PDA

View Full Version : Ill Bet Darcel Mcbath was a settle Pick.


rugbythug
04-29-2009, 07:15 AM
If you look at the Board when Denver went up for Smith you will see a bunch of targets the Broncos must have had in their sights. I would be willing to bet they made the move at 37 with a double down in mind. They thought Hey we can grab Smith Here, and pick up

Rey Maualuga
Ron Brace
Everette Brown
Clint Sintim
Connor Barwin

At 48. Then the board just goes wrong against the Broncos from there on out.

Brace goes as a Luxury Pick for the pick flush Pats. Brown is traded for with a 1st from next year. Sintim and Barwin go to 4-3 teams and Mcbath is the guy at the top of the Board. IMO Not moving up for Sintim or Barwin was the only misplay of the Broncos Draft.

Mogulseeker
04-29-2009, 07:23 AM
Trading OUR first for Alphonso Smith was the only misstep in the Broncos draft.

I wouldn't mind, actually, if it was the lower of the two.

lex
04-29-2009, 07:23 AM
If you look at the Board when Denver went up for Smith you will see a bunch of targets the Broncos must have had in their sights. I would be willing to bet they made the move at 37 with a double down in mind. They thought Hey we can grab Smith Here, and pick up

Rey Maualuga
Ron Brace
Everette Brown
Clint Sintim
Connor Barwin

At 48. Then the board just goes wrong against the Broncos from there on out.

Brace goes as a Luxury Pick for the pick flush Pats. Brown is traded for with a 1st from next year. Sintim and Barwin go to 4-3 teams and Mcbath is the guy at the top of the Board. IMO Not moving up for Sintim or Barwin was the only misplay of the Broncos Draft.

Yeah, possibly, which makes the way they went about acquiring Smith that much more horrid. They would have been better off packaging a combination of our 2 3rds and our 2nd to get Smith and then wait it out for Quinn and McBath.

lex
04-29-2009, 07:24 AM
Trading OUR first for Alphonso Smith was the only misstep in the Broncos draft.

I wouldn't mind, actually, if it was the lower of the two.

It was a huge misstep though.

Bronco Boy
04-29-2009, 07:27 AM
Couldn't you say most picks are settle picks?

Drek
04-29-2009, 07:56 AM
Yeah, possibly, which makes the way they went about acquiring Smith that much more horrid. They would have been better off packaging a combination of our 2 3rds and our 2nd to get Smith and then wait it out for Quinn and McBath.

Wait it out until when? You're saying they should have traded the 3rds and 2nd to go up for Smith, so you think they could've gotten Quinn and McBath in the 4th and 5th rounds?

If they were targeting one of the other sliders, and that is why they didn't want to move #48 to get Smith, then I could see using #85 to push #48 up a little and bet on Quinn sliding to #79, but if they really liked Smith as much as they say it was an educated risk to jump on him when the deal with Seattle was on the table.

rugbythug
04-29-2009, 08:12 AM
Yeah, possibly, which makes the way they went about acquiring Smith that much more horrid. They would have been better off packaging a combination of our 2 3rds and our 2nd to get Smith and then wait it out for Quinn and McBath.

No my point is they wanted 2 of the players so that made moving 48 a no go. My guess is Sintim and Barwin are the guys they wanted and both of those guys went to what I would consider unexpected teams.

lex
04-29-2009, 08:13 AM
Wait it out until when? You're saying they should have traded the 3rds and 2nd to go up for Smith, so you think they could've gotten Quinn and McBath in the 4th and 5th rounds?

If they were targeting one of the other sliders, and that is why they didn't want to move #48 to get Smith, then I could see using #85 to push #48 up a little and bet on Quinn sliding to #79, but if they really liked Smith as much as they say it was an educated risk to jump on him when the deal with Seattle was on the table.

They quite possibly could have selected Quinn in the 4th. And if nothing else, its better to trade next years 2nd to take him or McBath rather than use the first.

SonOfLe-loLang
04-29-2009, 08:18 AM
So even if they were expecting to get one of the players you mentioned, whats that have to do with getting Alphonso Smith? They obviously wanted Smith more than any of them, otherwise they would have drafted one of those other guys? I don't see how this makes the smith trade any better or worse

Northman
04-29-2009, 08:23 AM
If you look at the Board when Denver went up for Smith you will see a bunch of targets the Broncos must have had in their sights. I would be willing to bet they made the move at 37 with a double down in mind. They thought Hey we can grab Smith Here, and pick up

Rey Maualuga
Ron Brace
Everette Brown
Clint Sintim
Connor Barwin

At 48. Then the board just goes wrong against the Broncos from there on out.

