PDA

View Full Version : Broncos extend Haggan


Man-Goblin
09-09-2009, 10:47 AM
Adam_Schefter (http://twitter.com/Adam_Schefter) Denver signed starting OLB Mario Haggan to a two-year, $3.5 million contract extension that includes $1.25 million guaranteed.

Killericon
09-09-2009, 10:50 AM
Why does this make me feel good?

Man-Goblin
09-09-2009, 10:52 AM
Why does this make me feel good?

Well, it's pretty savvy if you think he's going to perform at a starter level. It's not much money and in theory you don't risk losing him or having to pay him a lot if he plays well.

SoDak Bronco
09-09-2009, 10:55 AM
Broncos sign Haggan to extension (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2009/09/09/broncos-sign-haggan-to-extension/)

Posted by Gregg Rosenthal on September 9, 2009 12:45 PM ET
When Josh McDaniels arrived in Denver, there wasn't a lot of leftover defensive talent to work with.

One player they have identified as a keeper, however, is outside linebacker Mario Haggan. They quickly promoted him to a starting job on the weak side, and now have extended his contract (http://twitter.com/Adam_Schefter/statuses/3866462983) by adding two years and $3.5 million, including $1.25 million guaranteed, according to ESPN's Adam Schefter.

It's a nice chunk of change for someone who has been a special teamer throughout his career. And it's also a nice bargain for the Broncos if Haggan keeps his starting job for most of the deal.

LonghornBronco
09-09-2009, 11:02 AM
I like Haggan's story. I would much rather have a team of hard working over-achievers, than spoiled prima-donna malcontents.

eddie mac
09-09-2009, 11:09 AM
I like Haggan's story. I would much rather have a team of hard working over-achievers, than spoiled prima-donna malcontents.

I agree LB. I've been saying all offseason since the **** hit the fan that personally I dont care about the name on the jersey anymore as long as they give 100% on every down.

Dagmar
09-09-2009, 11:09 AM
I like Haggan's story. I would much rather have a team of hard working over-achievers, than spoiled prima-donna malcontents.
...that don't do ridiculous dances in front of a national audience for tackles that mean nothing.

Chris
09-09-2009, 11:11 AM
Has he done anything to impress folks round here? I remember a few scoffs in early August when he was placed at the top of the depth chart.

LonghornBronco
09-09-2009, 11:15 AM
I must say I was surprised, but many on this board, like myself, have no idea what they are looking at when evaluating an NFL player.

SoDak Bronco
09-09-2009, 11:16 AM
his back-up is Dreid who had the int the other night. they must like haggen to give him an extension. he at least provides solid depth.

s0phr0syne
09-09-2009, 11:16 AM
I like Haggan's story. I would much rather have a team of hard working over-achievers, than spoiled prima-donna malcontents.


How did you feel about Engelberger, just out of curiosity?

(I know that sounds pointed/snide, but I'm honestly just wondering if you had the same thoughts about him or not.)

gyldenlove
09-09-2009, 11:20 AM
I like Haggan's story. I would much rather have a team of hard working over-achievers, than spoiled prima-donna malcontents.

I have always prefered talentless losers to skilled players. That is what I love about pop warner, it is not about winning, it is about trying your best and fighting.

Success has always been overrated.

Lolad
09-09-2009, 11:24 AM
I have always prefered talentless losers to skilled players. That is what I love about pop warner, it is not about winning, it is about trying your best and fighting.

Success has always been overrated.

This is what our Broncos are becoming. Hopefully he proves he should start still chump change but he's looked slow on a number of plays.

LonghornBronco
09-09-2009, 11:24 AM
Yea like we won anything last year.

LonghornBronco
09-09-2009, 11:26 AM
The Sqeelers are the perfect example of team football. Thats what we should strive for.

Beantown Bronco
09-09-2009, 11:28 AM
I have always prefered talentless losers to skilled players. That is what I love about pop warner, it is not about winning, it is about trying your best and fighting.

Success has always been overrated.

My sarcasm meter just broke. Bastard.

broncofan2438
09-09-2009, 11:33 AM
Seems like a good guy, I didnt see to much of him, but whatever

fdf
09-09-2009, 11:34 AM
This is what our Broncos are becoming. Hopefully he proves he should start still chump change but he's looked slow on a number of plays.

