PDA

View Full Version : Was this draft a failure because we didn't draft a DT?


Kaylore
05-05-2009, 05:24 PM
I want something to go back and reference so we can see how smart all you prophets are.

JCMElway
05-05-2009, 05:27 PM
I would have voted no, but there were statements in there I did not agree with. And we did get a DT who was ranked as a 4th round prospect, Chris Baker. And we got him on the cheap, too!

Rabb
05-05-2009, 05:30 PM
I disliked the trading of picks for Quinn more than not drafting more D line

NYBronco
05-05-2009, 05:31 PM
I would have voted no as well except for the pick up we received at #12 in Moreno.

HEAV
05-05-2009, 05:33 PM
I want to wait and actually see this team before I fly off the handle.

High hopes for both Knowshon & Ayers. Would have liked a fatty in the middle, but I'll wait to see how the free-agents workout.

gyldenlove
05-05-2009, 05:49 PM
I am torn. I do like some of the players we got (Ayers, Moreno, Smith and Olsen), but I think we overpaid to get them and I think the lack of defensive linemen is going to come back and haunt the team in a big way.

Florida_Bronco
05-05-2009, 05:53 PM
I'm pretty happy with the draft. Reloading the secondary was great, as was getting a legitimate RB and hybrid DE/OLB.

skpac1001
05-05-2009, 05:53 PM
It's no fun voting what everyone else voted. I want to change my answer to all the draft picks will be pro bowlers.

elsid13
05-05-2009, 06:02 PM
Was it failure it early to say. But we probable extremely the hurt the future DL for not picking one or two development defense prospect on 2nd day.

Pony Boy
05-05-2009, 06:26 PM
We did get a NT, Chris Baker ( 6-2 326) - he doesn't lack confidence in himself. Chris knows that professionally, he has all the physical tools one needs to be a successful nose tackle in the NFL. He has long arms, big hands which he uses well to shed blockers, and a powerful lower body. He anchors well and has good explosion. He doesn't mind taking on double teams.

footstepsfrom#27
05-05-2009, 06:30 PM
How would you define "failure"? That's pretty ambiguous but consider this; if any D-linemen in this draft that we had a chance to draft and didn't turn out to be impact players, and the defensive fails to make considerable progress due to our line...the choices will certainly be second guessed. For everyone that suggests this draft was poor in quality for D-line...it was also pretty mediocre for CB's as well, and we paid a pretty hefty price for one of those.

watermock
05-05-2009, 06:35 PM
I certainly dissagree with spending 6 picks on offense, as well as trading our 1st next year.

That was flat STUPID.

Also, I didn't care for moving up for a blocking TE whan we had Graham.

Killericon
05-05-2009, 06:38 PM
You know, now that I think about it...I've been bitching and whining about drafting a DT for years...And of the past 3 drafts(Other than this one), the only one where we took a DT was sort of a failure. The other two were wildly great.

What the hell do I know?

RunSilentRunDeep
05-05-2009, 07:39 PM
I disliked the trading of picks for Quinn more than not drafting more D line

Question for you: If they had taken Quinn and Olsen with their original two 3rd rounds picks, would you still be pissed?

TonyR
05-05-2009, 07:45 PM
Looks like we're not the only team desperate at DT. The big difference is that we're not showing it.

Colts Bring Back Ed Johnson
Posted by Mike Florio on May 5, 2009, 9:28 p.m. EDT

The Indianapolis Colts, still desperate for help at the defensive tackle position, have brought back Ed Johnson, according to the Associated Press.

The Colts cut Johnson last season after he was arrested for marijuana possession.

“We are giving Ed Johnson another opportunity to play for the Indianapolis Colts,” Colts coach Jim Caldwell said Tuesday in a statement. “We dismissed Ed last year because he knowingly violated a team rule in the area of personal conduct. We consider every violation of a team rule or NFL policy on an individual case-by-case basis, and we evaluate a possible return to the team on that same basis.”

“I would like to thank the Colts, especially [owner] Jim Irsay, for this second privilege to join the team,” Johnson said in a statement. “I apologize to everyone for the situation I created last year.”

Johnson, an undrafted rookie free agent in 2007, started every game during his first NFL season. He was dumped following his arrest after only one game in 2008.

http://www.profootballtalk.com/2009/05/05/colts-bring-back-ed-johnson/

colonelbeef
05-05-2009, 08:22 PM
This draft on its own wasn't a failure, but the offseason as a whole has been a failure.

~Crash~
05-05-2009, 08:34 PM
This draft on its own wasn't a failure, but the offseason as a whole has been a failure.

well I am in thinking this because I don't belive our MLBers and NT will get it done our Run D will still suck

~Crash~
05-05-2009, 08:37 PM
and the poll it sucks it is total crap

bombay
05-05-2009, 08:37 PM
Have to wait and see, obviously. Still, if you don't get one of the top 2 or 3 d-linemen, all of whom were gone by the time the Broncos drafted, Baker is as good a gamble as any of the guys who came later and cost virtually nothing. Rulon and the guy with the funny name from Kurt Warner's school are good gambles as well.

Pseudofool
05-05-2009, 08:38 PM
I want something to go back and reference so we can see how smart all you prophets are.Your choices are so extreme that, of course, everyone votes for the somewhat neutral option.

For instance, I can strongly buy into the logic of not taking an NT in this particular draft without believing that every player we ended up choosing will be a pro bowler.

SureShot
05-05-2009, 08:39 PM
Yes I still dont think this team can stop the run. I hope I'm wrong.

baja
05-05-2009, 08:39 PM
I loved the draft but of course I don't think every player will make the probowl.