Brace goes as a Luxury Pick for the pick flush Pats. Brown is traded for with a 1st from next year. Sintim and Barwin go to 4-3 teams and Mcbath is the guy at the top of the Board. IMO Not moving up for Sintim or Barwin was the only misplay of the Broncos Draft.


Hence why it would of been smarter to go with Brace first, then go for a DB. But thats if its how McD planned it.

Northman
04-29-2009, 08:24 AM
Wait it out until when? You're saying they should have traded the 3rds and 2nd to go up for Smith, so you think they could've gotten Quinn and McBath in the 4th and 5th rounds?

If they were targeting one of the other sliders, and that is why they didn't want to move #48 to get Smith, then I could see using #85 to push #48 up a little and bet on Quinn sliding to #79, but if they really liked Smith as much as they say it was an educated risk to jump on him when the deal with Seattle was on the table.


Quinn, Absolutely. He was projected as a 4-5th rounder anyway. McBath, not so much but definitely could of been had in the 3rd round.

rugbythug
04-29-2009, 08:25 AM
Hence why it would of been smarter to go with Brace first, then go for a DB. But thats if its how McD planned it.

Smith is a better Prospect than Brace. I think that is pretty much universally accepted.

rugbythug
04-29-2009, 08:26 AM
So even if they were expecting to get one of the players you mentioned, whats that have to do with getting Alphonso Smith? They obviously wanted Smith more than any of them, otherwise they would have drafted one of those other guys? I don't see how this makes the smith trade any better or worse

It is IMO the Only reason I can see for us not Using 48 to trade up and instead went with next years #1. It is the only Logical Reason I can see.

Northman
04-29-2009, 08:26 AM
Smith is a better Prospect than Brace. I think that is pretty much universally accepted.

Dont know about that. McD's mentor thought he was solid enough and took him. And at the same time still got a top 5 DB in the process.

rugbythug
04-29-2009, 08:28 AM
Dont know about that. McD's mentor thought he was solid enough and took him. And at the same time still got a top 5 DB in the process.

He took him as a Insurance pick against loosing Vince Wilfork next year.

Northman
04-29-2009, 08:29 AM
He took him as a Insurance pick against loosing Vince Wilfork next year.

Really? I didnt see a story on that. You have a link?

SonOfLe-loLang
04-29-2009, 08:31 AM
It is IMO the Only reason I can see for us not Using 48 to trade up and instead went with next years #1. It is the only Logical Reason I can see.

ooh, i get what you mean. Yeah, then maybe. Oh well, the draft is a crap shoot, you win some, you lose some.

Tombstone RJ
04-29-2009, 08:31 AM
Yeah, possibly, which makes the way they went about acquiring Smith that much more horrid. They would have been better off packaging a combination of our 2 3rds and our 2nd to get Smith and then wait it out for Quinn and McBath.

Why would any other teams want a bunch picks IN A WEAK DRAFT?

Do you think 3 extra picks in this draft appeals to any team, besides the Cowboys?

Plus, giving away a bunch of picks in this draft leaves the Broncos no room to get the other players they feel are worth drafting, like Quinn.

The Broncos had Smith targeted as THE BEST CB in the draft, first round talent.

cmhargrove
04-29-2009, 08:31 AM
If these guys turn out to be starters and improve this team, you are all wrong.

**** the Cutler trade. this is about winning football games.

If we are picking guys that improve the talent level of the team and help us win games, that's what the draft is about. Being a top ten pick is no guarantee of NFL success.

Which would you rather have a seventh pick on Heyward Bey, or a fourth round pick of Brandon Marshall? Would you rather have a four pick on McFadden or a 12 pick of Moreno? Would you rather have a 1 pick of Jake Long, or a 12 pick of Clady?
Dorsey at 5?
Gholston at 6?
Chris Williams at 14?

Or, lets look back at 2007.
Jamarcus Russell at 1?
We all wanted Adam Carriker at 13.
Jarvis Moss at 17?

And the list goes on....
Draft picks are a shot at potential. If you get a starrter that improves your team, you have scored. Let's stop overanalyzing the picks until we see if these guys are starter material.

