do that, it doesn't matter what else you do. This draft improves the offense greatly, IMO. Adding pieces to the secondary does nothing. If a team can tee off on the ground all day it doesn't really matter how good your secondary is. Ayers is an improvement, no doubt, but he can only play one zone at a time. We basically will start the season with the same pieces who couldn't stop the run last year. Maybe it was all Slowik? I hope so.

Here's the major flaw in the BPA argument: What if there are no top tier DTs for three or four drafts in a row (or you don't have the juice to trade up for best ones)? Do you still keep going with what you've got? Sooner or later you have to bring in somebody and coach them up.

Stopping the run, no pass rush....of course they were major major weaknesses. So naturally, the first reaction is to load up in the draft and get it fixed.

Fine. Makes sense.

What I think is, even if we drafted DL in the first 3 rounds like in '07, what makes you so sure we'd have an instant upgrade? Maybe the FO felt whoever we got would be stopgaps at best, until a better crop comes along, and I can't go along with your argument of 'what if it's weak 4 years in a row.' That to me is just thrown out there to bolster your argument. And even with that, you deal with the known, and this year, it was known that this was a weak crop. So it's quite possible they decided to bite the bullet, get guys who were more capable of helping this team in the short and long term, and take care of the remaining holes when the pickings were ripe.

Look at it this way, say we drafted 3 or 4 more DL after Ayers. You're happy, everyone is happy. You're paying 2nd or 3rd round money for guys who are going higher, and who we are reaching for, because the class was weak. Now fast forward to next year, where the class is expected to be much better. Say when we pick, the available DL blow away the guys we took this year. Now, do we draft more DL, tie up more money at the position, and have a logjam? Do we pass on them because we can't have half the cap for one defensive unit? Or do we take the guys we feel will help this team now and in the coming years? I just don't see the reason in taking a guy because of need. We have so many holes on this defense, I want them to draft the best 11 guys they can start in the next few years. I don't want them taking a guy they don't like for whatever reason, to satiate the fan's thirst for new DL. My feeling is you take the guys that can be productive starters, especially when rebuilding one entire side of the ball. This D is gonna suck this year, no matter who we drafted, so if we're going to have a couple years more of pain, I want the medicine to be long lasting, and not just temporary.

barryr
04-27-2009, 03:22 PM
Looks like drafting Moss, Crowder, and Thomas really helped stop the run and improved the pass rush. Oh wait, no it didn't, but the DL in this draft are all guaranteed. Oh wait, this draft is considered very weak in DL. Oh wait, draft DL anyway. Sound stuff.

Rohirrim
04-27-2009, 03:28 PM
Stopping the run, no pass rush....of course they were major major weaknesses. So naturally, the first reaction is to load up in the draft and get it fixed.

Fine. Makes sense.

What I think is, even if we drafted DL in the first 3 rounds like in '07, what makes you so sure we'd have an instant upgrade? Maybe the FO felt whoever we got would be stopgaps at best, until a better crop comes along, and I can't go along with your argument of 'what if it's weak 4 years in a row.' That to me is just thrown out there to bolster your argument. And even with that, you deal with the known, and this year, it was known that this was a weak crop. So it's quite possible they decided to bite the bullet, get guys who were more capable of helping this team in the short and long term, and take care of the remaining holes when the pickings were ripe.

Look at it this way, say we drafted 3 or 4 more DL after Ayers. You're happy, everyone is happy. You're paying 2nd or 3rd round money for guys who are going higher, and who we are reaching for, because the class was weak. Now fast forward to next year, where the class is expected to be much better. Say when we pick, the available DL blow away the guys we took this year. Now, do we draft more DL, tie up more money at the position, and have a logjam? Do we pass on them because we can't have half the cap for one defensive unit? Or do we take the guys we feel will help this team now and in the coming years? I just don't see the reason in taking a guy because of need. We have so many holes on this defense, I want them to draft the best 11 guys they can start in the next few years. I don't want them taking a guy they don't like for whatever reason, to satiate the fan's thirst for new DL. My feeling is you take the guys that can be productive starters, especially when rebuilding one entire side of the ball. This D is gonna suck this year, no matter who we drafted, so if we're going to have a couple years more of pain, I want the medicine to be long lasting, and not just temporary.

Here's my take: If you have the choice between a blocking TE or a NT and your greatest need is stopping the run, you take the NT. Quinn might be a fine, blocking TE. From all reports, he's about equal in talent and ability with Alex Magee on the other side of the ball. Lot's of potential in both players. So, do you take the guy who helps you run the ball or the guy who helps you stop the run? I go with the D, almost everytime. I realize everybody doesn't agree with that. Obviously, Mac doesn't.

Kaylore
04-27-2009, 03:30 PM
Still no good argument
Because there's no point in wasting my time. Footsteps you've shown time and again that you're more interested in trying to argue people down than actually have a discussion. I could give you a long explanation about how Quinn is tough, can play special teams, has very good hands and his catching ability was under-utilized because he played at a school with three pro-grade receivers. I could talk about his high football IQ and good character. About how a player with his skill-set is pivotal to executing their offense and being a system fit puts him at a premium. But none of that would matter to you because you've made up your mind and want to brow beat anyone that disagrees with you.

Mustard was a converted arena league lineman. He was also injured pretty much every game and didn't have half the athleticism that Quinn has. Any I don't care how long wided and wordy your posts are. Your conclusions still show you to be someone who over simplifies things and uses fallacy to make your points.

I mean give me a break, they both block so they're the same? Is this Sesame Street?

Drek
04-27-2009, 03:31 PM
Looks like drafting Moss, Crowder, and Thomas really helped stop the run and improved the pass rush. Oh wait, no it didn't, but the DL in this draft are all guaranteed. Oh wait, this draft is considered very weak in DL. Oh wait, draft DL anyway. Sound stuff.

You could make a good argument that Moss and Crowder's drafting actually made the defense worse, since they took snaps away from guys who were at least a little closer to league average and a roster spot from someone who might have actually grown into a role of some sort.

chex
04-27-2009, 03:35 PM
Here's my take: If you have the choice between a blocking TE or a NT and your greatest need is stopping the run, you take the NT. Quinn might be a fine, blocking TE. From all reports, he's about equal in talent and ability with Alex Magee on the other side of the ball. Lot's of potential in both players. So, do you take the guy who helps you run the ball or the guy who helps you stop the run? I go with the D, almost everytime. I realize everybody doesn't agree with that. Obviously, Mac doesn't.

It depends. Do you think if the FO would choose the TE over the NT if THEY felt both were equal? I don't think so. I trust their decision because they are the ones doing the scouting, doing the film breakdown.....who's to say there wasn't some sort of character issue that caused them to pass on one? Maybe they met with him and he rubbed them the wrong way for whatever reason? Or maybe they felt for what they want to do, Magee wasn't as good a fit as others here think? And if thats the case, they are reaching to fill a need, when in fact Quinn might be more valuable to the team and contribute more to the overall success of the team.