Good poll idea, terrible questions.

Pseudofool
05-05-2009, 08:48 PM
Yes I still dont think this team can stop the run. I hope I'm wrong.

The secondary tackling will be much improved. So that's something, but in general I agree. We'll lose four yards at a time instead of ten.

Taco John
05-05-2009, 09:06 PM
For this season - the answer is yes. The players we have might all turn out to be probowlers in the future. But without an NT, I feel like we're losing a season on developing our D.

Taco John
05-05-2009, 09:09 PM
Looks like we're not the only team desperate at DT. The big difference is that we're not showing it.



The only place to show it is on the field.

cutthemdown
05-05-2009, 09:37 PM
The secondary tackling will be much improved. So that's something, but in general I agree. We'll lose four yards at a time instead of ten.

Well it doesn't take great talent to be decent stopping the run IMO. IMO Broncos last yr didn't get blown off as much as the couldn't hold the edges at all. Then to add to that problem was the fact none of the saftey's put on the field tackled well.

To top it off we played Winborn and Webster, who although have good motors and IMO played as hard as they could ( all you can ask for ), they were not the type of players that could shed blockers. To counter that they have to be fast. They had to almost attack a spot and hope they found the ball, they weren't big enough to track a play, engage a blocker, shed the blocker and make a play on the ball. This resulted in a linebacker core that got caught over pursuing on a regular basis.


Hopefully Davis will steady the MLB spot a tad. The safety's I think will make more plays. Ayers might add some size to the DE spot in the 4-3, and OLB in 3-4. So a few things could get better.

Also Broncos have some young bodies to throw in at the 5 technique in the 3-4. Honestly those guys hardly ever get sacks except a few of the great ones. Mostly they just engage the OT and try to let OLB make plays in the run. Keep the QB in the pocket when they rush. They just need to be 300 pounds and strong.

SoCalBronco
05-05-2009, 10:06 PM
I think phrasing it as "was it a failure just because we didnt get a 3-4 DT, or DE" is too simplistic. There are alot of issues, here. Obviously, the heart of the homer argument is that our staff simply did not like the talent available at 3-4 NT and also apparently at 3-4 DE. This has an emotional "our FO/new coaches are studs" surface appeal that people like to latch onto because we inherently want to believe in them, but it ultimately fails for several reasons.

First, I think most agree that Raji and Brace are good NT prospects. Green Bay has a very respected FO and they feel Raji will be a very good NT prospect. This opinion is shared by many even though Raji did not actually play NT at BC, given his brute strength and talent. Even our very own whiz kid, Mediator12, shares this view. The rub is that it is not sufficient to simply say, oh well, no one was there at our picks that we liked for the position or that justified the spot, so its ok that we didn't take one. No, that's wrong. When we showed that we were willing to burn up value by wheeling and dealing picks to trade back into the 2nd round for (another) blocking tight end and when we burned a high first for a corner, it is not justifiable to fail to give up a 3rd, or even both 3rds to secure the fulcrum of your 3-4 defensive scheme, the NT. He was right there a few spots higher than us and we did nothing. We sat on our asses and held our ***** in our hands.

The same thing was true in Round 2. What they should have done, instead of burning the 2010 high 1st, is move up (using a third that they ended up burning worthlessly anyway) for Brace. New England apparently thought so highly of him that they selected him as a possible replacement for the great Vince Wilfork should he leave for a monster deal. Is anyone suggesting that we are smarter than they are? This is not to say that they are perfect or have had perfect drafts recently, but it strains even the outer boundaries of credulity for us to be suggesting that we're smarter than this organization AND that organization AND that organization left and right when our owner has even made painfully obvious statements about the missteps of our current leadership structure. Don't BS me. We aren't smarter than GB or NE or anyone else. We have a rookie head coach and a rookie GM involved (whose former boss trashed his scouting credentials), let's have a little humble pie. Don't tell me, "well our FO disagreed". Our FO has no credentials, here, so I don't care what their evaluation is. I don't care what "our war room draft board" says. Until they prove something, they aren't entitled to any kind of presumption that they are smarter than proven, established FO's, so spare me. It is VERY HARD to say "well, the Broncos brass didn't feel it was worth it to move up for Raji or Brace and I'm okay with that", when they pissed away picks like they were worthless and when better run, more proven and more flat out intelligent organizations felt otherwise. That was the scathing indictment.

It was not necessarily that they didn't do anything about it in later rounds. The point has been raised that some of the 3-4 DE (and DT) prospects in later rounds were selected by 4-3 teams which suggests that the 3-4 teams did not think a whole lot of them. That's a very defensible position. It's not so defensible, however, so as to justify totally avoiding the position completely. It's plainly hypocritical to hide behind the "we shouldn't reach" rationale when we're burning 2 thirds for a guy in the 2nd round at a position where there is no need, for a guy who happy JUST TO BE DRAFTED (his words, not mine). There is a clear estoppel and/or waiver argument that comes into play to prevent this point from even being entertained.

Yet another problem with this whole "well we didnt like the guys there" line of thought is that if you don't like guys in this draft, then what you should be doing is preserving your oppurtunities address the position in the deeper draft next year. Well...we did not do that, either. Rohirrim and Lex correctly pointed out on the day of the draft that we may very well have pissed away our oppurtunity to draft Terrance Cody next year. That figures into the analysis of whether this was a failure, the oppurtunites that were pissed away in the future in comparison to the production achieved by Alphonso Smith. We'll see how that turns out. We also will see what Pittsburgh did with the two third rounders we gave them in comparison to what Richard Quinn does. That too, will figure into the analysis of the relative success or failure of this draft. There are many factors, here. Obviously, the success or failure of the picks we actually made will be important as well, but even if we get several players who turn out to be solid and useful pieces of the team, it is these other factors that will also play a role in addition to whether we continue to have the same nagging problems on the DL or not. If Moreno and Ayers et al are helpful, it will be hard for the homers to still justify not a single 3-4 DL if we end up facing our demise primarily because of a poor DL........again.

azbroncfan
05-05-2009, 10:20 PM
Ask me in three years.

