PDA

View Full Version : Of all The Rocky Sports Writers Why Frei?


rugbythug
04-28-2009, 07:26 AM
http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_12241373

Dude is literally dumber than a box of Hair. His Glass is always Half Full Of poop. He is Lex.


We Drafted 10 players. Our Board had ~100. And the broncos are making a mistake by not have more? C'mon use your brain please. Not every player fits everywhere.

I will give up Frei and a Box Of Jelly Filled. For pretty much anyone else.

Rohirrim
04-28-2009, 07:32 AM
I agree with Frei. Having a board of only 100 players is ridiculous. What worries me is that the Broncos may have had a choice between a safety or CB or TE and a DT or DE but took the other player simply because the DT/DE wasn't on their "list", so they knew nothing about him. That's :bs:

Rabb
04-28-2009, 07:36 AM
He is Lex.

:rofl:

rugbythug
04-28-2009, 07:39 AM
I agree with Frei. Having a board of only 100 players is ridiculous. What worries me is that the Broncos may have had a choice between a safety or CB or TE and a DT or DE but took the other player simply because the DT/DE wasn't on their "list", so they knew nothing about him. That's :bs:

So in your Opinion Over 100 Players out of each draft will be NFL quality Starters?

Rohirrim
04-28-2009, 07:47 AM
So in your Opinion Over 100 Players out of each draft will be NFL quality Starters?

Huh? ???

Lolad
04-28-2009, 07:53 AM
So in your Opinion Over 100 Players out of each draft will be NFL quality Starters?

The point is that they didnt evaluate enough players. They reached because there players were going off the board and they only evaluated 100. and 10 of 30 came in for a private workout. So that to me narrows their focus even more.

In next years draft teams will now know who the broncos will pick. Just look who they had come in for a private workout.

rugbythug
04-28-2009, 07:59 AM
Huh? ???

Pretty Easy Concept. Most Players Drafted never become NFL Starters or Contributors. In Fact I am guessing less than a hundred per draft become contributors. Why have a draft board full of people you don't think will be players?

Just because they are not on your board does not mean you did not evaluate them. They evaluated everyone and then kicked out those players they didn't think would fit the team.

Rohirrim
04-28-2009, 08:00 AM
If Xanders and Mac came out and said - We didnt' pick Magee or Brace or Dorrell because we looked hard at them as players, did a complete analysis, watched all the film, and decided that the BPAs on our board were Smith, McBath and Quinn, etc. - I would be fine with that. If what they are saying is we didn't take a DT or DE because we didn't even look at them and knew nothing about them, that's friggin negligence.

rugbythug
04-28-2009, 08:05 AM
The point is that they didnt evaluate enough players. They reached because there players were going off the board and they only evaluated 100. and 10 of 30 came in for a private workout. So that to me narrows their focus even more.

In next years draft teams will now know who the broncos will pick. Just look who they had come in for a private workout.

They were evaluated by the scouts. And found to be poor fits.

The best way to bluff is to never get caught bluffing. Nothing says he has to play the same hand the same way next year.

My point is totally different. If your scouting staff is so inept so as to not be able to narrow your board down to 20 or so players throughout the draft that you want. Then it is best to get new ones. You don't pick guys because they Make you sound good when Mel Kiper and Mayock speak you pick them because they will help you win football games. Only a few players in every draft will do that for every team.

rugbythug
04-28-2009, 08:08 AM
If Xanders and Mac came out and said - We didnt' pick Magee or Brace or Dorrell because we looked hard at them as players, did a complete analysis, watched all the film, and decided that the BPAs on our board were Smith, McBath and Quinn, etc. - I would be fine with that. If what they are saying is we didn't take a DT or DE because we didn't even look at them and knew nothing about them, that's friggin negligence.

They did not say it exactly like that but they did say. There were only 5-6 3/4 Guys they thought could play.

Jackson, Raji Gone Before 12
Brace-Gone before 48 but was definitely rated below smith.
Magee, Dorrell - I am guessing Rated below McBath and Quinn or else we would have picked them.