What, as opposed to the incredibly talented collection of DL and linebackers we fielded last year? Not much talent (williams and maybe doom were the exceptions). And the effort level was really sad. They basically laid down and gave up the second half of the year.

Lolad
09-09-2009, 11:38 AM
What, as opposed to the incredibly talented collection of DL and linebackers we fielded last year? Not much talent (williams and maybe doom were the exceptions). And the effort level was really sad. They basically laid down and gave up the second half of the year.

I'm not questioning our lack of talent on the defensive side of the ball. I just think it's funny how a lot of people think a hard yet unskilled worker trumps highly skilled talented prima donnas.

LonghornBronco
09-09-2009, 11:42 AM
I'm not questioning our lack of talent on the defensive side of the ball. I just think it's funny how a lot of people think a hard yet unskilled worker trumps highly skilled talented prima donnas.

but it does
Haggen > Mayock's golden boy Ayers
Marshall = 0 contribution

Beantown Bronco
09-09-2009, 11:44 AM
but it does
Haggen > Mayock's golden boy Ayers


So you're going to "prove" that point by comparing Haggan to a rookie learning a new position in a new system?

Beantown Bronco
09-09-2009, 11:45 AM
Sorry, you can't win a SB with 53 Haggans, Englebergers and Foxworths. You CAN win a SB with a dozen or so Marshalls. You just need the right coach and vets to keep them in line.

boppool
09-09-2009, 11:47 AM
I heard him talking with Sportsguys during training camp. I like the guy and his attitude. He definately earned the paycheck. Now go out and prove your worth.

Lolad
09-09-2009, 11:49 AM
but it does
Haggen > Mayock's golden boy Ayers
Marshall = 0 contribution

LOL... this is laughable that you use this as proof. Marshall on the field will be better then any of our WR's even Royal. Watch McD put Marshall in the game just to confuse and force teams to bracket or move a safety his way. It's been proven!!! Royal is a better player with Marshall on the field.

Haggan, Ayers comparison is stupid I'm not even going to respond

Elway777
09-09-2009, 11:59 AM
Hopefully Ayers will win starting job at some point this season but Hagan sould be a a good backup that can play either outside or Inside linebacker.

baja
09-09-2009, 12:01 PM
I like Haggan's story. I would much rather have a team of hard working over-achievers, than spoiled prima-donna malcontents.

Could not agree more.

PRBronco
09-09-2009, 12:03 PM
Why does this make me feel good?

Because he's big, he can tackle, and he plays his balls off :strong:

baja
09-09-2009, 12:05 PM
Sorry, you can't win a SB with 53 Haggans, Englebergers and Foxworths. You CAN win a SB with a dozen or so Marshalls. You just need the right coach and vets to keep them in line.

Tell that to the Patriots and the Steelers. They seem to do OK with a few stars and a bunch of lunch bucket guys and older vets.

Beantown Bronco
09-09-2009, 12:09 PM
Tell that to the Patriots and the Steelers. They seem to do OK with a few stars and a bunch of lunch bucket guys and older vets.

You just changed the criteria. The Pats/Steelers model was not an option. It was one or the other: a team with some prima donnas or a team with only less talented hard workers. No in between.

baja
09-09-2009, 12:15 PM
You just changed the criteria. The Pats/Steelers model was not an option. It was one or the other: a team with some prima donnas or a team with only less talented hard workers. No in between.

If that is the case than it is an unrealistic criteria IMO.

An example of a star studded team that does not do well would be the Chargers.

gyldenlove
09-09-2009, 12:18 PM
Yea like we won anything last year.

We won a hell of a lot more than the Lions.

lex
09-09-2009, 12:19 PM
Thats better than extense-ing Haggans. Seriously, as long as they arent rigid about making him a starter if they have the chance to upgrade, its not a big deal. They need a lot of LBs. That salary for someone doesnt seem unreasonable if they are solid.

gyldenlove
09-09-2009, 12:20 PM
Tell that to the Patriots and the Steelers. They seem to do OK with a few stars and a bunch of lunch bucket guys and older vets.