Bob's your Information Minister
05-05-2009, 10:24 PM
No. It was a failure because you made one ****ty draft pick after another.

footstepsfrom#27
05-05-2009, 10:49 PM
I want something to go back and reference so we can see how smart all you prophets are.
Funny thing about prophets...I see quite a few on both sides.

SportinOne
05-05-2009, 10:55 PM
Horribly designed poll if you were trying to get something of use out of it.. the draft wasn't a failure, some good picks were made, but some very stupid decisions were made.

Mark it down, Seattle will get a MUCH better player with our 1st rounder than we got with their 2nd rounder.

THAT is my gripe. You can say it's only one pick, but that could turn out to be a HUGE pick. Taylor Mays is the kind of defensive back worth taking with a first round pick, not a 5'9'' corner who lacks top end speed.

One pick doesn't make or break a draft, but that doesn't mean you can just waste a high pick for the sake of exerting your power and gall (the only explanation for that pick).

Florida_Bronco
05-05-2009, 10:58 PM
Horribly designed poll if you were trying to get something of use out of it.. the draft wasn't a failure, some good picks were made, but some very stupid decisions were made.

Mark it down, Seattle will get a MUCH better player with our 1st rounder than we got with their 2nd rounder.

THAT is my gripe. You can say it's only one pick, but that could turn out to be a HUGE pick. Taylor Mays is the kind of defensive back worth taking with a first round pick, not a 5'9'' corner who lacks top end speed.

One pick doesn't make or break a draft, but that doesn't mean you can just waste a high pick for the sake of exerting your power and gall (the only explanation for that pick).

Yeah, listen to this guy. He's like, enlightened, dude. :peace:

SportinOne
05-05-2009, 11:09 PM
Yeah, listen to this guy. He's like, enlightened, dude. :peace:

Oh, here we go again.

Florida_Bronco
05-05-2009, 11:10 PM
Oh, here we go again.

I figured you enlightened people would take a joke better than that. :welcome:

footstepsfrom#27
05-05-2009, 11:14 PM
The rub is that it is not sufficient to simply say, oh well, no one was there at our picks that we liked for the position or that justified the spot, so its ok that we didn't take one. No, that's wrong.
It was stated several times prior to this draft that the talent level was essentially the same over a fairly broad range of selections...with bhe best value ranging from 10-32 where there was not much difference. A second level supposedly existed in the same manner with round 2 and most of round 3 in the same approximate quality range. With 5 picks within this range it seems to me the BPA argument is diluted becaue of it. As you pointed out, NE selected Brace. An argument can be made that we got Baker for a bargain UDFA rate, but the FO didn't know that would happen while they were passing up D-line positions.

It will be 2 years before we know what we have, but one thing's for certain, this organization will have to hit several home runs with out of these guys to avoid some serious buyers remorse when the next draft rolls around and we see our opportunities lessened in a stronger draft.

SportinOne
05-05-2009, 11:26 PM
I figured you enlightened people would take a joke better than that. :welcome:

:puff: I'm sorry, what?

Florida_Bronco
05-05-2009, 11:29 PM
:puff: I'm sorry, what?

Getting in touch with that other dimension again? :approve:

Mile High Mojoe
05-05-2009, 11:30 PM
You don't allow a choice for somewhere left or right of center. I'm mixed on the Moreno pick and hopefully Ayers is for real but we had 8 other choices to take more DL or LB's and didn't get at one. I can't vote for any of the choices.

Hulamau
05-05-2009, 11:31 PM
Was it failure it early to say. But we probable extremely the hurt the future DL for not picking one or two development defense prospect on 2nd day.

We got three developmental DL in UDFA all three of which show real promise. we'll see how they pan out , but they certainly fit the bill of 'guys to develop'. Plus we got Ayers who should start this year as well as Smith.
Thats not chicken feed.

Crushaholic
05-05-2009, 11:33 PM
Bob doesn't like the draft. Therefore, the Broncos MUST HAVE been right with their picks...

SportinOne
05-05-2009, 11:55 PM
Getting in touch with that other dimension again? :approve:

I don't expect you to understand this (or care) but I'd like you to know that that "other dimension" is reality. Careful, that's not the same thing as the culture you and I find ourselves in here in the good ol' U.S.A. But it is definitely real. I know, i know, i'm being "weird" again and I understand if you or anyone else thinks that all of that is stupid so I won't hold it against anyone for lashing out about it, much less taking a couple little jabs. ^5

Kaylore
05-06-2009, 12:23 AM
Funny thing about prophets...I see quite a few on both sides.

I have seen very few people be so sure this draft is going to be the greatest ever. On the other hand there are is a vocal minority that is totally convinced the lack of drafting a defensive lineman makes the whole draft a bust.

elsid13
05-06-2009, 02:48 AM
We got three developmental DL in UDFA all three of which show real promise. we'll see how they pan out , but they certainly fit the bill of 'guys to develop'. Plus we got Ayers who should start this year as well as Smith.
Thats not chicken feed.

Yes it, odds are those UDFA aren't going to make the team. There were a number of DL/NT prospects that would have made the team, and while not all pro would have give us nice rotation/depth until would could have found are starter.