The history of 2007 has taught us you don't just collect guys at one position because of need. Do you mean to tell me there wasn't one guy drafted after Moss and before Crowder that couldn't help us more? Help us at all?

elsid13
04-27-2009, 03:57 PM
I wasn't surprised that Denver focused on the offense more then defense with this draft. McDaniels comments leading up to the draft made that a given.

Two things stood out for me over the weekend. That McDaniels and Xavier both are very linear and are unwilling to go away for their board (we worked out everyone we drafted), even when there is potential candidate that might help the team in long run, but needs little more development. Second that they needed an experienced personnel guy in the room to tell them wait, your choice is going to be there and you don't have to be so aggresive to go get him. They wasted a lot of flexibility with moves up both this year and next. I have strange feeling that Denver had NT (Terrance Knighton) and another QB (McGee) on the radar but the moves up elimated them for joining the team.

TheReverend
04-27-2009, 04:06 PM
Brace I agree. Rey is stupid and can't play all three downs. When are you going to admit that? Do you think it was a fluke that every team passed on him on his way down to the second round?

Nope! He went in that same Lofa Tatupu/Demeco Ryans sweet spot.

Granted, a 4-3 and in Cincinnati could quite possibly be the WORST case scenario for him, but I won't count him out yet.

I know you're saying he'll never start in the NFL. I'd like to remind you his competition is Dhani Jones... Hilarious!

outdoor_miner
04-27-2009, 04:41 PM
Because there's no point in wasting my time. Footsteps you've shown time and again that you're more interested in trying to argue people down than actually have a discussion. I could give you a long explanation about how Quinn is tough, can play special teams, has very good hands and his catching ability was under-utilized because he played at a school with three pro-grade receivers. I could talk about his high football IQ and good character. About how a player with his skill-set is pivotal to executing their offense and being a system fit puts him at a premium. But none of that would matter to you because you've made up your mind and want to brow beat anyone that disagrees with you.

Mustard was a converted arena league lineman. He was also injured pretty much every game and didn't have half the athleticism that Quinn has. Any I don't care how long wided and wordy your posts are. Your conclusions still show you to be someone who over simplifies things and uses fallacy to make your points.

I mean give me a break, they both block so they're the same? Is this Sesame Street?

The argument that Chad Mustard is equal to Richard Quinn is like saying George Foster is equal to Ryan Clady... After all, they both block people!

If the Broncos FO believes that Richard Quinn is the best blocking tight end in the draft, that is a helluva lot different from a journeyman that has been cut 1,000,000 times. I hope they are correct in their evaluation. Seems like a reach in the 2nd round to me.

Mediator12
04-27-2009, 05:36 PM
Color me unimpressed.

Nothing you noted here is a skill set that bunches of NFL blocking tight ends don't possess. A "blocking tight end" is a guy who can't catch. That's like a "run stuffing safety"...one who can't cover anyone...a one dimensional player in other words. How many guys like this were drafted in round 2? If all we need is a guy who can block I don't think that differs appreciably from Mustard...as crazy as that sounds...essentially a guard who might be able to run a 5 yard pass pattern every 3 games. In fact the role you just described sounds like the perfect way to use Hillis. He's a fine blocker AND he can catch the all as well and at 250 he's stout enough to open holes in the running game. He cost a 7th round pick...based on where Quinn went I wonder if he wouldn't have been a top ten pick to this regime.

Dude, your too smart to even try that argument. Mustard and Quinn are as different as Nate Jackson versus Antonio Gates. Both are Receiving TE's, but one executes and dominates on the field. The other is spot use rarely used backup. Just because guys have a similar makeup, does not equate their utility or value to a scheme.

And, there is a huge difference schematically between the Way Mustard and Quinn would be used. Like the difference between a 3-4 DE and 4-3 DE. Both are listed as TE, but both play a drastically different game. Also, you are talking frequency of use. Mustard was a ST player occasionally, Quinn will be a regular use player.

As far as Hillis doing the same, he is not an inline blocker but I suppose he can do everything right? You are avoiding the fact that Quinn has unique value to this scheme, because you would rather have an overall TE or Use Hillis in as many positions as Possible and teach him another skillset. The NE style offense McDaniels will bring places more value here than almost any other Pro Offense. TE holds more value because of the way they use their TE's to help Protect in the passing game and To really be effective in their running scheme.

I know you are shocked with this pick, but the end of the second round was the top of his value on most boards out there. Which means he was more valuable to DEN there on their TEAM board.

Here is his profile:
By Nolan Nawrocki

4. TE Richard Quinn, #89 (junior)
(6-37⁄8, 264, 4.92) North Carolina

Notes: Has a daughter. Spent his first two years of high school in Alabama before moving to Ohio. Also played basketball as a prep. Saw very limited action in nine games as a true freshman in 2005. Redshirted in ’06 after fracturing his right scapula in fall camp. Started 8-of-12 games in ’07, catching four passes for 27 yards (6.8-yard average) and one touchdown. Played in all 13 games in ’08, starting 11, and grabbed 8-97-1 (12.1). Played with a cast on his right hand after breaking a knuckle early in the season. Did not start against Virginia Tech or in the Meineke Car Care Bowl against Virginia Tech, as he gave way to three-receiver formations.

Positives: Has natural girth with a thick frame and really looks the part. Comes off the ball with a good, wide base and shows good hip strength and power to leverage defenders. Strong at the point of attack with good hand use. Understands blocking angles, how to get positioning, work his hips around and hook defenders. Gets to the second level and seals off linebackers. Plays big and can anchor in pass protection. Tough. Improving hands. Good run strength to break tackles after the catch. Solid character. Works hard and takes the game seriously.

Negatives: Was rarely used as a receiver with very limited production. Labors off the line and takes time to get into routes. Not nifty or elusive after the catch and lacks the burst and acceleration to separate or get vertical. Suffered from a case of the drops early in his career. Durability needs to be evaluated.

Summary: Caught the ball extremely well at the Combine despite being greatly underutilized as a receiver in college alongside three legitimate NFL starting-caliber receivers and has excelled as a base blocker. Is big, strong and physical and could turn out to be a better pro than college player. Would be a great fit for a run-first offense such as that of the Dolphins, 49ers or Patriots.

Grade: Second- to third-round pick.