How about the Lions, they did okay too with with a few stars and some lunch pail guys...

Popps
09-09-2009, 12:21 PM
Hopefully Ayers will win starting job at some point this season but Hagan sould be a a good backup that can play either outside or Inside linebacker.

Exactly.

Haggan played well in the preseason and this is a smart move. It's basically insurance as we bring along Ayers.

These are the types of little moves that great teams make. You'll see this greeted with the usual bitchy sarcasm here, but these moves solidify teams.

It's like special teams... everyone loves bitching about it, but when we make moves to address them, everyone bitches about that, too.


20 tackles and a sack in the pre-season, experience and nice size. Nice value signing.

LonghornBronco
09-09-2009, 12:26 PM
If that is the case than it is an unrealistic criteria IMO.

An example of a star studded team that does not do well would be the Chargers.

exactly. See also Cowboys & Redskins.

broncosteven
09-09-2009, 12:47 PM
Tell that to the Patriots and the Steelers. They seem to do OK with a few stars and a bunch of lunch bucket guys and older vets.

Who are our stars? We don't have any outside of Marshal and maybe Royal if he has as good a year as his 1st. Champ who is coming off an injury plagued year last year?

If we had the mix of stars and overachievers that the Pats and Steelers have then I would be expecting more SB than rebuilding this year.

s0phr0syne
09-09-2009, 12:51 PM
Just to make myself clear, even though I was asking Longhorn for his opinion of Engelberger, it should be noted that I was one of Engelberger's supporters. I didn't think he was good by any means, but at the same time I saw no need to rag on the man just because our personnel department didn't bring someone better in to replace him.

Haggan has definitely proved that he was worth a roster spot with his OLB/ILB versatility. I just think it's extremely sad that he's our STARTING SOLB. I would have felt the same if it had been Reid. Both are great players that will improve our team on the whole, but neither should be starting. I guess it's good that one of them isn't, and if Ayers/Moss can come around, maybe neither will be.

Extending Haggan was a great move. It would be a good move to likewise extend other players that are outperforming what they've been signed to (Hillis, Kuper, Woodyard, Larsen, obviously Marshall) and get Moss to restructure to include less guaranteed and more incentive based $$$.

That's what I want to see from the FO....we'll see what happens.

Beantown Bronco
09-09-2009, 01:10 PM
It would be a good move to likewise extend other players that are outperforming what they've been signed to (Hillis, Kuper, Woodyard, Larsen, obviously Marshall) and get Moss to restructure to include less guaranteed and more incentive based $$$.



Huh? According to rotoworld (who's very accurate with these) here's what Moss is scheduled to make over the remainder of his contract:

2009: $660K
2010: $750K
2011: $850K

He's already collected all his guaranteed bonus money. He has another $3 mil in bonuses achievable through incentives that he probably won't reach unless he lights it up.

He's the LAST guy on the roster I'd want to restructure.

Br0nc0Buster
09-09-2009, 01:19 PM
Who are our stars? We don't have any outside of Marshal and maybe Royal if he has as good a year as his 1st. Champ who is coming off an injury plagued year last year?

If we had the mix of stars and overachievers that the Pats and Steelers have then I would be expecting more SB than rebuilding this year.

and who were the "stars" of the 2001 Patriots?
Just because the average person doesnt know our entire roster doesnt mean ****

Jets fans had no idea who Peyton Hillis was last year when we went up there, but that didnt stop him from raping their team in their home stadium

Beantown Bronco
09-09-2009, 01:30 PM
and who were the "stars" of the 2001 Patriots?

Ty Law
Willie McGinest
Lawyer Milloy
Richard Seymour
Troy Brown

Lolad
09-09-2009, 01:39 PM
Tell that to the Patriots and the Steelers. They seem to do OK with a few stars and a bunch of lunch bucket guys and older vets.

You act like the Patriot or Steeler roster isn't filled with stars that would start on this team. Especially on the defensive side of the ball. Bring either line in with last years offense and we're guaranteed to go deep

LonghornBronco
09-09-2009, 01:40 PM
How did you feel about Engelberger, just out of curiosity?