Neither Ayers or Smith will be starter right off the bat, and both are more likely to struggle then be dominate factor on the defense.

loborugger
05-06-2009, 06:03 AM
It sure feels like a failure at this point, not getting an NT, giving up our #1 next year to move up in the 2nd round for a pip-squeak CB, using 6 of our 10 picks on offense.

But I am all for the lets see how it pans out. And why not - our 2006 draft supposedly wasnt all that good either. Nor were too many folks excited about Royal last year.

TheReverend
05-06-2009, 06:41 AM
Where's the "It was a failure because we blew our first next year, and gave up too much for in-line blocking TE" option? I'd like to vote for that one.

Swedish Extrovert
05-06-2009, 06:48 AM
Worst... poll... ever...

If all our picks turn out to be Pro Bowlers, it wont matter if we drafted a DT, and they all don't even have to be Pro Bowlers for it to be a successful draft.

Where's the "It was a failure because we blew our first next year, and gave up too much for in-line blocking TE" option? I'd like to vote for that one.

You never know... with Knowshon and Quinn and our line, we might be a pretty damn good power running team next year. Or WR's will strech the field, and Orton will go over the top when the safeties start to creep up. Marshall and Royal will make Orton look a lot better than he is, and I think Orton is underrated anyway.

bowtown
05-06-2009, 06:49 AM
Brace will be cut by the Pats before preseason ends. How's that for a prediction?

TonyR
05-06-2009, 07:11 AM
Something tells me this article won't make anyone feel better...

McDaniels won't give up fort for fortifying defensive line
The Broncos have major question marks up front, but that isn't all that different from recent seasons.
By Jim Armstrong
The Denver Post
Posted: 05/06/2009 12:30:00 AM MDT

A certain Hall of Fame quarterback (Tom Brady) wasn't the only one who helped Josh McDaniels become the NFL's youngest head coach. During his days in New England, the Patriots had three No. 1 draft choices on the defensive line.

For years, Richard Seymour, Ty Warren and Vince Wilfork served as the foundation of the Pats' defensive line, the rock upon which the team's trophy case was built.

McDaniels hasn't just moved over a couple of time zones. He has entered a new world, one that includes three starting defensive linemen who, for all anyone knows, will be backups by September. Their names? Since no one is quite certain, we'll have to get back to you on that one.

If recent history is any indication, the Broncos' defensive line is a disaster waiting to happen. But since it's May and they're among the ranks of the undefeated, let's call it a, ahem, work in progress.

"We're not going to be able to snap our fingers and magically have three first-round draft picks up there," McDaniels said. "But you know, that's one team you're talking about out of 32 that has that. There are teams that are successful that don't have that. Our goal is to try to coach them all and get them better, improve them and play good defense."

Fair enough. But that's been the goal of every recent Broncos defensive coordinator and, well, we all know what happened to them. In January, former 49ers head coach Mike Nolan became the team's sixth coordinator since the dawn of the 21st century, the third in three years.

The Broncos' defensive issues were lengthy in the latter years of the Mike Shanahan regime, but the biggest problem was the defensive line. When he wasn't drafting defensive linemen, Shanahan was signing every former Browns lineman with a pulse and a helmet. When that didn't work, he resorted to change for the sake of change, switching to a 3-4 alignment from a 4-3 midway through the 2008 season.

A few months later, Shanahan was gone, leaving behind back-to-back 400-plus-point seasons in the damage-control department, a first since the franchise's laughingstock days of the early 1960s. What to do about it?

Early speculation had the Broncos signing a free-agent nose tackle for McDaniels' 3-4 base defense. Didn't happen. Instead, the Broncos used the bulk of their free-agent dollars on the secondary, where they signed three projected starters in safeties Brian Dawkins and Renaldo Hill and cornerback Andre Goodman.

Two defensive linemen came aboard: former 49ers tackle Ronald Fields and former Colts defensive end/linebacker Darrell Reid.

So where does the line go from here?

"It's the hardest position to identify how we're doing," McDaniels said. "Until we start to do something in August, that's going to be a difficult position for us to say, 'Boy, we've got a solid three that we feel comfortable with.' We've got a lot of big bodies in there, and a lot of guys working at a lot of spots. We're going to give them the opportunity to win a job."

McDaniels had 10 draft picks at his disposal last month, two in the first round, but used only one on a defensive lineman. The Broncos had zeroed in on LSU defensive end Tyson Jackson and Boston College nose tackle B.J. Raji, but when both were gone, McDaniels switched to Plan B, selecting Georgia tailback Knowshon Moreno and Tennessee defensive end Robert Ayers in the first round.

"When the board gets picked clean, you don't start reaching for players in the first round or second round that you don't feel equals the value you're taking the selection at," McDaniels said. "You go into this knowing you're not going to fix everything you may want to fix."
So, with the book virtually closed on offseason player acquisitions, the Broncos will get by on the defensive line with the players they have. And question marks invariably arise when you allow 448 points and finish 26th in the league in sacks (26) and 30th in run defense (5.0 yards per).

Elvis Dumervil, a starter at defensive end in 2008, will attempt to make the switch to outside linebacker. Former first-rounder Jarvis Moss, who was potential trade bait on draft weekend, may not make the team if he can't pull off the same transition. And he's not alone. Tim Crowder, a second-rounder in 2007, could be gone, too, if he doesn't show enough versatility to play standing up or with a hand on the ground.