Rohirrim
04-28-2009, 08:10 AM
This is what Frei wrote:

Make no mistake, the list was not the Broncos' prioritization of the top 100 players available. It was a board of the players the Broncos wanted, taking into account the need to have some sort of balance of who would be available in the early, middle and late rounds.

I have to agree with Frei; If that's the approach you're going to take, you better be right.

rugbythug
04-28-2009, 08:14 AM
This is what Frei wrote:

Make no mistake, the list was not the Broncos' prioritization of the top 100 players available. It was a board of the players the Broncos wanted, taking into account the need to have some sort of balance of who would be available in the early, middle and late rounds.

I have to agree with Frei; If that's the approach you're going to take, you better be right.

Actually any approach you take you better be right.

outdoor_miner
04-28-2009, 08:15 AM
If Xanders and Mac came out and said - We didnt' pick Magee or Brace or Dorrell because we looked hard at them as players, did a complete analysis, watched all the film, and decided that the BPAs on our board were Smith, McBath and Quinn, etc. - I would be fine with that. If what they are saying is we didn't take a DT or DE because we didn't even look at them and knew nothing about them, that's friggin negligence.

My assumption would be that a large number of players were eliminated from their draft board entirely based on a lack of schematic fit and a lack of "personality fit" (they clearly went for "leaders", team-first players, and people with higher "character"). Hopefully, they evaluated all the available players, and then whittled that down to their official board. I agree that I would be concerned if they simply didn't have the resources to evaluate all the players in the draft, but I have to assume they did their due diligence.

bronco militia
04-28-2009, 08:20 AM
Terry Frei has been writing for the Post forever and usually cover's the NHL.

His dad worked as a scout and OL coach for the Broncos

chickennob2
04-28-2009, 08:34 AM
My assumption would be that a large number of players were eliminated from their draft board entirely based on a lack of schematic fit and a lack of "personality fit" (they clearly went for "leaders", team-first players, and people with higher "character"). Hopefully, they evaluated all the available players, and then whittled that down to their official board. I agree that I would be concerned if they simply didn't have the resources to evaluate all the players in the draft, but I have to assume they did their due diligence.

This.


It wasn't that they only looked at 100 players. That claim is ridiculous. They looked at all of the players, and eliminated guys based on character, intelligence, attitude, ability, and fit to the scheme. In the end they were left with 100 players that they thought would legitimately improve this team.

TailgateNut
04-28-2009, 08:40 AM
This.


It wasn't that they only looked at 100 players. That claim is ridiculous. They looked at all of the players, and eliminated guys based on character, intelligence, attitude, ability, and fit to the scheme. In the end they were left with 100 players that they thought would legitimately improve this team.

one post in this thread which actually makes sense.

Smiling Assassin27
04-28-2009, 10:22 AM
I wrote him about this column. In particular, about his opening statement that McD acts like he knows more than everyone else. His response:

Points read and registered. I do have considerable background and knowledge in football, though, as my books have evidenced.


Uh, WHO thinks he knows more than everyone else, Terry?

baja
04-28-2009, 10:35 AM
If Xanders and Mac came out and said - We didnt' pick Magee or Brace or Dorrell because we looked hard at them as players, did a complete analysis, watched all the film, and decided that the BPAs on our board were Smith, McBath and Quinn, etc. - I would be fine with that. If what they are saying is we didn't take a DT or DE because we didn't even look at them and knew nothing about them, that's friggin negligence.

I'm sure they evaluated more than a hundred players but the hundred they chose had all the aspects they wanted, character, smarts, skill, desire to play the game and talented at their position as it relates to our scheme. and played a position we needed.

I thought it was a great draft and a great approach to drafting in general. I think this will turn out to be the best draft ever for the Broncos everything considered. We now have a team that will never embarrass us the way the team did last three games last year.

TheDave
04-28-2009, 10:39 AM
Something I've been considering with this draft...

Shanahan was mostly a height/weight/speed guy when it came to drafting.