If they sit on the bench for 2 years, you have an extremely valid point. If they are starters this year or next, you are completely wrong to second guess the moves.

Northman
04-29-2009, 08:33 AM
If these guys turn out to be starters and improve this team, you are all wrong.




Gee, you think?

And if they turn out to busts they wont help the team right? Ha!

DrFate
04-29-2009, 08:37 AM
Why would any other teams want a bunch picks IN A WEAK DRAFT?

Couldn't you phrase this same sentiment as 'why would the Broncos want a bunch of players from a weak draft'?

The people on this board that didn't like the moves - for the most part, from what I have inferred, have no problems with THE PLAYERS. The problem is with THE PRICE.

If the 2010 draft is generally seen as a deeper crop of talent than the 2009 draft, I still haven't seen a rationale explanation on how it makes sense to trade a 2010 #1 or a #2009 #2.

The ONLY psuedo-reason I've seen hinted at is cost. If the Broncos have a top 5 pick next year, they can now wave their hands and say 'we don't have the pick, we have Smith'.

cmhargrove
04-29-2009, 08:38 AM
Gee, you think?

And if they turn out to busts they wont help the team right? Ha!

I want to think of some great retort, but ok. Maybe I deserved it.

Just too much second guessing around here - everyone thinks they know better than the pros. Sometimes, we just need to sit back and let someone prove (or disprove) themselves.

I will restate my point a little more concisely. If you find any decent starting Safety anywhere in the draft, you will eventually say he was worth a first round pick. Let McBath prove his worth before we declare if he was a "reach."

rugbythug
04-29-2009, 08:40 AM
Couldn't you phrase this same sentiment as 'why would the Broncos want a bunch of players from a weak draft'?

The people on this board that didn't like the moves - for the most part, from what I have inferred, have no problems with THE PLAYERS. The problem is with THE PRICE.

If the 2010 draft is generally seen as a deeper crop of talent than the 2009 draft, I still haven't seen a rationale explanation on how it makes sense to trade a 2010 #1 or a #2009 #2.

The ONLY psuedo-reason I've seen hinted at is cost. If the Broncos have a top 5 pick next year, they can now wave their hands and say 'we don't have the pick, we have Smith'.

If the Broncos have a top 5 Pick next year it really does not matter as Mcdaniels is a Collosal Failure as a Head Coach. The offense even with an average QB should push us to 8-8. IMO we have a top 5 offense with or with out Cutler.

cmhargrove
04-29-2009, 08:40 AM
Couldn't you phrase this same sentiment as 'why would the Broncos want a bunch of players from a weak draft'?

The people on this board that didn't like the moves - for the most part, from what I have inferred, have no problems with THE PLAYERS. The problem is with THE PRICE.

If the 2010 draft is generally seen as a deeper crop of talent than the 2009 draft, I still haven't seen a rationale explanation on how it makes sense to trade a 2010 #1 or a #2009 #2.

The ONLY psuedo-reason I've seen hinted at is cost. If the Broncos have a top 5 pick next year, they can now wave their hands and say 'we don't have the pick, we have Smith'.

OK, there are two ways to look at price. A miss in the first round (and potentially the top ten) is crippling for a franchise. If we got first round talent in the second round, and didn't have to pay top ten salaries - it's freakin' brilliant!

I say that as a business owner. If you have to pay for talent, it's worth it. But, if you can get the same (starter) talent for less, it's a homerun.

Northman
04-29-2009, 08:42 AM
I want to think of some great retort, but ok. Maybe I deserved it.

Just too much second guessing around here - everyone thinks they know better than the pros. Sometimes, we just need to sit back and let someone prove (or disprove) themselves.

I will restate my point a little more concisely. If you find any decent starting Safety anywhere in the draft, you will eventually say he was worth a first round pick. Let McBath prove his worth before we declare if he was a "reach."


Absolutely. But like Fate just said my only problem is where they were taken. My feeling is that those positions were deep and we could of easily gotten someone as talented as them later on. To me, this could of been a even better draft had McD not gotten so ansy for just a few players. In the end it wont matter. If they work out (which they are solid players and should) then its nothing but good news for the Broncos. But, to me this was a great opportunity to really exploit this draft and get even MORE playmakers which i feel we failed to do here. And thats my only concern with how it went down. The players themselves will do their jobs well but we did nothing to help that Dline which is exactly what Shanny has failed to do the last few years. But, we will see.