Like Dumervil, Moss and Crowder, Reid could wind up at end or outside linebacker. Marcus Thomas, another Shana-han draft choice, could play end or on the nose. Same goes for another Shanahan holdover, Kenny Peterson. Then there's 326-pound rookie nose tackle Chris Baker, signed as an undrafted free agent.

As we speak, Ryan McBean, a fourth-rounder by Pittsburgh in 2007 who has played in one NFL game, is a projected starter at one of the defensive end spots.

"We keep getting bashed," Dumervil said. "I don't know what's going to happen. That's why we go through these minicamps and battle it out. It's a fresh start for everybody. I can see guys are stronger and faster. I think we'll shock a lot of people."

Said Reid: "I don't know the whole history of the D-line here. I just think it's going to bring out the best of this team, whoever ends up at what spots. There's a lot of competition."

Jim Armstrong: 303-954-1269 or jmarmstrong@denverpost.com

http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_12303432

TheReverend
05-06-2009, 07:24 AM
Worst... poll... ever...

If all our picks turn out to be Pro Bowlers, it wont matter if we drafted a DT, and they all don't even have to be Pro Bowlers for it to be a successful draft.



You never know... with Knowshon and Quinn and our line, we might be a pretty damn good power running team next year. Or WR's will strech the field, and Orton will go over the top when the safeties start to creep up. Marshall and Royal will make Orton look a lot better than he is, and I think Orton is underrated anyway.

No, I discussed this earlier. If we want to run a 2 TE set with Graham and Quinn and still have receivers and a lead blocker on the field, Scheffler has to be off the field. Which helps telegraph the play call AND removes match-up problems we're offensively creating.

I don't think Quinn justifies anything for that reason.

ColoradoDarin
05-06-2009, 07:26 AM
Something tells me this article won't make anyone feel better...

McDaniels won't give up fort for fortifying defensive line
The Broncos have major question marks up front, but that isn't all that different from recent seasons.
By Jim Armstrong


I stopped reading there..... :yayaya: :~ohyah!:

bowtown
05-06-2009, 07:29 AM
No, I discussed this earlier. If we want to run a 2 TE set with Graham and Quinn and still have receivers and a lead blocker on the field, Scheffler has to be off the field. Which helps telegraph the play call AND removes match-up problems we're offensively creating.

I don't think Quinn justifies anything for that reason.

We won't have a lead blocker in those situations, and I think the idea is to dare the defense to stack the box. Besides if you have 4 OT on the field at once and a franchise RB, who cares if you are telgraphing the play?

TheReverend
05-06-2009, 07:35 AM
We won't have a lead blocker in those situations, and I think the idea is to dare the defense to stack the box. Besides if you have 4 OT on the field at once and a franchise RB, who cares if you are telgraphing the play?

Apparently only me :)

I think you get a long more bang for your buck and versatility and keeping defenders on their heels, and making them read their keys by having Scheffler and Hillis ON THE FIELD.

Taking them off will certainly give the leniency to run blitz at will.

I honestly believe running that kind of formation will end up with more NEGATIVE yardage rushing plays than the other way around.

bowtown
05-06-2009, 07:47 AM
Apparently only me :)

I think you get a long more bang for your buck and versatility and keeping defenders on their heels, and making them read their keys by having Scheffler and Hillis ON THE FIELD.

Taking them off will certainly give the leniency to run blitz at will.

I honestly believe running that kind of formation will end up with more NEGATIVE yardage rushing plays than the other way around.

But if you have two blocking TEs that can also catch and a RB or two that can also catch screens, plus a huge bruising WR that is going to win most timing pattern jump balls, and a #2 incredibly quick and precise route runner, you are still keeping the defenders on their heels. You are just using the run to set up the pass... something we did pretty successfully on this team once upon a time.

Orange_Beard
05-06-2009, 08:03 AM
I am holding my breath. If we can't stop the run next year, then I say yes.

After last year, I just don't see how these D-Line men are going to get it done.
I find it hard to believe that there were no Linemen in the draft rated higher then the players that we have.

BroncoInferno
05-06-2009, 08:06 AM
I think phrasing it as "was it a failure just because we didnt get a 3-4 DT, or DE" is too simplistic. There are alot of issues, here. Obviously, the heart of the homer argument is that our staff simply did not like the talent available at 3-4 NT and also apparently at 3-4 DE. This has an emotional "our FO/new coaches are studs" surface appeal that people like to latch onto because we inherently want to believe in them, but it ultimately fails for several reasons.

First, I think most agree that Raji and Brace are good NT prospects. Green Bay has a very respected FO and they feel Raji will be a very good NT prospect. This opinion is shared by many even though Raji did not actually play NT at BC, given his brute strength and talent. Even our very own whiz kid, Mediator12, shares this view. The rub is that it is not sufficient to simply say, oh well, no one was there at our picks that we liked for the position or that justified the spot, so its ok that we didn't take one. No, that's wrong. When we showed that we were willing to burn up value by wheeling and dealing picks to trade back into the 2nd round for (another) blocking tight end and when we burned a high first for a corner, it is not justifiable to fail to give up a 3rd, or even both 3rds to secure the fulcrum of your 3-4 defensive scheme, the NT. He was right there a few spots higher than us and we did nothing. We sat on our asses and held our ***** in our hands.

This is a poor argument SoCal because it assumes there was a willing partner. You can't just say, "oh, we should have traded both 3rds for Raji, those idiots" as if you somehow know a team would have taken the offer. How do you know whe didn't offer both 3rds to Jax, for instance? Most of what I've read on their pick was that once Monroe fell to them, they weren't budging. So it's extremely poor reasoning to chastise the team for not moving up when you have no clue if there was a willing trade partner and if so what they were asking for.