We have a team full of athletes already. Is it possible that McKidds approach of getting solid football players / character guys is exactly what this team needs to balance things out?

gyldenlove
04-28-2009, 10:49 AM
The problem with the targeting approach is that if you are not exceedingly cool or target popular players you will end up having to pay a steep price to get them (as we did with Quinn and Smith).

Where you can win is if you target players other teams won't target so you can move around the draft and find a comfortable spot or if you have a lot of ice in your veins and will wait it out and see if the targeted players become available so you don't have to move up and get them.

Rohirrim
04-28-2009, 10:51 AM
Terry Frei has an excellent reputation in this town and is very knowledgable. I've always found him to be one of the better sports reporters in Denver. What he reported is that Mac and Xanders did not "prioritize." They selected from a limited pool of players they "wanted," whatever that means. I understand the concept they are using of BPA to fit their plan. It's not that complex.

I'm still finding it hard to believe that not one of the players in their greatest area of need (DT) fit their criteria. Especially when I look at the list of GMs in this draft (Newsome, Polian, Pioli) who did find DTs in the higher rounds for their teams. If you expect me to just trust, on faith, that the criteria these thirty-somethings are using is somehow superior to the draft knowledge of the GMs mentioned above, I got some swampland for sale. ;D

rugbythug
04-28-2009, 11:08 AM
Terry Frei has an excellent reputation in this town and is very knowledgable. I've always found him to be one of the better sports reporters in Denver. What he reported is that Mac and Xanders did not "prioritize." They selected from a limited pool of players they "wanted," whatever that means. I understand the concept they are using of BPA to fit their plan. It's not that complex.

I'm still finding it hard to believe that not one of the players in their greatest area of need (DT) fit their criteria. Especially when I look at the list of GMs in this draft (Newsome, Polian, Pioli) who did find DTs in the higher rounds for their teams. If you expect me to just trust, on faith, that the criteria these thirty-somethings are using is somehow superior to the draft knowledge of the GMs mentioned above, I got some swampland for sale. ;D

One thing I think you might be missing though. All of those guys are drafting into a team they have drafted for before. They are putting players into a system that follows the players they put in last year. So they can prioritize a little more. Mcdaniels is coming in here and going. For what I am looking for the Cupboards are bare. He does not care that Scheffler is a great Seam Runner. He doesn't want it or need it. He wanted an inline blocker who in a goal line package will push it in the endzone or catch a short pass. He doesn't Care why JMFW was brought in. He did not show enough on tape to make AMFS a want and not a need. Newsome and Polian know how good their back ups are. They have seen the PS guys so their drafts can be more focused.

And Lets Be real in terms of Value Pioli Reached on Jackson.

Smiling Assassin27
04-28-2009, 11:10 AM
Something I've been considering with this draft...

Shanahan was mostly a height/weight/speed guy when it came to drafting.

We have a team full of athletes already. Is it possible that McKidds approach of getting solid football players / character guys is exactly what this team needs to balance things out?

Looking at the list of UDFA's, there seem to be some character issues on there, no?

TheDave
04-28-2009, 11:12 AM
Looking at the list of UDFA's, there seem to be some character issues on there, no?

JMO, but I couldn't care less about UDFA. They have about a 5% chance of making this team so I think teams just throw a bunch of **** against the wall and see if anything sticks.

rugbythug
04-28-2009, 11:17 AM
JMO, but I couldn't care less about UDFA. They have about a 5% chance of making this team so I think teams just throw a bunch of **** against the wall and see if anything sticks.

Probably the most appropriate analogy for UDFA I have every seen.

outdoor_miner
04-28-2009, 11:32 AM
The problem with the targeting approach is that if you are not exceedingly cool or target popular players you will end up having to pay a steep price to get them (as we did with Quinn and Smith).

Where you can win is if you target players other teams won't target so you can move around the draft and find a comfortable spot or if you have a lot of ice in your veins and will wait it out and see if the targeted players become available so you don't have to move up and get them.