And as far as being a one dimensional player, NE has utilized players better at this than any team in the league. They do not care what players can not do, they focus on making them do what they do best every play.

footstepsfrom#27
04-27-2009, 06:18 PM
Because there's no point in wasting my time.
No of course not that's why you have 27,000+ posts on here because your time is precious. Ha!
Footsteps you've shown time and again that you're more interested in trying to argue people down than actually have a discussion. I could give you a long explanation about how Quinn is tough, can play special teams, has very good hands and his catching ability was under-utilized because he played at a school with three pro-grade receivers. I could talk about his high football IQ and good character. About how a player with his skill-set is pivotal to executing their offense and being a system fit puts him at a premium. But none of that would matter to you because you've made up your mind and want to brow beat anyone that disagrees with you.
Man don't give me this nonsense because you know perfectly well I not only discuss issues but I discuss them in detail, which in fact is one reason why you one-sentence quip masters in your little Club Mane circle jerk dislike me so much...I force feed you facts and logic and it makes you spend more than 30 seconds responding.

Toughess, special teams player, bad offensive fit in college, etc...you're still telling me NOTHING that makes this guy stand out more than any other blocking TE, players you can usually find in the 7th round or FA. On top of this his analysis on NFL.com disputes much of what you say, including a description of his hands as "marginal" and notes that he "lumbers off the line" and has receiving skills limited to short passes. Sounds just like Mustard to me, with maybe a little more athleticism, which isn't exactly a ringing endorsement. Not one thing I've heard makes him sound like he's closer to Graham than the ex-Omaha Beef guy we cut every year and re-sign again. I'm sure he's got to be better than that, but enough to justify him in the 2nd round?

You're not making much of an effort. Fine...don't worry about it.

footstepsfrom#27
04-27-2009, 06:32 PM
Dude, your too smart to even try that argument. Mustard and Quinn are as different as Nate Jackson versus Antonio Gates. Both are Receiving TE's, but one executes and dominates on the field. The other is spot use rarely used backup. Just because guys have a similar makeup, does not equate their utility or value to a scheme.

And, there is a huge difference schematically between the Way Mustard and Quinn would be used. Like the difference between a 3-4 DE and 4-3 DE. Both are listed as TE, but both play a drastically different game. Also, you are talking frequency of use. Mustard was a ST player occasionally, Quinn will be a regular use player.

As far as Hillis doing the same, he is not an inline blocker but I suppose he can do everything right? You are avoiding the fact that Quinn has unique value to this scheme, because you would rather have an overall TE or Use Hillis in as many positions as Possible and teach him another skillset. The NE style offense McDaniels will bring places more value here than almost any other Pro Offense. TE holds more value because of the way they use their TE's to help Protect in the passing game and To really be effective in their running scheme.

I know you are shocked with this pick, but the end of the second round was the top of his value on most boards out there. Which means he was more valuable to DEN there on their TEAM board.

Here is his profile:
By Nolan Nawrocki

4. TE Richard Quinn, #89 (junior)
(6-37⁄8, 264, 4.92) North Carolina

Notes: Has a daughter. Spent his first two years of high school in Alabama before moving to Ohio. Also played basketball as a prep. Saw very limited action in nine games as a true freshman in 2005. Redshirted in ’06 after fracturing his right scapula in fall camp. Started 8-of-12 games in ’07, catching four passes for 27 yards (6.8-yard average) and one touchdown. Played in all 13 games in ’08, starting 11, and grabbed 8-97-1 (12.1). Played with a cast on his right hand after breaking a knuckle early in the season. Did not start against Virginia Tech or in the Meineke Car Care Bowl against Virginia Tech, as he gave way to three-receiver formations.

Positives: Has natural girth with a thick frame and really looks the part. Comes off the ball with a good, wide base and shows good hip strength and power to leverage defenders. Strong at the point of attack with good hand use. Understands blocking angles, how to get positioning, work his hips around and hook defenders. Gets to the second level and seals off linebackers. Plays big and can anchor in pass protection. Tough. Improving hands. Good run strength to break tackles after the catch. Solid character. Works hard and takes the game seriously.

Negatives: Was rarely used as a receiver with very limited production. Labors off the line and takes time to get into routes. Not nifty or elusive after the catch and lacks the burst and acceleration to separate or get vertical. Suffered from a case of the drops early in his career. Durability needs to be evaluated.

Summary: Caught the ball extremely well at the Combine despite being greatly underutilized as a receiver in college alongside three legitimate NFL starting-caliber receivers and has excelled as a base blocker. Is big, strong and physical and could turn out to be a better pro than college player. Would be a great fit for a run-first offense such as that of the Dolphins, 49ers or Patriots.

Grade: Second- to third-round pick.

And as far as being a one dimensional player, NE has utilized players better at this than any team in the league. They do not care what players can not do, they focus on making them do what they do best every play.
I'm using the comparison to make a point; namely to force you (or anyone else) to find a legitimate explanation for this based on something more than I've seen so far. What could engender more absurdity than to link this guy to Chad freaking Mustard I ask you? Reading the scouting reports, including this one, only reinforces that he's a big guy who can block has limited pass catching skills that are possibly slightly better than his almost non-existent college stats would suggest and he needs to be in a system that runs first.

And?

So he's more talented than Mustard? Duh...I assumed at least that much. Who isn't? The real point is...blocking TE's can be had WAY past the 2nd round. My guess is you're basing everything you know on this guy but what you're reading on the web...or are you going to tell me you've been laboriously charting the exploits of UNC's blocking TE for the last couple of years in anticipation of him being here one day?

Hey here's the point...we have a rookie coach/GM combo with no prior experience running a draft and so far the results are at best eyebrow raising and at worst a catastrophy. What about seeing these guys move up into the 2nd round for a blocking TE doesn't make you want to know whether a pick like this has any serious basis for justification or not? Or are we just really saying don't question anything since he's the coach and we all need to be simple minded enough to not notice the massive question marks?

footstepsfrom#27
04-27-2009, 06:35 PM
You know nothing of Quinn if you think he is little more than Chad Mustard! .. Big TEs who can really block are rare commodities and Quinn has very soft and secure hands as well, he just didn't get as much chance to show them at UNC.

McD liked him not only for the blocks but specifically because he CAN catch the ball well and will get a chance to prove that here unlike in college. And MCD said he was very smart, very bright.
You catch a lot of UNC games over in Amsterdam do you?

GeniusatWork
04-28-2009, 08:05 AM
Looks like drafting Moss, Crowder, and Thomas really helped stop the run and improved the pass rush. Oh wait, no it didn't, but the DL in this draft are all guaranteed. Oh wait, this draft is considered very weak in DL. Oh wait, draft DL anyway. Sound stuff.

I was thinking they could have drafted 3, 4 or 5 of these guys if they really wanted to, and could have improved the team:

Orakpo - 13 to Redskins
Brace - 40 to Patriots
Ayers - 12 to Denver
Barwin - 46 to Houston
Kruger - 57 to ravens
English - 16 to Chargers

Are those weak DL guys? Some of them could have aided the transition to a 3-4 also. As people have said maybe the 3-4 isn't going to be used much. But they could have helped the passruch in the 4-3 also.