(I know that sounds pointed/snide, but I'm honestly just wondering if you had the same thoughts about him or not.)

I admire him for his work ethic but I would not carachterize him as an over-achiever like Haggen or Doom or Hillis...

TheReverend
09-09-2009, 01:44 PM
Sorry, you can't win a SB with 53 Haggans, Englebergers and Foxworths. You CAN win a SB with a dozen or so Marshalls. You just need the right coach and vets to keep them in line.

Foxworth doesn't really apply in that analogy...

gyldenlove
09-09-2009, 01:48 PM
I admire him for his work ethic but I would not carachterize him as an over-achiever like Haggen or Doom or Hillis...

So what does it take to be an over-achiever?

azbroncfan
09-09-2009, 01:49 PM
I must say I was surprised, but many on this board, like myself, have no idea what they are looking at when evaluating an NFL player.

Very true. Even the camp reports were off quite a bit when the preseason games rolled out.

Br0nc0Buster
09-09-2009, 01:56 PM
Ty Law
Willie McGinest
Lawyer Milloy
Richard Seymour
Troy Brown

oh give me a break
Milloy, Law, and McGinest were good but were not household names

Seymour and Brown?
You are just reaching on that one as one was a rookie and the other a complete nobody

The point is we have just as many "stars" as they did, and they were just fine

Dedhed
09-09-2009, 02:00 PM
Ty Law
Willie McGinest
Lawyer Milloy
Richard Seymour
Troy Brown
You're thinking of their stars in 2002.

Beantown Bronco
09-09-2009, 02:00 PM
oh give me a break
Milloy, Law, and McGinest were good but were not household names

Seymour and Brown?
You are just reaching on that one as one was a rookie and the other a complete nobody

The point is we have just as many "stars" as they did, and they were just fine

The criteria was stars. They WERE all stars of that team. Milloy and Law made big $ in the FA market.

Reaching on Seymour? The guy is a potential HOF candidate.
Brown? A complete nobody? He had 1200 yards receiving that year in 13 starts.

You are insane.

Beantown Bronco
09-09-2009, 02:01 PM
You're thinking of their stars in 2002.

Not sure why you think that.

Dedhed
09-09-2009, 02:05 PM
Not sure why you think that.

Because not one of those players was a star before they won the SB; not one. Drew Bledsoe was the ONLY star on the 2001 Pats team.

Beantown Bronco
09-09-2009, 02:08 PM
Because not one of those players was a star before they won the SB; not one. Drew Bledsoe was the ONLY star on the 2001 Pats team.

Our definition of "star" is different I guess.

Ty Law and Lawyer Milloy made the probowl that year.

Troy Brown would've if he didn't miss 3 games. He had 101 receptions for 1,199 yards and 5 touchdowns, while also adding another 413 yards and 2 touchdowns returning punts.

TheReverend
09-09-2009, 02:17 PM
Our definition of "star" is different I guess.

Ty Law and Lawyer Milloy made the probowl that year.

Troy Brown would've if he didn't miss 3 games. He had 101 receptions for 1,199 yards and 5 touchdowns, while also adding another 413 yards and 2 touchdowns returning punts.

Bruschi was also in his 6th NFL season and was an extremely established defender at that point. Phifer had already been to a few probowls as well. I think Vrabel was on that team too.

Elway777
09-09-2009, 02:17 PM
Huh? According to rotoworld (who's very accurate with these) here's what Moss is scheduled to make over the remainder of his contract:

2009: $660K
2010: $750K
2011: $850K

He's already collected all his guaranteed bonus money. He has another $3 mil in bonuses achievable through incentives that he probably won't reach unless he lights it up.

He's the LAST guy on the roster I'd want to restructure. Maybe that is why the Broncos keep him. They get Moss on the cheap for the next 3 years as a situational pass rusher.

Br0nc0Buster
09-09-2009, 02:21 PM
The criteria was stars. They WERE all stars of that team. Milloy and Law made big $ in the FA market.

Reaching on Seymour? The guy is a potential HOF candidate.
Brown? A complete nobody? He had 1200 yards receiving that year in 13 starts.

You are insane.