I pretty much totally agree with this. I don't think they can possibly continue to run future drafts the way they did this year. You can't always be moving "up" in the draft. We moved up for Quinn, "up" for Smith, up for McKinley, up for Brandstater. Zero trades-down. I think there were a couple clear "panic" selections, Quinn being the most obvious. McDaniels and Xanders didn't have the guts to wait it out. If Quinn was the only guy on their board worthy of a 3rd round pick... Well, their board is too small (although, as stated above, I disagree with the premise that they didn't evaluate the whole draft pool), and like you said, they are targeting too many players that other teams are also targeting.

After having some time to think about it, I actually have less of a problem with the Smith move. If he's the #1 corner on their board, I have no problems going out and getting him. He'll cost a hell of a lot less money than a #1 pick next year, which frees up cap resources to devote to other areas of the team. This is pretty much the approach that Xanders has been saying all along, and one that I agree with wholeheartedly: they don't want any one player taking up too much of the cap unless it is "justified". It's a shrewd move if Smith lives up to the billing of a first round pick. He doesn't have to be a super-star, but he needs to be a solid starter for many years to justify the move. If all goes according to plan, this move could result in a great corner + another solid player for the money it would have cost for a single pick next year.

I'm ok with their approach for this draft. As far as their management of draft picks, McDaniels and Xanders are inexperienced, and will get better as time goes on. Hopefully their eye for talent is solid. We should have a pretty good idea pretty quickly. One thing I agree with the McDaniels "bashers" is that he has set himself up with very high expectations. Everything he has said and done indicates they plan to win now. There really are no excuses. I think anything less than a serious playoff push with a consistently competitive team is a disappointment. I'm on board and think he can do it, but he needs to field a good team this year.

Rohirrim
04-28-2009, 12:20 PM
One thing I think you might be missing though. All of those guys are drafting into a team they have drafted for before. They are putting players into a system that follows the players they put in last year. So they can prioritize a little more. Mcdaniels is coming in here and going. For what I am looking for the Cupboards are bare. He does not care that Scheffler is a great Seam Runner. He doesn't want it or need it. He wanted an inline blocker who in a goal line package will push it in the endzone or catch a short pass. He doesn't Care why JMFW was brought in. He did not show enough on tape to make AMFS a want and not a need. Newsome and Polian know how good their back ups are. They have seen the PS guys so their drafts can be more focused.

And Lets Be real in terms of Value Pioli Reached on Jackson.

That's a good point, as far as those GM's knowledge of team goes. Mac is starting from scratch. As bold as his moves were, he must feel that time is not on his side. I'm not a Mac "basher" or "hater." There's enough of that going around. I'm a skeptic. To me, stopping the run is job #1 in football. I don't see anything that Mac has done in this draft that will do that job any better than it was done last year. I looked up our number one tackler last year and it was Jamie Wilborn, who was one of the first guys that Mac cut.

As far as Pioli reaching for Jackson, I think Tyson will be a very valuable run stuffer. He's a two gap plug. I don't think the Chiefs will have to worry about that side of the line for many years to come, but he's not going to be getting many sacks. Is that worth a #3? ???

TheReverend
04-28-2009, 02:21 PM
This off-season gets increasingly strange day by day.

elsid13
04-28-2009, 02:25 PM
If most NFL teams have 200 plus player on their boards, why wouldn't Denver do something similar??? That front office isn't smarter then everyone else, in the profession. By limiting the pool, it hurt their chances in the later rounds of finding TD or Hillis or Rob Smith. You always try to maximum your options.

TheReverend
04-28-2009, 02:35 PM
If most NFL teams have 200 plus player on their boards, why wouldn't Denver do something similar??? That front office isn't smarter then everyone else, in the profession. By limiting the pool, it hurt their chances in the later rounds of finding TD or Hillis or Rob Smith. You always try to maximum your options.

110% correct.