They improved the team with the players they got, but there's more than one way to do it.

barryr
04-28-2009, 08:09 AM
I was thinking they could have drafted 3, 4 or 5 of these guys if they really wanted to, and could have improved the team:

Orakpo - 13 to Redskins
Brace - 40 to Patriots
Ayers - 12 to Denver
Barwin - 46 to Houston
Kruger - 57 to ravens
English - 16 to Chargers

Are those weak DL guys? Some of them could have aided the transition to a 3-4 also. As people have said maybe the 3-4 isn't going to be used much. But they could have helped the passruch in the 4-3 also.

They improved the team with the players they got, but there's more than one way to do it.

Actually Ayers went #18, but do you think all of those guys are going to be good pros? Half of them? One? Heck, Ayers is no sure thing either.

When the Broncos drafted Moss, Crowder, and Thomas high in that one draft, I'm sure we all thought that was going to help the defense. Did it?

GeniusatWork
04-28-2009, 08:18 AM
Actually Ayers went #18, but do you think all of those guys are going to be good pros? Half of them? One? Heck, Ayers is no sure thing either.

When the Broncos drafted Moss, Crowder, and Thomas high in that one draft, I'm sure we all thought that was going to help the defense. Did it?

I don't knkow if they'll be good pros. I think they will. That will be the deciding factor won't it? We'll have to wait and see if the players some of the people on this board was craving will contribute better than the players we got.

I think the guys they got will be good pros and they needed some skilled football players for the future in the secondary with an aging Dawkins, Bailey, not to mention the special teams aspect the draftees bring. I think it will end up as a wash. We could have got better with some more of the DL/OLB guys I listed, but we got better with who we actually drafted.

barryr
04-28-2009, 08:28 AM
Bottom line is you draft the players YOU feel are the best and will help your team the most. Not what Kiper or Mayock or what some fans think. I'm just hoping these guys draft better, especially on defense, better than Shanahan ever did.

Mediator12
04-28-2009, 08:52 AM
I'm using the comparison to make a point; namely to force you (or anyone else) to find a legitimate explanation for this based on something more than I've seen so far. What could engender more absurdity than to link this guy to Chad freaking Mustard I ask you? Reading the scouting reports, including this one, only reinforces that he's a big guy who can block has limited pass catching skills that are possibly slightly better than his almost non-existent college stats would suggest and he needs to be in a system that runs first.

And?

So he's more talented than Mustard? Duh...I assumed at least that much. Who isn't? The real point is...blocking TE's can be had WAY past the 2nd round. My guess is you're basing everything you know on this guy but what you're reading on the web...or are you going to tell me you've been laboriously charting the exploits of UNC's blocking TE for the last couple of years in anticipation of him being here one day?

Hey here's the point...we have a rookie coach/GM combo with no prior experience running a draft and so far the results are at best eyebrow raising and at worst a catastrophy. What about seeing these guys move up into the 2nd round for a blocking TE doesn't make you want to know whether a pick like this has any serious basis for justification or not? Or are we just really saying don't question anything since he's the coach and we all need to be simple minded enough to not notice the massive question marks?


OK. I know its your MO to not Listen to WHAT people are saying and blindly argue your point. However, I will make this simple.

NE's offense uses 2, count them, 2 Major blocking TE's in their scheme. DEN has One in Graham. The Difference in Evaluation between Quinn and the Next Available Blocking TE set was Large enough to go and get him at the 64th pick. He was valued by most sites as a mid third round grade, despite NOT having elite Receiving skills. So, DEN used what they had (2 third round picks), to move up to 64 and get the guy.

Do I agree with it? Hell, no. Do I understand Why? Absolutely. They do not have the Elite QB anymore and they are going to be a run first team With Moreno leading the way. So, they are putting the pieces together to develop an Elite Running game for their System, which you have not obviously seen very much. This is an essential part of their system, even though you and the rest of the league do not Value it. It's not your system, it's not My system, It's McDaniels system and he needs that guy to make it work for the Whole Team next year and in the future.

So, why they may have gone BPA, their BPA is Much different than the OVERALL talent grades placed on these draft boards. They targeted BPA to their TEAM, not the overall NFL. In doing so, they left themselves open to mass hysteria from Draftniks who do not understand the concept and intricacies of grades based on individual Scheme.

To them, this TE is the difference schematically between picking up the blitz effectively and getting that extra half yard on third and one to get a first down. The difference between keeping an offensive Drive alive and keeping the defense off the field. The difference between Kicking FG's inside the opponents 5 yard line and Scoring TD's. The difference in a marginal TE doing it 35% of the time or an Elite Blocker getting it 65% of the time. In a game of Inches, having one more elite blocker inline makes a huge Difference.

So, they did it to make the TEAM better by having one more guy who can execute their scheme better than anyone else on the roster or available in the draft. What the Hell is so difficult to understand about this? You do not have to like it, but to continue to claim you do not understand it is patently admitting you do not want to and want to make this an issue.

GeniusatWork
04-28-2009, 08:53 AM
Bottom line is you draft the players YOU feel are the best and will help your team the most. Not what Kiper or Mayock or what some fans think. I'm just hoping these guys draft better, especially on defense, better than Shanahan ever did.

Yes, it was clear on draft day one they liked the front 7 they had in camp and didn't think any of those guys would help them. Now we have to wait and see. I think it will be a wash. They'll get production from Smith and McBath in turnovers and hopefully some good returns, TD's from Moreno and Quinn that will offset the potential sacks and turnovers.

I would have been happy if they drafted as I said 3, 4, or 5 of those front 7 guys I listed. They would have had to trade the same picks, maybe even more to get 5 of them, so that would have been a pickle just the same as what they did.

TheReverend
04-28-2009, 09:10 AM
OK. I know its your MO to not Listen to WHAT people are saying and blindly argue your point. However, I will make this simple.

NE's offense uses 2, count them, 2 Major blocking TE's in their scheme. DEN has One in Graham. The Difference in Evaluation between Quinn and the Next Available Blocking TE set was Large enough to go and get him at the 64th pick. He was valued by most sites as a mid third round grade, despite NOT having elite Receiving skills. So, DEN used what they had (2 third round picks), to move up to 64 and get the guy.

Do I agree with it? Hell, no. Do I understand Why? Absolutely. They do not have the Elite QB anymore and they are going to be a run first team With Moreno leading the way. So, they are putting the pieces together to develop an Elite Running game for their System, which you have not obviously seen very much. This is an essential part of their system, even though you and the rest of the league do not Value it. It's not your system, it's not My system, It's McDaniels system and he needs that guy to make it work for the Whole Team next year and in the future.