DrFate
04-29-2009, 08:47 AM
If the Broncos have a top 5 Pick next year it really does not matter as Mcdaniels is a Collosal Failure as a Head Coach. The offense even with an average QB should push us to 8-8. IMO we have a top 5 offense with or with out Cutler.

Looking at the schedule, there are maybe 10 games I'm not sure we'll even be competitive in. But that is simply my opinion.

I guess my point is - if we have a top 5 pick, it could be rationalized that 'we took a big step back by moving Cutler, but we are now adding this guy(s) to make up for it, that is why we got all those picks'. Now, that can't happen.

The value of Smith vs. the 2010 #1 won't be known for a while. If the pick is later in the draft and Smith is a good player, it will look OK. If Smith is a nickel back and the pick becomes the potential for an elite player, it will look worse than it does now.

DrFate
04-29-2009, 08:49 AM
OK, there are two ways to look at price. A miss in the first round (and potentially the top ten) is crippling for a franchise. If we got first round talent in the second round, and didn't have to pay top ten salaries - it's freakin' brilliant!

I say that as a business owner. If you have to pay for talent, it's worth it. But, if you can get the same (starter) talent for less, it's a homerun.

I don't disagre with this approach, but it depends on what is available in 2010. Plus, I still feel that if they wanted to get Smith they had MORE than enough picks in 09 to get him. Trading a future #1 for a team that could win 5 games next year is a HUGE roll of the dice. They could have gotten Smith by giving up the #2 a few picks later in the round and something else (a #3, a #4, whatever).

I can only imagine what things looked like in the Seattle war room when somebody says 'Denver is on the phone and wants to give us their #1'. After the initial shock, it had to be high-fives all around.

tsiguy96
04-29-2009, 09:00 AM
if they had alphonso rated as the #1 corner in the league and saw a chance to get better THIS YEAR by getting him, they should. the difference between us giving up a ton of picks this year or a single pick next year is worth the difference for us to get the player NOW and not LATER

DrFate
04-29-2009, 09:03 AM
if they had alphonso rated as the #1 corner in the league and saw a chance to get better THIS YEAR by getting him, they should. the difference between us giving up a ton of picks this year or a single pick next year is worth the difference for us to get the player NOW and not LATER

That makes sense only if this team is competing for a Super Bowl in 09. And no one really believes that. Even the people who defend the move said Hoodie McJr. is 'laying the foundation' and 'has a plan' and such. Again - the final value on this pick will be known when the season is over. If the pick is in the top 5, Smith will have to be a 10 year starter to come close to justify the move.

Tombstone RJ
04-29-2009, 09:08 AM
Couldn't you phrase this same sentiment as 'why would the Broncos want a bunch of players from a weak draft'?

The people on this board that didn't like the moves - for the most part, from what I have inferred, have no problems with THE PLAYERS. The problem is with THE PRICE.

If the 2010 draft is generally seen as a deeper crop of talent than the 2009 draft, I still haven't seen a rationale explanation on how it makes sense to trade a 2010 #1 or a #2009 #2.

The ONLY psuedo-reason I've seen hinted at is cost. If the Broncos have a top 5 pick next year, they can now wave their hands and say 'we don't have the pick, we have Smith'.

I think its already be hashed out that the Broncos only had 100 players from this draft rated on their draft board. In other words, of the several hundreds of players available, the Broncos felt like only 100 of these players were worth considering for this team.

Paladin
04-29-2009, 09:18 AM
The problem is that no one knows what 2010 will bring. NO one. Speculation as to the"value" of any pick in 2010 is simply mental gymnastics to "prove" that McD drafted badly. What is the problem with simply letting this year be the focus? Who freaking cares about next year? There is an entire season of comedy, pathos, drama and slapstick, and thrills and heroics and skulduggery and hysteria and sobriety to be seen. We will see that and more right here on this board. I cannot get too excited about the trade of a pick, the value of which is currently unknowable.

The point is, there is a team here that is being built, and it cannot be predicted how it will fare. To claim anything other than what is visible on the surface is to devolve into gibberish and crass speculation. As a corollary to Occam's razor, the simplest explanation is often closer to the truth. Therefore, I submit that McD and the drafting team wanted Smith, Bruton and whomever and they got them. Period.

Beantown Bronco
04-29-2009, 09:34 AM
The value of Smith vs. the 2010 #1 won't be known for a while.

Actually, we should just ask the coach. He recently admitted to being psychic:

True to suspicions, the Broncos discussed finances before the NFL draft.