There's an extra SEVERAL HUNDRED prospects that don't even get drafted. If you've minimized your who will get drafted board down to only 100 ****ing people, then at least start throwing a sixth or seventh at potential undrafted players so you can ensure you get them.

This is idiocy at it's finest.

Northman
04-28-2009, 02:36 PM
I agree with Frei. Having a board of only 100 players is ridiculous. What worries me is that the Broncos may have had a choice between a safety or CB or TE and a DT or DE but took the other player simply because the DT/DE wasn't on their "list", so they knew nothing about him. That's :bs:

I kind of got that feeling too.

TheDave
04-28-2009, 02:37 PM
This off-season gets increasingly strange day by day.

Once we traded cutler... Nothing after that will surprise me.

Northman
04-28-2009, 02:43 PM
They evaluated everyone and then kicked out those players they didn't think would fit the team.

Just out of curiosity how do you know this?

Paladin
04-28-2009, 02:44 PM
Bottom line: He filled his dance card.

Does it matter? The proof will not be known until next fall. Frankly, they got a whole lot more than the draft choices. They got a barnful of FAs.

outdoor_miner
04-28-2009, 02:51 PM
Just out of curiosity how do you know this?

Isn't that how draft boards work? Teams evaluate all the players via their area scouts, and then whittle the list down to those that fit scheme, health, and "character" (best word I can come up with, but includes attitude, intelligence, effort, off-the-field activities) criteria?

I'm assuming McDaniels got the concept of a smaller board from New England. Although, I have no idea if that's true. Perhaps the smaller board is a result of the changes that occurred late in the game (new Coach, new GM, new head of scouting)... They may have felt the need to target a smaller number of players that they were sure of and aggressively pursue them.

elsid13
04-28-2009, 04:23 PM
110% correct.

There's an extra SEVERAL HUNDRED prospects that don't even get drafted. If you've minimized your who will get drafted board down to only 100 ****ing people, then at least start throwing a sixth or seventh at potential undrafted players so you can ensure you get them.

This is idiocy at it's finest.

I really think the problem is because Denver didn't have any experience in college scouting in the room. I don't believe that they have appointed a Head of College Scouting. With our luck we had the idiot from Scouts Inc running the board based upon ESPiN rankings.

Rohirrim
04-28-2009, 04:26 PM
I really think the problem is because Denver didn't have any experience in college scouting in the room. I don't believe that they have appointed a Head of College Scouting. With our luck we had the idiot from Scouts Inc running the board based upon ESPiN rankings.

Too true to be funny.

The Denver Broncos have dipped into ESPNís ranks, hiring Scouts Inc. columnist Keith Kidd as their pro scouting director days away from the launch of the free agent signing period, according to Mike Klis of the Denver Post.

Itís an unusual hire since Kidd hasnít worked in the NFL since 2004, which raises the question about why other NFL teams havenít hired him. However, it isnít as if Kidd lacks prior NFL scouting experience.

Kidd was the Patriotsí assistant director of pro scouting between 2002 and 2004, which was the last year he has worked in the NFL. Thatís when he worked with Broncos head coach Josh McDaniels during his days as a defensive coaching assistant in New England.

Kidd has spent the past five years working for Scouts Inc., which evaluates players for ESPN. He has prior stints with the Arizona Cardinals from 1991 to 1998 and was the Cleveland Brownsí director of pro personnel from 1998 to 2001.

According to the Post, the Broncos areít expected to make any more scouting hires before the draft.

elsid13
04-28-2009, 04:28 PM
I always have faith in ESPiN players rating don't you?

Tombstone RJ
04-28-2009, 04:35 PM
The point is that they didnt evaluate enough players. They reached because there players were going off the board and they only evaluated 100. and 10 of 30 came in for a private workout. So that to me narrows their focus even more.

In next years draft teams will now know who the broncos will pick. Just look who they had come in for a private workout.

I'd rather the Broncos feel 100% confident on 100 players than be 50% confident on 300 players.

You do see the difference?

Tombstone RJ
04-28-2009, 04:38 PM
110% correct.