So, why they may have gone BPA, their BPA is Much different than the OVERALL talent grades placed on these draft boards. They targeted BPA to their TEAM, not the overall NFL. In doing so, they left themselves open to mass hysteria from Draftniks who do not understand the concept and intricacies of grades based on individual Scheme.

To them, this TE is the difference schematically between picking up the blitz effectively and getting that extra half yard on third and one to get a first down. The difference between keeping an offensive Drive alive and keeping the defense off the field. The difference between Kicking FG's inside the opponents 5 yard line and Scoring TD's. The difference in a marginal TE doing it 35% of the time or an Elite Blocker getting it 65% of the time. In a game of Inches, having one more elite blocker inline makes a huge Difference.

So, they did it to make the TEAM better by having one more guy who can execute their scheme better than anyone else on the roster or available in the draft. What the Hell is so difficult to understand about this? You do not have to like it, but to continue to claim you do not understand it is patently admitting you do not want to and want to make this an issue.

I have a serious issue with that Quinn pick, personally, and here's why:

We already have outstanding blocking from our perimeter players and they're all also significant match up problems.

So does this pick really increase the effectiveness of the offensive unit? Let's take a more indepth look than just 35%:65% of getting it done.

Let's look at formations. If we go to a 3 TE set, we're telegraphing that we're either running the football by also loading the backfield, or that we're passing by splitting Marshall and Royal out wide. Marshall and Royal, btw, who are both excellent blockers, Marshall almost on a Dan Graham level himself. So do we take our new shiny toy in Knowshon off the field, or Brandon?

In reality, that formation's probably going to only truly be effective on goalline or SHORT yardage situations where defenses are playing the run first regardless and we're taking a "Here's what we're doing, try and stop it" approach. But that's neutralizing the effect of Marshall and Royal on the field and allows the corners to play contain and squeeze the gaps. I really think there's a higher chance of this increasing interior blitzes against this formation and inhibiting scoring or conversion success rate, and even being stopped in the backfield against an aggressive LB corps.

Would PA fool anyone in that situation? With Scheffler, and maybe Knowshon, our only true receiving threats, would defenses even care if they bit...?

Mile High Mojoe
04-28-2009, 09:27 AM
In theory I agree with this idea of BPA…but only to a point…because we all know no NFL team follows this philosophy entirely. Does anyone think McD takes an OT in round 1 if he's the top guy on their board? No obviously not. Teams try to stick with a BPA approach as much as possible but there's no team that never leaves some wiggle room here. Here's something interesting...check the picks that were taken through round 5 where Denver picked an offensive player instead of a front 7 defender...forget the points where D-backs were taken...just look at offensive selections only. In every case front 7 defensive players were taken shortly after Denver's pick, including some that were either taken by 3-4 teams or else seem to fit the 3-4 defense. Check it out:

Round 1: 12th pick; Moreno/Denver... 13th pick Brian Orakpo- DE/OLB; (Wash); 15th pick Brian Cushing- OLB (Hou), 16th pick Larry English- OLB (SD)

Round 2: 64th pick; Quinn/Denver...67th pick; Alex Magee- DT (KC); 68th pick; Jarron Gilbert- DE (Chi); 70th pick; Michael Johnson- DE (Cin)

Round 4: 132nd pick; Olson/Denver…136th pick; Terrance Taylor- DT (Indy)

Round 5: 141st pick/Mckinney/Denver…146th pick; Scott McKillop-ILB (SF); 150th pick; Jasper Brinkley- ILB (Minn)

That’s a total of 9 players separated by only 19 spots in the draft across 4 different spots. We can assume not every team has these guys ranked in the same order but it’s also unlikely we can assume that NONE of these guys were ranked anywhere close to where they were drafted on the Denver board. So basically the team might have had to adjust a guy a couple of places upward in order to take him but we are talking about a small change here. Is the 141st ranked player that much better than one ranked 9 spots later? That’s the largest gap here...9 spots. Something doesn’t add up…if they’re taking BPA that’s great, but if they’re so inflexible they cannot adjust a guy even slightly…that makes little sense.

Discuss...

I agree, he didn’t show any flexibility with his BFA list if he even had one for defensive players.

http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=84478224&blogId=485883787

footstepsfrom#27
04-28-2009, 09:30 AM
OK. I know its your MO to not Listen to WHAT people are saying and blindly argue your point. However, I will make this simple.

NE's offense uses 2, count them, 2 Major blocking TE's in their scheme. DEN has One in Graham. The Difference in Evaluation between Quinn and the Next Available Blocking TE set was Large enough to go and get him at the 64th pick. He was valued by most sites as a mid third round grade, despite NOT having elite Receiving skills. So, DEN used what they had (2 third round picks), to move up to 64 and get the guy.

Do I agree with it? Hell, no. Do I understand Why? Absolutely. They do not have the Elite QB anymore and they are going to be a run first team With Moreno leading the way. So, they are putting the pieces together to develop an Elite Running game for their System, which you have not obviously seen very much. This is an essential part of their system, even though you and the rest of the league do not Value it. It's not your system, it's not My system, It's McDaniels system and he needs that guy to make it work for the Whole Team next year and in the future.

So, why they may have gone BPA, their BPA is Much different than the OVERALL talent grades placed on these draft boards. They targeted BPA to their TEAM, not the overall NFL. In doing so, they left themselves open to mass hysteria from Draftniks who do not understand the concept and intricacies of grades based on individual Scheme.

To them, this TE is the difference schematically between picking up the blitz effectively and getting that extra half yard on third and one to get a first down. The difference between keeping an offensive Drive alive and keeping the defense off the field. The difference between Kicking FG's inside the opponents 5 yard line and Scoring TD's. The difference in a marginal TE doing it 35% of the time or an Elite Blocker getting it 65% of the time. In a game of Inches, having one more elite blocker inline makes a huge Difference.

So, they did it to make the TEAM better by having one more guy who can execute their scheme better than anyone else on the roster or available in the draft. What the Hell is so difficult to understand about this? You do not have to like it, but to continue to claim you do not understand it is patently admitting you do not want to and want to make this an issue.
I already understand all this. So what? Blocking TE was well behind our D-line needs. What is so tough to understand about that? Shall i write you a long post explaining it?

TonyR
04-28-2009, 09:34 AM
For all this talk about the 'patriot way' and the patriot victories year in and year out, the fact that Belichick has had a number of bad drafts, specifically in the past few years, and that the Pats haven't won anything since the defense that Parcells drafted and built got old/injured is totally overlooked. If this system is so amazing, how come the Pats have so many draft busts lately and havent won anything?