New England apparently thought so highly of him that they selected him as a possible replacement for the great Vince Wilfork should he leave for a monster deal. Is anyone suggesting that we are smarter than they are?

You are letting your emotions get the best of you and not thinking of this from all angles. New England can afford to take a guy like Brace, who will probably take a season or two of development, precisely because they have Wilfork already in place. NE is a team without a ton of needs, so they can afford to make a luxury pick on a guy who probably won't be ready to start for at least a year. Denver needs guys who can step in and play NOW. Now, I don't like burning the 1st either, but the player we got in Smith is a guy with an excellent chance of contributing immediately on defense and special teams. Because of the developmental curve of most DTs, Brace probably would not have beaten out Fields for the NT spot. Now, where some valid criticism comes is here: should we be drafting guys who can help NOW over guys who might help down the road. That's a valid argument. But it is also valid to say that we had poor depth at CB and targeted someone who could help immediately AND in the future versus taking a NT who probably would not be able to make that sort of impact right away.

kamakazi_kal
05-06-2009, 08:08 AM
But if you have two blocking TEs that can also catch and a RB or two that can also catch screens, plus a huge bruising WR that is going to win most timing pattern jump balls, and a #2 incredibly quick and precise route runner, you are still keeping the defenders on their heels. You are just using the run to set up the pass... something we did pretty successfully on this team once upon a time.

and you got good ol' neckbeard orton pulling the trigger. I'm hoping moreno is as advertised cause were gonna need him.

TheReverend
05-06-2009, 08:20 AM
But if you have two blocking TEs that can also catch and a RB or two that can also catch screens, plus a huge bruising WR that is going to win most timing pattern jump balls, and a #2 incredibly quick and precise route runner, you are still keeping the defenders on their heels. You are just using the run to set up the pass... something we did pretty successfully on this team once upon a time.

Quinn caught 12 balls (I think? Somewhere in that area) his entire collegiate career. Graham has literally cost us games dropping balls.

Sounds like a recipe for success there. I'm sure OLBs will be sweating the pass on those match-ups.

bowtown
05-06-2009, 08:36 AM
Quinn caught 12 balls (I think? Somewhere in that area) his entire collegiate career. Graham has literally cost us games dropping balls.

Sounds like a recipe for success there. I'm sure OLBs will be sweating the pass on those match-ups.

First of all, Graham cost us one game and does not drop nearly the passes that many around here would like to claim he does, and it has been widely reported that Quinn was under utilized in the passing game.

But okay, let's set that aside and say that neither can catch anything. So you still have a situation of max protect where you are tipping run with both TEs in, so they stack the box and leave their CBs on an island with either Marshall and Royal or both, plus you then have Moreno and/or Hillis who no longer need to worry about picking up a blitz and who are both strong enough to release from a jam breaking to the middle or out wide for a short screen. This is basically how we ran our goal line bootleg to Griffith over and over. At the very least this gives us more power and options inside the 20.

I don't love trading both the 3rds for Quinn, but I do love the idea that this is going to be a smashmouth grind-it-out offense again, where the run is going to open up the pass insteadof vice versa. I think it provides way more options and favorable matchups than just running Scheffler over the middle 20yards down the field, where our new QB (whoever he is) probably doesn't have the same ability to hit him.

Broncomutt
05-06-2009, 08:45 AM
but I do love the idea that this is going to be a smashmouth grind-it-out offense again, where the run is going to open up the pass insteadof vice versa.


Amen brother! If we can't have thugs on defense, let's at least shove the ball down people's throats on offense.

Love it!

bronclvr
05-06-2009, 08:49 AM
I'm really not too concerned about our Offense-I think Orton will be at least serviceable. What bothers me about the Draft is taking a Running Back with our first pick when their average shelf life is three Years-if McDaniels doesn't have this "Team" over .500 in the next three Years (assuming he can keep the job if he doesn't), will Moreno still be good to go? (no major injuries or career ending ones)-we will still have a lot of needs, and I personally will be happy (not satified) if we can do better than 6-10 this Year. I think there are far too many people on this Board who are overly optimistic (not that there is anything wrong with optimisim).

There is a reason Denver hasn't picked a Running Back in the first round since the 80's-(and we know why)-

I have a hard time believing that a new Rookie Head Coach and a 33%+ turnover (while bringing in scrubs on the DL-well maybe not Ayers) equate to a winning Year especially when we haven't addressed our most glaring weakness-

ColoradoDarin
05-06-2009, 08:53 AM
I don't love trading both the 3rds for Quinn

just to nit pick, you'll be happy to know that we didn't trade both 3's for Quinn then, we got a 2nd and a 4th for our 3's, and with the 2nd we took Quinn.

TheReverend
05-06-2009, 09:02 AM
First of all, Graham cost us one game and does not drop nearly the passes that many around here would like to claim he does, and it has been widely reported that Quinn was under utilized in the passing game.

But okay, let's set that aside and say that neither can catch anything. So you still have a situation of max protect where you are tipping run with both TEs in, so they stack the box and leave their CBs on an island with either Marshall and Royal or both, plus you then have Moreno and/or Hillis who no longer need to worry about picking up a blitz and who are both strong enough to release from a jam breaking to the middle or out wide for a short screen. This is basically how we ran our goal line bootleg to Griffith over and over. At the very least this gives us more power and options inside the 20.

I don't love trading both the 3rds for Quinn, but I do love the idea that this is going to be a smashmouth grind-it-out offense again, where the run is going to open up the pass insteadof vice versa. I think it provides way more options and favorable matchups than just running Scheffler over the middle 20yards down the field, where our new QB (whoever he is) probably doesn't have the same ability to hit him.