Like Dedhead said, Bledsoe was the only person on that team who was really famous before the superbowl
I never said "stars of their team", I am talking about the notion that you have to have really known players to have a good team

Seymour wasnt a HOF candidate his rookie year, it is retarded to say he was some sort of superstar as a rookie defensive linemen

I am not talking about how good they are, I am talking about how well known they were
I dont care what Troy Browns stats were, not one casual fan outside of the New England area knew who the **** he was until after that game

Law and McGinest got their fame after that game as well, they were no where near as famous before

I mean if your definition of a star player is Troy Brown, the the Broncos have a lot more than the 5 you listed for the 01 Pats

Beantown Bronco
09-09-2009, 02:35 PM
Like Dedhead said, Bledsoe was the only person on that team who was really famous before the superbowl
I never said "stars of their team", I am talking about the notion that you have to have really known players to have a good team

Well, then somewhere in the last page or so, the argument completely changed. The original point was talented star vs. far less talented hard worker. Nowhere was "known player" ever a factor. It's waaaay too subjective.

Seymour wasnt a HOF candidate his rookie year, it is retarded to say he was some sort of superstar as a rookie defensive linemen

No, but he fits the argument that was originally presented to us all a page back: less talent, high motor vs. superior talent. Seymour is and has always been, in the superior talent side of the equation, regardless of whether he was a rookie. There was a reason he was drafted where he was.

I am not talking about how good they are, I am talking about how well known they were

Again, if you look back, you are not following the original intent of the debate that started a page back. You are making a different argument. How well someone is known is just a weird place to begin a debate.

I dont care what Troy Browns stats were, not one casual fan outside of the New England area knew who the **** he was until after that game

Couldn't disagree more.

Law and McGinest got their fame after that game as well, they were no where near as famous before

The fact that both guys were voted to the ProBowl before that SB completely debunks this myth.

I mean if your definition of a star player is Troy Brown, the the Broncos have a lot more than the 5 you listed for the 01 Pats

Cause we have tons of guys that go for 1200 yards receiving and get multiple punt returns for TDs in 13 games.

Br0nc0Buster
09-09-2009, 03:18 PM
Well, then somewhere in the last page or so, the argument completely changed. The original point was talented star vs. far less talented hard worker. Nowhere was "known player" ever a factor. It's waaaay too subjective.



No, but he fits the argument that was originally presented to us all a page back: less talent, high motor vs. superior talent. Seymour is and has always been, in the superior talent side of the equation, regardless of whether he was a rookie. There was a reason he was drafted where he was.



Again, if you look back, you are not following the original intent of the debate that started a page back. You are making a different argument. How well someone is known is just a weird place to begin a debate.



Couldn't disagree more.



The fact that both guys were voted to the ProBowl before that SB completely debunks this myth.



Cause we have tons of guys that go for 1200 yards receiving and get multiple punt returns for TDs in 13 games.

I was rebutting BroncoStevens point
He asked "who are our star players", and then said only Marshall and Royal are our "star" players

That doesnt make sense if he was talking about just highly skilled or really good guys, as we have more than that on our team
So I assumed he was talking about guys who are known throughout the league as bonafide elite players.

Dedhed
09-09-2009, 03:43 PM
Well, then somewhere in the last page or so, the argument completely changed. The original point was talented star vs. far less talented hard worker. Nowhere was "known player" ever a factor. It's waaaay too subjective.You're the one who changed the argument. You changed it from "Stars" to "the best players on the team" "Pro Bowlers".




Again, if you look back, you are not following the original intent of the debate that started a page back. You are making a different argument. How well someone is known is just a weird place to begin a debate.
Not when the debate is about "Star" players. Are you serious? That's pretty much the definition of a star.

You're trying to turn the debate into one about whether a team has some players that are more talented than others. Well of course they do. Every team has a star or two within that team, so does my local minor league baseball team. By no means could you call them a star.

To call any player other than Bledsoe a star GOING INTO THE 2001 season is a joke.

Beantown Bronco
09-09-2009, 03:53 PM
To call any player other than Bledsoe a star GOING INTO THE 2001 season is a joke.