Really? 18-1 in 2007 and 11-5 without Brady in 2008? Haven't won anything? Seriously? Would you bet the over or under on 11.5 wins for the Pats this upcoming season?

Mile High Mojoe
04-28-2009, 09:44 AM
For all this talk about the 'patriot way' and the patriot victories year in and year out, the fact that Belichick has had a number of bad drafts, specifically in the past few years, and that the Pats haven't won anything since the defense that Parcells drafted and built got old/injured is totally overlooked. If this system is so amazing, how come the Pats have so many draft busts lately and havent won anything?Exactly, the Pats success was build more through free agency the last couple of years than it was from some outstanding draft. The AFC East has been a crappola division recently which has added to their win totals. The Jets, Dolps and the Bills can't even get out of their own way.

TonyR
04-28-2009, 09:46 AM
The AFC East has been a crappola division recently...

Just a reminder that 3 of the 4 teams beat us last year...

Beantown Bronco
04-28-2009, 09:53 AM
Exactly, the Pats success was build more through free agency the last couple of years

and trades (Moss and Welker)

Br0nc0Buster
04-28-2009, 09:59 AM
I have a serious issue with that Quinn pick, personally, and here's why:

We already have outstanding blocking from our perimeter players and they're all also significant match up problems.

So does this pick really increase the effectiveness of the offensive unit? Let's take a more indepth look than just 35%:65% of getting it done.

Let's look at formations. If we go to a 3 TE set, we're telegraphing that we're either running the football by also loading the backfield, or that we're passing by splitting Marshall and Royal out wide. Marshall and Royal, btw, who are both excellent blockers, Marshall almost on a Dan Graham level himself. So do we take our new shiny toy in Knowshon off the field, or Brandon?

In reality, that formation's probably going to only truly be effective on goalline or SHORT yardage situations where defenses are playing the run first regardless and we're taking a "Here's what we're doing, try and stop it" approach. But that's neutralizing the effect of Marshall and Royal on the field and allows the corners to play contain and squeeze the gaps. I really think there's a higher chance of this increasing interior blitzes against this formation and inhibiting scoring or conversion success rate, and even being stopped in the backfield against an aggressive LB corps.

Would PA fool anyone in that situation? With Scheffler, and maybe Knowshon, our only true receiving threats, would defenses even care if they bit...?

I think the idea behind this was to help our our redzone scoring and give us more of a power running game.
I was not a fan of the pick, but our redzone scoring was a big problem.

We wont have to run trick plays and fade routes all the time if we can line up and just run it down their throats at will.

Plus if we get a lead, we can bleed the clock better if we are able to get consistent yardage on the ground.
Both Moreno and Quinn were taken for this purpose I think.

I wasnt thrilled with the pick, but I do understand it

gyldenlove
04-28-2009, 10:03 AM
Bottom line is you draft the players YOU feel are the best and will help your team the most. Not what Kiper or Mayock or what some fans think. I'm just hoping these guys draft better, especially on defense, better than Shanahan ever did.

Considering they seem to be doing what Shanahan did, that seems like a high expectation.

By the way, even an average defensive lineman would be much more of an improvement over what we have now compared to getting a RB or CB.

Mile High Mojoe
04-28-2009, 10:15 AM
Just a reminder that 3 of the 4 teams beat us last year...Is that saying a lot? The Broncos have been as mediocre or worst than any of the teams in the AFC East.

Jesterhole
04-28-2009, 10:40 AM
Since McDouchebag gutted the offense by getting rid of the center piece, I don't have a problem with him taking a running back. As we will all painfully find out, Orton is no where near as good as Cutler, so we'll need someone back there who can make plays.

Mediator12
04-28-2009, 12:10 PM
I already understand all this. So what? Blocking TE was well behind our D-line needs. What is so tough to understand about that? Shall i write you a long post explaining it?

BS. You posted you do NOT have a Legitimate Explanation for Why they Did it.

Now, You are shifting Focus and saying You are right they are wrong. You could have saved us all a lot of trouble and just entitled this thread:

"I Could draft better than these idiots thread."

Mediator12
04-28-2009, 12:40 PM
I have a serious issue with that Quinn pick, personally, and here's why:

We already have outstanding blocking from our perimeter players and they're all also significant match up problems.

So does this pick really increase the effectiveness of the offensive unit? Let's take a more indepth look than just 35%:65% of getting it done.

Let's look at formations. If we go to a 3 TE set, we're telegraphing that we're either running the football by also loading the backfield, or that we're passing by splitting Marshall and Royal out wide. Marshall and Royal, btw, who are both excellent blockers, Marshall almost on a Dan Graham level himself. So do we take our new shiny toy in Knowshon off the field, or Brandon?

In reality, that formation's probably going to only truly be effective on goalline or SHORT yardage situations where defenses are playing the run first regardless and we're taking a "Here's what we're doing, try and stop it" approach. But that's neutralizing the effect of Marshall and Royal on the field and allows the corners to play contain and squeeze the gaps. I really think there's a higher chance of this increasing interior blitzes against this formation and inhibiting scoring or conversion success rate, and even being stopped in the backfield against an aggressive LB corps.

Would PA fool anyone in that situation? With Scheffler, and maybe Knowshon, our only true receiving threats, would defenses even care if they bit...?

First of all, I have a serious issue with that pick as well. I do not like that style of running game and offense very much. So, I get that. However, I understand why they would do it, that is the point. Footsteps is trying to make the selection "unexplainable" in order to further his agenda from his analysis. Making it unexplainable makes the FO and Coach an Idiot of epic proportions.

Now, I thought you watched NE a lot last year? I thought you of all people would be wary of how they maximize a teams weakness on Defense. They will run against poor run stopping teams and throw against weak pass defenses. NE will vary their Formations and Pass out of the 3 TE set as well as run. They are very successful on short yardage because they vary their packages for third and short based on Personnel. One down might have 5 WR, the next 3 TE, the next 3 WR 2 RB, etc. They are not very predictable and they use multiple formations from their personnel packages. Plus, they do use a 2 TE set against 3-4 teams in order to make the OLB's declare more often and shift.

Also, I think it is great the Broncos have excellent blocking WR's and even Hillis in the backfield. However, none of those guys are inline Blockers. Marshall might be able to do it, but he is used to blocking little DB's NOT DE's and LB's. Its a different skillset or the TE's who basically play in the slot would not be getting docked for not being able to block inline in evals.

As for the increased Blitzing, teams tried it and they ran screens to TE's, RB's, and even double fake screens to keep teams honest against that set. They also ran sweeps and counters away from the inside to keep interior guys from just taking the gaps.

It is a style of offense that requires a top notch set of TE's to exploit whatever team they face. As I said, I do not like it either, but I do Understand it.