There's an extra SEVERAL HUNDRED prospects that don't even get drafted. If you've minimized your who will get drafted board down to only 100 ****ing people, then at least start throwing a sixth or seventh at potential undrafted players so you can ensure you get them.

This is idiocy at it's finest.

I disagree. Again, I'd rather the Broncos be confident in the players they want, then guessing on players that may or may not fit their system.

TheReverend
04-28-2009, 04:42 PM
I disagree. Again, I'd rather the Broncos be confident in the players they want, then guessing on players that may or may not fit their system.

Ha!

You think out of nearly 1,000 prospects, only 100 have a chance at fitting the system?

Tombstone RJ
04-28-2009, 04:46 PM
Ha!

You think out of nearly 1,000 prospects, only 100 have a chance at fitting the system?

Yep. Maybe even less than that.

TheReverend
04-28-2009, 04:48 PM
Yep. Maybe even less than that.

I'm sorry man, I'm just speechless...

rugbythug
04-28-2009, 04:50 PM
Ha!

You think out of nearly 1,000 prospects, only 100 have a chance at fitting the system?

No but why have several hundred people to wade through when you pick 10 players? How inept do you have to be to not be able to pick the best 100 out of a 1000.

Why have 200 when you pick 10? That means you think that 4 out of 5 picks in the draft would be a good fit for the broncos.

Tombstone RJ
04-28-2009, 04:50 PM
I'm sorry man, I'm just speechless...

Good.

elsid13
04-28-2009, 04:51 PM
I disagree. Again, I'd rather the Broncos be confident in the players they want, then guessing on players that may or may not fit their system.


It all guessing when comes to the draft. When you limit your board, you limit your opportunities.

From what I understand there are three boards that are interlinked

There is a board were each player is ranked by position and talent. So-So is the top QB, So-So is the next QB. Then there is a board were you rank all players regardless of position. And the last board rank your needs, based upon unit strength, player on board, age, etc. From here it looks like they didn't even look at second board because they didn't rate enough players.

Northman
04-28-2009, 04:52 PM
Although, I have no idea if that's true.

Exactly.

No one knows if they narrowed it down or didnt do enough.

TheReverend
04-28-2009, 04:55 PM
No but why have several hundred people to wade through when you pick 10 players? How inept do you have to be to not be able to pick the best 100 out of a 1000.

Why have 200 when you pick 10? That means you think that 4 out of 5 picks in the draft would be a good fit for the broncos.

Because you don't know how the board will fall, what offers will be on the table, and other factors that can influence who is available at what pick. You're simply unprepared in that situation and, frankly, not doing your due dilligence to a situation like this is suicide.

This really does explain a lot of the questionable moves this past weekend though.

elsid13
04-28-2009, 04:57 PM
No but why have several hundred people to wade through when you pick 10 players? How inept do you have to be to not be able to pick the best 100 out of a 1000.

Why have 200 when you pick 10? That means you think that 4 out of 5 picks in the draft would be a good fit for the broncos.

Because there are multiply actors in the draft. It about game theory and probability for each draft choice. It not about 10 sole selection it about all the potential 10 selections that could come up based upon what everyone else does.

Tombstone RJ
04-28-2009, 05:03 PM
It all guessing when comes to the draft. When you limit your board, you limit your opportunities.

From what I understand there are three boards that are interlinked

There is a board were each player is ranked by position and talent. So-So is the top QB, So-So is the next QB. Then there is a board were you rank all players regardless of position. And the last board rank your needs, based upon unit strength, player on board, age, etc. From here it looks like they didn't even look at second board because they didn't rate enough players.

All three boards have the same players, just in different spots.

outdoor_miner
04-28-2009, 05:10 PM
Exactly.

No one knows if they narrowed it down or didnt do enough.

I guess I was replying to your two previous posts combined... The one where you said you got the feeling that they didn't do enough evaluation, and then the one I actually responded to. I completely agree that we don't know.