Once again, changing the argument. Now instead of "the 2001 team" (your original criteria BTW when you made the Bledsoe comment) which won the SB and had several top performers and pro bowl selections and the "stars" of the SB teams started to emerge, we are essentially now grading the 2000 team. Kind of a big difference obviously.

errand
09-09-2009, 03:54 PM
Has he done anything to impress folks round here? I remember a few scoffs in early August when he was placed at the top of the depth chart.

Doesn't matter if he impresses fans or not...he only has to impress the coaching staff...and the owner who signs his checks. Haggan has been a solid player who's not gonna make anyone forget Tom Jackson...but isn't gonna remind anyone of Rickey Hunley either.

LonghornBronco
09-09-2009, 04:02 PM
Not only has he impressed his coaches, the players voted him a captain...

Dedhed
09-09-2009, 04:04 PM
Once again, changing the argument. Now instead of "the 2001 team" (your original criteria BTW when you made the Bledsoe comment) which won the SB and had several top performers and pro bowl selections and the "stars" of the SB teams started to emerge, we are essentially now grading the 2000 team. Kind of a big difference obviously.Nope. The original argument was whether you'd rather have a team built on over-achievers or talented prima donna malcontents. The 2001 SB team was built on over-achievers. BTW teams are generally BUILT prior to Pro Bowl voting.

Successful teams make "stars" of average players. Every player you mentioned was not a star before the 2001 season. They were over-achievers every one.

errand
09-09-2009, 04:04 PM
!981 SF 49ers were a team that was not loaded with "star" players...until of course they won it all that year. They started 3 rookies in their secondary, Joe Montana was in his 3rd season as QB...but was not a "star". Neither was Jerry Rice or John Taylor....their best RB? He gained all of 545 yards rushing. The biggest players they had on their team was Hacksaw Reynolds at LB...and Dwaine Board on DL.

Now after that magical '81 season, the had alot of stars who became household names, like Rice, Taylor, Montana, Lott, Clark...but prior to that year...nothing much to brag about.

Beantown Bronco
09-09-2009, 04:05 PM
Successful teams make "stars" of average players. Every player you mentioned was not a star before the 2001 season. They were over-achievers every one.

VERY debatable across the board.

The following are not even debatable:

McGinest was a ProBowler in the 90s.
Seymour would've been a star in any system.

errand
09-09-2009, 04:23 PM
So what does it take to be an over-achiever?

Guys who aren't as talented outperforming guys who are. Think of guys like Sammy Winder, Steve Watson, Selvyn Young, Mike Anderson....

Dedhed
09-09-2009, 04:28 PM
VERY debatable across the board.

The following are not even debatable:

McGinest was a ProBowler in the 90s.
Seymour would've been a star in any system.
The fact that you keep mentioning a rookie goes to show that you're missing the point entirely.

Popps
09-09-2009, 04:33 PM
I can't believe people are getting their ****ing skirts blown up over this.

Honestly? We extended a player who's playing well for depth... at a cheap rate, and we're crying about ****?

We've got some stars, and we've got some role players. In reality, our problem the last few years hasn't just been a lack of big names/big salaries. It's been a lack of quality support players, depth, etc.

Look at our 05 team. Very few household names on that team, and yet it was our best since the SB days.

I've watched these preseason games multiple times over. Haggan played well. He won't tear up the league, but he's a quality starter as Ayers develops.



Where's the ****ing problem, here?


You widows are some sad mother****ers. I have no idea how you're going to enjoy this season if we start winning or even looking like an improved team.
I'm guessing you won't.

TheReverend
09-09-2009, 04:37 PM
Where's the ****ing problem, here?

None here, Haggan's a decent player. He was last year when filling in as well.

He's not going to get mistaken for Merriman or McGinest in his prime, but giddy-up, imo.

Popps
09-09-2009, 04:44 PM
None here, Haggan's a decent player. He was last year when filling in as well.

He's not going to get mistaken for Merriman or McGinest in his prime, but giddy-up, imo.

Tell him to spend more time at strip clubs. :thumbsup:



Hopefully Ayers develops into a force. Even if he turns out to be an above average player, our "ends" start to look pretty damned good with Doom and him bringing it.

I wish we had a young stud to groom at ILB. But, you can't address everything in one off-season.