TheReverend
04-28-2009, 12:47 PM
First of all, I have a serious issue with that pick as well. I do not like that style of running game and offense very much. So, I get that. However, I understand why they would do it, that is the point. Footsteps is trying to make the selection "unexplainable" in order to further his agenda from his analysis. Making it unexplainable makes the FO and Coach an Idiot of epic proportions.

Now, I thought you watched NE a lot last year? I thought you of all people would be wary of how they maximize a teams weakness on Defense. They will run against poor run stopping teams and throw against weak pass defenses. NE will vary their Formations and Pass out of the 3 TE set as well as run. They are very successful on short yardage because they vary their packages for third and short based on Personnel. One down might have 5 WR, the next 3 TE, the next 3 WR 2 RB, etc. They are not very predictable and they use multiple formations from their personnel packages. Plus, they do use a 2 TE set against 3-4 teams in order to make the OLB's declare more often and shift.

Also, I think it is great the Broncos have excellent blocking WR's and even Hillis in the backfield. However, none of those guys are inline Blockers. Marshall might be able to do it, but he is used to blocking little DB's NOT DE's and LB's. Its a different skillset or the TE's who basically play in the slot would not be getting docked for not being able to block inline in evals.

As for the increased Blitzing, teams tried it and they ran screens to TE's, RB's, and even double fake screens to keep teams honest against that set. They also ran sweeps and counters away from the inside to keep interior guys from just taking the gaps.

It is a style of offense that requires a top notch set of TE's to exploit whatever team they face. As I said, I do not like it either, but I do Understand it.

That's my concern. I DON'T this allows the versatility to maximize attacking a teams weakness on defense. I figured as a guy living in Indianapolis you'd see my POV a little clearer in this regard. :wiggle: Would you rather have an in-line blocker in on any given down, or Dallas Clark's match-up problems? More freedom to change the play at the LOS AND the adjustments it FORCES a team to make without telegraphing the play style.

My other comments:

-Marshalls used to block OLB with a degree of regularity, and occasionally has a crack on a DE to spring the corner.

-Give me your bosses number. I know you've got some work issues lately, but this is absolutely bull**** that I have to wait this long for a response.

GeniusatWork
04-28-2009, 01:09 PM
I have a serious issue with that Quinn pick, personally, and here's why:

We already have outstanding blocking from our perimeter players and they're all also significant match up problems.

So does this pick really increase the effectiveness of the offensive unit? Let's take a more indepth look than just 35%:65% of getting it done.

Let's look at formations. If we go to a 3 TE set, we're telegraphing that we're either running the football by also loading the backfield, or that we're passing by splitting Marshall and Royal out wide. Marshall and Royal, btw, who are both excellent blockers, Marshall almost on a Dan Graham level himself. So do we take our new shiny toy in Knowshon off the field, or Brandon?

In reality, that formation's probably going to only truly be effective on goalline or SHORT yardage situations where defenses are playing the run first regardless and we're taking a "Here's what we're doing, try and stop it" approach. But that's neutralizing the effect of Marshall and Royal on the field and allows the corners to play contain and squeeze the gaps. I really think there's a higher chance of this increasing interior blitzes against this formation and inhibiting scoring or conversion success rate, and even being stopped in the backfield against an aggressive LB corps.

Would PA fool anyone in that situation? With Scheffler, and maybe Knowshon, our only true receiving threats, would defenses even care if they bit...?

I think your whole argument breaks down right there. Marshall and Royal are whiffers when it comes to blocking.

I can't even reply to Mediator12's post. That has to stand alone.

gyldenlove
04-28-2009, 01:12 PM
I think your whole argument breaks down right there. Marshall and Royal are whiffers when it comes to blocking.

I can't even reply to Mediator12's post. That has to stand alone.

You need to watch some games. Before Marshall tore up his arm he was a ferocious blocker who regularly would walk CBs 5 and 10 yards backwards and fairly consistently knocked down safeties. Royal is not the second coming of Smith as a blocker yet, but he is no slouch that is for sure.

TheReverend
04-28-2009, 01:14 PM
I think your whole argument breaks down right there. Marshall and Royal are whiffers when it comes to blocking.

I can't even reply to Mediator12's post. That has to stand alone.

This isn't a serious post, right? Ha!

GeniusatWork
04-28-2009, 01:32 PM
I have a serious issue with that Quinn pick, personally, and here's why:

We already have outstanding blocking from our perimeter players and they're all also significant match up problems.

So does this pick really increase the effectiveness of the offensive unit? Let's take a more indepth look than just 35%:65% of getting it done.

Let's look at formations. If we go to a 3 TE set, we're telegraphing that we're either running the football by also loading the backfield, or that we're passing by splitting Marshall and Royal out wide. Marshall and Royal, btw, who are both excellent blockers, Marshall almost on a Dan Graham level himself. So do we take our new shiny toy in Knowshon off the field, or Brandon?
In reality, that formation's probably going to only truly be effective on goalline or SHORT yardage situations where defenses are playing the run first regardless and we're taking a "Here's what we're doing, try and stop it" approach. But that's neutralizing the effect of Marshall and Royal on the field and allows the corners to play contain and squeeze the gaps. I really think there's a higher chance of this increasing interior blitzes against this formation and inhibiting scoring or conversion success rate, and even being stopped in the backfield against an aggressive LB corps.

Would PA fool anyone in that situation? With Scheffler, and maybe Knowshon, our only true receiving threats, would defenses even care if they bit...?

"Let's look at formations. If we go to a 3 TE set, we're telegraphing that we're either running the football by also loading the backfield, or that we're passing by splitting Marshall and Royal out wide. Marshall and Royal, btw, who are both excellent blockers, Marshall almost on a Dan Graham level himself. So do we take our new shiny toy in Knowshon off the field, or Brandon?

I'm not the smartest guy in the world, but I can recognize gibberish when I see it.

TheReverend
04-28-2009, 01:33 PM
I'm not the smartest guy in the world

Clearly.

gyldenlove
04-28-2009, 01:38 PM
"Let's look at formations. If we go to a 3 TE set, we're telegraphing that we're either running the football by also loading the backfield, or that we're passing by splitting Marshall and Royal out wide. Marshall and Royal, btw, who are both excellent blockers, Marshall almost on a Dan Graham level himself. So do we take our new shiny toy in Knowshon off the field, or Brandon?

I'm not the smartest guy in the world, but I can recognize gibberish when I see it.

That doesn't matter much, when you go in shotgun you telegraph that you are passing, but if people can't stop it, it doesn't matter.

I bet the 2007 Patriots could have listed half their offensive plays before the game still win, because even if you know what is coming you still need to have the talent to stop it.

GeniusatWork
04-28-2009, 01:48 PM
I think the idea behind this was to help our our redzone scoring and give us more of a power running game.
I was not a fan of the pick, but our redzone scoring was a big problem.