Broncos coach Josh McDaniels and general manager Brian Xanders huddled with chief operating officer Joe Ellis and owner Pat Bowlen. They talked about the draft budget. They went over their two first-round picks and how much they would cost. They talked about the two first-round picks in 2010 and how much they would cost.

Popps
04-29-2009, 09:39 AM
I don't get the feeling that they settled on ANYTHING.

Like the draft or not, by its mere nature, it looked like a highly targeted draft.

DrFate
04-29-2009, 10:02 AM
True to suspicions, the Broncos discussed finances before the NFL draft.

Broncos coach Josh McDaniels and general manager Brian Xanders huddled with chief operating officer Joe Ellis and owner Pat Bowlen. They talked about the draft budget. They went over their two first-round picks and how much they would cost. They talked about the two first-round picks in 2010 and how much they would cost.

Right - I've pointed to that article previously myself. If you are trading picks for far less value simply because you don't want to pay them - there is a problem.

eddie mac
04-29-2009, 10:03 AM
If you look at the Board when Denver went up for Smith you will see a bunch of targets the Broncos must have had in their sights. I would be willing to bet they made the move at 37 with a double down in mind. They thought Hey we can grab Smith Here, and pick up

Rey Maualuga
Ron Brace
Everette Brown
Clint Sintim
Connor Barwin

At 48. Then the board just goes wrong against the Broncos from there on out.

Brace goes as a Luxury Pick for the pick flush Pats. Brown is traded for with a 1st from next year. Sintim and Barwin go to 4-3 teams and Mcbath is the guy at the top of the Board. IMO Not moving up for Sintim or Barwin was the only misplay of the Broncos Draft.

Out of the 5 maybe Sintim and Brace.

The amount of 3-4 teams with major needs at OLB/ILB who passed the other 3 tells a story in itself.

You only have to look at the Chargers who took another OLB off the board at 16

fdf
04-29-2009, 11:36 AM
That makes sense only if this team is competing for a Super Bowl in 09. And no one really believes that. Even the people who defend the move said Hoodie McJr. is 'laying the foundation' and 'has a plan' and such. Again - the final value on this pick will be known when the season is over. If the pick is in the top 5, Smith will have to be a 10 year starter to come close to justify the move.

Your conclusion isn't right.

We don't know now whether this is a top 5 pick or much lower.

If it is a top 5 pick, it is still a risk. We may not get the player you want there. If we do, between injuries and busts and semi busts, how many top five picks end up ten year starters? Especially on the DL. 60%? That's probably high.

Smith is a risk too. Injuries, busts etc.

Whether this pick is a good one depends on the value now, which involves assessing the risks both ways.

I just don't think management did a bad job in weighing those risks on this pick.

Go Broncos.

cmhargrove
04-29-2009, 12:17 PM
I don't disagre with this approach, but it depends on what is available in 2010. Plus, I still feel that if they wanted to get Smith they had MORE than enough picks in 09 to get him. Trading a future #1 for a team that could win 5 games next year is a HUGE roll of the dice. They could have gotten Smith by giving up the #2 a few picks later in the round and something else (a #3, a #4, whatever).

I can only imagine what things looked like in the Seattle war room when somebody says 'Denver is on the phone and wants to give us their #1'. After the initial shock, it had to be high-fives all around.

I understand your point of view, and I don't totally discount it, but it still means you have to hit on your picks and find starters - regardless of round.

Who do you think will make the biggest NFL impact - Heyward Bey at #7 pick, or Chris Wells at #31? It's about finding guys that can improve your team. We still have a full draft, including first rounder next year. If we found a starting free safety that can actually get us off the field on third downs, this was an incredible pick.

bowtown
04-29-2009, 02:04 PM
Right - I've pointed to that article previously myself. If you are trading picks for far less value simply because you don't want to pay them - there is a problem.

Yes there is, but it's not with the football team it's with the rookie pay scale, or lack there of. If you want to walk around pretending that it's not a business and that your overhead doesn't have to be checked against your take, and how best to allocate team salaries while still remaining successful should play no part in how your team/business is run, then you live in a fantasy world and should probably stop watching pro sports all together.

barryr
04-29-2009, 02:17 PM
Settled? If McBath isn't someone they wanted, then they wouldn't have taken him. What's so hard about that? The Broncos were not shy about making deals, so they probably could have traded it out of it if they wanted to.