TheReverend
09-09-2009, 04:49 PM
Tell him to spend more time at strip clubs. :thumbsup:



Hopefully Ayers develops into a force. Even if he turns out to be an above average player, our "ends" start to look pretty damned good with Doom and him bringing it.

I wish we had a young stud to groom at ILB. But, you can't address everything in one off-season.

We need a QB worse.

Needs from my POV:

#1: QB
#2: NT
#3: ILB
#4: DE
#5: S
#6: Interior OL

And by the time we get halfway down that list, we'll probably have a huge need at CB

Popps
09-09-2009, 05:12 PM
We need a QB worse.


Potentially. I want to see how Orton does before panicking, and I'd also like to see where we are with Brandstater. The kid really did look solid. He looked green, but his skill-set looks like more than that of a back-up.

We need a QB worse.

Needs from my POV:

#1: QB
#2: NT
#3: ILB
#4: DE
#5: S
#6: Interior OL

And by the time we get halfway down that list, we'll probably have a huge need at CB


I like the Fields/Baker combo, but we need more time to analyze it. Agree on ILB. DE for sure, though I'm still holding out hope that Thomas can develop there.

Agree on S and OL, for sure.

But, aside from the QB spot being a big question mark, going into the season... I don't see anything that looks like a glaring weakness... just places we can improve, or places where we know guys are getting old.

TheReverend
09-09-2009, 05:30 PM
Potentially. I want to see how Orton does before panicking, and I'd also like to see where we are with Brandstater. The kid really did look solid. He looked green, but his skill-set looks like more than that of a back-up.




I like the Fields/Baker combo, but we need more time to analyze it. Agree on ILB. DE for sure, though I'm still holding out hope that Thomas can develop there.

Agree on S and OL, for sure.

But, aside from the QB spot being a big question mark, going into the season... I don't see anything that looks like a glaring weakness... just places we can improve, or places where we know guys are getting old.

QB is GOING to be a lot more glaring than people think.

There are three basic schools of coverage

4 under 3 deep (cover 3)

5 under 2 deep (cover 2)

3 under 4 deep (quarters)

If we want our underneath and screen passes to be effective, we need to take opposing defenses OUT of that cover 2 look.

To do that, we need to throw downfield.

To do that, we need a new ****ing QB.

Dedhed
09-09-2009, 05:31 PM
We need a QB worse.

Needs from my POV:

#1: QB
#2: NT
#3: ILB
#4: DE
#5: S
#6: Interior OL

And by the time we get halfway down that list, we'll probably have a huge need at CB
I think that's a pretty good list, but depending on how Baker develops at NT that position could rotate down pretty far.

If Orton flops completely and we're in the dumper by mid-season I'd like to see Brandstater take over and see if he has real potential before we invest a high pick in a QB. He's got some tools, and might develop if given the chance.

TheReverend
09-09-2009, 05:32 PM
I think that's a pretty good list, but depending on how Baker develops at NT that position could rotate down pretty far.

If Orton flops completely and we're in the dumper by mid-season I'd like to see Brandstater take over and see if he has real potential before we invest a high pick in a QB. He's got some tools, and might develop if given the chance.

As a PSU fan, I have no faith in Chris Baker.

I'd advise the rest of all Bronco fans to do the same.

If he happens to develop and pan out, awesome. But don't count on him.

HEAV
09-09-2009, 05:41 PM
Glad to see Haggan getting some love!

Now if EA/Madden would put him on the roster update...

footstepsfrom#27
09-09-2009, 07:19 PM
$1.75 million a year x 2...obviously they see him as a stop gap.

Dedhed
09-09-2009, 07:33 PM
As a PSU fan, I have no faith in Chris Baker.

I'd advise the rest of all Bronco fans to do the same.

If he happens to develop and pan out, awesome. But don't count on him.

That's exactly what I said. And being a PSU fan only taints your opinion of the kid.

SportinOne
09-09-2009, 08:16 PM
I must say I was surprised, but many on this board, like myself, have no idea what they are looking at when evaluating an NFL player.

Really? Here's how it works: He either gets the job done on a consistent basis or he doesn't.