We wont have to run trick plays and fade routes all the time if we can line up and just run it down their throats at will.

Plus if we get a lead, we can bleed the clock better if we are able to get consistent yardage on the ground.
Both Moreno and Quinn were taken for this purpose I think.

I wasnt thrilled with the pick, but I do understand it

I was impressed with the Quinn scouting report. A guy that not only rubs his first assignment off, but gets to the second level and dominates. And, finds the seam in zones sit downs and catches the ball well. That's what I call a chain mover.

GeniusatWork
04-28-2009, 01:52 PM
Considering they seem to be doing what Shanahan did, that seems like a high expectation.

By the way, even an average defensive lineman would be much more of an improvement over what we have now compared to getting a RB or CB.

We don't know that yet.

GeniusatWork
04-28-2009, 01:58 PM
You need to watch some games. Before Marshall tore up his arm he was a ferocious blocker who regularly would walk CBs 5 and 10 yards backwards and fairly consistently knocked down safeties. Royal is not the second coming of Smith as a blocker yet, but he is no slouch that is for sure.

I don't recall that the same glowing way you do. My memory tells me Marshall made an effort without much effectiveness.

GeniusatWork
04-28-2009, 02:00 PM
This isn't a serious post, right? Ha!

I seriously think you're drunk if you think Marshall can block like Daniel Graham. Ha!

elsid13
04-28-2009, 03:00 PM
So no one has posted that Denver only had 100 guys on its Draft Board. WTF is that about. That just doesn't make sense to me, why someone with the resource Denver provides a coach/G< wouldn't grade out all the players the could.

GeniusatWork
04-28-2009, 03:05 PM
So no one has posted that Denver only had 100 guys on its Draft Board. WTF is that about. That just doesn't make sense to me, why someone with the resource Denver provides a coach/G< wouldn't grade out all the players the could.

They had 100 players they thought were good and fit the scheme. Occam's Razor. They evaluated everybody and narrowed it down to 100 guys and then got the best players they wanted.

I don't agree with it completely, only maybe 60% do, but they had their plan, they went for it, they grabbed who they wanted when possible. Now we'll see in the next two years if they knew what they were doing.

outdoor_miner
04-28-2009, 03:12 PM
So no one has posted that Denver only had 100 guys on its Draft Board. WTF is that about. That just doesn't make sense to me, why someone with the resource Denver provides a coach/G< wouldn't grade out all the players the could.

Discussion on that in this thread:

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=80192

fontaine
04-30-2009, 05:04 AM
Yes and no. McD probably felt that taking those players (talking mainly about the DTs here) at their alloted time slot, was not as good of value as taking someone else. Basically, you pass on a guy who you don't think will help you out as much as another guy, regardless of position. For example, if McD had a WR rated at a certain level and a DT rated at a certain level and he took the WR and not the DT, then he's taking the most impactful player at the time of the pick.

So when did McD actually realize this? A day before the draft?

I'm asking because if McD really thought this way then why the hell didn't he do more to address the front 7 in FA/Trades BEFORE the draft?
Or are you telling me he's perfectly fine with going into the season with, on paper at least, one of the least talented and weakest front 7s in the league while trading away our first rounder next year, that could easily turn into a top 8 pick given our front 7?

fontaine
04-30-2009, 05:37 AM
First of all, I have a serious issue with that pick as well. I do not like that style of running game and offense very much. So, I get that. However, I understand why they would do it, that is the point. Footsteps is trying to make the selection "unexplainable" in order to further his agenda from his analysis. Making it unexplainable makes the FO and Coach an Idiot of epic proportions.

Now, I thought you watched NE a lot last year? I thought you of all people would be wary of how they maximize a teams weakness on Defense. They will run against poor run stopping teams and throw against weak pass defenses. NE will vary their Formations and Pass out of the 3 TE set as well as run. They are very successful on short yardage because they vary their packages for third and short based on Personnel. One down might have 5 WR, the next 3 TE, the next 3 WR 2 RB, etc. They are not very predictable and they use multiple formations from their personnel packages. Plus, they do use a 2 TE set against 3-4 teams in order to make the OLB's declare more often and shift.

Also, I think it is great the Broncos have excellent blocking WR's and even Hillis in the backfield. However, none of those guys are inline Blockers. Marshall might be able to do it, but he is used to blocking little DB's NOT DE's and LB's. Its a different skillset or the TE's who basically play in the slot would not be getting docked for not being able to block inline in evals.

As for the increased Blitzing, teams tried it and they ran screens to TE's, RB's, and even double fake screens to keep teams honest against that set. They also ran sweeps and counters away from the inside to keep interior guys from just taking the gaps.

It is a style of offense that requires a top notch set of TE's to exploit whatever team they face. As I said, I do not like it either, but I do Understand it.

Chris Baker was available as a FA for cheap and he's one of the best in line blocking TEs in the game with ok hands.

If that position was such a priority then he would have been targetted at the onset of FA rather than waiting in the draft to address it.

I'm not questioning why they drafted Quinn but if there truely was such a huge drop off between him and the next blocking TE in the draft then McDaniels really backed himself into a corner to select him and made his strategy extremely rigid.

footstepsfrom#27
04-30-2009, 02:19 PM
That's my concern. I DON'T this allows the versatility to maximize attacking a teams weakness on defense. I figured as a guy living in Indianapolis you'd see my POV a little clearer in this regard. :wiggle: Would you rather have an in-line blocker in on any given down, or Dallas Clark's match-up problems? More freedom to change the play at the LOS AND the adjustments it FORCES a team to make without telegraphing the play style.
Bullseye.

Mediator professes to dislike the pick yet praises the reasons he says they made it...then qualifies that logical contradiction as a "legitimate" explanation"...equally goofy...is his assertion that an "inline" blocker equals some kind of secret weapon...how odd then that the Pats let the best in the league walk out the door. But not to worry because (his words), this pick (the one he doesn't like) equals a "top flight set of TE's"...weird huh? ??? He dislikes the pick but the guy gives them a "top flight" solution and he's a key to this amazing offense.

Also in his words, not mine, ..."making it unexplainable makes the FO and Coach an Idiot of epic proportions."

Finally...something I agree with.

Rohirrim
04-30-2009, 02:37 PM
So when did McD actually realize this? A day before the draft?

I'm asking because if McD really thought this way then why the hell didn't he do more to address the front 7 in FA/Trades BEFORE the draft?
Or are you telling me he's perfectly fine with going into the season with, on paper at least, one of the least talented and weakest front 7s in the league while trading away our first rounder next year, that could easily turn into a top 8 pick given our front 7?

Not to mention with what looks like three of the best looking DTs to come out in many, many years - all top tens.