However: I find it highly unlikely that a guy coming from the Patriots system didn't do his due diligence. Whatever you think of McDaniels, he is clearly not a stupid person, and he clearly values preparation. Some of the hypothesis tossed around here make it seem like he is a total friggin idiot, which are the ones that goad me into response.

I find it very hard to believe that they didn't thoroughly evaluate everyone in the draft, and then make their board based upon this evaluation. I would guess that whatever strategy they employed come draft time came directly from the way New England does it. That's why I was asking if New England uses a similar approach with the small draft boards. I'm guessing the answer is "yes".

Regardless, it's not like there were a whole bunch of reaches value wise. The biggest is probably Quinn. However, every other player pick was in a round that numerous Draft sites had projected the player to go. Heck, even Quinn was listed as 2nd/3rd round in a couple different places.

Anyway, I guess I just disagree with the people implying that McDaniels is stupid. Egotistical? I could see that argument. Inexperienced? Yep - I agree that his inexperience showed through in this draft. A total nincompoop? No way.

mhgaffney
04-28-2009, 05:20 PM
I would imagine the evaluation process has several layers or filters.

The first time through is probably quick and dirty. The coaches rely heavily on the scouting reports. No doubt, a large number of players are eliminated at this stage.

The second filter is probably much more detailed as they compare and contrast players of interest.

In this step wise manner the coaches keep narrowing the list down until they arrive at a short list of targetted players.

It was probably obvious -- from the start -- that the DT class was not up to standard.

Just one man's guesstimate.

Drek
04-30-2009, 05:17 AM
I don't see where all the outrage comes from.

Nowhere is there anything saying they didn't full scout the talent pool. Just that when they got ready for the draft their board had 100 guys on it, ranging throughout all rounds, who they had targeted.

Makes sense to me, especially in a draft this shallow. You take the overall talent pool of 1500 or so players, chop it down to the 300 or so who are possibly going to get drafted. You then chop that down a step further based on big character or injury red flags you don't want to deal with. At that point you start breaking the prospects down with the questions "Can he make this team?", "Can he fit this system?", "Can we get him at any reasonable position?", etc. in mind.

After that you look at how you've ranked the players and sort them into a big board based on where you think they will go, where you're willing to pick them, and if you're willing to move up or down as needed to secure X number of targets.

The Broncos decided they weren't moving up, so if it was a top 5 lock he didn't go on the board. This draft was notoriously shallow in the last rounds so there are a lot of guys you probably don't care to list in that group, once you've decided that there are a handful of guys in the middle first to early 3rd you like enough to make moves after.

Having a smaller draft board doesn't mean they didn't fully scout the talent pool, it just means they had specific targets in mind after they'd finished that scouting.

Rohirrim
04-30-2009, 05:37 AM
I don't see where all the outrage comes from.

Nowhere is there anything saying they didn't full scout the talent pool. Just that when they got ready for the draft their board had 100 guys on it, ranging throughout all rounds, who they had targeted.

Makes sense to me, especially in a draft this shallow. You take the overall talent pool of 1500 or so players, chop it down to the 300 or so who are possibly going to get drafted. You then chop that down a step further based on big character or injury red flags you don't want to deal with. At that point you start breaking the prospects down with the questions "Can he make this team?", "Can he fit this system?", "Can we get him at any reasonable position?", etc. in mind.

After that you look at how you've ranked the players and sort them into a big board based on where you think they will go, where you're willing to pick them, and if you're willing to move up or down as needed to secure X number of targets.

The Broncos decided they weren't moving up, so if it was a top 5 lock he didn't go on the board. This draft was notoriously shallow in the last rounds so there are a lot of guys you probably don't care to list in that group, once you've decided that there are a handful of guys in the middle first to early 3rd you like enough to make moves after.

Having a smaller draft board doesn't mean they didn't fully scout the talent pool, it just means they had specific targets in mind after they'd finished that scouting.

That's what worries me about this article. What you are talking about is exactly what Frei reports the Broncos did not do. He said the list was not a "prioritization" of all the picks available, just a list of the players the Broncos wanted.