I think you're taking a myopic view on what Scheffler brings with him... when he's down the seam he's doing a lot more than just providing a receiving option. The guy just brings so much to the table from a matchup point of view whether he's kept in-line or flexed out in a Y-open... taking him off the field in favor of ANOTHER blocking TE is silly in just about every down and distance.

Also, you're still not taking into account the volume of extra run-blitzes we'll face from that formation.

And finally, you provide an excellent point about single coverage on the outside. That would provide a huge boon in our passing game... if Cutler was the quarterback. As it is, let's see if the check-down wonder can even hit a receiver on the outside.

kamakazi_kal
05-06-2009, 09:10 AM
I think you're taking a myopic view on what Scheffler brings with him... when he's down the seam he's doing a lot more than just providing a receiving option. The guy just brings so much to the table from a matchup point of view whether he's kept in-line or flexed out in a Y-open... taking him off the field in favor of ANOTHER blocking TE is silly in just about every down and distance.

Also, you're still not taking into account the volume of extra run-blitzes we'll face from that formation.

And finally, you provide an excellent point about single coverage on the outside. That would provide a huge boon in our passing game... if Cutler was the quarterback. As it is, let's see if the check-down wonder can even hit a receiver on the outside.

With Orton at QB our only hope is Moreno for the sake of the offense and our all world DL.

And just to awnser the thread ....... we didn't fail because we didn't take a DT

we failed because we didn't address the position in FA or trade then .... we didn't draft one.

FYI, I know we signed some guy recently ......... just like Orton, does anyone think he's "the awnser"

gyldenlove
05-06-2009, 09:22 AM
You are letting your emotions get the best of you and not thinking of this from all angles. New England can afford to take a guy like Brace, who will probably take a season or two of development, precisely because they have Wilfork already in place. NE is a team without a ton of needs, so they can afford to make a luxury pick on a guy who probably won't be ready to start for at least a year. Denver needs guys who can step in and play NOW. Now, I don't like burning the 1st either, but the player we got in Smith is a guy with an excellent chance of contributing immediately on defense and special teams. Because of the developmental curve of most DTs, Brace probably would not have beaten out Fields for the NT spot. Now, where some valid criticism comes is here: should we be drafting guys who can help NOW over guys who might help down the road. That's a valid argument. But it is also valid to say that we had poor depth at CB and targeted someone who could help immediately AND in the future versus taking a NT who probably would not be able to make that sort of impact right away.

We can afford taking a guy who won't contribute this year. Not only is our defensive line so abysmal right now that it would be a miracle if they can stop anyone, it is also a huge work in progress.

Here is the deal, the defensive line is looking a lot like it is going to suck this year.
We have no strong rookies who will contribute in their sophomore season in 2010, so unless we spend a ton of dough in free agency, the 2010 forecast calls for copious amounts of suckage as well.
IF we draft DL in 2010, then the earliest we will see an expected return is 2011, but more realistically 2012. Are you prepared to stand by and watch for 3 to 4 years before we fix the weakest unit on the team? I am not.

I think Brace could have beaten out Fields, considering how Franklin and Sopoaga both beat him out.

Mr.Meanie
05-06-2009, 09:33 AM
We also will see what Pittsburgh did with the two third rounders we gave them in comparison to what Richard Quinn does. That too, will figure into the analysis of the relative success or failure of this draft.

They took a Guard and WR with our 2 3rds... we took a Guard and TE with their 2nd and 4th picks. Seems like a fair trade... no one got robbed.

The only possible issue with the trade is that the Broncos could have probably gotten both those picks without trading... but if they were actually targeting both of those players than it was a really good trade, and it elminated the possibility of losing their guy.

bowtown
05-06-2009, 09:44 AM
I think you're taking a myopic view on what Scheffler brings with him... when he's down the seam he's doing a lot more than just providing a receiving option. The guy just brings so much to the table from a matchup point of view whether he's kept in-line or flexed out in a Y-open... taking him off the field in favor of ANOTHER blocking TE is silly in just about every down and distance.

Also, you're still not taking into account the volume of extra run-blitzes we'll face from that formation.

And finally, you provide an excellent point about single coverage on the outside. That would provide a huge boon in our passing game... if Cutler was the quarterback. As it is, let's see if the check-down wonder can even hit a receiver on the outside.

I agree that he is a weapon, especially at 100% (which he often is not), but I think you are over-valuing him, especially inside the redzone. You say it's silly to take him off the field for Quinn in just about every down and distnace, but I don't think it's silly at all in the red zone, especially inside the 10. We were terrible in scoring position last year. If a second blocking TE helps us convert from in close and we score more touchdowns because of it, then the pick was worth it, if not, then it wasn't.

TheReverend
05-06-2009, 09:59 AM
I agree that he is a weapon, especially at 100% (which he often is not), but I think you are over-valuing him, especially inside the redzone. You say it's silly to take him off the field for Quinn in just about every down and distnace, but I don't think it's silly at all in the red zone, especially inside the 10. We were terrible in scoring position last year. If a second blocking TE helps us convert from in close and we score more touchdowns because of it, then the pick was worth it, if not, then it wasn't.

I think the bolded statement is the bone of contention here, my friend.

I don't think it will help. I think it will be more of a hindrance than anything. If you have a versatile player like Scheff, use him. ESPECIALLY in a goalline when you can flex him out, drag a defensive player with him and open up running lanes in doing so.

TheReverend
05-06-2009, 10:02 AM
Adding an old point: I used this one when talking about this issue with Med considering he lives right over in Indy.

Would you take Dallas Clark off the field and all his match-up problems in favor of a second blocking TE, or are you going to make the defense respect all phases of your offense and gain that extra second while they read their keys and hit them on their heels?

bowtown
05-06-2009, 10:09 AM
Adding an old point: I used this one when talking about this issue with Med considering he lives right over in Indy.

Would you take Dallas Clark off the field and all his match-up problems in favor of a second blocking TE, or are you going to make the defense respect all phases of your offense and gain that extra second while they read their keys and hit them on their heels?

Depends on how threatening the guy throwing the ball to him is and whether I really feel the need to respect that option. If not, then i'd just prefer to have another big guy in there to overpower and push guys out of the way than getting fancy and trying to move them around with smoke and mirrors.

BroncoInferno
05-06-2009, 10:11 AM
I think the bolded statement is the bone of contention here, my friend.

I don't think it will help. I think it will be more of a hindrance than anything. If you have a versatile player like Scheff, use him. ESPECIALLY in a goalline when you can flex him out, drag a defensive player with him and open up running lanes in doing so.

The problem is that Scheffler is NOT a versatile player. He is a dangerous receiver, but almost useless as an in-line blocker. If your argument is that Quinn's presence on the field signals a run play, by the same token Scheffler's indicates a pass play. Both views are wildly simplistic.

BroncoInferno
05-06-2009, 10:12 AM
Adding an old point: I used this one when talking about this issue with Med considering he lives right over in Indy.

Would you take Dallas Clark off the field and all his match-up problems in favor of a second blocking TE, or are you going to make the defense respect all phases of your offense and gain that extra second while they read their keys and hit them on their heels?

Depends on the situation. There are certainly instances when a superior blocker is preferrable.

Garcia Bronco
05-06-2009, 10:19 AM
We'll have 3 TE's on the field at times.

TheReverend
05-06-2009, 10:24 AM
Depends on how threatening the guy throwing the ball to him is and whether I really feel the need to respect that option. If not, then i'd just prefer to have another big guy in there to overpower and push guys out of the way than getting fancy and trying to move them around with smoke and mirrors.

oicwutudidther

I will credit your back-handed slap at Kyle Orton and in kind, accept your argument as valid.

TheReverend
05-06-2009, 10:25 AM
We'll have 3 TE's on the field at times.

Then are you pulling Hillis off, or Marshall or Royal?

Which one of those match-up problems come off for... Quinn...

TheReverend
05-06-2009, 10:27 AM
The problem is that Scheffler is NOT a versatile player. He is a dangerous receiver, but almost useless as an in-line blocker. If your argument is that Quinn's presence on the field signals a run play, by the same token Scheffler's indicates a pass play. Both views are wildly simplistic.

Scheffler split wide certainly does indicate a pass play, but it doesn't HURT you because he drags a defender with him. On that note, Scheffler may say "Pass" (despite having plenty of film showing no tendency of the sort), but Graham on the other side says, "Okay... we have to make our reads"

Pseudofool
05-06-2009, 10:34 AM
I think phrasing it as "was it a failure just because we didnt get a 3-4 DT, or DE" is too simplistic. There are alot of issues, here. Obviously, the heart of the homer argument is that our staff simply did not like the talent available at 3-4 NT and also apparently at 3-4 DE. This has an emotional "our FO/new coaches are studs" surface appeal that people like to latch onto because we inherently want to believe in them, but it ultimately fails for several reasons. This, to me, is the crux of why things are still a bit divisive around here and the same posters are falling along the same divisional lines. It's worth noting that there's also an emotional "our FO/new coaches clearly sucks" surface appeal that people like to latch onto because they inherently are cynical of the new FO/coaches because of what happened with Jay and Shanny. The pathetic fallacy cuts both ways, of course. And makes any evaluation somewhat myopic and obviously tainted.

Obviously the way you see the draft is filtered by how much leeway you are willing to grant the new FO when it comes to bringing in their players.

Tombstone RJ
05-06-2009, 10:47 AM
This, to me, is the crux of why things are still a bit divisive around here and the same posters are falling along the same divisional lines. It's worth noting that there's also an emotional "our FO/new coaches clearly sucks" surface appeal that people like to latch onto because they inherently are cynical of the new FO/coaches because of what happened with Jay and Shanny. The pathetic fallacy cuts both ways, of course. And makes any evaluation somewhat myopic and obviously tainted.

Obviously the way you see the draft is filtered by how much leeway you are willing to grant the new FO when it comes to bringing in their players.

I also think there are a lot of posters like me who are supportive of the new FO/Coaching staff simply because no games have yet been played, and it is way too early to consider this coming season a failure (or a success).

But of all the other posters here, it seems like I am the only one just glad to see Shanahan's unwavering mediocrity be kicked to the curb.

Mediocrity is the worst form of competition. It breeds apathy in the fan base too. IMHO, it's better to be bad for a short time, while trying to biuld something great, rather than be content with wallowing in mediocrity year after year.

Shanahan, post Elway, always fielded competitive teams, and his coaching record shows that. I tip my cap to him for that. But in many ways I see him being (or saw him being I should say) the next Don Shula. A guy who wins in the regular season, but does nothing in the post season for 20+ years.

There's really 3 seasons in one full football season:

1. Preseason
2. Regulare Season
3. Post Season

I want a team that knows how to win in the post season. Shanahan lost that. He lost his hunger and he lived in denial about the defense. He kept repeating: "we play for the Superbowl, we don't rebuild" but he never got back to the Superbowl. He got close one year in 2005 and let's be honest, that team was not very good.